Assembly Members: Designation "MLA"
Assembly Standing Orders

The first five motions on the Order Paper concern amendments that were recommended by the Standing Orders Committee, which no longer exists. They will be moved by the Members who were the joint Chairmen of that Committee.

Should the Assembly so wish, all five motions will be discussed in a single debate, after which we shall vote on each in turn.

All changes to Standing Orders require cross-community support. As I have previously ruled, if on collection of the voices there is no indication of dissent I shall assume that cross-community support has been achieved. If, however, there is any dissent we must move to a Division. I remind Members — and particularly the party Whips — that, since we are now operating under the new Standing Orders which were approved by the Assembly in March and determined by the Secretary of State prior to devolution, Divisions shall require the use of the Division Lobbies and, thus, slightly different procedures.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an Assembly Member or a member of the Assembly staff to sign into this Building a member of the public whose sole purpose is to disrupt and harangue the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when making statements, as happened last Thursday? If it is out of order what action will be taken against the person responsible?

With regard to the signing in of any visitor, it is not possible to judge in advance what anyone’s motives are. What is very clear is that if anyone introduces disorder, either on the Floor of the House or in the Galleries, that is not proper and not acceptable. I appeal to all Members to co-operate in this regard. I think I made it clear at the last sitting that if there is disorder in the Galleries they will be cleared.

First, I should point out that the Committee on Standing Orders no longer exists. Mr Cobain and I are proposing these motions because we were the joint Chairmen of that Committee and there are one or two matters to be tidied up. We agreed to present these matters to the Assembly to provide for the smooth running of business.

We would like to propose the items en bloc. However, if you want us to take them in turn we shall be glad to do so.

It might be helpful to deal with each matter in turn as Members are only beginning to become familiar with all the issues.

This was agreed by the Committee on Standing Orders. The letters "MLA" are widely used by a number of subordinate legislatures, and they seem to us to be the most appropriate. Other designatory letters were considered but were discarded for one reason or another in favour of "MLA".

I cannot deal with the second motion — the setting up of a Standing Committee on European Affairs — without referring to the third, which is for the setting up of a Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations.

The Standing Orders Committee expressed concern that the legislation did not provide for the type of scrutiny of the functions of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister which has been provided in respect of the other Government Departments. It was felt that there were major issues which need to be thoroughly scrutinised. Two issues — European affairs, and equality, human rights and community relations — were identified as having sufficient breadth and scope to merit having separate Committees.

Other functions of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister not covered by these two motions will need to be scrutinised, but we did not agree how this might be done, and a motion about this will be put before the Assembly in the future.

The Committee considered the Westminster practice of the Government’s providing the Opposition with supply days. That is to say the Government provide space in the timetable of the House of Commons for the Opposition to raise issues of concern to it.

In the kind of structure that has been established for us, there are no formal Government and Opposition sides to the House. For that reason the Committee felt that individual parties would, from time to time, have priorities on their own agendas which were not provided for in the Administration’s programme of business. It was therefore decided that it would be useful to provide each of the parties represented in the Assembly with a period of time, each month perhaps, when such matters could be raised. For that reason we propose to insert in paragraph (1) at subparagraph (g) the words "party business".

The final business concerns the powers of Statutory Committees. We want to ensure beyond all doubt that the Statutory Committees are empowered under both the agreement and the terms of the Northern Ireland Act, and this change is being proposed following legal advice.

Mr Haughey has spoken about the Standing Committee on European Affairs and the Standing Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations. I am not certain whether these Committees will have the right to raise any matter of their own volition and within their remits which has not been referred to them by the Assembly or any other body, and therefore I seek clarification on that.

Mr Haughey can deal with all such questions when he responds at the end of the debate.

I wish to address the motion concerning the establishment of a Standing Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations. The fact that this Committee is being established suggests that the Assembly and the all-Ireland institutions, of which it is a part, are built on an authentic commitment to human rights. If that is not the case, the consideration of this motion today is little more than an exercise in pretence and hypocrisy, so it is absolutely crucial to establish whether the Assembly can really be considered as being built on the solid foundation of respect for equality and human rights.

The domain of human rights — those rights which we possess by virtue of our being human — is a matter of philosophical dispute. However, what is not a matter of dispute, short of denying that there are any human rights, is that the most fundamental human right is the right to life.

The right to life is fundamental in the crucial sense that all other human rights are derived from it. The most immediate human right derived from the right to life is the right to be protected from violence and the threat of violence, both in public and private life. This is the moral basis of democratic practice.

The implementation of the Belfast Agreement has politically institutionalised the very opposite of democratic practice. The outworking of the agreement has secured for Sinn Féin a central role in government backed by the terrorist arsenal of the IRA. This means that the threat of force has been fully incorporated into the Government of Northern Ireland. The outcome of the Mitchell review has, in fact, fully legitimised this state of affairs because it established that decommissioning, if it ever occurs, has to be a voluntary act on the part of the terrorist organisations. That is absolutely incompatible with democracy. The core of democracy — [Interruption]

Order. The Member is required to take his seat.

I am not clear that what is being said is relevant to a Standing Order provision for the establishment of a Committee. I plead with the Member to address the specific Standing Order issues rather than simply repeat what has been said again and again in different debates.

I reject entirely what you are saying.

The Member is not at liberty, under Standing Orders, to reject what the Speaker says.

What you have done is express the view that what I am saying is not relevant to the motion. What I am saying is entirely relevant to the motion. My point is —

It is not an expression of a view, but a ruling, and it must be understood that in the conduct of debates we have to abide by the rules. I advise the Member to read them again.

We cannot have the same speeches applied to every single debate, no matter what the content. Therefore I ask the Member to address himself to the question of Standing Orders, of which this is a proposed amendment for the establishment of a Committee. It is not an opportunity to reiterate again and again a set of principles, however laudable they may or may not be.

I will continue. The point I was making —

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do we have to listen to this if the Member insists on defying your judgement? Is there any alternative?

The Member is entitled to continue for as long as he has leave. I have ruled that he should attend to the question, which is the proposal to amend Standing Orders to establish a Committee. Please continue, Mr Roche.

The point that I am developing is that there is something entirely incongruous with the whole idea of developing this Committee. That is the argument that I wish to be given freedom to develop. The point I was making is that the voluntary nature of decommissioning within the Mitchell review is absolutely incompatible with democracy. The core of democracy lies in the conduct of politics, free from the threat or use of violence. Democratic practice is therefore ultimately rooted in respect for the most fundamental of human rights. Democratic government must be based entirely on electoral support. This means that no political party in a democracy can claim a right to be involved in government on the basis of a so-called electoral mandate —

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. In a debate on such a serious matter is it in order for the Member for Strangford, Mr John Taylor, to speak in loud tones? We are talking about an issue of human rights, yet there seems to be a great lack of interest in the subject matter. Surely my colleague Mr Roche should be given a reasonable hearing.

I have experienced a great deal more disorder and allowed things to continue. I have found that some of those who now wish to speak have at times not been too keen to hear what some other Members have to say.

It is not in order for exactly the same issues to be raised again and again in every debate, no matter what the debate is about.

This is not a debate about the fundamental principles on which this Assembly is established. It is not a debate about the Belfast Agreement or about decommissioning. It is a debate about an amendment to Standing Orders to create a Committee. I am prepared to give some leeway for the setting down of one or two principles, but to have an entire speech consisting of that, and not addressing the technical issues involved in the setting up of a Committee, is not reasonable and is not in order.

Is it in order for a party to oppose the formation of this Committee, and is this the correct place in which to do so?

It is entirely in order for any Member to oppose it. The time to do that will be when the Question is put.

Are you saying that there is no opportunity to speak against the motion, that the only way to oppose it is to vote against it?

That is not what I am saying. I have been giving leave for Members to speak, but it is clear that speeches which address the fundamental principles on which the Assembly is founded are going well beyond the remit for the debate. That is absolutely clear.

My speech addresses the fundamental issue of what is required for an authentic commitment to respect for human rights. Democratic government must be based entirely on electoral support. This means that no political party in a democracy can claim a right to be involved in government on the basis of a so-called electoral mandate while at the same time retaining at its disposal the persuasion that comes from the barrel of a gun. The implementation of the Belfast Agreement has institutionalised the combination of the Armalite —

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. Your position as Presiding Officer is being blatantly undermined by Mr Roche’s persistence in continuing with his speech.

A number of transitions have not been appreciated. For those who study these matters let me say that I am no longer the Initial Presiding Officer.

My apologies.

You were correct, Mr McClelland; others were not.

It is clearly out of order to continue to speak about fundamental principles of the Belfast Agreement. If that sort of issue is referred to again, I will have to proceed further.

In respect of the previous point of order, it might be helpful for me to point out that if we move to a Division, those who called for the vote must supply Tellers. If Tellers are not supplied in time, there is no Division.

This is an anomalous situation. We are considering a motion for the establishment of a Standing Committee on human rights, when we cannot actually explore the fundamentals of the issue and consider the question of to what extent this Assembly can authentically commit itself to the protection of human rights. That is the issue I was exploring. The implementation of the agreement has institutionalised the combination of the Armalite and the ballot box into the Government of Northern Ireland. It is entirely incompatible with the most fundamental of human rights. This is an affront to common decency.

Membership of and support for the IRA is entirely incompatible with genuine respect for human rights. Where does that place Mr Adams and, in particular, Mr McGuinness? In the recently published book ‘Lost Lives’, entry 487 describes the death of Robert Gibson on "bloody Friday". It is a horrendous account of what happened that day. "Bloody Friday" was the work of the IRA, but who within the IRA was responsible? Patrick Bishop and Eamonn Mallie, in their book ‘The Provisional IRA’, state that the bombings were planned by Seamus Twomey. They add that he was assisted by a leading Provisional who is now a senior member of Sinn Féin.

Order. I really must move on with the debate. I emphasise again that this debate is about establishing a Committee to scrutinise an aspect of the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is not a debate about the fundamental principles of the Belfast Agreement, the establishment of the Assembly or decommissioning.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to place on record that my Colleague was attempting to raise a matter of concern relating to a major breach of human rights. It appears that the Assembly wants to stifle a debate on the matter at the time when Members are setting up a Committee to deal with that very issue. It is a scandal —

Order. The proper place — if there is a proper place — to raise that question is in the Committee. That is the point in setting up the Committee. This is not an opportunity for a debate about the fundamental principles.

Insofar as this is a point of order, that is my ruling.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Neeson had a point of order.

Is it in order for a Member to hold up the establishment of a Committee when he is not prepared to sit on any Committee?

It is in order for the Member to raise such questions in the debate, so long as they are within the context of the debate.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your view, and I am prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair. However, there is something very wrong when a Member who is opposed to the formation of this Committee, on the basis that those who have committed the most serious breaches of civil and human rights will be chairing and sitting on Committees, cannot voice his opposition.

With regard to the point of order, the Committee will be established if the Assembly so wishes. Matters referred to the Committee may be discussed and debated in the Committee, and then they may come to the Floor of the House. However, this is a technical question of changing the Standing Order to establish such a Committee.

Chathaoirligh. In relation to the motion concerning "MLA", there was a long debate in the Standing Orders Committee on variations. I want it confirmed that it will be possible for Members to use a translation, whether in Ulster-Scots or in Irish, or a variation — perhaps "TD" (Teachta Dála). Members should be able to use their preferred variations.

I will leave it to the proposer to respond on that matter. However, if it becomes part of the Standing Orders and if I am asked about it I will, of course, respond.

As some Members have indicated, there was considerable debate in the Standing Orders Committee some time ago about the use of "MLA". Indeed, it was so long ago that I was still on the Committee. Back then I and several other Members supported the "MPA" proposal. Other proposals were put forward. I felt that "MPA" was appropriate, given that it echoed what applied in the period 1982-86 and that it was closer to parliamentary lingo.

One of my reservations about the use of "MLA" was that it would make Members sound as though they were members of an African terrorist organisation. Perhaps in the light of other events, particularly the elevation of some to ministerial posts last year, I will withdraw my reservations. Perhaps it is more appropriate than was originally envisaged.

With regard to the Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations Committee, I appreciate the problems that have been raised and share the fundamental concern that exists about the breach of human rights in Northern Ireland. However, I do urge Members to support the creation of the Committee.

During the Standing Orders debate I, among others, raised the point that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister was not to have an appropriate level of scrutiny. Each of the other 10 Departments is scrutinised by a Statutory Committee. How those Committees will work out in practice is another matter, but there will at least be some scrutiny. However, no Committee was established to scrutinise the work of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I consider that to be a missed opportunity, and it has left a hole in the scrutiny procedure that we apply to the Government.

Subsequent to the debate a Committee for Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations was proposed, which would cover a large part of the brief of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Although my preference is for a Committee to look specifically at the full remit of the First and Deputy First Ministers’ responsibilities, we should take this opportunity to introduce some level of scrutiny to an area that may be under the control of a junior Minister. This would ensure that the First and the Deputy First Ministers’ activities were kept under the spotlight in the same way as those of the other Departments. Notwithstanding the reservations held by some Members with regard to the human rights issue — and I understand those at a philosophical level — there are practical reasons for our agreeing to the establishment of the Committee. On this occasion the practical reasons should result in the whole House’s supporting the creation of such a Committee.

The Women’s Coalition welcomes the setting up of these important Committees. Members are aware that the way forward for Northern Ireland is to create a role for itself in Europe and the European Union. It is vital that a Committee be set up to ensure that links to the European Union are established or, where they already exist, strengthened.

The very fabric of the Assembly — the basis of all its work — is equality, human rights and community relations, so it is vital that a Committee be set up to this end. We would also like to see the creation of an additional Committee to scrutinise the Centre.

Finally, the Women’s Coalition would like to ensure — and we seek clarification here from Mr Haughey — that the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations will also be able to raise issues concerning European affairs and equality.

Mr Maskey referred to the powers of the European Affairs Committee and the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations. Their powers will be extensive, though not as extensive as the powers of the departmental Committees. The main distinction relates to legislative initiatives. I refer Mr Maskey to paragraph 2(b), which enables the Committee on European Affairs and the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations to raise any other related matter or matters determined by the Assembly. I also refer him to paragraph (3), which states

That is the standard constitutional formula which enables the Committee to call any person within the jurisdiction of this House, to call for papers produced at any level within the Administration in order to examine those papers and to interrogate the persons responsible for the conduct of the Administration. Those are very extensive powers and will enable the Committee to conduct its business with a good deal of influence and power.

In relation to the issues raised by Mr Roche, there is nothing that requires any response by me regarding Standing Orders.

Mr Molloy raised the interesting question of whether an adequate translation of "Member of the Legislative Assembly" would be the term "Teachta Dála", which, as Members will know, is the designation used by Members of Dáil Éireann, giving rise to the letters "TD" after Members’ names. I do not know if that was Mr Molloy’s intention, but I am not an adequate enough Gaelic scholar to determine whether "Member of the Legislative Assembly" and "Teachta Dála" mean exactly the same. To me they do not seem to mean the same thing, but I would not be opposed to the use of the term "Teachta Dála" as a translation.

Mr Weir raised the issue of the designation "MPA", which was used in the 1982-86 Assembly. That was considered by the Committee on Standing Orders, and it was decided that "MLA" was a better designation in the current circumstances. Mr Weir also urged Members to support the creation of the Equality Committee, as did Ms Morrice, and I welcome their support.

I call for the appointment of Tellers. I should explain what is to happen since this is the first time that we have had a Division. All Members take their seats while I am on my feet. Those who are supportive and those who are opposed should appoint two Tellers who should come to the front. If either side fails to appoint Tellers, there will be no Division. I shall give instructions on how to proceed after the Tellers have been appointed.

There are Division Lobbies on either side. The Ayes will go to the right, and the Noes to the left. The Tellers will move through two doors, where they will find the Clerks ready to take note of the votes as Members pass through.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I presume that those abstaining will stay in their seats. That is normal parliamentary procedure.

The votes of those who proceed through the Lobbies are the only ones which can be counted. If Members pass through a Lobby and then realise that they have voted in the wrong way, as occasionally happens, they may then proceed to the other Division Lobby and vote on the other side. This will cancel their vote, but they cannot revise their vote in any other way.

Is that a case of voting early and often? [Laughter]

It is a case of voting mistakenly, and twice.

On a point of order.

I am taking points of order, and without setting any precedent, only because we are doing this for the first time.

TOP

Next >>