A Chathaoirligh, it is important to trace the history of this Committee of the Centre. There was a huge amount of discussion and consternation in the Standing Orders Committee when it was discovered that there was what was described as a gap in the legislation and no provision for a Statutory Committee to scrutinise the Centre. We got the NIO Minister, Mr Paul Murphy, in to discuss ways of attempting to plug the gap through legislation in the House of Commons, but we were unsuccessful.

The urgency to resolve the matter increased greatly in December 1998 when the determination from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister appeared to "pack out" the Centre. This was reinforced by their positions at that time. We had not opposed the absence of a Committee on Equality in the 10 Departments that were agreed, but we were keen to see proper scrutiny of the Centre.

Various solutions were suggested in the Standing Orders Committee to deal with the issue. One of those was to spread scrutiny of the Centre over a number of Committees, and I felt that there was general agreement on that. The motions that were passed by the Standing Orders Committee suggested that a Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations, a Committee on European Affairs, and a sort of catch-all Committee to deal with the other matters that rested with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would be established.

I understand from the minutes of the Standing Orders Committee that the joint Chairmen and the Clerk of the Standing Orders Committee were mandated in July to present a proposal for a Committee of the Centre. At a previous sitting of the Assembly, we agreed to set up the Committee for Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations and the Committee for European Affairs. Surprisingly, the draft Order Paper for that sitting proposed a Committee of the Centre in the name of one of the then Chairmen of the Standing Orders Committee, yet that proposal was withdrawn from the Order Paper itself.

There is an element of farce in that at which the DUP has rightly poked fun, but I note that it does not express any regret at the potential loss, given the terms of the amendment, of the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations. That should strike home on this side of the House.

Today we have had a proposal, which has been dropped, and an amendment relating to a Committee of the Centre, and neither came from the Standing Orders Committee, where such was supposed to originate. Indeed, the amendment came from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is a matter of concern that the Standing Orders Committee was mandated to do this and did not. I believe that there has been a welter of confusion over Standing Orders. As a member of the Committee, I accept the criticism from Members about its way of doing business in the months before the transfer of power. In spite of that there are greater concerns about the amendment from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I was one of the Chairmen of the Standing Orders Committee, yet I am hearing for the first time about this welter of confusion. It is amazing that no one was aware of it during our work.

The welter of confusion arose from the fact that several motions were tabled, some of them in the name of both former Chairmen of the Committee. One was in the name of just one of the Chairmen, and it was withdrawn. If that is not confusing, I do not know what is.

Does the withdrawal of one motion constitute a welter? Does that conform to the ordinary understanding of everyday English - a welter of confusion?

I was on the Standing Orders Committee and also on the Business Committee, and I suggest that Mr Haughey read some of the Business Committee minutes in which he will see what that Committee thought of the performance of the Standing Order Committees in recent months.

We have other concerns about the proposal from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and not just because the detailed proposal on how the Department of the Centre would be scrutinised by the Assembly comes from the Department which is the subject of that scrutiny. We are also concerned because half of the items on the long list of the Department's functions are omitted from the list given by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in their amendment.

What concerns me most is the proposal in the amendment to scrap the Committees that we established last week. They are the Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations Committee and the Committee for European Affairs. [Interruption]

Order. The hubbub is beginning to get above what is reasonable. The Member who is speaking must be given a hearing.

I turn to the debate that arose from the determination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 18 January, when the current Minister of Higher and Further Education said, in relation to equality,

That was reinforced by Mr Nesbitt, who will be a beneficiary of today's proceedings. He said

It was intended then to have a Committee to scrutinise the equality functions at the Centre. Suddenly today, without any notice and regardless of any discussion and agreement in the Standing Orders Committee, in the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer and in the Business Committee, the SDLP and the UUP, as represented by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, have changed their minds on the issue.

Given that these gentlemen have spent most of the evening trying to convince us that the remit of the Department of the Centre is so vast that four Ministers are needed to cover it adequately, we must question the logic of their proposal to reduce the number of Committees scrutinising that Department from three to one. The suspicion that they do not want proper scrutiny of their Department is hard to avoid.

The net effect of today's business is likely to be less scrutiny, less accountable Government and the downgrading of equality. Contrary to Mr Mallon's suggestion, that is not the vision of politics that underpinned the Good Friday Agreement. It should be rejected to allow us to proceed, as we agreed some months ago, with proper scrutiny of all the functions of the Executive. Go raibh maith agat.

I oppose the amendment. As Mr Peter Robinson and Mr Conor Murphy have said, we are surprised by its introduction. For about 18 months it was understood and accepted that the Committee on European Affairs and the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations were necessary and would be set up. The effect of the amendment would be to revoke the Committee on European Affairs and the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations and, as Mr Peter Robinson has said, to reduce the amount of scrutiny of the Department of the Centre. Fewer than half the matters for which it is responsible would be subject to scrutiny.

There is a dire need for the Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations Committee, and the best example of that need is to be found in yesterday's appointment of people to advisory boards. The Deputy First Minister has said that equality goes to the very heart of our institutions. Where was the gender balance when those board members were appointed? For example, Trade Business and Development has 12 members, of whom four are women; Food Safety has 11 members, of whom two are women; the North/South Language body has 16 members, of whom five are women; and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights body has 12 members, of whom two are women.

If we are serious about equality why was more effort not made to ensure that there was a gender balance? That would have given a much needed example of the new Government's attitude to equality. Equality and women's issues should be at the heart of the practice and not just the words of this institution. They are not political points to be scored. That was not the case with appointments to these bodies.

Europe is our future and European affairs cut across every Department. I have often heard complaints about the Dublin Government's interfering in our affairs, but people forget that since 1973 the Dublin Government, along with the French Government and the German Government, have been setting the price of our butter. This interference in our affairs has been happening since we joined the European Union. European affairs affect every policy area, and it is very important that we have a Committee on European Affairs to cover that. This has always been accepted in the Assembly, and I do not understand the logic of this amendment to eradicate these two Committees.

The most important point, and one that Mr Peter Robinson has raised, is that the effect of this amendment would be to leave 13 out of the 26 areas for which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are responsible with no scrutiny whatsoever. The North/South Ministerial Council would not be covered, nor would the British/Irish Council and key issues relating to the machinery of government. Liaison with the Secretary of State and the International Fund for Ireland would not be covered, and information services, which are vital to the machinery of government, would have no scrutiny whatsoever. Neither would there be scrutiny of cross-departmental co-ordination, the Assembly Ombudsman, the Policy Innovation Unit and the awarding of honours.

It would be wrong of the Assembly to accept this amendment on the grounds that there should be openness and transparency. Committees should be able to scrutinise all areas of government. We need a Committee on European Affairs, a Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations and a Committee of the Centre, covering all the Centre's responsibilities. That is the way forward.

I oppose the amendment and therefore support the motion. I am dismayed by today's affairs. I do not wish to believe that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are naïve, but it is the best option open to me. The only alternative is to think, as has been suggested, that there has been a sleight of hand. We agreed to have two Committees and to generate a third to cover the remit of the First and Deputy First Ministers' Department. Substantial portions of the report they produced when they were, as Mr Robinson said, "Designate" are absent. The fact that there has been no consultation about this and the immediacy with which they have landed pieces of paper on this Table are bound to give people cause for concern.

A malaise is creeping in. Whether it is because of the amount of patronage there is for some Members or the benefits of creating junior Ministers, with which we agree, I do not know - we are just not happy with what is happening because we have not been told enough about it. This behaviour is arrogant and in the nature of big parties. Members can see from Hansard that we have talked about the fear of patronage before. We have also talked about the lack of inclusion, and the big parties are inclined to get carried away with that.

I am not advocating that anyone from a small party like ours should be the chairman of such a committee, but I am saying very clearly that unless there is consultation, there will not be support. If something were to be done which seemed either naïve or shifty - and I would prefer it to seem naïve - I would be inclined to believe that it was neither if someone were reasonable enough to discuss it. Each issue has to come to the Floor of the House. The requirement for cross-community support may or may not make a difference this evening, but it will at some point in the future. Let the two large parties who are responsible for this - and they will no doubt support the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister - be warned that if it is to be the nature of things in the future, we will not support matters about which we are unclear or which are designed for the benefit of the big parties alone. In that respect today's proceedings have not been good, and we will undoubtedly support the motion.

What we are experiencing today is not the fundamental sickness that will affect the Assembly, but merely some of the symptoms of that sickness. The Assembly was founded on unique and undemocratic principles. Such principles were imported because it was said that Northern Ireland was a unique place for which the ordinary principles of democracy were unsuited, and that is why the Belfast Agreement created the sort of institution that we have here. Ministers were elected on a peculiar and unique system - the d'Hondt system. It is unique in British parliamentary experience. It may be suitable for some German Länder, but it is not suitable here.

There is an absence of democracy in the sense that there is no Government and no Opposition - an Opposition that could hope that by persuading the electorate of the defects of the current Government it would one day enter into Government in their place. Such an Opposition would have had the task of questioning and examining, on the Floor of the Assembly, the workings of the Government. Instead of that, we have the consensus arrangement under which the four major parties divided up the 10 ministerial offices among them and, together with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, control the Executive. If this continues, subject to the present position of the DUP, the vast majority of the Assembly will always be in Government with a few minor parties hanging about, perhaps least of all my own, such as the Women's Coalition, the Alliance Party, the United Unionists, and, to a lesser extent, Sinn Féin and the DUP. Essentially, the Executive is controlled by two parties which, with a little assistance from their friends from time to time, can deliver the Nationalist and the Unionist vote in accordance with the principles on which the Executive has been erected.

Therein lies the problem. To counterbalance the overwhelming power of the Executive, which is centred on the two major parties, we were to have a series of scrutinising Committees. Again, the overwhelming membership of those Committees would come from the four major parties that constitute the Executive. At an early stage in the meetings of the Standing Orders Committee, I pointed out that Standing Orders would have to be very zealous in protecting the Assembly against an over-mighty Executive. I and other members of the Committee will recall that Dr Farren, who is now the Minister of Higher Education, suggested that the plenary sessions of the Assembly should be held on two days a month as all other business would be conducted in Committees and by the Executive. Plenary sessions were seen to be an irritation to the backside. That was the extent to which the Assembly was to be reduced, and one has to superimpose the party system on all that.

Under this amendment, the Assembly can deal with any other related matters, as determined by the Assembly, as well as with the 50% of the matters in the Annex that are excluded from the scrutiny of the Committee of the Centre. What will happen when it is decided to have a vote on whether a matter should be sent to that Committee? The SDLP will follow its leader, and the UUP will try to screw up enough support to carry it through if voting is on the basis of a majority decision. The two of them will organise their Members to vote down any proposal from the rest of us to have such a matter sent to the Scrutiny Committee for examination. The distribution of patronage and the organising of those on the payroll are part and parcel of the means by which Executives in every country control their legislatures.

One of the difficulties about Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments, is that its role is being totally reduced. There is an elite in the Executive and a collection of Lobby fodder in Parliament. Because they are part of the hierarchical party system, they want to keep their noses clean to ensure that they will progress up the greasy pole to the ultimate position. They go through the Lobby, although most of them do not know which Lobby to go through and have to be directed by the Whips. The Executive is exercising more and more control and is reducing the plenary sessions of Parliament to a ghastly joke.

Under that arrangement, however, there is at least an Opposition. There is still the hope that somewhere along the line the Opposition will become the Government, as happened to Labour. Therefore there is at least some examination, if only out of self-interest. Where is the self-interest here? The self-interest, if any, lies between the two major parties.

I must make it plain that the Government and the Northern Ireland Office knew this all along. Those Members of the Women's Coalition who ululated when this great thing was brought into being, those Members of the PUP who were conned - some of them were told that, in other circumstances, they would be world statesmen - are, in effect, no longer necessary to the propagation of this scheme. So far as the Centre is concerned, the Women's Coalition may go on about its equality agenda, women's rights and Europe, and Ms Morrice can talk about butter and all the rest of it, but the truth is that the Women's Coalition is a pain in the butt to those who really want to get on with the business of running this Government. Those people do not want to be faced with the idea that one or other of the smaller parties could be heading a Committee that was going to give the ruling parties any trouble. That is the truth. [Interruption]

I hear Mr Ervine muttering about patronage in North Down. There is no patronage in North Down. I am not looking for anything from the Government by way of financial remuneration, and I am bitterly opposed in principle to the honours system, so I am not concerned with that.

Let us get back to the main issue which is that this amendment relates to the ever-increasing centralisation of power within the Executive and within the control of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That is why the smaller parties are being excluded from this. That is why, through working the party system, they will be able to prevent the smaller parties from ever bringing any matter to be scrutinised by this Committee. This is all about Executive power against the power which Members, as a body, hope to exercise in plenary sessions. All of this is related to matters which we discussed last week and this week - matters such as patronage, with more than 50% of Assembly Members on the payroll at a salary above their normal one.

It makes you begin to wonder who is dispensing this patronage. Who will decide who is to be a Whip? Who will, as happened this morning, decide who will be a junior Minister and for what? The Executive, not the Members. While we have this fundamentally flawed, allegedly consensual arrangement, effective scrutiny Committees under the control of the Assembly will be vital. If those at the very centre of power can, by this amendment, exclude matters from the scrutiny of the Assembly or its Committees - and they are effectively excluding them from both - the Members' function is thereby diminished.

Members should think very carefully about the fundamentals of this. Why are Members here? Are they really here to be Lobby fodder for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? Are they motivated by what is best for the people of Northern Ireland or are they motivated by party loyalties alone, or are they, from time to time perhaps, motivated by a mixture of party loyalties and self-interest?

I have heard the allegation made that it is all right for Bob McCartney - he is not worried about his salary or this or that. That may or may not be true, but it does invest me with the capacity to stand here, owing nothing to any man and wanting nothing from any man, and say what needs to be said. It is time the Assembly and its Members started taking note, or are they all going to be placemen and placewomen?

I listened to the Members from the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, and behind all their talk about Europe and women's rights was the suggestion that both were admirably fitted to be a Chairperson in charge of the question of Europe or women's rights. The talk about inclusivity is because the smaller parties - and the Women's Coalition in particular - are being excluded from office. That is what this is all about.

All of this, however, is cloaked with the appearance that they are very concerned about these things. Their concern makes me smile, not at the subject matter of their concerns, which are very real, but at the way in which these Ladies are presenting them, a way which any intellectual feminist abandoned 20 years ago. [Interruption]

Order.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I do not want to repeat what my Colleague Mr Conor Murphy has already said. However, I have to put on record my disappointment at events in the House tonight.

The Assembly has moved from our position in the Good Friday Agreement, which suggested that we have a dedicated Department of Equality, to talking about and rejecting the suggestion that we have a dedicated junior Minister for equality. It has moved from talking about and rejecting a standing committee to scrutinise equality, human rights and community relations to lumping the equality unit into the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, where it will be swallowed up entirely.

Inequality, discrimination, community relations and human rights have now been shifted again, and we must question the agenda which is driving the debate in the House tonight. The inequalities which have existed for years were what prompted me to enter politics in the first place, and I am disgusted that every attempt to scrutinise the delivery of equality in our society is being thwarted. Go raibh maith agat.

It is my job to wind up the debate on this issue, and I hope to be brief.

I wish to touch on some of the contributions which have been made, and, first of all, I shall touch on the penultimate contribution - that made by Mr McCartney. It was interesting to listen to the Member contrast the operation of parliamentary principles, as they are known at Westminster, with our practice here. I do not intend to follow him into the detail of that. Rather, I wish to note the contrast between the differences he drew and the fact that he treated Assembly Members here in exactly the same way as he treats Members of Parliament at Westminster. If he continues to do that, he will have as many friends in this Assembly as he has at Westminster. [Interruption]

Moving on to the points of substance that were made by other Members, specifically Ms Morrice and Mr C Murphy, I expressed concern about the rationalisation that these proposals are to bring about. It is fair to say that over the months - indeed, years - a number of different proposals have been made on scrutiny of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the responsibilities within it, and a number of Members here have changed their positions on the matter.

We should acknowledge that we have arrived at what I think is the best outcome. We are not abandoning scrutiny on equality issues, European issues or other issues, but we are consolidating them on a better basis. Mr Robinson acknowledged this because he conceded that this amendment will produce a better structure, and I agree. By way of criticism, Mr Robinson also suggested that we are attempting to treat the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister more favourably than other Ministers and that some matters will not receive scrutiny. That is not a valid criticism. We have to draw a distinction, as the amendment tries to do, between the process by which policy is formulated and the question of a policy's merits, how it is implemented and what its consequences are.

In all systems, the process by which policy is evolved and the discussions which take place with officials are free from scrutiny. That is also true of other Departments. I am certain that Mr Robinson, together with his ministerial colleagues, will respond in the same way as we are responding if his Committee asks what advice he received from officials and what matters were considered when he was formulating policy.

The Deputy First Minister made the point when he was introducing this matter. He said

"It is essential that discussions which take place in the Executive Committee, or the negotiating positions for the Northern Ireland Administration in relation to the North/South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council should remain private."

The amendment provides for that. It also provides for the scrutiny of all of the significant functions in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister which have any Executive character and does so in a much more rational and coherent manner than previous proposals.

It is a pity that it came through late. However, this reflects the fact that over the past few weeks we have had a flurry of items to focus on in the operation of our Office. I apologise to Members that the amendment was tabled at such short notice. This was largely because we were able to focus on the matter only last night, when we started to look at its implications. The amendment evolved after consultations with some Members. I concede that not all Members were consulted.

First, having listened to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I am not convinced that there is a distinction between the policy issues and the outworking of those issues in their Office that is any way different from that of any of the other Departments. Every Department has policy and strategic issues, and there is an outworking of those policies. Ministers will be questioned, interrogated, and turned upside down on all of those issues - and rightly so.

I do not think that there will be any such distinction either in the minds of those on the Committees. They will be able to ask us how we arrived at our decisions, and in many instances they will have taken part in our arriving at them. In formulating our decisions we will have to seek advice, and, under legislation, we will be given advice by the Committees. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be denied that advice by excluding these matters from the remit of their Committee.

Secondly, by excluding those matters, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister know that they are taking one significant power away, and that is the power to require papers to be produced. That cannot be done in the Assembly, but it can be done in Committee if the excluded matters are included in the Committee's remit.

I return to the point that I made earlier. The distinction, which the Minister is trying to blur, does exist. It is to be found in the Deputy First Minister's comment which I quoted earlier. It is essential that discussions which take place in the Executive or the negotiating positions which we adopt - regardless of whether they be for the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, or Brussels - remain private. That was our central concern when we framed this amendment.

We have provided for effective scrutiny to cover all the concerns that were expressed by Ms Morrice, Mr Murphy and Mr Ervine. I am quite confident that we have in this amendment a more coherent, better and more effective procedure for scrutiny than we would have had in the provisions that were otherwise evolving.

I call Mr Ford to make his winding-up speech.

I was expecting Mr Peter Robinson to speak.

I am content to call Mr Robinson.

I am reluctant to speak for a third time on the issue, but if you insist, Mr Speaker, I shall do so. My speaking a short time ago was little more than an intervention, but since the First Minister allowed me to make it, it was valid. I also note that he did not bother to respond to it, which shows how worthwhile it must have been.

I accept - and I made this very clear during my remarks - that in structural terms there are significant advantages in having all issues dealt with in one Committee. Some of those who wish to see three Committees instead of one would regret that before too long, since there would be an overlapping of functions.

The key issue, on which all of those who have spoken against the amendment are united, is that all the functions of the Department must be scrutinised, whether by one Committee or three. If I am asked to choose whether I would rather have one Committee dealing with half of the matters or three Committees dealing with them all, I will opt for the latter. We should not, however, be forced to choose.

I offered the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister an opportunity to place the rest of their responsibilities under the Committee's remit so that we could deal with them all in the proper, structured way suggested. Unfortunately, they did not avail themselves of that opportunity, and, regardless of the arithmetic at the end of today's debate, it is simply not going to wash.

Issues will arise. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may feel that they are avoiding them by not having all their responsibilities included in this remit. It is, however, a feature of all deliberative Chambers that they have in them people of sufficient ingenuity to ensure that such matters are raised again and again. However, it is far better to do it in some structured way such as in a Committee than have it come out through cracks in the system, which would be most unfortunate for the whole running of the Assembly.

I cannot read the mind of the Member who moved the motion, but I detect from what people have been saying that a number of them are not content with the amendment and intend to vote against it. I hope that they will do so in sufficient numbers to allow the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to recognise that they are not carrying the House with them. When we are dealing with the very structures of business, it is not sufficient to have a mere majority. Policy issues differ from those of structure in that, with a policy issue, one can get away with a mere majority. One can operate the policy. However, one cannot expect people to work on an ongoing basis within a structure that does not have the consent of a significant number of this Assembly's Members - it will simply not work.

They should learn the lesson, sooner rather than later, that they do not have the mind of the Assembly on this issue yet. If they were prepared to set up two Committees last week, only to dump them this week and set up another, then, before too long, if they do not accept the burden of what is in the motion, they will have to return to the Assembly to seek sufficient consensus. I trust that they will take this on board.

This is not a matter of looking for opportunities to snap at the heels of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister - though for some that might be the case. The reality is that this would be good for democracy. It would give people an opportunity to get off their chests all the issues which burden them and, more importantly, burden the people outside. If they are not given vent within a democratic structure, they will be given vent outside in an undemocratic fashion. It is up to democrats to make sure that the opportunity for this is given within the structures of the democracy, rather than allow it to be pushed out where it will adopt a more unseemly face. I trust that they will think again. Even if they win the vote today, they will have to return to this issue before too long.

Question put That the amendment be made.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Were all Members aware of the correct Lobby to go through? There appeared to be some confusion in the Alliance Party.

Order. Members are still learning, but I have no doubt that they were fully aware of how they were voting.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As Speaker and as a psychiatrist, do you deal with political schizophrenia, and would you counsel some of your own party members?

When I come to this Chair I must leave all my other attachments to the side - for the sake of my sanity, if nothing else.

<< Prev