| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the start of the debate, I raised with the Deputy Speaker who was then in the Chair the fact that no copies of the original Act were available in the Vote Office for us to consult. I raise as a matter of order the fact that the Vote Office has very helpfully found some copies. Hon. Members who were restrained from joining in the debate may wish to obtain copies, so that they can be better informed and then contribute.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the information.
1.16 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I am greatly surprised and somewhat disappointed by the way in which this important order was presented to the House. I was surprised on two counts. First, the Minister who moved it formally normally affords a courtesy to the House by explaining the order. Secondly, it has been taken on the Floor of the House, not in Committee, where we usually take such orders.
I should like an explanation from the Minister. It is incumbent on him to answer some of the points in the debate, but, principally, to say why the order has been taken on the Floor of the House late at night after a long debate on other Northern Ireland business. We have two orders in Committee this week. The one on Thursday has been moved from 10 o'clock in the morning to 9 o'clock. There is no reason why the order that we are discussing could not have been taken in Committee.
Mr. Öpik:
Just to clarify the matter, had the hon. Gentleman not been informed before the debate began that the Government intended to take the order formally? My understanding was that he had been so informed.
Mr. Moss:
No, I had not been informed. That information was not passed to me. I can honestly say that that was not communicated to me.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked a question about the wording on the Order Paper, which says:
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy):
Not at all.
Mr. Moss:
Not at all, the Minister says from a sedentary position.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked a question about the next business on the Order Paper, which relates to a statutory instrument that may be laid this Friday. The date, 16 July, seems to be significant. It appears in the order that we are discussing and in the
next business of the House. Without notice, a motion for approval of the said instrument at the sitting that day will be laid and taken without debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that we cannot discuss business that is not before us. We must dispose of the business that is before us before we mention any other business on the Order Paper.
Mr. Moss:
I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is some significance in the date appearing in both the orders on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy):
There is a difference between what we have done for 25 years and what we are doing today. Before I come to the reasons for that, there are a couple of technical points with which I should deal.
The first point relates to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Today, the order went to the Joint Committee, which has been approving exactly the same order, without comment, for a quarter of a century. Hon. Members will find that the Joint Committee's report is in the Library with the Northern Ireland Act 1974, to which hon. Members have referred.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked why the order has not already been signed. It has not been signed because it is an affirmative order and cannot be signed by the Secretary of State until the House has approved it.
Mr. Hogg:
I may have misheard the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he said that the order went today to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. If the order was laid on 7 July, why was it not sent to the Joint Committee on 7 July?
Mr. Murphy:
I shall have to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that matter, as it does not come within my purview.
The order is usually taken on the Floor of the House; the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) was therefore mistaken about that. In addition, the order has been taken on the Floor of the House, not in Committee, because of the requirement that it be passed no later than 15 July.
Mr. William Ross:
Surely the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the reason for the time scale of the all such orders is to ensure the protection of the citizen. The Minister may very well argue that that does not matter in
Mr. Murphy:
Obviously, that is a matter for consideration by the Joint Committee.
I should like to try to explain to the House why we are dealing with this order differently from previous ones. Northern Ireland Members will certainly recall that, previously, our consideration of this order provided an opportunity to have a general, state of the nation debate about Northern Ireland. Today, however, we have already had plenty of debate; moreover, this order is rather specific.
The order would extend the period of direct rule in the event of what we hope will occur, in two days, as devolution is passed to Northern Ireland. As the House will know, if the d'Hondt procedure is run on Thursday, an Executive will be established in Belfast. The intention is that, on Friday, a devolution order will be passed in this place and in the House of Lords, so that devolution will pass to Northern Ireland at midnight on Saturday-Sunday.
Therefore, from the passing of that order on 16 July to Sunday, there will be two days in which, technically, there will be no Ministers of either the United Kingdom Government or the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. Consequently, we shall have to cover two days, and that is what the order is all about.
If all that does not occur--I sincerely hope that that is not the case--the order will continue, and direct rule will continue until such time as devolution is passed. Therefore, this order is very different.
I am sure that all hon. Members want devolution to occur in Northern Ireland. The Government want it to happen as quickly as possible, and the plan is that it will happen this weekend. However, for those two days to be covered, it is necessary for this order to be passed. If it were not, we should have to govern by emergency procedures and without Ministers. That is the simple purpose of the order. There is nothing sinister about it: it is something that has to be done. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole):
I wish to present a petition of more than 16,800 names.
The petition states:
"The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments."
How significant is that?
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
Motion made, and Question put,
That, if a Statutory Instrument relating to a Northern Ireland matter be laid before the House on Friday 16th July, a Minister of the Crown may, notwithstanding the practice of the House, make without notice a Motion for the approval of the said Instrument at the sitting that day.
Hon. Members:
Object.
That the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1585) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
Hon. Members:
Object.
That the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1627) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
Hon. Members:
Object
That the National Health Service (General Medical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1620) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
Hon. Members:
Object.
1.25 am
To the House of Commons in Parliament assembled.
To lie upon the Table.
The petition of the patients, parents, relatives and supporters of patients and residents within the catchment area served by the Poole hospital cleft team
Declares that the recommendations of the clinical standards advisory group for the relocation of the surgical and nursing care provided by the Poole hospital authority cleft lip and palate team to a centre in Bristol would be detrimental to the quality of care provided locally.
The Poole team has been established for some 14 years under the guidance of a maxillofacial surgeon who is renowned internationally for his work in this field. This unit is already meeting the criteria as set out in the CSAG report and uses surgical techniques that minimise frequency of surgical intervention and produce excellent results.
Therefore your petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to review the recommendations of the clinical standards advisory group to prevent the relocation and loss of service to the local community of this outstanding facility.
And the Petitioners remain etc.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |