Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 9 March 1999 (continued)
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Amendment No 81: moved or not moved?
Mr P Robinson:
Moved.
Amendment (No 81) made: In paragraph (1), after "including", insert "rights under". - [Mr P Robinson]
6.00 pm
Amendment (No 80) made: In paragraph (3) leave out "any report" and insert "all reports". - [Mr P Robinson]
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Amendment No 79: moved or not moved?
Mr P Robinson:
Moved.
Amendment (No 79) made: Leave out paragraph (5). - [Mr P Robinson]
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Members must forgive me if I feel a sense of urgency to push the business on at this point. It is partly a matter of hunger and partly one of obviating bedsores. [Laughter]
Standing Order 53, as amended (amendments Nos 3C, 81, 80 and 79), agreed to.
Standing Order 54 (Public Accounts Committee)
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Amendment No 78: moved or not moved?
Mr P Robinson:
To be moved in the terms that I read out, and not as it stands on the Marshalled List.
Mr Haughey:
Mr Robinson indicated when moving the amendment that he might be prepared to consider an alternative wording to make it consistent with that of other Standing Orders. Has he given any further thought to that?
Mr P Robinson:
I will be happy to do that in the Standing Orders Committee and report back on the issue.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I gave a ruling that this paragraph would not fall under the amendment to the report of yesterday because this was not a matter of tidying up the wording or making it consistent with others. This would make a substantive difference to the meaning and could not therefore fall under the amendment of yesterday. Though the Member undertook to look at the amendment, I cannot actually take manuscript amendments of that order.
The First Minister (Designate):
It was never actually clear to me during the brief debate on this amendment what the effect of the amendment would be. What has been read out now makes it clear but creates another problem. If the amendment were carried so that neither the Chairperson nor the Deputy Chairperson of a committee could be of the same political party as any Minister or junior Minister, in view of what we hope will be the inclusive nature of the Administration, it would be impossible to implement this rule: Standing Order 47(3) has been approved, and it says that Chairs and Deputy Chairs should be appointed through the d'Hondt formula, and it will not be possible to carry that out if this amendment is agreed.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I have to say that I understand. This is not a point of order. This is a question of whether or not the Standing Orders make sense, but that is not a point of order, strange as it may seem. That is an argument for voting one way or t'other, and Members must decide on which way they vote. I cannot take that as a point of order. I trust that Members are clear from what was said by the Member who proposed the amendment, from the correction he made during his speech and from my own repeated attempts to make the wording clear.
Amendment (No 78) proposed: In paragraph (3) leave out all the words after "party as" and add "any Minister or junior Minister". - [Mr P Robinson]
Question That the Amendment be made put and negatived.
Standing Order 54, as amended (amendment No 3D), agreed to.
Standing Order 55 (Committee on Standards and Privileges)
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Amendment 77: moved or not moved?
Mr P Robinson:
Moved.
Amendment (No 77) made: In paragraph (1)(a) leave out "privileges" and insert "privilege". - [Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 55, as amended (amendments Nos 3E and 77), agreed to.
Standing Order 56 (Audit Committee)
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Amendment No 76: moved or not moved?
Mr P Robinson:
Moved.
Amendment (No 76) made: Leave out
"A Committee shall be established" and insert "The Assembly, by resolution, shall establish a Committee". - [Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 56, as amended, agreed to.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
We have now come to the end of that group. We have three further groups to consider tonight involving 14 amendments and 14 Standing Orders. We also have an Adjournment debate. It is unlikely that we can deal with that without some sustenance, and I therefore ask the leave of the House for a suspension of one hour.
Ms Morrice:
On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It would be appropriate to congratulate Alasdair McDonnell on the birth of his daughter.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Whether that is a matter of order or of disorder in the McDonnell household is not clear.
The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 6.06 pm until 7.01 pm.
Good Order
The Initial Presiding Officer:
We move to amendment No 75 in the name of Mr Peter Robinson. We will also consider the other amendments in the group.
Mr P Robinson:
Amendment No 75 is simply a tidying-up amendment that makes Standing Order 57(1) a bit easier to read and understand.
Amendment No 74 is consequential upon amendment No 75.
Amendment No 73 is my doing the Women's Coalition work, under commission, I hope, of putting in "/she" - as opposed to "banshee" - in the third line.
Amendment 72 - I found this a rather strange one. I worked it out that if Members are not allowed in the public areas, the Assembly Chamber, the lobbies, the dining areas, the Committee Rooms, the party rooms and the Great Hall, then they are not allowed into the Building at all, and it might be better to say exactly that.
One would need to take a circuitous route up the fire escape and through the window in order to reach one's own office and to avoid those areas. In the House of Commons - and I have some experience of this - when a Member is suspended he is put out through the front gate, and he does not get back in until the period of suspension is over. If I am to be suspended from this House, I want it to be done properly and to be required to leave the Building.
Amendment No 71 will allow Standing Order 58(4) to say what I believe it was intended to say: that visitors will not be permitted to take into the Public Gallery of the Assembly any mobile telephone, tape recorder, briefcase or large bag. I assume that visitors will be permitted to bring these items into other parts of the Building on occasions.
This concludes the amendments in my name in this section.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I have had no indication of any Members wishing to speak on this group of amendments, and therefore we shall proceed to the approval of the relevant Standing Orders and amendments.
Standing Order 57 (Order in the Assembly)
The Initial Presiding Officer:
The first amendment is No 75 standing in the name of Mr Peter Robinson. Is amendment No 75 moved or not moved?
Mr P Robinson:
Moved.
Amendment (No 75) made: In paragraph (1) leave out " If " and insert "The Speaker may, if ". - [Mr P Robinson]
Amendment (No 74) made: In paragraph (1) leave out "the Speaker may". - [Mr P Robinson]
Amendment (No 73) made: In paragraph (1), line 13, after "he" add "/she". - [Mr P Robinson]
Amendment (No 72) made: In paragraph (3), line 3, leave out all after "shall" and add
"include any part of Parliament Buildings." - [Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 57, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 58 (Visitors to the Assembly)
Amendment (No 71) made: In paragraph (4) after "the", insert "Public Gallery of the". - [Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 58, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 59 (Visitors to Committee) agreed to.
Standing Order 60 (Keeper of the House) agreed to.
Standards and Privilege
The Initial Presiding Officer:
We move to the section on Standards and Privileges. The first of these amendments is No 70, which stands in the name of Mr P Robinson.
Mr P Robinson:
The amendment to Standing Order 61, amendment No 70, deals with pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature. In the way it is framed it relates directly to a Member's personal pecuniary interest or benefit. The amendment seeks to widen that to the direct family circle of the Member. This is in line with the provision for district councillors in the Local Government Act 1972.
The standard required of Assembly Members should not be lower than that required of district council members. I hope this is satisfactory. In terms of the relationship, I understand it to be mother/father, daughter/son, brother/sister and husband/wife. There may be some other relationship that I am not aware of - perhaps, I am better not knowing what that might be.
The amendment to Standing Order 62 addresses the issue of how a breach of privilege may be dealt with. There are particular difficulties in the type of structures that exist in the Assembly. If this Standing Order were to remain in its present form, there could be vetoes exercised against a Committee on Standards and Privileges looking at an issue relating to a Member. A petition of concern, which requires a cross-community vote, could be applied to Standing Order 62, giving rise to vetoes.
If an issue is deemed by the Speaker to amount to a prima facie case of breach of privilege, it should automatically go to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Speaker may make a judgement that the prima facie case is there. If it is, it is considered, a report comes back and the Assembly can decide if it will accept the recommendations of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
The only other issue is the three days' notice. I think that it is inevitable -
Mr Haughey:
May I ask the Member to clarify the meaning of the word "immediate" in amendment No 70. Can he clarify what is meant by "immediate relative"? Does this term have a legal meaning? I have taken legal advice on this, and I am told that the term "immediate relative" does not have a clear legal meaning. I am entirely in sympathy with the amendment that the Member is proposing. However, it is necessary that we clarify this from a legal point of view.
Mr P Robinson:
In my amendment No 70, I defined an "immediate relative" as a father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, husband or wife. I have no other suggestions. I believe that that is what the term is understood to mean in local government. If anybody wants to confess to any other immediate relative -
Mr Haughey:
While I accept that the term "immediate relative" is commonly understood in the way that Mr Robinson describes it, is it legally sufficient to define the issue that is before the House? Another term might be more suitable for that purpose.
Mr P Robinson:
There is an opportunity for consistent language to be put in at a later stage by the legal draftsmen. However, we are not debating a legal document in the sense of a Bill. If Members clearly understand what is meant, they will know whether they are breaching the rule. The term is commonly understood, and I think that it is understood by Members. If the Committee wants to add an interpretative section at some later stage, that would not need to be passed by the Assembly now. An interpretation added to the Standing Orders might be useful.
I spoke about the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the three days' notice. It is likely that if some substantial issue is raised, Members will not wait three days before giving voice to it in the Assembly. In a ragged situation one Member may play ball and take the matter to the Speaker. The Speaker will consider it for three days before the matter is dealt with by the Assembly, and somebody else may raise the issue here. There is a contradiction in the Standing Order. Clearly, 62(1) requires three days' notice, but the final sentence of 62(3) talks about
"a matter of privilege is raised of which the Speaker had not received due notice".
If there is a requirement for three days' notice, he would have received due notice. I am not sure which element of the Standing Order I should be addressing. That is why I have tabbed two amendments, one of which seeks to change the wording to "sufficient notice", which would allow the Speaker to make a judgement. If he has not had sufficient time to consider the matter, he can say so when it is raised in the Assembly. At a later date he can rule as to whether there is a prima facie case.
This is precisely what happens in the House of Commons, and I have some experience of it. I went to the Speaker one morning; and the matter was raised in the House that afternoon. She asked for time to consider it, and three or four days later she responded. That seems perfectly satisfactory. The Member gets the matter off his chest and places it with the Speaker. That results in all the legal advice that is required.
The key element of this set of amendments is the proposal to move away from having a vote in the Assembly to determine whether the matter goes to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The worst possible scenario is where it is alleged that a Member has done something he should not have done. When the matter is brought to the Assembly the Speaker determines that there is a prima facie case, but it can be voted down in the Assembly by a party of sufficient size applying the petition of concern, thus preventing the matter from going forward. That would be a most unsatisfactory situation. It would be better by far for every prima facie case to go to a committee in which each Member can argue his case. That consequentially requires the deletion of sub-paragraph (4) by my amendment No 66.
7.15 pm
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I have received no requests to speak in regard to this group of amendments, and therefore I will proceed to decisions on them and on the Standing Orders in the group.
Standing Order 61 (Members' Interests)
Amendment (No 70) made: At the end of paragraph (3) add
"whether such pecuniary interest or benefit is held by the Member or an immediate relative." - [Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 61, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 62 (Privilege)
Amendment (No 69) made: In paragraph (1) leave out "three days". - [Mr P Robinson]
Amendment (No 67) made: In paragraph (3) leave out all the words after "Assembly and" to the end of the sentence and add
"refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges." - [Mr P Robinson]
Amendment (No 68) made: In paragraph (3) leave out "due" and insert "sufficient". - [Mr P Robinson]
Amendment (No 66) made: Leave out paragraph (4). - [Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 62, as amended, agreed to.
Other Orders
The Initial Presiding Officer:
We now move on to the last section in the compendium of Standing Orders - 63 to 71 - and amendments Nos 65, 64, 87 and 63.
Amendment No 65 stands in the name of Mr Peter Robinson. Before calling Mr Robinson may I remind Members that he advised us earlier of a typographical error in this amendment. It should read
"Standing Order 66(6), on line 4, after 'to' insert 'the news media for ' '' .
Mr P Robinson:
Amendment 65 is just a grammatical change; it should not create any controversy. I suspect that in this band of Standing Orders, the controversy might come elsewhere.
In relation to Amendment No 64, I ask Members to think very carefully about putting in Standing Order 69. We have seen the amount of time and effort that Members have put in to providing themselves with Standing Orders over the last couple of days.
Mr Haughey:
Before the Member moves on to Amendment 64, may I clarify Amendment 65? If paragraph (6) of Standing Order 66 were to be amended as Mr Robinson suggests, it seems to me that it would not read particularly well. It would read "that are from time to time assigned to the news media for their use for the purposes of committee business". Is that how the Member wishes it to read?
Mr P Robinson:
At the present time I am not sure what the Standing Order is supposed to read. It says - I had better read it from the very beginning to get it in context -
"Chairpersons of Committees and those acting in their stead under these Standing Orders shall, in relation to the news media, exercise the same powers as the Speaker within those places and precincts of the Assembly that are from time to time assigned for their use for the purposes of Committee business."
In terms of the Amendment, it therefore reads "assigned to the news media for their use". This is a section dealing with the news media - Standing Order 66. I assumed that is what the Committee was saying, is it not?
Mr Haughey:
It seems that the media do not have any function in terms of committee business. That is a small point but -
Mr P Robinson:
I am at a total loss as to why this paragraph is in the section headed 'News Media'. I am happy to give way if someone can tell me why, if the news media do not have any function, we have a Standing Order giving them a function. There will be Committees that will allow the media to be present. I would have thought that they, therefore, have a purpose, if not a function, in relation to Committees.
Mr Haughey:
I hate to appear niggling, but if it were to read "for the purposes of covering Committee business", that might be better.
Mr P Robinson:
If there were a mechanism for allowing that to be the outcome, I would be perfectly content to accept it. However, it could, with a generous interpretation, fall under the original amendment. If that is the general wish of the House I am sure such flexibility might be accorded.
With regard to the suspension of Standing Orders, it seems absurd that we put all the time and effort into preparing and deciding Standing Orders, and then at a whim allow all of the rights and protections that are built into them simply to be swept to the side because a group gets together and decides that it does not like what they say and are going to do whatever Standing Orders would not otherwise allow it to do.
That does not seem to be the proper way to conduct business. It would not be acceptable anywhere else other than a district council - I have often used it. Take it from somebody who has used it on many occasions to great benefit, while in a majority, that if the provision is left in the Standing Orders it can be used in the future. As Mr Weir said earlier, no one knows who might be in the majority in the future. So while it may satisfy some people today, it may not satisfy them four years down the road.
Mr Hussey:
With regard to the suggested Standing Order, does Mr Robinson not recognise that there is a requirement for cross-community support?
Mr P Robinson:
Yes, I do. I also recognise how cross-community support could be gained by a stitch-up in the Assembly, particularly in circumstances where parties with a common aim are in government and decide that they want to overcome some local difficulty. It is not out of the range of possibilities that a couple of parties could decide that they want to do business in a different way than they are supposed to be conducting it under the Standing Orders. It would be wrong for us to spend all this time deciding what the appropriate Standing Orders are to be and then to put in a provision that allows them to be thrown out of the window. I hope that the Assembly will think twice before it goes down that road.
In relation to the Assembly Commission, amendment No 63, which is in my name, is simply a correction to get the plurality in line. There is also a comma that needs to be removed, but that will come into the general tidy-up.
Some concern has again been expressed about the size of the Commission. If someone were to ask me if it would function better with a smaller number rather than with a larger number, I would say that it would operate better with a smaller number. And if someone were to ask me if this Assembly would operate better with 78 Members rather than with 108 Members, I would say that the smaller number would be better. But people say that it is important to have the larger number for the sake of making it more inclusive. I thought that the Executive should have had seven members but it had to be ten in order to make it more inclusive - I am not even sure if it does that.
The idea behind increasing the number was to bring more people in to share responsibility, and the Standing Orders Committee has responded by trying to increase that number. I do not know how it decided on the number or the thought processes that were at work. Given the minute of the meeting, it seems to have been a sudden decision on the part of the Committee to make the membership 11.
There is a real difficulty in this respect because even though some of us may think that 11 is not the right number, I do not think that we can change it because there is no amendment down to change it. The only option open to us is not to pass the Standing Order even though the Act requires us to pass it. The Act clearly says, in Section 40, that we have to prescribe the number of members for the Commission in the Standing Orders.
It could be argued that we might prescribe the number at some time in the future. It could also be argued that we could make a change if it were thought that the number was not working very well. But it will constitute a gaping hole in our Standing Orders if we do not do what we are required to do by law, namely, to have a Standing Order that contains the number of members for the Commission.
I hope that all of the amendments that I have proposed will be supported by the Assembly. We have to accept the number on the Commission, at least until such times as an alternative is offered, because no amendment is down that would let us make a change.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Mr Robinson and to some extent the joint Chairman, Mr Haughey, have suggested that I give a ruling on the question of an amendment to sub-paragraph 6 of Standing Order 66, on whether some slight modification to the wording would accommodate an agreement.
There are two major problems about this. The first problem is procedural. We do not have a mechanism, as I indicated earlier, for taking amendments of any substantial sort that move outside the parameters agreed in the amendment to item 3 yesterday. But there is a more substantial problem and that is that the amendment completely changes the grammatical sense and reference within the sub-paragraph.
The subject of the sentence is "Chairpersons of Committees", and the verb is "exercising". When it comes to "their use" the possessive pronoun is used. Does "their use" refer to use by Committees and the Chairpersons of Committees? Or does it refer to use by the news media?
It seems to me that if this sub-clause is left as it is, the possessive pronoun "their" refers to chairpersons of committees and the word "use" - of the rooms or whatever - refers to use for the purposes of committee business by the chairpersons and their committees as distinct from use by the news media. However, if the Assembly were to accept the amendment by Mr Robinson, the use of whatever facilities would be available to the news media for the purposes of Committee business.
It seems not an unreasonable interpretation of the grammar - albeit a rather opaque grammar - to say that the amendment would actually change the sense of the Standing Order. Whether it would change the meaning of it, in terms of how it was acted out, is another matter. But I have to make it clear that it would not be possible for me to accept the change as it has been suggested. First of all, to do so would be procedurally incorrect and, secondly, it would effect a change of meaning in the amendment. To keep the amendment as it is means that it refers to the use of a room by the committee; to accept the amendment means that it refers to the use of a room for the purposes of news-media coverage by the news media, which is something different.
It is not for me to rule on which makes sense or on which is the best decision to take. I am simply trying to clarify it as best I can, and that is my ruling.
7.30 pm
Mr P Robinson:
I look for clarification from either the joint Chairmen or the Committee members. Standing Order 66 (News Media) starts with references to the Speaker and his powers and role. It then deals with committees and states that Chairmen would have the same authority as the Speaker.
The Standing Order specifies the Speaker's role in relation to the news media, and where its representatives would be placed. There is no doubt that the Standing Orders Committee intended that the Chairmen of committees would be able to instruct the media on the facilities that were available for their use in covering the proceedings. That is the end result and if anyone can tell us how to get there I would be quite content.
Mr Haughey:
Will the proposer of the amendment consider not moving it? I sense that the House is entirely in sympathy with his proposal, but there is a question in relation to the wording. If the amendment is not moved, the House could later consider a more exact form of words that would make the intention clear.
Mr P Robinson:
If I do not move the amendment, are we satisfied with a Standing Order that is different from what is intended?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I can give only the ruling that I have already given as to my understanding of what the grammar, inelegant though it may be, purports to represent. Clarification may be required, but at present that must be done elsewhere rather than in the Chamber. If the amendment is moved, Members will have to decide whether to support it. Of course, the proposer may choose not to move it when the time comes.
Mr Haughey:
I have not had a chance to discuss this matter with Mr Cobain, but insofar as I am able to interpret his view, I think that the Committee would look at it entirely in sympathy with the spirit of Mr Robinson's proposal, and would seek a more exact form of words that will accomplish the intended purpose.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
As the debate continues it may be possible for Members to clarify this issue in the Chamber or perhaps behind the Speaker's Chair. After that, Mr Robinson can decide whether he wishes to move the amendment.
I call Mr Cedric Wilson on amendment No 87, which stands in his name.
Mr C Wilson:
Amendment No 87 relates to Standing Order 70. That Standing Order states
"Members may speak in the language of their choice".
My amendment is that we should leave out Standing Order 70 and insert the following new Standing Order:
"The language of this Assembly shall be English."
I want to make it clear and well understood that the amendment is not an attempt to cause mischief or to prohibit the use of the Irish language in the Chamber. It is not the use of Irish that concerns me but rather its abuse, and that concerns many Members. I refer to the Irish language because this is what we are considering. [Interruption]
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Order
Mr C Wilson:
We are debating whether it is desirable for large sections of our proceedings to be in Irish. A few Members, including Mr Shannon, the Member for Strangford, have voted using the Ulster-Scots word "Nah". With that exception, I do not think that any Member on this side has used a language other than English.
Mr P Robinson:
A dead language was used by Mr Close yesterday.
Mr C Wilson:
I bow to Mr Robinson's greater knowledge. For serious debate in this Chamber, it is true to say that the language used and understood by all Members and, indeed, those in the Public Gallery has been, to a large extent, English. My amendment is not meant to try to prohibit the use of any other language in this Chamber. I have no desire to do that, nor do I believe it would be possible under international law to do so. The only language that I want to see prohibited is bad language, and, fortunately, we have had little of that here.
I want to stress why I put forward this amendment. If such an amendment is not made, there will be implications in respect of time and costs that this House may be asked to underwrite in the future.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Order. Whatever language is being spoken, it is only proper that one Member is speaking it at any one time.
Mr C Wilson:
The treaty that was signed in Dublin this week by the Secretary of State and the Dublin authorities makes it clear, in the section on language, that the British Government will facilitate and encourage Irish in speech and writing in public and private life where there is appropriate demand.
My contention is that there is not an appropriate demand for the use of an alternative language - particularly the Irish language - in this Chamber. There will be a cost implication if Members endorse Standing Order 70 which states
"Members may speak in the language of their choice."
As sure as day follows night, I am certain that if the proposal that allows Members to speak in any language is adopted, it will be only a short time until the Assembly is faced with having to provide simultaneous translations. It will have to employ additional people, and there has already been a public outcry at the prospect of spending a large sum of money employing four people to translate the comments of those Nationalists who have been using the Irish language into the transcripts of the proceedings.
There is a possibility that there will be a greater cost. We could be writing a blank cheque by endorsing proposals that allow Members to speak in the language of their choice. In future, there may be a demand on the Assembly - and it may not be possible to resist such a demand - to use languages other than English on all documents and official forms. I am certain that Sinn Féin will stick to their guns - [Laughter] and insist on that. The European Courts may even decide that the language they chose to use in the Chamber is legitimate, and, therefore, all the Assembly's business would have to be translated, as is the case in Wales.
I flag this up as a genuine concern. Members should exercise caution on this matter.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Does the Member agree that the Standing Order, as it is currently framed, does not make provision for additional resources for the Irish language? Does the Member see any imbalance in the treaties which were signed in the Irish Republic this week by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Mr Andrews in respect of how the development of the Ulster-Scots language is to be treated?
Mr C Wilson:
I thank Mr Paisley Jnr for that intervention. Indeed, it is glaringly obvious, in this document and in many other documents, that prime importance is given to the promotion of the Irish language, and those who support the use of Ulster-Scots are right to say that there is no parity of esteem and no equality agenda in this regard. It concerns me that promotion of the Ulster-Scots language is being used as a red herring by those who wish to promote the Irish language.
Mr Haughey:
I would like to ask the Member how he thinks he will secure parity of esteem for the Ulster-Scots language by means of an amendment which states
"The language of this Assembly shall be English."
Mr C Wilson:
I have made no attempt to prevent Members from speaking in whatever language they choose. Mr Shannon may, at some stage, confound us all by making a speech in Ulster-Scots. However, what I am saying is that this is not essential in the context of the Standing Orders which we are considering. If I could be certain that there would be no cost, in terms of finance or of time, I would not object to the wording as it stands. Nonetheless, I feel that this is a very serious issue, and one that will have major implications for the Assembly in the months to come. I urge Members, therefore, to support this amendment.
Dr Adamson:
I would like to thank Mr C Wilson for giving me the opportunity to speak on this matter. Ulster sits at the north-eastern corner of Ireland, facing Scotland across a narrow sea. The characteristics of her language, since the dawn of human history, have been moulded by population movements, large and small, between the two islands. Therefore, we have had a wide range of dialects in the northern part of the island, including dialects of Gaelic and of the older Scottish tongue. When I read the part of the Belfast Agreement which deals with rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity, I was delighted with these words:
"All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and" -
equally important, of course -
"the languages of the various ethnic communities."
Ulster-Scots has been particularly important to me because of my love for the literature of Scotland, from the times of the old makars, who created the older Scottish tongue in its literary form, to modern poets, such as Burns, and the weaver poets of Ulster, including James Orr of Ballycarry, whom I consider to be the equal to Burns himself.
But, besides this interest in cultural, and especially linguistic, diversity, I have always had a love for an older tongue - the oldest tongue used in the British Isles, and from which the British Isles get their name. They are the Britannic isles - the islands of the British. This tongue receded dramatically in the face of successive invasions. It is the original tongue of Ireland - the name "Ireland" is in this tongue. It is the original tongue of Ulster, the original Lagan. It was also the language of the old Scots of the Lowlands. It is still present today in the British Isles in a much-reduced form. It is still used as a living language. I will read some of it:
"Mae pawb sy'n cymryd rhan yn cydnabod ei bod hi'n bwysig parchu, dirnad a goddef amrywiaeth o ieithoedd. Yng Ngogledd Iwerddon mae hyn yn cynnwys Gwyddelig, Scoteg Wlster, ac lieithoedd y gwahanol gymunedau ethnig sydd I gyd yn rhan o gyfoeth diwylliant Iwerddon."
This language is known in its native land as Cymric. It is the oldest British tongue; it is the language of the Welsh.
7.45 pm
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Order. I had hoped that when Ulster-Scots was used, with my background in Ballymena and the accompaniment of the Scots-English dictionary, I might be able to translate. However, that not being possible, I must resort to my previous request to Members that when they speak in a language other than English they translate for the benefit of those who are unable to understand it. I would be grateful if Dr Adamson could give us some guidance on what he has said.
