Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on Procedural Consequences of Devolution

– in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 11:00 am on 14 September 1998.

Alert me about debates like this

Motion made:

That under the terms of Initial Standing Order 15 this Assembly appoints an ad hoc Committee to consider the procedural consequences of devolution as they are likely to affect the relationship between and workings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament and, by Tuesday 6 October 1998, to submit a report to the Assembly which, if approved, will be forwarded to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons.

  

— [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

By way of background I should explain that the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons is enquiring into the procedural consequences of devolution, including relationships with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Members of the House of Commons and parties represented there are, of course, free to make their own representations, and will undoubtedly do so, but the Assembly itself has been asked to make representations on the matter.

The House of Commons Procedure Committee has identified a number of detailed concerns on which comments are welcome, but has invited the response by 9 October. There have been discussions with all the parties on this matter, and there is a general view that the Assembly should take the opportunity to comment on these and any other related matters. Therefore the motion has been put on the Order Paper so that a response can be made to the Procedure Committee on or before 9 October.

Photo of Peter Robinson Peter Robinson DUP

My understanding is that the Committee has the maximum membership to which it is entitled under the Initial Standing Orders. However, there is no provision for representation from the United Unionist Party, which will be recognised fully in a week’s time. That party will have a greater claim to membership of the Committee than the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition or the Progressive Unionist Party and the Committee’s business will still be on-going when the United Unionist Party is fully recognised as a political party in this Assembly.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

What has been said is, in substance, true. When the Standing Orders Committee was established that Committee invited at an early stage an observer from those who were, and who are still described as Independent Members.

I should also add that a similar invitation was accepted in respect of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer.

Having advised the Assembly today that a new party will be recognised in seven days’ time, this matter must now be considered properly by the Committee on Standing Orders both on the question of recognition, about which I have made an interim ruling, and on the question of Committee compositions. The number of Members on Committees is at its maximum, and the Committee on Standing Orders may wish to advise the Assembly on this matter. It is proper that this Committee review the Assembly’s Standing Orders, and likewise the Whips should discuss the matter themselves and with the representative of the new party.

Photo of Sean Farren Sean Farren Social Democratic and Labour Party 11:15, 14 September 1998

We are dealing here with the manner in which matters will be dealt with in this Assembly as opposed to Westminster. I therefore seek clarification about what is implied by "procedural consequences". I take it that these are distinct from "political consequences."

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

My understanding is that the House of Commons Procedure Committee is looking at procedures at Westminster subsequent to devolution. It will not be giving guidance on how the Assembly should deal with its procedures. In the past, in other political arrangements and when this Chamber was in use, there were certain conventions about what could and could not be done. With the expansion of devolution, and in these different circumstances, more than mere conventions may be required. There are also issues about how the House of Commons would address some of these matters such as the membership of Committees. Of course, we now also have the question of Europe and its relationship with Westminster. However, it is not an examination of our procedures so much as an examination of the procedures that Westminster may wish to make changes to having invited our comments.

Photo of Peter Robinson Peter Robinson DUP

If you have made a ruling on this, then I am not quite sure what it is. I asked about the position of the prospective United Unionist Assembly Party. Are you saying that the Committee on Standing Orders should give an early report on that matter before it reports in full on 26 October? A lot of water may have flowed under the bridge by that date.

In relation to this Committee’s role, the House of Commons is looking at the impact of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the procedures of the House. For instance, will a Minister responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament be answerable for matters that are the responsibility of this elected body? Will he answer questions in Parliament on Northern Ireland, questions relating to environment, health and education? Will written answers come from prospective Ministers in this Assembly? Will a Select Committee for Northern Ireland have the right to look at matters which have been delegated to the Assembly in Northern Ireland?

Those are issues that this Committee will look at. It will also look at the famed West Lothian question — whether representatives who have no right in the House of Commons to amend legislation for Northern Ireland should see the legislation for their part of the United Kingdom amended by Northern Ireland Members.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

It is not for me to tell the Committee on Standing Orders what to do or when to report. That would be entirely improper.

When the new party is recognised in seven days’ time, that will have consequences for the memberships of Committees because, under the current Standing Orders the Committees cannot increase the numbers of places. Any proposed changes will have to be considered by the Standing Orders Committee which could come back to the Assembly in advance of 26 October with a number of interim reports or reports on various issues and seek the Assembly’s backing for approval by the Secretary of State. However, it would be quite improper for me to give a directive to the Standing Orders Committee. It will conduct its own business.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

It may be of some advantage to members of that Committee, if it is established, to consider the reports presented by the Northern Ireland Forum on both Scottish and Welsh devolution.

Indeed, there is another procedural question which must be addressed and that is the relationship that this House is to have with the European Parliament. Some matters will be coming directly from Europe to the Floor of the House, and we will have to consider the procedural ramifications of that.

I hope that we will be able to report by 6 October. I note that one report has already been produced since 1 July. It is not a comprehensive report at all, and I hope that this Committee, when established, will be able to present a more detailed report and expedite its business much more efficiently.

Photo of Nigel Dodds Nigel Dodds DUP

May I come back to the point about the United Unionist Assembly Party and its representation on this Committee? As a member of the Standing Orders Committee, and not wishing to add to the work of that Committee unnecessarily, I think that the Initial Standing Orders are already clear on this point. We do not need clarification from the Standing Orders Committee, for Rule 15(2) says

"each party with at least two members shall have at least one seat on each Committee."

That will be the case from next Monday, so it is up to those in charge of administrative matters, rather than the Standing Orders Committee, to implement the Rule. The Rule also requires that there should be, as far as possible, a fair reflection of parties participating in the Assembly. Since there is an upper limit of 18 seats, amendments will have to be made simply to the balance of the parties on the Committee. It does not need any further consideration by the Standing Orders Committee.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

The reason that the Standing Orders Committee may wish to look at it, is the maximum number of members allowed, to which you referred. The Standing Orders Committee could, for example, decide to solve the problem by increasing the upper limit to 19 members, or by coming to some other arrangement, but it would be quite out of order for me to direct the Committee. The Standing Orders Committee should advise on this issue.

Photo of Reg Empey Reg Empey UUP

In the absence of a ruling on the total number, may I point out that there is already a report coming to the Assembly on 6 October about the House of Commons Procedure Committee. If we agree this motion it will not be necessary to wait until 26 October to have a report from the Standing Orders Committee to resolve these matters. It might be worthwhile suggesting to the Standing Orders Committee that it report on 6 October rather than waiting until 26 October.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

It would be out of order for me to propose that to the Standing Orders Committee, members of the Committee themselves or the joint Chairmen would be quite at liberty to do so.

Photo of Mr Denis Haughey Mr Denis Haughey Social Democratic and Labour Party

I am referring to the point made by Mr Dodds in respect of Rule 15(2) of the preliminary Standing Orders. The problem — and it is one that members of the Democratic Unionist Party raised in the Standing Orders Committee — is what precisely is to be understood by the word "party". That is a matter that the Standing Orders Committee will have to return to at the appointed time.

Photo of Peter Robinson Peter Robinson DUP

The Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer agreed that the proper course would be to recognise the new political party seven days after notice had been given; that issue is settled. So under the Initial Standing Orders that party will, as from next Monday, have an entitlement to one place on each Committee. However, if the composition of this Committee is as shown on the Order Paper there would be no place available since the Initial Standing Orders make it clear that the maximum membership is 18. Therefore the representation of one of the existing parties would need to be reduced by one.

The two parties that have the most representation per head are the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein. Their representation should be reduced by one to allow a Member from that Committee, the United Unionist Assembly Party, to be included.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

We should remember that the Committees were established not only by Standing Orders but also by a motion in the Assembly. The representation by party was fixed by an Assembly motion on 1 July 1998; I would be exceeding my authority were I to allow any changes to the membership of that Committee except by a further motion. Your proposition should more properly be made to the Standing Orders Committee or in a motion to the next meeting of the Assembly.

Photo of Ian Paisley Ian Paisley Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party

Is it not correct that the responsibility for these Initial Standing Orders lies with the Secretary of State? She imposed them, and we have had to accept them. That being the case, this is not a decision for the Standing Orders Committee of this House. The Secretary of State must decide. Surely you should be making representation to her, pointing out the inconsistency caused by the creation of this new party and suggesting that she agree to their being represented on the Committees.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

I appreciate your analysis of the lines of authority, Dr Paisley, but I think it is not entirely correct. The authority under which these Standing Orders were put in place is, indeed, that of the Secretary of State. Any changes of any description to the Standing Orders between now and the devolution of power have to be authorised by the Secretary of State. However, the execution of those Standing Orders is a matter for the Assembly.

If the Secretary of State were not convinced that her wishes were being carried out she would, of course, be entirely at liberty to make that clear. She has already made clear her wish that any further Standing Orders which, as you quite rightly say, she would have to authorise, should be made, as far as possible, with the agreement of the Assembly. That is why — and I make this point on behalf of the Assembly — no new Standing Orders should be put in place until the Standing Orders Committee and, if possible, the Assembly as a whole has been consulted.

You will note that no new Standing Orders have been put in place yet prior to the initial Report of the Standing Orders Committee and today’s debate. I imagine that the Assembly will want those proprieties to continue to be recognised.

Photo of Gerry Adams Gerry Adams Sinn Féin

I note that none of the members of this new party have spoken for themselves although the Democratic Unionist Party is obviously concerned. These Members are anti-agreement, and they want to rejig the arithmetic. These three Members are clearly within the Unionist bloc, and should there be any pruning of the representation, then the parties losing a seat or seats should also be within the Unionist bloc, in keeping with the broad sense of this agreement.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer 11:30, 14 September 1998

Our Rules are very important, and we abide by them no matter what our feelings. I will do my utmost as a servant of the Assembly to abide by the Rules, and where no such Rules exist I shall seek guidance from Members.

Photo of Peter Robinson Peter Robinson DUP

Clearly it is not a matter of taking representation from one bloc or another; it is a case of getting the fullest representation on the Committee. The arithmetic means that the Ulster Unionist Party has one representative for every seven Members, which is roughly the same as the Democratic Unionist Party. By contrast the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein each have one representative for every six Members, so very clearly it is one of those two parties that has to give up one of its Members. In that vein may I ask you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, to move an amendment to this motion?

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

The Standing Orders state that all amendments must be received in writing at least one hour before the start of the day’s business. As I did not receive any amendments in advance of that time, I am unable to accept the Member’s suggestion.

Photo of Peter Robinson Peter Robinson DUP

You told us about this just a short time ago. How could we possibly have put down an amendment on something about which we were unaware?

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

I am sorry, Mr Robinson. The Order Paper is quite clear about the membership as things were extant. There is not, at this point, a newly recognised party. It will not be recognised until 10.20 am next Monday — seven days from the receipt of the written notice. Therefore the question about its membership of Committees will have to wait until after that time. It would be entirely proper at that stage for the tabling of a motion to deal with the matter.

Photo of Peter Robinson Peter Robinson DUP

My proposition was not that we agree to membership by a Member of the United Unionist Assembly Party but that we leave a position free. Will you give a ruling that next Monday there will be a motion ensuring that the Standing Orders to which this Assembly is bound shall be upheld and that they will have membership of that Committee?

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

I cannot give the Member an immediate ruling. In the Initial Standing Orders and in the draft Orders which the Secretary of State sent, and which so many Members will have perused, there is a curious absence of information about how to deal with the circumstances in which a Member changes his party affiliation, a change which may also affect the representative arrangements. This is therefore a more important matter than membership of this ad hoc committee.

The draft Standing Orders indicate clearly the way in which the d’Hondt system should proceed, and when the time comes we will do that. However, if a number of Members were then to indicate that they were changing their party affiliation, subsequent to that, but not their designation as Unionist, Nationalist or Other affiliation, then it is quite possible that that could change the numbers and the out-working of d’Hondt if it were to be reworked at that point. But there is no indication about whether it should be reworked at that point; whether it should be reworked on the initiation of the Presiding Officer of the time; or whether it should require a motion to the Assembly proposing that there be a reworking.

That is clearly an omission in the Standing Orders. It is not surprising that there should be such an omission, but I am extremely reluctant, as Initial Presiding Officer, to give a ruling on it without thoroughly considering the question and consulting with the parties. It may be that events will require me to consult, or I may be pressed to make some kind of ruling. If so, I will do so as properly and as soon as I can. However, the issue only came to me, in a formal way, a few minutes before we met, and it would be quite wrong for me to make a ruling without such due consideration.

Photo of Peter Robinson Peter Robinson DUP

I ask you to reflect on this matter, because the Standing Orders are not silent on it. They are clear, and they are precise. Standing Order 15.2 says that each party, with at least two Members, shall have at least one seat on each Committee. You will want to ensure that these Standing Orders are upheld and, therefore, I ask you to consider that matter. I give notice that if the maximum number on any Committee is 18, one seat has to be made available for the new party. If we are sitting next Monday, we will propose that Sinn Fein’s representation be reduced by one to allow the new party to have that one seat.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

I can assure you that when the matter becomes formally relevant I will give due consideration to it and report back to the Assembly.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

I know that you cannot, or are unwilling, to give a ruling on the point raised by Mr Robinson. However, could you give us a ruling on the designation of the Member of the United Unionist Assembly Party who signed the register this morning? Are you accepting the designation he gave, or does he have to wait seven days in a state of perpetual purgatory until he is accepted as a member of the United Unionist Assembly Party?

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

The notion of perpetual purgatory is an interesting theological one, and I am sure it could be taken up in another place.

The designation of the Unionist Member who signed this morning was clearly Unionist. The affiliation he gave was that of the new party that has just been referred to, but that new affiliation and the recognition of that party as a party must wait for seven days, as was discussed earlier.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

In case Mr Robinson spends the rest of the week, in extended purgatory or whenever, thinking that Sinn Fein is going to drop a member of any of the Committees, let me say that this is not a matter for him to decide. I do not want any such notion to slip onto the record by default. You quite rightly pointed out that the matter is not yet resolved. There is not a new party in the Assembly yet. When the matter is fully resolved, we will all deal with it, and the question of proportionality will certainly be dealt with, I am sure, satisfactorily.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That under the terms of Initial Standing Order 15 this Assembly appoints an ad hoc Committee to consider the procedural consequences of devolution as they are likely to affect the relationship between, and workings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament and, by Tuesday 6 October 1998, to submit a report to the Assembly which, if approved, will be forwarded to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons.

Photo of Gerry Adams Gerry Adams Sinn Féin

A Chathaoirligh, pointe amháin eile. Could you make it clear to the Assembly that during a vote a Member may say "Tá" or "Níl" instead of "Aye" or "No".

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

As I indicated — and our practice during the first meeting of the Assembly made this clear — people are free to respond in a number of different ways, and I will do my best to interpret what is said accurately and correctly.

In whatever language Members wish to respond — and most notably, as you indicate, in Irish, or in Ulster-Scots as some Members used at the last meeting — I assume they will do so at the appropriate point when I call for the Ayes and the Noes. Otherwise the Clerks and I will be left in some confusion.

Photo of Gerry Adams Gerry Adams Sinn Féin

This is only important in the context of trying to work out a new dispensation, and we should not allow the issue of the Irish language to become party political or to in any way be seen as being Ulster or Nationalist. It is therefore appropriate in your position of Cathaoirleach that you reflect that when addressing the Assembly. You did so very clearly at the first meeting; I note that it has not been done today.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

I did not refer to the matter again. As far as my own designation is concerned, I am quite happy if it is Ceann Comhairle or Cathaoirleach or whatever other designation Members wish to use. Indeed, even in English quite a considerable number of designations have been given to me — some of them more accurate than others. I am called many things, as you know.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

If Members are going to speak in two or three different languages when they are asked to vote, it will be like the Tower of Babel in here, and Members are going to be totally and utterly confused about whether this House is for or against a motion. Why can Members not vote in the way that is laid down in the Standing Orders — by saying either "Aye" or "No"?

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

I certainly urge Members to try to stick to the Standing Orders, and my understanding of them is that I am the Initial Presiding Officer rather than the Presiding Officer (Designate).

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson DUP

Mr Presiding Officer, would you accept "Dead on" or "Catch yourself on"? Where are you going to stop this nonsense? If this is to be extended as widely as you suggest, I would be entitled to use my preferred response in recognition of how people in east Belfast say yes or no. If this House is to understand whether Members are for or against a motion — and I noticed the odd syllable of English creeping into some of Mr Maskey’s speeches this morning — can we not just stick to saying "Yes" or "No" in a language which I hope we can all speak and understand?

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

In respect of your two acclamations, Mr Wilson, I assume that "Dead on" means yes but that "Catch yourself on" means something rather different. That is why I appeal to Members that if they wish to give assent, they do so in whatever way they wish, either with a positive grunt or a more clear articulation when I ask for the ayes, and those who wish to vote against give a negative grunt, or whatever, when I ask for the noes, and we will do our best to interpret them accurately.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

At our initial meeting it was specified that Members could use whatever language they wished when responding but only an "Aye" or a "Nay" would be recognised for voting purposes.

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

I am trying to be as generous as possible, even with the pronunciation of some of the ayes and noes.

Photo of Sean Farren Sean Farren Social Democratic and Labour Party

Mr Presiding Officer, it is not the case that the words "Aye" and "Nay" are not part of Queen’s English? What language are we speaking when we say "Aye" and "Nay"?

Photo of John Taylor John Taylor UUP

"Tá" could also be misunderstood: in many regions of England that means "Thanks".

Photo of Lord John Alderdice Lord John Alderdice Initial Presiding Officer

There has been a fairly generous allocation of time for that debate so can we move on to receive the Report of the Standing Orders Committee, which will, undoubtedly, wish to consider these matters in further depth.

The two major reports are going to be dealt with in the order they appear on the Order Paper because that is the order in which the mandates were given at the last Assembly meeting.