| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend knows that it is out of order--Sir Alan, I am sure, will agree--for someone to speak in a foreign language in the Chamber because speaking in a foreign language is unintelligible.
The Chairman: Order. I see absolutely no connection between what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the matter that is before us. I have heard enough.
Mr. Nicholls: I am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) because, from my acquaintance with the Minister, his grasp of English is such that I cannot imagine him lapsing into a foreign language, but the point is that we simply do not know.
Mr. Brady: Is it not possible that the note that was communicated to the Hansard reporters might not even be entirely the same as the words that were spoken? [Interruption.] Usually, we would be able to tell whether they were the same.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman, on reflection, might think it unwise to question the integrity of the Official Report.
Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I would not question the integrity of the Hansard reporters. My only point is that they, like hon. Members, would have no way of knowing whether the Minister's gabbled comments were the same as the content of the note.
The Chairman: Order. I should also advise the hon. Gentleman that it would be unwise to criticise the integrity of another hon. Member, as by implication he is doing.
Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I have gone to the Vote Office and obtained a copy of Hansard for 25 January. You will be aware that Hansard is available also on the internet, but not until the afternoon. The written Hansard for 25 January ceases just after 1.15 am, which was before the statement in question was made by the Minister. Would it be in order to ask Hansard to send down a manuscript copy, so that hon. Members might see what was said?
The Chairman: Order. So far as the proceedings of the Committee are concerned, hon. Members must be deemed to have been present to have heard all that was
said. That is the end of the matter. In any case, one would not usually expect a record to be available until some time after the event.
Mr. Fabricant: But, Sir Alan--
The Chairman: Order. I am on my feet, and the hon. Gentleman will not argue with me from a sedentary position. That is the end of the matter. When hon. Members are participating in a debate, they must be deemed to have heard all that has been said and to have reacted to it.
As I am on my feet, I should also say that many hon. Members have a shared concern about a particular point. However, constant repetition of that point will shortly put them in breach of Standing Order No. 42.
Mr. Nicholls:
I trust, Sir Alan, that I have not repeated anything that I have said so far.
The Chairman:
Order. Let me make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that it is not only a matter of repeating himself; if he is repeating the self-same argument that has been used in the debate by other hon. Members, Standing Order No. 42 can be invoked if I believe that to be the appropriate course.
Mr. Nicholls:
I am grateful for that, Sir Alan, and I was mindful of the risk. I therefore abandoned almost every paragraph of my written speech, to concentrate on a matter that I thought would be of interest to colleagues on both sides of the Committee--the particular problems that solicitors and barristers will have in advising their clients about the purport of the legislation. If I failed in that, Sir Alan, I apologise--but it was the key point that I wanted to concentrate on. I realised that, if I had not done that, as it is late in the debate, I might have repeated points already made by other hon. Members.
Sir Alan, as you know better than any of us, the problem is that, if one had missed the speech, gone up to Hansard and said, "May I, please, see a copy of a speech that you will have reported some 20 minutes ago?", the staff would have said, "You can see your own words, but you are not entitled to see the words of other hon. Members." Therefore, at this stage, if one wanted to know what was in the Minister's speech, unless one had been in the Chamber and could hear it, there is no way in which one could obtain a copy of it from Hansard.
Mr. Brazier:
There is of course a particular problem: even with the very high quality of our Hansard reporters, there is sometimes some divergence between the spoken word and the substance of the written text. It has always been the rule of the House that what matters subsequently is only the written text.
Mr. Nicholls:
As I said, eventually, we shall know what the written text was, and that may indicate what the spoken word may have been. However, certainly for
Mr. Hayes:
Surely the point that my hon. Friend is making--
The Chairman:
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman remember that he should be addressing the occupant of the Chair?
Mr. Hayes:
Surely the point--[Hon. Members: "Face the Chair."] Surely the point that my hon. Friend is making is that lawyers who interpret the clause will have to know precisely what the Minister said about it, to inform them in making a judgment. They will have the Hansard available to them. My hon. Friend may be right in saying that we do not have it now, to inform our debate, but the argument that he was making--
The Chairman:
Order. I do not think that that is getting us anywhere at all. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) have alluded is a universal handicap in the proceedings of the House. It is not unique to the discussion of clause 3 stand part, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Teignbridge now direct his remarks exclusively to whether clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Nicholls:
The only honest answer to your question, Sir Alan, is that I cannot know whether the clause should stand part of the Bill without knowing what the Government's reaction would be if it did not. That worries me.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
My hon. Friend is a lawyer. Will he share with me why he believes that the Government have included the clause in the Bill? Why does he think that section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is no longer needed?
Mr. Nicholls:
I can try. In default of an explanation from the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that he could see no particular reason for its exclusion, or its inclusion. There is a principle in law that holds that legislation that is not consistent with earlier legislation is repealed impliedly. That straightforward concept is familiar to any competent lawyer construing statutes.
Without that principle, the burden of legislation going through the House would be massive and terminal, as the House would always be having to repeal specifically provisions that are now repealed impliedly. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has uncovered another mystery. Why are the Government adopting this approach? If, as it appears, clause 3 is unnecessary and has been repealed impliedly by clause 1, the question of what is special about clause 3 arises.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I am always anxious to help hon. Members who have not been able to attend the whole debate. I have indicated to the Committee what I said in
Mr. Nicholls:
The Minister says that that is what he said in the substance of his speech. I am sure that Hansard will bear that out, and that is fine. However, if he had said as much in an intelligible form at the time, the Committee would have been saved many hours--[Interruption.]
The Chairman:
Order. I do not want a disturbance from Government Members. The hon. Gentleman should be allowed to make his speech.
"Clause 3 is a narrow, consequential clause that provides for the repeal of section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 36(5) has the effect of allowing a Member of the Irish Senate to be a Member of the Northern Irish Assembly. Clause 1 of this Bill has the same effect, so section 36(5) is no longer needed. We have in that sense already discussed these issues."
I have repeated by and large the same sentences on a number of occasions. I hope that that assists the hon. Gentleman to conclude his remarks.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |