| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend seems to be embarking on an exposition that focuses on an argument between form and substance. Heeding your exhortation, Mr. Martin, that my right hon. Friend and I should not discuss the make-up of the Irish Senate but could more
profitably focus on the fact that it is not the means of getting into the Irish Senate that matters but the rights and powers that somebody, once there, can exercise--
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I will not even allow the right hon. Gentleman to answer. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and knows full well what I mean when I say that this is a narrow and consequential motion.
Mr. Forth: Of course I accept your guidance, Mr. Martin, but the provision does seek to change the status of the relationship of the Senate and its members. If clause 3 did not exist, that status would remain the same, as determined by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Government, in a positive act, decided to introduce clause 3--which overturns the 1998 Act and alters the status of the Irish Senate. I submit that the Committee is obliged to focus on that issue and ask whether it is content.
If we vote against clause 3 stand part, that would leave the requirements of the 1998 Act intact--which would in turn allow members of the Irish Senate to be members also of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Having set the scene, and taking the hint that my mind is giving me, I will invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to debate the matter. I have not made up my mind. I have not come down on one side of the argument rather than the other.
Mr. Maclean:
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth:
I will--but with some reluctance because my mind is mud.
Mr. Maclean:
Because of the points of order, I rather lost track of the central thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument. I was hoping that before he sits down, he will, within order and without repeating himself, give a brief synopsis that I can explore in more detail.
Mr. Forth:
I was trying to do that and had just about got there when my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West--no doubt trying to be helpful--almost threw me off track. I will try and boil it down as simply as I can for my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, because I know he likes it that way.
Clause 3 seeks positively to alter the status quo prevailing before the Bill, as laid down in the Northern Ireland Act 1998--which provided for disqualification.
Our decision at its simplest--although it cannot be treated too simply--is whether to accept the change in the clause. I hope that that is simple enough for my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, because I am unlikely to have another go at it. That is the way I see things. A lot of useful debates have led up to this focused discussion, which will allow us to consider the Senate and its relationship with other bodies. I look forward to the debate that will follow my brief introductory remarks.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The clause is narrow and consequential. It provides for the repeal of section 36(5)
The First Deputy Chairman:
I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
Mr. Maclean:
On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it in order for the Minister to jump to the Dispatch Box, gabble incoherently for 30 seconds and sit down without explaining the clause or taking interventions?
The First Deputy Chairman:
What the Minister says is absolutely nothing to do with me. I am not responsible for his speech.
Mr. William Ross:
On a point of order, Mr. Martin. We all have a problem: the Minister talked so fast that we do not know what he said. [Interruption.] I am not sure that Hansard will pick it up either, and civil servants will probably be sent to check his remarks. Even they might not know what he said. With great respect, I suggest that he repeats his speech.
The First Deputy Chairman:
The delivery of the Minister's speech is absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
Dr. Julian Lewis:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. Is not it part of the rules and procedures of the House that a Minister should at least be intelligible to other Members? Unlike him, I have been here all night. Nevertheless, my faculties are still sharp enough to enable me to distinguish one word from another, if they are distinguishable. His were not.
The First Deputy Chairman:
The Chair is not responsible for whether hon. Members understand one another. That is not a matter for me.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. I hope that hon. Members do not intend to raise points of order on the Minister's speech.
Mr. Bercow:
On a point of order--
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. Please sit down, Mr. Bercow. I hope that these points of order are not on the Minister's speech because we have had a series of them about that.
Mr. Nicholls:
On a point of order, Mr. Martin. As you have so rightly said on so many occasions, hon. Members have to take responsibility for what they say, but I did not hear what the Minister said and neither did my
The First Deputy Chairman:
That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Bercow:
On a point of order, Mr. Martin.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. Listening to these points of order is becoming tiresome. I hope that this one is not on the Minister's speech.
Mr. Bercow:
My point of order is not to do with understanding the Minister; it is quite different and separate.
The First Deputy Chairman:
I have made my case on the Minister's contribution. You must resume your seat, Mr. Bercow. I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
Sir Brian Mawhinney:
On a point of order, Mr. Martin.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have a responsibility to allow the Committee to flow properly.
Sir Brian Mawhinney:
On a point of order, Mr. Martin. In response to an earlier point of order, when I sought your guidance, you invited me to take advice from the Chairman of Ways and Means about the fact that we are on Tuesday's business and the extension of the Chamber--Westminster Hall--is on Wednesday's business. I believe that I can accurately reflect the remarks of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He said that this situation is not covered in Standing Orders, that it would be in the spirit of the Westminster Hall experiment to continue, albeit on different days, and that no doubt the Modernisation Committee would wish to review the matter in the context of the overall experiment.
Having reported back on doing what you suggested I should do, Mr. Martin, I wish to raise the following point of order. Given that this matter is not covered by Standing Orders, is the Chair content that it has all the powers necessary for the proper conduct of this business, in view of the ambiguity that has arisen?
The First Deputy Chairman:
I am not responsible for Westminster Hall; I am responsible for this Committee of the whole House. If the right hon. Gentleman has any problem about Westminster Hall, this is not the time and place to raise it. I have devoted some 20 minutes to the question of Westminster Hall. I really cannot take any more points of order about it.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
Mr. Martin, at last! Good morning. I imagine that even that early contribution may be controversial.
Points of order have been perfectly properly raised about the links between here and Westminster Hall. We are now into a debate that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) introduced on whether people in the Irish Senate could also be Members
of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have to reflect that the one question that still remains unanswered in all this is why these sorts of issues--in what is, by any definition, a relatively modest Bill--should have taken--
Mr. Hughes:
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a modest but important Bill, as I indeed said on Second Reading. We wonder why it should have detained the House on Monday and the Committee for a very large part of Tuesday and for another period, either Tuesday or Wednesday, which is a matter yet to be resolved.
Mr. Ross:
This allegedly modest Bill has vast consequences. That is why we have been here since 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. That is why we were here until 7 o'clock the night before. We have been on a very restricted timetable. Will the hon. Gentleman please remember that that which appears modest is in fact most immodest?
10.45 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |