William Hay (Speaker)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer will have 15 minutes to propose the motion and 15 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Lord Morrow (DUP)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee on Procedures on the inquiry into legislative consent motions.

At the outset, I pay tribute to the staff and all the members of the Committee who assisted in bringing the report about.

When the Committee on Procedures began this report in February this year, we always knew that the subject would not generate a particularly high level of interest among others: we were not disappointed. However, the subject needs to be addressed.

For the benefit of Members who have not had the opportunity to read the Committee’s report, and before I go into any detail on it, I will give some background and outline what a legislative consent motion is. Back in July 1998, during the House of Lords debate on the Scotland Bill, Lord Sewel, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, addressed the difficult question of the Westminster Parliament making laws for Scotland. Lord Sewel said:

“we envisage that there could be instances where it could be more convenient for legislation on devolved matters to be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. However … we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament.”

This is the crux of the matter: Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the devolved Administration.

The convention referred to by Lord Sewel has been established, but it is not enshrined in legislation. Instead, procedures have been developed between each of the devolved Administrations and Westminster to deal with occasions when legislation that impinges on devolved matters is included in legislation going through Westminster. Those procedures need to be given a firm footing and be provided for in Standing Orders.

Some Members may wonder why the Assembly should be concerned by the fact that Westminster wishes to legislate on devolved matters. There are two reasons for the Assembly to be concerned, one of which is political and one of which is procedural. In addition, the Assembly must ensure that the legislation that is going through Westminster reflects the needs of Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland has a devolved Administration with clear and legally defined roles. The Assembly, its Members, the Executive and Departments operate under devolved powers, and every time that we approve a legislative consent motion, we are saying to Westminster that we know that we are responsible for the matter but that that we are content for Westminster to take it forward. However, we need to ensure that the legislation is right for Northern Ireland.

Therefore, legislative consent motions are politically important for every Member. Although some may have been tempted to casually give their consent to such motions in the past, the Committee hopes that future motions will be given the consideration that they fully deserve so that this area’s needs are met.

I shall turn to the procedures that are in place and the likely benefits that will flow from the report’s recommendations if they are accepted. Guidance has been produced in Westminster and Northern Ireland, and it has early and full consultation at its core. At present, as soon as a Bill is proposed at Westminster, contact is made with the relevant Northern Ireland Minister and Department. The Minister should then consult with the relevant Assembly Committee, and, after further consultation with Executive colleagues, the Minister will confirm agreement to the devolved provisions being carried in the Westminster Bill.

After the Bill is introduced, the Minister will again be consulted by Westminster on how the agreed policy is to be taken forward in the Bill. The Minister will consult further with Executive colleagues and the Assembly Committee before tabling the legislative consent motion to be debated in the Chamber.

Past debates on legislative consent motions have tended to be rather sterile affairs. In fact, in most cases, very few Members outside of the relevant Committees spoke. During the first 10 debates on legislative consent motions, a total of 59 Members, excluding the Ministers, spoke to the motions. Of those 59 contributors, 43 were members of the relevant Committees. The Committee on Procedures hopes that that will change with the publication of its report and that contributions will be made from a wider range of Members.

The report contains nine recommendations. I shall not address each one, but I shall cover the key recommendations. The Committee has recommended that Standing Orders should be introduced to provide clarity and transparency on the procedures. At present, the process is Executive-driven, and, although most people are content with the current procedures, the Committee considers that it would be much better if the Assembly were given a degree of ownership and responsibility.

The Committee has recommended that the proposed Standing Orders should provide for the relevant Committees to produce a report on the legislative consent motion. The report should be short and sharp, but it should include the Committee’s deliberations and findings. The primary purpose of that is to provide Members with in-depth information that should lead to a more informed debate in the Chamber. To ensure that Members are informed, the Committee has recommended that the motion should not be tabled in the Business Office until the report has been published.

Finally, the report recognises that, in some circumstances, the Minister might have to come before the Assembly with a second legislative consent motion if the original provisions in the Bill were to be significantly amended at Westminster. In such a case, time would be likely be critical, and, although the Committee acknowledges that a shortened procedure is necessary, it also recognises that the Minister has a duty to inform the Assembly of the full reasons for the second motion.

As I said, the inquiry was not exciting, but it was necessary. The Committee on Procedures views the report as a statement by the Assembly that it wishes to have more information on and more control over legislative consent motions.

The Committee believes that that will be achieved through the implementation of the report’s recommendations. I commend the report to the Assembly.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to join the Committee Chairperson in thanking the staff and Committee members for the production of the report. Lord Morrow has explained the issues that are involved and how the report relates to them. As has been stated, the report’s recommendations will encourage Members to participate in better-informed debates on legislative consent motions. I support the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

As Members said, the issue is highly important. The debate will probably not get the attention that it deserves. Similarly, when actual legislative consent motions come before the Assembly, often, they do not get the attention that they merit.

Members, rightly, devote serious attention to Assembly-based legislation. However, we have a tendency to ignore Westminster legislation that may have a major impact on devolved matters. Members’ eyes tend to glaze over at the very name of legislative consent motions. It is important that good procedures are in place to deal with Westminster legislation of that type.

It is equally important that Assembly Members take a keen interest in what happens under those procedures. The Assembly can have all the procedures in the world; however, if Members do not engage with issues, those procedures will not be effective. I support the procedures that the report recommends. It is good to see them enshrined in Standing Orders. They will improve the situation.

I note the early-warning system that is used in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government scan the UK legislative programme for Scottish implications as soon as it is announced. They draw those to the Parliament’s attention. It is vital that the Northern Ireland Executive effectively — and I mean effectively — replicate that system and carry that involvement through as legislation develops.

I have one concern, which relates to when a significant amendment is made at Westminster after a legislative consent motion has been agreed. The report addresses that issue. It refers to the possibility of a second legislative consent motion. However, it indicates that there will be no time for proper consideration of such a motion. Furthermore, there is no indication of a clear procedure for the determination of whether a second legislative consent motion will be required.

In practice, therefore, legislation that has significant implications for devolved matters could pass through Westminster without having been approved by the Assembly. Indeed, the Assembly could effectively be blind as to what has occurred. I am not sure that the recommendations address that matter fully. Recommendation 7 merely states:

“Standing Orders address the curtailed process when a Minister considers that a second legislative consent motion is required.”

How Standing Orders will address that is not exactly specified. Therefore, redesigning Standing Orders around that will require further deliberation by the Committee on Procedures. However, subject to more analysis and discussion of that recommendation, I support the report and the recommendations.

Wallace Browne (DUP)

I thank Lord Morrow, the Committee members and all the Committee staff for their dedication in ensuring that the report is presented to the Assembly today.

Legislative consent relates to the convention — often referred to as the Sewel convention — that the UK Government will not normally legislate on devolved matters without first gaining the agreement of the devolved legislature concerned, which in our case is the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I welcome the fact that Westminster has provided detailed guidance on legislative consent, including guidance that the Minister who is introducing a Bill must secure the Assembly’s agreement in principle to promote the legislative consent motion. After consultation and agreement, the Northern Ireland Minister will then confirm to the relevant Whitehall Minister whether the Executive agree to devolved provision being carried in a Westminster Bill. After the introduction of the Bill at Westminster, the Executive, the Northern Ireland Minister and the relevant Committee will provide details of the Bill to the Assembly by highlighting and explaining the devolved provisions and giving notice of the intention to table the necessary legislative consent motion to seek consent to the continued inclusion of the devolved provisions in the Bill. All of that is to be welcomed.

When the legislative consent motion has been agreed, the Minister will confirm the decision to the relevant Whitehall Minister, who will then keep the Northern Ireland Minister informed of any proposed substantive amendments involving the devolved provisions during the Bill’s passage through Westminster.

Members should note that, if the Assembly were to reject the motion, Westminster would be able to table amendments to remove the provisions that had not obtained the Assembly’s consent. It is, therefore, imperative that Members are kept better informed of the issues at stake in the motion.

I, therefore, welcome the Executive’s decision to introduce a similar process to that which is used by the Scottish Parliament regarding early notification of potential legislative consent motions. I also welcome the Executive’s agreement to the Committee’s proposals that an explanatory memorandum and draft legislative consent motion should be provided to all Members within two weeks of a Bill being introduced at Westminster.

Without wanting to repeat what my honourable friend and colleague Lord Morrow stated, the Committee recognises that, although an individual Member may submit a legislative consent motion, agreements between Westminster and the Assembly preclude Westminster’s taking account of a legislative consent motion even if that is agreed by the House without the approval of the Executive and the Minister who is responsible. The Committee, therefore, recommends that that issue be addressed by the proposed Standing Orders.

Although some people outside the House offer nothing but criticism and negativity, the report clearly demonstrates the advantage of having a devolved Assembly through which locally elected politicians who represent the main Northern Ireland political parties can influence not only legislation in this House but national legislation at Westminster. That obviously impacts on the daily lives of people in Northern Ireland. I, therefore, support the motion.

Mervyn Storey (DUP)

I thank the Members who have taken part in the debate. As always, Members cannot wait to make their contribution in such debates because of the stimulating issues raised by them. However, as other Members said, it is vital that the Committee on Procedures and the House have a clear understanding of the importance of the motion. I welcome the opportunity to conclude the debate. I place on record the Committee’s appreciation for the work that has been carried out by the Committee staff in producing the report.

Before I proceed, Mr Speaker, I will, with your indulgence, make reference to something else, as this may be my only opportunity to do so in the House today. I notice that my colleague from North Antrim Dr Coulter is in the House. I understand that this week, Dr Coulter will celebrate a very important milestone. If my information is correct, the spies in the Building — and they are not from that other large building nearby that was built a few months ago — inform me that Dr Coulter will be 80 years old on Friday. On behalf of my colleagues in the DUP and, I am sure, all Members, I wish him a very happy birthday and many years of blessings to enjoy. I hope that he is not going to retire from the North Antrim constituency.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

Mervyn Storey (DUP)

As the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures said in his opening remarks, legislative consent motions may not appear to be particularly exciting topics for a Committee inquiry. However, as the inquiry progressed, it became clear to Committee members just how necessary the inquiry was. For far too long, legislative consent motions have not been afforded the importance that they deserve, yet every time such a motion is passed in the Assembly, the result is legislation that directly affects Northern Ireland.

One obvious problem identified during the inquiry was a lack of information to enable Members, especially Members outside the relevant Committee, to contribute to an informed debate. Consequently, when legislative consent motions came before the Assembly, they were often approved by Members who had neither full knowledge nor an appreciation of the relevant issues and their consequences. The implementation of the report’s recommendations will change that, and through the new Standing Orders, we will have a degree of ownership to regulate the process. The implementation of the recommendations will also mean that the Minister will make key information available for every Member and the relevant Committee will be able to not only consider the issues at stake, but to report to the Assembly on its findings. Again, that will provide Members with the relevant information. Motions will not be tabled until after that has been done.

All that would not be possible without the co-operation of others. The Committee on Procedures was pleased that, following a discussion with the Executive, Ministers welcomed our proposals and agreed to play their part in full. The Committee was pleased that the Chairpersons’ Liaison Group wrote to acknowledge, and welcome, the benefits of the proposals.

I turn now to remarks made by Members who contributed to the debate. We welcome the support of Mr Brady and his party. We thank Mr Robinson for giving us an overview of the Committee’s visit to Scotland and appreciate the work of those who endured that arduous task on behalf of the Committee. For those who attended, it certainly was beneficial. Sometimes, the public are very sceptical of what might be termed a “junket”. I only say that a trip is a junket if I am not on it. However, although I did not go to Scotland, I can say that it was an informed Committee visit. It is useful to see how other legislators are engaging with the particular problem that we face.

My colleague Mr O’Loan rightly brought attention to the fact that we, as a House and as members of the United Kingdom, should pay attention to the issues in Parliament at Westminster. It was good to be reminded of the importance of the process and of keeping focus on what is taking place in the House of Commons. Mr O’Loan also made reference to amendments and a possible second legislative consent motion. His concerns were noted. The Committee will be quite happy to look at the draft Standing Orders to ensure that there is a degree of clarity around the concerns that Mr O’Loan raised.

Lord Browne said that the legislative consent motion will ensure that Members are better informed. I think that anything that makes Members better informed on issues that are relevant to the House and beyond is certainly to be welcomed. Lord Browne made reference to the benefit that that will surely bring to devolution and to local elected representatives being able to consider, and have input into, everyday issues that are of importance to our constituents.

I hope that Members found the debate to be informative and that the report will be of benefit to the House. I hope that the House will support the motion.

William Hay (Speaker)

On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate Dr Coulter on reaching the right old age of 80. The whole House wishes him well for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee on Procedures on the Inquiry into Legislative Consent Motions.