Dr Adamson:
I would be delighted.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. You will note that the clock did not stop during your intervention. I am sure that the additional 40 seconds would be of advantage to the Member.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I will be accommodating.
Dr Adamson:
The translation is
"All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity including, in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."
This language was, of course, the language of St Patrick, and as we are approaching St Patrick's Day, I felt that I must mention the language of Patrick. I hope that this amendment will fall because I would like to use this language in future in the Assembly. I would also like to use other languages -
Mr C Wilson:
I thought that I made it clear, and I would not like Dr Adamson to misinterpret what I said or to misunderstand me, that I do not wish to see any language prohibited from use in the Chamber. I am delighted that he has used Ulster-Scots and the other language that he has used today. I do not want to prohibit any language, but I do want it to be recognised that the official language of the House is English.
Dr Adamson:
I thank the Member for that intervention. I was, of course, using Cymric, or Welsh, rather than Ulster-Scots [Laughter]. If he would like me to use Ulster- Scots it would be
"Aaboadie takin pairt kens weel tha muckle thïng it maun be fur tae hae careful mind o an be gart thole wi owre ocht respeck anent oor throughither heirskip o leids, takin in fur Ulster tha Gaelick an Scotch leids, an tha leids o tha wheen ootlanner resydenters, ilka yin o quhilk bis pairt o tha fowk poustie o tha islann o Airlann."
It is my belief that true linguistic diversity will not reduce the significance of standard English. Using linguistic diversity in all its forms will show the absolute need for standard English , particularly in the Chamber.
Ms Rodgers:
Sono capace di parlare italiano oppure francese. Derò vorrei più di tutto parlare Gaelico perchè è la mia prima lingua.
I am, of course, speaking Italian. I have just said that I am able to speak Italian or even French. However I would prefer to speak Gaelic in the Chamber because it is my first language, but I appreciate that that might make it difficult for Members to understand me. The reason I support the use of the Irish language in the Chamber and facilities for those Members who wish to use Irish is that Irish is my native language. It is the language that I first spoke; it is the language of the community in which I was reared; it is the language with which I totally identify; and it is the language in which I speak most comfortably.
I would appreciate it if Members, in particular Mr Cedric Wilson, would recognise that I find it difficult to understand why some Members find my speaking my own language so offensive.
I very much respect the words of Mr Adamson and his respect for all languages, including Welsh, Ullans, Irish and English. It is unfortunate that there are those who favour simply having the English language and downgrade the Irish language. As my Colleague pointed out, they complain about parity of esteem for Ullans whilst trying to deny parity of esteem in respect of the Irish language. To me that is contradictory. That, in a sense, is looking on language as a political tool rather than looking on it as something which enriches us all. The Irish language in particular enriches us all.
Most of the place names around us come from the Irish language, and it would be very unfortunate if we were to lose the meaning of those place names. I ask Members to recognise that when we speak in favour of parity of esteem for the Irish language and Ullans - and I have learned a lot about Ullans since I came to the Assembly. I did not realise how much Ullans I spoke when I was growing up in Donegal. I know what words such as "sheugh" and "oxter" mean. These words were frequently used, and which I did not know then -
Mr Shannon:
Would the Member agree that the problem has been that there are many in this Chamber who use the Irish language as a political tool? Those who use Ulster-Scots - and we heard an demonstration of it a few minutes ago - do so to show the culture and beauty of that language. Ulster-Scots is used as a language; it is not used for any other purpose.
Ms Rodgers:
I have already complimented the Member on the way in which he presented the importance of recognising the diversity of culture and language, and I also share that view. I would be disappointed if people looked on language as a political tool; that is certainly not the way I look at it. But I am afraid that there are people in Northern Ireland, on both sides, who tend to use it as a political tool.
Mr Wilson, in his contradictory approach to Ullans and Irish, has made that very clear. However, the use of the Irish language or Ullans in this Chamber - and it has already been mentioned by Mr Cedric Wilson - would be totally in keeping with the Good Friday Agreement, which states
"facilitate and encourage the use of the language in speech and writing in public and private life where there is appropriate demand".
Mr Wilson asks if there is appropriate demand. To me, appropriate demand means a demand which is appropriate to the needs, identity and feelings of Members and the importance they attribute to a language. Therefore it is appropriate that I and some of my Colleagues who wish to do so are able to speak Irish comfortably and without feeling that we are putting other Members at a disadvantage.
Either we disadvantage those who want to know what we are saying but do not because there is no facility for translation, or we disadvantage ourselves by having to repeat what we have just said and therefore lose half of our time. There is an appropriate demand as long as there are people who want to use the language to express themselves in a manner more appropriate for them. It is not for others to decide what is appropriate for me, and I would not, for one moment, decide what language is more appropriate for Mr Wilson to speak. If he wishes to speak Ullans, then, I think, that is for him to decide.
Mr C Wilson:
It is rather sad that in order to put forward a case, the Member has to misrepresent what I have said. I want to make it very clear - and I thought I did make it clear at the beginning - that I have no objection to the use of the Irish language or any other language in this Chamber. I said that I had a grave concern that the right to use the language was being abused.
