| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 6, page 1, line 9, at end add--
'(3) At the end insert "is a Minister in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom; or"'.
The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in title, line 4, after 'Oireachtas', insert--
'to extend that disqualification to Ministers in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom'.
Mr. Ross: This is a fairly simple and straightforward little amendment. As I am sure you will have noticed, Mr. Martin, today's selection list--[Interruption.]
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Committee must come to order. There is far too much noise and conversation.
Mr. Ross: Mr. Martin, you will have noticed that the selection list contained a curious little addendum. I cannot recall ever having seen such an addendum before. I should be grateful for your guidance on how often they have had to be included.
It caused me some concern. I tried to find out what words had not appeared in the printing of amendment No. 6. I discovered that it was purely a technical mistake in that the words "At the end insert" had been left out in the printed list of amendments. If something like that happens, it should be made clearer to hon. Members what the mistake is. It was not immediately clear. We had to read it several times before it became apparent that it was only a clerical or technical error.
This is a modest and simple little amendment. It would exclude from the Executive of Northern Ireland any person outside the United Kingdom who is a Government Minister elsewhere in the world. Amendment No. 8 is consequential on it, in that it inserts the same disqualification into the long title of the Bill. It is not often that we try to amend the long titles of Bills, but this is one such case. The two amendments hang together.
In any country, Ministers are very busy people who are weighed down with responsibility and the cares of office. They have to deal with demands from their constituents, from fellow members of the legislature, from the Government and from pressure groups. It would be quite wrong to burden them with any more work. Indeed, it would be quite unfair to leave in their way the temptation of further office--or, in some countries, the spoils of further office. We should guard them against such temptation.
The danger is that some of those people might be moved to take on the burden, but find themselves so weighed down with responsibility that they will do neither job well. They may well have a multiplicity of jobs. It would be quite wrong to burden any man or woman with such a multiplicity, as it could lead to his or her disillusionment, and to his or her constituents' anger and frustration that their representative was not available or able to do the necessary work. In the long run, therefore, it is not a good idea for people to have so many responsibilities. No one should not be placed in such a situation.
There are also issues of conflict of interest and clash of demands. They were partly explored in earlier debates and place the most immense burdens on the individuals concerned. There is conflict between different states about job creation measures and social legislation--such as welfare to work, child benefit, divorce, abortion and tax, not to mention international trade and defence issues involving the states concerned. All those considerations are bound to lead to the most intolerable pressures on individuals and generate enormous friction.
Such individuals will have personal financial considerations. In the United Kingdom, there has been a dependence on the Crown for patronage, and on the Crown and Parliament for salaries and allowances. There has been dependence on the Prime Minister for his patronage, which enables one to advance within the Government of the United Kingdom.
I foresee problems even in the position, in the House and in the government of London, of Ministers of the various devolved bodies of the United Kingdom. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said in the previous debate, presumably because of a potential clash of interests, Ministers in the Scottish Executive cannot hold office in the United Kingdom Government. If
a possible clash is recognised at that level, should we not recognise the far greater potential of pressures being generated in the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country?
I should think that the Scottish Executive have good reason for wanting a representative who speaks for them, rather than through the Secretary of State for Scotland within the House and the United Kingdom Executive. In those circumstances, I should have thought that it would be only reasonable for us to examine Scotland's relationship to the House, rather than the relationship that exists between us, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dail.
Welsh Members can be members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, thereby having an impact on the powers of the two bodies concerned.
I am not too clear about whether there can be dual membership of the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, and the Northern Ireland Assembly. That must be clarified. Such problems will only get worse when countries outside the United Kingdom are taken into account.
The Minister gave the impression yesterday that he would try to clear up such problems. He tried to persuade us that he had given a clear indication of all the people with whom he had discussed such matters. In fact, he had not been entirely candid. Today, it was wrung out of him that he had also talked to Sinn Fein. Yesterday, he told my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that the Bill would cover this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. A little later, I asked him to confirm why the Bill did not bar Members of Parliament from becoming Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. He said that the matter would be discussed in Committee.
We are in Committee now. The Minister also said:
The Minister went on to say that he hoped that I would be satisfied that the Government were listening to representations from all parties. I suggest that they are doing so some months too late. The necessary representations and discussions in connection with the Bill should have taken place long before it was published.
Why should we allow foreigners to rule over us? That is the bottom line. Why should we even leave that door open? It will be exploited sooner or later. This country's experience of getting into bed with foreigners in the past has cost us more dearly than it has cost them.
We should not go down that road. We should stick to representing our constituents in the United Kingdom. Anyone who wants to represent people in another country
should live in that country. People who live in this nation should give their loyalty to this nation. That is why we have tabled the amendment.
Mr. George Howarth:
Yesterday, on Second Reading, I said that the Government were aware that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had tabled some amendments. Although I had not seen their exact terms, and could make no commitment as to the outcome of our consideration, I made it clear that we would, naturally, study them very carefully and reflect on them overnight. I want to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to his views. His distinguished and courageous role in seeking peace has been rightly praised in our earlier debates, but he is also the First Minister of the new, devolved Executive.
I know that I speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when I tell the Committee that one of his concerns since taking up his current responsibilities has been to ensure that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his party have felt that the Government have taken the fullest possible account of their interests. I hope that he and his colleagues recognise the serious efforts that have been made by my right hon. Friend in that respect. It is no secret that the final decisions of various discussions have not always been what they wanted. Given the divisions that still exist in Northern Ireland, no one would expect that. However, I hope that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and his colleagues will recognise the honest and determined efforts that my right hon. Friend has made in this respect.
Although the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may have wished that consultations on the Bill had started earlier, they took place before the Bill was introduced. The form of the Bill was amended to take account of some, though not all, of the concerns expressed in those representations. In particular, clause 2 was incorporated in direct response to concerns raised by him. I say all this simply to demonstrate the effort that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made to take into account the views of the right hon. Gentleman, alongside the proper concerns of other parties.
I know that this is not precisely the subject of the debate, Mr. Martin, but it may be helpful to say that the Government are minded to accept the principle of amendment No. 7 in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. We accept, uniquely, that statutory committees in the Assembly have more than a scrutiny role. Under the Good Friday agreement, they have a role in policy development, so there is a good case for treating their chairs and deputy chairs as akin to Ministers.
"Following representations of which the hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware,"--
I was not--
"it was argued that, because it might give rise to concern in Northern Ireland, that issue should be specifically addressed in legislation. It has been addressed in clause 2."--[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34.]
I do not think that it has.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |