Mr P Robinson:

While Mr Haughey was speaking on another issue, I was reflecting, as he asked me to do, on the issue of the Public Accounts Committee. Subject to your ruling, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I think that the clause, which we have already accepted, that there should be consistency of language would permit 54(3) to be amended to the effect that the nominating officer should prefer those who are not members of parties which have a Minister or a junior Minister. That would not restrict the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister in their choices. It would allow them - although I am not sure if they have this in mind - to appoint junior Ministers from each of the parties that might be considered Opposition parties.

Mr Haughey:

I need time to reflect on what Mr Robinson has said. I am not going to give an off-the-cuff answer.

Mr S Wilson:

In response to the First Minister (Designate), Mr Haughey said, unless I took him up wrongly, that one way round the question of proportionality would be to increase the size of a committee so that it was big enough to ensure representation from all parties. Can he give some guidance as to what size such a committee would have to be?

Mr Haughey:

The present Standing Orders Committee accomplishes the purpose that Mr S Wilson refers to. It accommodates all parties with two or more Members, and it has nineteen members. Such a committee need not be so huge as to be unwieldy.

Mr P Robinson:

There is nothing in Standing Orders to say that a party of one does not constitute a party.

4.15 pm

Mr Haughey:

I accept that, Mr Speaker, but the Assembly may make what Standing Orders it pleases, and if it pleases the Assembly to make a Standing Order to the effect that the composition of the committee shall be as the present Standing Orders Committee is constituted, the House has a perfect right to do that. I suggest that that was, in my recollection, what was agreed in the Standing Orders Committee, and the House may agree it in due course if it pleases.

However, I must move on - I am running out of time as a consequence of a variety of perfectly proper interventions. In relation to the amendment in his name, my Colleague, Eddie McGrady, asked for an interpretation of the mind of the Standing Orders Committee. I cannot obviously speak authoritatively for all its members, but I can offer my recollection, which was that it was their intention that the Business Committee would have responsibility for the logistical arrangements for the business of the House. It would not assume the functions of, let us say, the Leader of the House in a parliamentary style of government; it would not determine the content of the business but rather make arrangements for the doing of the business.

That is my recollection, and I believe that the amendment in the name of Eddie McGrady is perfectly proper because the wording actually makes that rather clearer than the present wording does, so I support that amendment.

In respect, finally, -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

May I ask you to try to be brief with your final remarks.

Mr Haughey:

Perhaps you will indulge me just for a few moments, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I was generous in allowing a lot of people to intervene.

In respect of the matter of an Opposition to the Government, which was raised by David Ervine and others, it is not appropriate to import considerations which are appropriate to a parliamentary system of government of the traditional kind into this Assembly, where we are forging what I believe is a unique and better form of government, a consensual form of government which will involve the greatest possible number of parties. Parties will be both in the Administration and in Opposition, and that will enable Back-Bench members of the parties -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I will have to ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Haughey:

- involved to criticize and subject their own Ministers to scrutiny.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Before calling the next Member, I need to make one or two remarks. Mr Robinson asked whether the cover-all clause, which was the amendment to the previous item on the agenda, to make the wording consistent and so on, would cover a change of the type to which he adverted in Standing Order 54(3)? It seems clear to me that a change of the order which he describes is much more than a mere tidying-up of words; there is a difference in meaning and substance in terms of the making of appointments, and I think that the change to which he adverts could only be made by a substantive amendment.

Now, there is another matter which is of similar order. There has been some discussion about matters being taken back or about changes to the number of members on committees and so on being made. There is no facility for taking back anything to the committee. The Assembly can only vote for or against what is here. It is, of course, entirely possible for the Standing Orders Committee to consider matters and to bring amendments or new Standing Orders or whatever to a subsequent meeting of the Assembly, but there is no facility for taking back, any more than there is a facility for a Minister to take back part of a Bill. A Member simply votes one way or another and on the basis of that the Standing Orders Committee may, at a subsequent sitting of the Assembly, bring forward new Standing Orders or amendments to existing ones. The House needs to keep that in mind when it comes to voting on amendments or, indeed, on Standing Orders themselves.

The First Minister (Designate):

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. You referred to the exchange between Denis Haughey and me about the effect of amendment 3 on Standing Order 47(4). It seemed to me that the point that he made that amendment 3, by knocking out those particular clauses in those five Standing Orders, would not necessarily bring the figure of 11 into the composition of those. It could then be, on that interpretation, that there could, if amendment 3 were carried, be a gap in the Standing Orders which the Standing Orders Committee would have to consider. It would have to consider whether a gap existed and, if so, how to fill it.

Sir Reg Empey:

Mr Ervine spoke about Members' perception of what is being proposed. Perception is a double-edged sword. My party's perception is that some Back-Benchers are frequently not equal to Mr Ervine or his Colleagues. There is a widely-held view that, because of their make-up, committees such as the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, do not accurately reflect the elected membership of the Chamber.

Our view is that while there must be practical limits to the size of any committee, which is why a figure of about 11 was thought reasonable, another figure could be looked at. The feeling was that parties with one, two, three or four Members somehow think that they should have greater privileges and rights than Members of my party, and that our Back-Benchers do not equate as individuals in the same way as Members of smaller parties. That perception has existed since July, and it is largely a reflection of the fact that we came here from a talks process that was constructed in an entirely different way. In that process, representation did not reflect electoral strength.

Mr Ervine:

This Member believes in being nice to people on the way up because he never knows when he might meet them on the way down. We do not intend to be small all the time. To copper-fasten the importance of the Progressive Unionist Party, may I say that the Ulster Unionist Party has been happy enough to take our votes on various occasions.

Sir Reg Empey:

That was a rather snide answer to a question that I was not putting. As the Member knows, his party was quite happy to have our votes in the City Hall. We can all talk about meeting people on the way up and meeting them again on the way down. That is not the point. The Member's reaction confirms the general thrust of my argument.

There is a view that Back-Benchers in my party are not equal to some other Members. The perception is that some of those who are Leaders or deputy leaders of parties see themselves as more important in some way.

Mr McCartney:

I have a good deal of sympathy for the Member's view. As Denis Haughey said, this is an entirely unique body, based essentially on consensus, or so it is alleged, and therefore directed towards representation by the maximum number of people.

I think the Member will agree that smaller parties are bound to be included, perhaps out of proportion to their membership. That is a remnant of a straight parliamentary situation which we are told does not operate here.

Sir Reg Empey:

I do not dispute the fundamental thrust of what Mr McCartney says. Small parties have been given representation for very good reasons, and we must strike a balance between that and the practicalities of the system. Mr Ervine raised the issue of perception, and I am trying to express a perception that exists in the House. Many of our Members feel that they are not equal to some Members elsewhere.

I am not saying that that means that one rigidly impose a figure to the exclusion of all other considerations; that would not be fair or reasonable, and we are not going to do that. But as the exchange with Mr Haughey demonstrated, there is a widespread view that we should ensure that other interests are represented. We have to stretch the practicalities - to enlarge the system - but keep a relationship between the size of a committee and the size of the parties that compose it.

Mr Ervine:

On the Standing Orders Committee, the Member's representatives fought very hard to have the committees as small as possible. Now we are hearing an application to make them bigger than ever before.

Sir Reg Empey:

I do not know whether I have been enlightened by that intervention.

I accept the fact that the committees may be varied in size, but we have to remember that they will be working committees. Having been in local government for 14 years, I know that the size of a committee affects what it can do, and so we have attempted to get the right balance.

Members who sit in the House of Commons find it a very unforgiving place when it comes to committee size. In the Assembly, we have to balance the fact that the Back-Bench Members of the larger parties have to be given, as individuals, equality with Members from smaller parties. That is all I am saying. We are trying to get that balance, and I believe there is consensus emerging as to how that should be achieved. Bearing in mind what Mr McCartney said - and I fully accept what he said - when there is an even balance, you err on the side of the smaller parties for the sake of good government.

I do not know why Mr Ervine is so agitated with me. I will respond to what he put forward as his perception by telling him - and I can only speak for my own Colleagues - that the perception within the Ulster Unionist Party is that its Back-Bench Members are being short-changed by the system as it has hitherto operated. I hope that that perception can be resolved and that Mr Ervine's perception can also be dealt with. It may be possible to increase the size of some committees and maintain the principle of proportionality. Up until now the result has been some very distorted committees, and CAPO, of course, is the most obvious example. That is my fundamental point, and if we proceed with the amendments that were proposed by the First Minister, I hope that the Standing Orders Committee will take on board the thrust of the debate and that it is going to be possible, when collecting the voices, to resolve the matter satisfactorily.

Mr C Murphy:

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

Most of what I wanted to know has been clarified by Mr Haughey and the First Minister.

I was a member of the Standing Orders Committee, and I do not recognise the figures shown in respect of the non-Statutory Committees. They are far from proportional, but although we are opposed to this and will be supporting the amendment to delete it, it was not our intention to go back to the figure of 11. Any Member from a small party, who is also a member of the Standing Orders Committee, will be aware that we have been firm in our advocacy of inclusion on these committees and of our support of the small parties.

In supporting the amendment to delete this part of the Standing Order, our intentions were good, and I accept the Initial Presiding Officer's ruling. However, there is a clear understanding from the way the debate has developed that the Standing Orders Committee has further business to deal with, and I assume that this matter will be part of it.

It is important to get beyond the perception that, because we do not support this amendment - and the DUP has tried to saddle my party with this - we are against there being scrutiny of the Department of the Centre. In fact, Sinn Féin led the charge to try to have proper scrutiny at the Centre. In order to nail any doubt about our intentions, we are supporting the amendment to delete this reference, not to bring the figure back to 11, not to exclude the smaller parties, but to bring us back to Standing Orders and to get proper proportionality.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

4.30 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Before I call the next couple of Members to speak I need to clarify the situation again. A number of Members have experience in local government and are familiar with the pattern of matters being brought back to committees. There is no such facility here on a matter of this kind. When a matter is voted on it is either voted through or voted down. Further propositions can come forward at a later stage, but that is entirely another matter. They may come forward or they may not come forward. That cannot be legislated for.

I am aware that many Members have experience and will be familiar with that pattern of things. What you vote on you can change later if proposals are brought forward and voted upon in due time. This is in order to ensure that Members are quite clear about the procedures.

Ms McWilliams:

I am glad that you clarified that last point. A number of us were almost taking it on trust that we would be going to look at Standing Orders again. However, you told us before, and you have told us again now, that if we vote this amendment through, it stands. I am opposing these amendments.

Although there was a lengthy debate in the Standing Orders Committee and consensus at the end of that debate, today we find that that consensus has gone out of the window, as is often the case in Northern Ireland. On this issue it is extremely important. A number of points have been made, and Mr Denis Haughey actually said that here in Northern Ireland we would probably have the most inclusive form of government. We may indeed have the most inclusive form of government, but we certainly will not have the most inclusive form of Opposition to that Government if this currently stands.

The second point I want to make is that attempts were made in that committee to understand the need for inclusion, the need for different voices. Sir Reg Empey rightly said that there is concern in parties such as his that sometimes the Back-Benchers do not get a fair chance to make their speeches on the Assembly Floor. He is now concerned that that might also be the case in the committees.

Clearly, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you have had to address this issue from time to time and have tried to balance that in whatever way possible. That is exactly what the Standing Orders Committee attempted to do - to balance this - and it came up with a fair compromise. We, as one of the smaller parties, agreed with that compromise. We agreed that it would not necessarily be the case that we would be able to sit on all these Statutory Committees, but that there would be a choice of other committees. Now that has been foreclosed and I am saying to you that -

Mr Farren:

Would the Member not agree that several of the interventions and contributions from the SDLP and other parties made it clear and put it on the record - notwithstanding the direction received from the Presiding Officer with respect to the notion of putting items back to the Standing Orders Committee - that the parties are clearly concerned to have these matters addressed in a way which will ensure the kind of inclusivity that is being talked about?

What is being objected to is the numerical prescription which we find in the draft Standing Orders which was not, and this has been admitted to by a number of contributors to the debate, something which was agreed to when the matter left the Standing Orders Committee at its last meeting and has appeared since.

Ms McWilliams:

I take the point that Mr Farren has just made, but I hope that he also takes my point that if this is voted through today, I, and a number of other small parties, will be faced with making the Standing Orders Committee one of the committees that we choose. If we do not make it one of those committees, we will not have a voice on it. Mr McCartney spoke at length yesterday about our civic duty in the Assembly.

It seems to me that we are faced with a very tough choice here. We have a civic duty to the people who have sent us here to sit on scrutiny committees and other committees of the Assembly, but we may choose to fight for our right to be on the Standing Orders Committee in the first place. That is the choice that we are faced with if this amendment goes through, and, therefore, I ask those, who were previously considered to be in favour of this, now to think again.

Mr P Robinson:

I ask the Member to pay attention to Standing Order 54 (Public Accounts Committee). Although Members may not realise it now, this will be a key function of the Assembly. It will be one of the most important ways of calling an Executive to account on financial and economic matters. If Mr Trimble's proposal to delete sub-paragraph 4 is successful, the Opposition numbers on that committee would be significantly reduced. At the same time there is more than a hint from the SDLP that they do not want the Chairman and Deputy Chairman to be from the Opposition parties.

Ms McWilliams:

I was coming to that point and I will respond to it now.

Prior to coming in here today, we listened at length to people talking about the need for the Chairperson of that committee to come from the Opposition. In fact, we have often been told that that creates healthy democracy, and now, even that avenue is being closed down. Mr P Robinson, quite rightly, put forward an amendment, which the Initial Presiding Officer said may be out of order because of its wording. I will seek clarification on that. If that amendment still stands - and I would be glad to hear that - I would vote for it.

Mr P Robinson:

The Initial Presiding Officer was not questioning the legality of the amendment that I have on the Order Paper. It was a suggestion that would have been a compromise to call Mr Haughey's bluff. He said that it would be difficult because the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister might want to appoint Ms McWilliams, Mr Ervine, Mr Close, Mr McCartney and, perhaps, Mr Wilson as junior Ministers. That would mean that they could not have a Chairman and Deputy Chairman on the committee. I rather suspect that that is not the intention of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but that was the scenario that was being painted. I suggested a way out of that, which the Initial Presiding Officer explained would not be in order.

Ms McWilliams:

Thank you for that clarification. I can see why Mr Haughey is considering taking time out in order to respond to it.

I am concerned about who will benefit from the exclusion. A number of Members - indeed, all parties were represented on that committee - spoke at length about the need to have inclusion on these other committees. That is why these Standing Orders were put forward in the way they have been. Judging by what is going on here today, something has clearly happened since the last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee. I think that a bit of a stitch-up is going on and it needs to be stopped.

During yesterday's debate and today's I was pleased to hear some Members speaking up for the rights of the smaller parties, although I was disappointed to hear today that Reg Empey is so concerned about his Back-Benchers that he would throw a little element of democracy out of the window in order to have them heard.

Mr S Wilson:

Does the Member agree that during the debate on committees, the Ulster Unionist Party was arguing in favour of having smaller committees? Was it not saying that if there were large committees, they would have so many places that they could not possibly fill them? Given the exchanges here today, there will be eight extra places for Ulster Unionist Party Members, places which they probably will not be able to fill.

Mr Cobain:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Does the Member agree with the Ulster Unionist Party on that point?

Ms McWilliams:

When one is attempting to win a vote, one should not offend those who are in the position of being able to change their minds when that vote is being taken. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Back-Benchers, and there was a great deal of concern about how we could take that into account in terms of the committee.

I respond to Mr Haughey by saying that it is not healthy to suggest, as he did, that there would be several Back-Benchers on these committees, and, therefore, that there would be several voices. How can we go out and tell the electorate that that is the case? How can we have healthy debate on that committee or, indeed, good healthy scrutiny if only the four parties in Government are represented on it? A great deal of thinking needs to go on here before Members will be inclined to vote for these amendments.

Mr Durkan:

I would like to deal with several of the points raised and, first of all, with the allegation made by Ms McWilliams that there is a stitch-up going on and with the similar allegation made by Mr Ervine. Mr Ervine himself made the point that the Committee on Standing Orders never agreed that committees would be constituted on the basis of two members for parties with more than 16 Members and one member for each party with fewer than 16 Members. Mr Ervine said that he was suspicious about that.

Mr Ervine:

I accepted that, and I did not blame those who had put that formula in place, because it is, at least, some kind of formula. My argument today is that the larger parties are about to deny us the proportionality inherent in that formula, without suggesting a new formula to replace it.

Mr Durkan:

I was coming to that. I heard that point the first time.

Mr Ervine has agreed that this did not come from the Committee on Standing Orders and has expressed some suspicion about it. His suspicion was directed at the larger parties. The larger parties are now prepared to delete that provision, as it is not in keeping with the principle of proportionality. The larger parties have made it clear that they are standing by the view that they put to the Committee on Standing Orders that these committees should include representatives from all parties in the Assembly. We put that proposal forward. It is recorded in the minutes of the final meeting of the Committee on Standing Orders and included in part (I) of the report. We stand by that.

With regard to the point made by the Initial Presiding Officer that we cannot refer matters back to the Committee on Standing Orders, this is correct, as things stand. However, these Standing Orders allow us to appoint a Committee on Procedures, and that committee will have responsibility for looking at Standing Orders, as the need arises. However, according to the additional Initial Standing Orders drawn up by the Secretary of State, the Committee on Standing Orders still has a further function to discharge, and that relates to the appointment of Statutory Committees. Therefore the fear expressed by Ms McWilliams that her party will be obliged to settle for representation on, for example, the Business Committee, rather than a scrutiny committee, is unfounded.

The appointments that will be made will only be to the shadow Statutory Committees, not to the committees that we are dealing with now. Indeed, we might well ask whether we need further additional Initial Standing Orders from the Secretary of State to allow us to appoint the committees which we are currently discussing. At present, there is nothing in Standing Orders to allow us to do this. All we have is the authority to appoint the shadow Statutory Committees, not these other committees.

The additional Initial Standing Orders state that proposals for appointments to the Statutory Committees must come from the Committee on Standing Orders, and that includes specification of matters such as the number of members on a committee. Obviously, we have already made a decision on the number of members on a Statutory Committee, but the scenario set out by Ms McWilliams does not apply to the appointment of members of these committees. There is a clear distinction between the Statutory Committees and the other committees. So, the suspicion being expressed by Ms McWilliams is completely misplaced. It has no basis in fact. We should deal with facts in this situation, rather than with fears, smears and sneers.

In relation to the Public Accounts Committee, for instance, I agree wholeheartedly with the points made by Mr Peter Robinson. We want to make sure that all parties, including the parties not represented on the Executive, have a strong presence on that committee. However, because the system within which we operate is based on inclusive Opposition, as well as inclusive Government, the scrutiny bodies should include representatives from the larger parties. The fact that a party has qualified to participate in the Executive should not prevent its Members from taking part in all the other functions of the Assembly and its committees. We were anxious to ensure that the committees, including the Public Accounts Committee, were of a reasonable size and included representatives of all parties.

Going along with this deletion would not preclude every party from being represented on these committees. However, it will prevent a very disproportionate character being built in, where parties with two or - if Members move on the other Standing Order identified by Mr Robinson - even one will be on all the committees, while the larger parties will have only two members on them. The disproportionateness of that is fairly stark, and that needs to be addressed.

4.45 pm

I take Mr Ervine's excellent point about the important work of all-party committees and how well they work. He gave the Port of Belfast Committee as an example. That is a very good committee, but its make-up is different from what he is trying to defend here. He is seeking a more disproportionate make-up than exists on the excellent committee he has referred to. Members should follow the logic of what Mr Ervine has said and apply the same yardstick to these committees.

Mr Ervine:

Mr Ervine is not trying to defend the formula that exists. Mr Ervine is trying to defend a greater degree of inclusion than the amendment would allow if it stood on its own. When I and the other members left the Standing Orders Committee, there was no formula. But the one now in front of me is one hell - excuse me, Mr Presiding Officer - a quare bit better than the one put forward by the First Minister (Designate).

Mr Durkan:

That is the point that Mr Ervine made last time. This is becoming like an advertising break - the same advertisements each time.

If Members follow the amendments to delete these provisions, they will not be foregoing in any way the commitment to ensure that all parties are represented on these committees.

On Standing Order 53 we had particular concerns about the make-up of the numbers. I believe that there are more fundamental questions about Standing Order 53 than whether the numbers are right. It purports to carry out paragraphs 11 to 13 of Strand One of the agreement, which in many ways was a special procedure to provide what might be termed "an equality reading" or "an equality hearing" and for the possible appointment of a committee, almost on an ad hoc basis.

We were influential in having that aspect included in the agreement, and it was not intended as the basis for a permanent Standing Committee of this nature. Depending on the issue which might be referred to that procedure - and it might be a gender-equality issue, a race-equality issue or a communal-equality issue - and the policy area involved, such as health, employment or social services, parties might want to appoint different people to be on that committee to test and probe the issue concerned.

Given the sensitivity of the procedure and that it is there as one of the safeguards highlighted in the agreement, we find the make-up disproportionate. On the current basis there would be four Nationalists out of a committee of 14. That committee could be bigger to include more party members, particularly for the conduct of hearings, which the procedure allows for. So there are more fundamental, and entirely legitimate, matters of concern in relation to some of these issues. It is not a matter of trying to exclude anybody. These amendments do not purport to exclude anybody; they are aimed at ensuring that more people can be included, including people from the larger parties.

One final amendment that I want to address is amendment 78 - again in relation to the Public Accounts Committee. As Denis Haughey said, we believe that no one who belongs to any party that is represented on the Executive should chair the Public Accounts Committee. We suggested that several times during the talks.

We are not sure about the restrictions in terms of junior Ministers. We have no problem with the party of the junior Minister at the Department of Finance and Personnel's being precluded; we do have a problem with a blanket exclusion of all junior Ministers.

First, we should not presume that the committee Chairs are going to be appointed after junior Ministers. It may well be that Chairs will be appointed before any junior Ministers are. Secondly, junior Ministers could be appointed on a different basis from that which many people seem to be expecting, or are hinting at. I do not want there to be any suggestion that it might occur to the First and Deputy First Ministers to try to muzzle the Chairman of a Public Accounts Committee by dangling the offer of a junior Ministry at one of his Colleagues.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I fear that I may have to be the muzzle on this particular occasion.

I sense that most of the arguments are now beginning to come round for a reprise. I will take the last two Members currently on the list, and then we will move to a vote on this section.

Mr McCartney:

I want to make a number of general observations about what has been going on against the whole background of various committees. Assemblyman Durkan referred to Prof McWilliams in terms of "sneer and smear". Other Members have talked of suspicions about what the major parties would do. I think we should examine the basis for this air of uncertainty and suspicion about what is going on.

In order to do that, we must fundamentally appreciate that this is not a parliamentary democracy with one party, or a coalition of parties, in Government and other parties, with substantial numbers of representatives out of Government who will act as the Opposition, who will probe, enquire into, publicly examine and attack what the Government are doing.

What we have here is a sort of political Caliban - a creature created for specific purposes. It is called consensual government. It means that all of the major parties have representatives in the Executive, which is the Government. Therefore, where do we look for either the machinery or the people who, as Prof McWilliams quite rightly pointed out, will constitute the Opposition? Who will enquire into whether the Government are governing with integrity and probity and if their policies are valid or simply expedient?

This is where the problem arises. Under this scheme that function is to be carried out by a series of scrutiny committees. However, the scrutiny committees, by virtue of the numbers of the majority parties, will contain, in most cases, an overwhelming majority of those actually in Government. They will contain a relative minority of those parties who, not being in Government, not being in the Executive and, by their numbers, having circumscribed representation on these scrutiny committees, will not really be, if I understand Prof McWilliams's remarks correctly, in a position to do the work of an effective Opposition, which is to ensure that the Government, whether they be a consensual Executive or an elected majority, are doing what they ought to do.

There is therefore a suspicion - and it has been there from the very beginning, through all the discussions at the early meetings of the Standing Orders Committee - that this place could ultimately resolve itself into an Executive that, broadly speaking, could do whatever it wanted, and that the role of this Assembly, in its plenary session, whether through question, answer, speeches or any other form of examination, was to question the Executive about its performance and what it was doing.

I think that much of the anxiety and questioning stems from that fundamental dilemma.

Assemblyman Denis Haughey, who chaired in a fair and exemplary fashion the Standing Orders Committee, said that this is a unique place. It is so unique, he suggested, that the Opposition will consist of Back-Benchers of all the parties that are not in the Government. Here again is a curious residual appendix of parliamentary government. The Assembly has parties and Whips.

Peter Robinson's fair suggestion and amendment this morning was that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should be the subject of a scrutiny committee. There was a worthwhile debate in which the arguments were cogently and explicitly deployed. I have no doubt that anyone listening to that debate would, if he had been allowed a free vote, come down heavily in favour of the proposition. There was no answer as to why there should be 10 Statutory Committees to scrutinise the 10 Ministries, but no special scrutiny committee to scrutinise the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers, who will exercise substantial Executive powers on a wide range of important issues. Assemblyman Sammy Wilson listed those. That was the crux of the matter.

What happened in this marvellous place, in which independent, free-thinking Back-Benchers would exercise the powerful independence of mind and intellect that they would bring like lasers to bear on the problems that confronted them? What we saw today was one of the worst features of the party system. Member after Member said no or yes, and I venture to suggest that many of them had no good idea of exactly why they were saying no or yes to a particular amendment - except that some sort of tribal drum played by the Whips had sent the message "This is a no" or "This is a yes." [Interruption] I do not need a drum.

When addressing Members in, I hope, direct, frank and open terms, I appealed to their independence of mind. I suggested that they should direct their thoughts and their minds to the value of the arguments and to the persuasiveness of points of view. I asked them to allow that arguments from places for which they had no natural empathy, might, by their good sense and logic and by their comparison of one committee with another in terms of the functions that they were to serve be persuasive enough to accept.

Mr Durkan:

I hear what the Member says. Does he accept that those of us who voted the way we did today support section 7 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee? Under the heading "Scrutiny of Central Functions" on page 8, the report states

"Concern was expressed . that important discrete executive functions of the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would not, under current legislation, be subject to scrutiny of a Statutory Committee. The Committee recommends that this matter be addressed as soon as possible by the Assembly."

We stand by that.

Mr McCartney:

I am suggesting that there was absolutely nothing of any consequence in the amendment that was different from the agreement's provisions for the structure of the 10 Statutory Committees. It was essentially the same. Why should any shield, discrete or otherwise, be afforded to the First and Deputy First Ministers that is not afforded to Ministers who will be responsible to the other scrutiny committees? What secret or discrete behaviour of theirs should be any more deserving of protection than the functions of any other Minister?

5.00 pm

No real argument of substance was advanced to deal with it, and let me touch on the question of the Public Accounts Committee.

The whole basis of any accounts committee, the whole basis of a club, a council or any other institution where you have auditors, is that the auditors who are checking the books are totally and completely independent from those who are responsible either for the decisions or for the arithmetic that produced those books. That is why the Chairman and Deputy Chairman should be completely independent from those who have an input either by policy or actuarial function into creating those figures. But we are now told "Oh, no it would be all right to have somebody who was a junior Minister chairing this committee." That is scandalously wrong.

Mr Haughey:

Will the hon Member give way.

Mr McCartney:

I am not giving way. In fact, my time is up.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am afraid that that is indeed the case.

Mr S Wilson:

I wish to support the arguments that have been put forward this afternoon for the inclusion of the smaller parties in the very important and non-Statutory Committees.

The debate we have had here on a number of issues today will rightly cause alarm to those who see themselves as forming the Opposition in the Assembly. This morning's debate on the scrutiny of the First Minister and the Deputy First Ministers' Department showed no great desire for those important functions to be scrutinised.

The debate we have had this afternoon, especially where it has touched on the Public Accounts Committee and the Equality Committee, has indicated once again that there is an unwillingness to have the full inclusion of smaller parties, who would regard themselves as the Opposition here. Indeed, the vote we had this morning on the ministerial appointments also showed an unwillingness, especially on the parts of the large pro-agreement parties, to countenance making it easy for anyone who is likely to present opposition to those who signed up to the agreement and who will be exercising its working out.

For those reasons, the debate that we are having now is very important. The reasons given by members of the smaller parties for their inclusion need to be borne in mind and heeded by all in the Assembly.

I listened to what was said by the First Minister (Designate) about the need for proportionality - he is not here, so I will not put his blood pressure through the roof unless he is watching this on television, and I do not wish to incite him to break Standing Order 57. I listened to what he said about proportionality.

Nigel Dodds has pointed out that he did not appear to be too concerned about proportionality in the highest committee when he was signing up to the agreement, the highest committee being the Executive Committee of the House. Indeed, when he had a second bite at the cherry, he went for a number of Ministers that would ensure that the Unionist majority in the House was not reflected on the Executive Committee. I am not sure about his commitment to proportionality, and the suggestion which was made by Mr Haughey that we could perhaps raise the number - and it was only a suggestion, it is not a commitment - in these committees to enable us to have sufficient people that would allow proportionality and enable the smaller parties to be represented runs totally against all of the arguments that were put forward by his own members in the Standing Orders Committee.

I have some sympathy with the argument, and the smaller parties saw the sense of it too. It was argued that if committees were enlarged, it would impose an undue burden on the larger parties because they would have so many positions to fill that they could not fill them without overworking their Members. In fairness to the smaller parties, that is one of their reasons for accepting, albeit grudgingly, that the Statutory Committees should have only 11 members.

Mr Haughey:

The argument is being misrepresented by Mr Wilson, although not deliberately I am sure. The original proposition was that all committees should have 11 members. Representatives of the smaller parties sought a compromise, to which Mr Ervine referred earlier, and suggested that, because of their nature, some Standing Committees required representation from all parties. My recollection is that we agreed that the composition of some Standing Committees should be in accordance with the formula for the present Standing Orders Committee. That means that it would reflect proportionality and involve all parties. Does the Member accept that?

Mr S Wilson:

I accept the first proposition, that the Statutory Committees should have 11 members. I also accept that non-Statutory Committees should be constituted to ensure that the smaller parties have representation. It was said that if committees were as large as the present Standing Orders Committee, the Ulster Unionist Party would be required to put four of its members on each one. Therein lies the difficulty. The Standing Orders require the Ulster Unionist Party to provide only two Members for each committee.

Having argued that he could not provide all the necessary people, the First Minister (Designate) now says "Let us increase them." That is somewhat odd, and it would mean eight additional places on the four committees for Ulster Unionist Members. If we vote against the Standing Orders, the smaller parties will not be sure of representation. It is a case of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. The smaller parties, and those who wish to protect their position, would be better to vote for the Standing Orders to remain in their present form. We must ensure that those parties that will be outside the Executive and which will form the Opposition are not excluded from these important committees.

I thought that the present formulation was accepted by everyone on the Standing Orders Committee. The smaller parties compromised on the Statutory Committees, and the larger parties compromised on the others. It would be a display of bad faith for Members to vote against that compromise between the two sides.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We now come to the approval of the Standing Orders and the vote on the amendments in this second, larger section on committees.

We start with amendment No 62 and proceed on through, in order, to amendment No 76. I remind Members of the situation in respect of amendments No 3A to E and 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 when we come to consider them.

Standing Order 45 (Membership of Statutory Committees)

Amendment (No 62) made: In paragraph (5) leave out "Allocation" and insert "allocation". - [Mr P Robinson]

Standing Order 45, as amended, agreed to.

Standing Order 46 (Overlap of Statutory Committee Business)

Amendment (No 53) made: In paragraph (2), at end, add

"and may invite the other Committee to carry out the consideration of any stated issue and provide it with a draft report". - [Mr P Robinson]

Standing Order 46, as amended, agreed to.

Standing Order 47 (Non-Statutory Committees) agreed to.

Standing Order 48 (Service on Committees) agreed to.

Standing Order 49 (Committee Members Voting in the Chamber)

Amendment (No 52) made: After the first "shall" leave out

", other than by leave of the Committee that he shall not do so," - [Mr P Robinson]

Standing Order 49, as amended, agreed to.

Standing Order 50 (Sub-Committees)

Amendment (No 51) made: At end add

"Such Committees shall, in as far as is practicable, reflect the party strengths in the Assembly". - [Mr P Robinson]

Standing Order 50, as amended, agreed to.

Standing Orders 51 (Committee on Procedures); 52 (Business Committee); 53 (Conformity with Equality Requirements - Special Committee on); 54 (Public Accounts Committee); and 55 (Committee on Standards and Privileges)

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We now come to amendment 3A, with which we will consider amendments 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E. I remind Members that if amendments 3A to 3E are approved we will not move to consideration of amendments 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which are all subsumed in the former.

Amendments (Nos 3A to 3E) proposed: Leave out paragraph (3) of Standing Order 51; paragraph (5) of Standing Order 52; paragraph (6) of Standing Order 53; paragraph (4) of Standing Order 54; and paragraph (3) of Standing Order 55. - [Mr Trimble]

Question put That the amendments be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 56; Noes 35.

AYES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, PJ Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, John Kelly, Mrs Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mrs Mary Nelis, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ms Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Mrs Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Rt Hon David Trimble.

NOES

Nationalist

Nil.

Unionist

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, Rev William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Other

Mrs Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Ms Monica McWilliams, Ms Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There voted 91 Members, including 33 Nationalists and 51 Unionists. Of Nationalist votes, 100% were in favour. Of the Unionist votes, 45.9% were in favour. Of the total votes, 61.5% were in favour. The amendments are therefore carried.

Amendments accordingly agreed to.

The First Minister (Designate):

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, it is merely an oversight on your part that you gave the percentage of Unionist votes but did not give the figures.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is the percentages that matter for the vote, but for those who wish to know the numbers the Ayes were 33 Nationalists and 23 Unionists, and the Noes were 28 Unionists and 7 Others.

Amendments Nos 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 not moved.

Standing Order 51, as amended (amendment No 3A), agreed to.

Standing Order 52 (Business Committee)

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Amendment No 86: moved or not moved.

Mr McGrady:

Moved.

Amendment (No.86) made: In paragraph (1) leave out "arrange" and after "shall" insert "make arrangements for". - [Mr McGrady]

5.30 pm

[Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I pointed out quite some time ago that mobile phones should not be used in the Chamber - either for calls in or for calls out.

Amendment (No 5) proposed: Leave out all of paragraph (2). - [Mr Davis]

Mr P Robinson:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, apart from the fact that Nationalists seem to ignore your calls and just go on with their business as if we were in the middle of a bookie's shop, I wonder - [Interruption]

Mr O'Connor rose.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

A Member cannot make a point of order while another Member is already making one.

Mr P Robinson:

We are having difficulty with this amendment because those who put it down have not explained it. Is it possible for us to know if, by the amendment, they intend to exclude the Speaker from the Business Committee, or if the Speaker is to be a member of the Business Committee, but not in its Chair? It would be difficult to support an amendment which would mean that the Speaker would not know what the business was going to be. However, if the Speaker were a member of the committee, but not in the Chair, that would be reasonable.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I take the question that you have raised, but I cannot permit any further debate at this point. It is possible for Members to put down amendments and to move amendments but not to give any guidance on them. Whether that is a good idea is another matter. This is what has been done on this occasion, and I am in no position to do anything about it, other than proceed with the Division.

Mr O'Connor:

Mr P Robinson made reference to Members on this side of the House standing. Had he bothered to look round, he would have seen Mr S Wilson and Mr Shannon engaged in conversation behind him.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

A considerable number of Members were out of order, and some continue to be so, including the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee.

Question put That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 24; Noes 67.

AYES

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Mrs Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble.

NOES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Mrs Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mrs Mary Nelis, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ms Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Rev William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Other

Mrs Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Ms Monica McWilliams, Ms Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

5.45 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There voted 91 Members: 34 Nationalists, all against; and 50 Unionists, 24 of whom voted for and 26 against. The Ayes were 26·4%. I declare the amendment lost.

Question accordingly negatived.

Standing Order 52, as amended (amendments Nos 3B and 86), agreed to.

Standing Order 53 (Conformity with Equality Requirements - Special Committee On)

Amendment (No 82) propsed: Leave out

"CONFORMITY WITH EQUALITY REQUIREMENTS - SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON" and insert "SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON CONFORMITY AND EQUALITY REQUIREMENTS". - [Mr P Robinson]

Question put That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 66; Noes 21

AYES

Nationalist

Ms Bairbre de Brún, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Mrs Sue Ramsey.

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Mrs Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Rev William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Other

Mrs Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Ms Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

NOES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Mrs Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Danny O'Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Ms Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

None.

Other

None.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There voted 87 Members. Of Nationalists, there voted 10 for and 21 against, which is 32.2% for. Of Unionists, there voted 50 for and none against, which is 100% for. The total vote for is 75.9%. However, not having achieved 40% of the Nationalist vote, I declare the amendment lost.

Question accordingly negatived.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>