Mr Shannon pointed out that on the occasions when Irish has been used in this Chamber, it has been used as a political tool. It has been used in an attempt to embarrass or to cause some feeling of resentment among the Unionist Members of the House.
I have no difficulty with someone reciting a poem in Irish, or using the language if there is a purpose to it. When Irish is spoken there are bemused faces in the Gallery. The European Commissioner summed it all up.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Order. I think that it is generally recognised that the purpose of an intervention is to make a brief comment, not to return to a previous speech.
Ms Rodgers:
The Member has had a second bite at the cherry. The Good Friday Agreement seeks
"to remove, where possible, restrictions which would discourage or work against the maintenance or development of the language".
The one thing that will work against the maintenance or development of a language is the inability of those who speak it fluently to be able to do so. The death knell of a language is the absence of the capacity for people to use it. The agreement also aims to
"encourage the parties to secure agreement that this commitment will be sustained by a new Assembly in a way which takes account of the desires and sensitivities of the community."
There is a large Irish-speaking community in Northern Ireland, and many people in Northern Ireland have learned to speak Irish. There are Irish language schools in Northern Ireland, both secondary and - [Interruption] I am not giving way again. I have given way twice and it has resulted in two speeches. I have less than two minutes left. Members can speak afterwards if they wish.
Before I was rudely interrupted I was speaking about desires and sensitivities. There are second level, first level and nursery level Irish language schools in Northern Ireland, and they are all well attended and achieve excellent results. People are interested enough in the language to send their children to learn it. There are many places in Northern Ireland where that can be done.
Today at the lunch table I spoke Irish. On my way to another table I was greeted in Irish. I finally sat down and had a chat in Irish with one of the journalists. There is much Irish here and a great deal of interest in it. If there is the same interest in Ullans, and I think that there is some interest in it, I would support anything that could be done to promote and facilitate it as well.
I should like to see Irish being facilitated in the Chamber, and should like to speak it here. As a rule, I do not speak Irish in the Chamber, although I broke the rule a few days ago, because it is a courtesy to speak in a language that everybody understands. I and my party intend to ask for translation facilities, so that we will know that those who want to hear Irish will be able to do so. Sometimes English is not heard. Those who do not want to switch on their earphones need not do so. It is a matter of giving parity of esteem to the Irish language and to Ullans. Those languages are important to all traditions in Northern Ireland.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Before calling the next Member may I make a brief plea on behalf of the staff? Members normally expect Hansard to be produced the following day by about half past eight in the morning. That requires us usually to finish our debates about six o'clock, and it is clear that we shall go well beyond that.
An extraordinary richness of language will have to be attended to. We had esprit de corps from the First Minister, Latin from Mr Close, and Welsh and Ullans. I am not sure whether it was Mr Clarke or Mr O'Prey of our staff who gave me the translation from Italian into English as well as from Irish into English. That shows the range of skills at our disposal among the staff. [Interruption] From my recollection of recent Hansards, they seem to be particularly good on that. If the staff are to provide all that, it will take a little time.
Several Members wish to speak, and I call Mr Barry McElduff.
8.00 pm
Mr McElduff:
Go raibh maith agat, Jim. A Chathaoirligh, I wish to speak against amendment No 87 and to comment on Standing Order No 70.
Sílim féin gur chóir go luafaí an Ghaeilge, ach go háirithe, go soiléir so-thuigthe sna hOrduithe Seasta.
Tá mise ag labhairt i gcomhthéacs an ChomhAontaithe agus ag cloí le spiorad agus le litir an ChomhAontaithe. De réir Alt 4 (sa rannóg um Shaincheisteanna Eacnamaíochta, Sóisialta agus Cultúir: i gcomhthéacs an bhreithnithe ghníomhaigh atá á dhéanamh faoi láthair maidir leis an Ríocht Aontaithe - mar a deirtear - do shíniú Chairt Chomhairle na hEorpa do Theangacha Réigiúnacha nó Mionlaigh, déanfaidh Rialtas na Breataine go háirithe i ndáil leis an Ghaeilge, más cuí agus más mian le daoine amhlaidh:
- Gníomh diongbháilte chun an teanga a chur chun cinn;
- Úsáid na teanga a éascú agus a spreagadh sa chaint agus i scríbhneoireacht sa saol príobháideach agus sa saol poiblí mar a mbeidh éileamh cuí ann;
- Iarracht chun deireadh a chur, más féidir é, le srianta a chuirfeadh nó a d'oibreodh in aghaidh chothú nó fhorbairt na teangan;
- Na páirtithe a spreagadh chun teacht ar chomhaontú go leanfaidh Tionól nua den tiomantas sin ar shlí a chuírfidh san áireamh mianta agus iogaireachtaí an phobail.
The Committee on Standing Orders has not yet arrived at an appropriate form of words in its report that gives proper recognition to Irish in a manner which is in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the Good Friday Agreement. I refer specifically to the section on cultural matters. The report should have been bilingual - Irish as well as English.
If we are to establish this new era, where better than in the Assembly can we demonstrate the resolute action in favour of the Irish language, which is specified most notably in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the section on rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity in the Good Friday Agreement? There are a number of points.
Mr Hussey:
Will the Member give way?
Mr McElduff:
Gabh ar aghaidh.
Mr Hussey:
If this report is of such concern to Mr McElduff, why did he not take the same time as Mr Robinson and others to put proper amendments to it?
Mr McElduff:
I will answer that in due course.
I want to refer to the Good Friday Agreement, which talks about resolute action to promote the Irish language and to facilitate its use in both speech and writing. And, very importantly, the latter half of paragraph 4 of the section on rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity says
"encourage the parties to secure agreement that this commitment will be sustained by a new Assembly in a way which takes account of the desires and sensitivities of the community."
Standing Orders should reflect equal status for Irish and English in practical ways. The written record, for example, is required for the benefit of the burgeoning Irish language media which are ever present in this Building, particularly during plenary sittings. Teilifís na Gaeilge, Radio na Gaeltachta agus rudaí eile. They will no longer be disadvantaged by having to translate as well as report.
There is an added difficulty. I am disappointed that some Members fear to refer to the Irish language by name. Why do some Members remain in denial of the Gaelic language, afraid to speak its name, with a kind of begrudging tolerance, at best, and outright hostility, at worst?
Members may speak in the language of their choice. In my opinion, this is inadequate. We should be looking at Welsh as a closer model. I have a document here headed 'Agenda for the National Assembly of Wales, All for Welsh, Welsh for All', and I think that that is a better bilingual example to follow than that which is being proposed here.
Mr C Wilson said earlier that he is afraid that we may want to go the whole way and push for a simultaneous translation system, and he is absolutely right. We will be pushing for a simultaneous translation system for all 108 Members, and not just for the Clerks and the Initial Presiding Officer.
Go raibh maith agat - mar dhea-ar an ábhar sin.
Nigel Dodds asserted yesterday that Irish is a foreign language. The use of the word foreign is a calculated insult to the Nationalist people, and to all those in the Nationalist and Unionist communities who are interested in Irish. Such references may register highly on the clapometer at junior DUP rallies in Portadown or Blossom Hill, or in parts of north Belfast to which Nigel Dodds feels close, but they are patently untrue. Irish is not a foreign language, although it may be good for Nigel Dodds's popularity ratings in the DUP to say that. I remind people who make such statements that Gaelic Irish is the ancient language of Ireland. It is the birthright and the heritage of everyone who lives on the island of Ireland, and we are not sectional about that at all.
Since the late 1800s, consistent efforts have been made to revive Irish in everyday use throughout the country following its almost fatal decline in the wake of An Gorta Mór, and a history of outlawing and repressing it. Some people doubt the demand for the language. We do not all speak Irish today because in addition to being repressed and outlawed, it was made a language to be ashamed of to those who were willing to bend the knee. This part of Ireland has a state history of neglect and hostility to the Irish language.
The 1991 census is out of date because there has been considerable growth in Irish since then. It stated that in the six north-eastern counties, 79,012 people had a command of spoken and written Irish. More than 142,000 have some ability in either the written or spoken word. The numbers continue to grow. Brid Rodgers rightly drew attention to the success, the growth, the momentum and the dynamic in the Irish education movement and, in particular, in the Gaelscoileanna.
It is a mistake for Standing Orders not to make specific reference to the Irish language. Gaelgóirí expect and deserve better in a spirit of inclusivity. So, Le críochnú, ba mhaith linn go gcuirfí an Ghaeilge chun cinn ar dhóigh oscailte, dhearfach neamhbhagrach. Is linn uilig an Ghaeilge; is cuma cén dearcadh polaitúil, cén cúlra nó cén creideamh atá againn. Cé h-é nó cé h-í a bhfuil imní air/uirthi roimh an Ghaeilge?
Mr Fee:
I am conscious of the fact that staff have had a difficult job reporting our proceedings over the past couple of days. All I can say is "C'est la vie". Perhaps I shall say "C'est la guerre" before the end of the night.
Amendment No 63 refers to Standing Order 71. Peter Robinson spoke about it earlier, and one of his comments was uncharacteristically incorrect. He said that statute requires us to make this Standing Order and to nominate the number of members on it. Section 40(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states
"The members of the Commission shall be -
(a) the Presiding Officer; and
(b) the prescribed number of members of the Assembly appointed in accordance with standing orders.
However, subsection (3) states
" 'the prescribed number' means 5 or such other number as may be prescribed by standing orders."
That means that it is perfectly in order for us to reject Standing Order 71. We do not intend to do that destructively, or because we oppose the principle of inclusivity, nor have we taken umbrage at the way in which the Standing Orders Committee has arrived at its decision because, under the legislation, it has that right.
What we are concerned about are the thought processes that went into making this decision. The Standing Orders Committee may not have been as well informed as it could have been. This may have been a failing on the part of the Shadow Commission to explain precisely what it is was doing.
One peripheral point I would make is that the Shadow Commission, as it stands, has six members. The precedent that has been adopted, primarily from Westminster, is that the Chairman does not vote. This means that for major decisions, when members tend to turn out, there is a membership of five, and that is when divisions are most likely within the Commission. With an uneven number of voting members gridlock is very unlikely. It can happen but is unlikely to occur.
Mr P Robinson:
Could the Member confirm that on the two occasions that there have been votes, they have gone against Unionists because Unionists are effectively in the minority on the Commission, even though they are in the majority in the House? The Commission does not reflect the balance of the House. On each occasion the Alliance Party has voted with Sinn Féin and the SDLP.