| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
'(6A) In subsection (5) (motion for resolution not to be moved unless certain conditions are satisfied), for "Presiding Officer in pursuance of a notice" there is substituted "Secretary of State".'.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 23, leave out from 'he' to 'move' in line 24 and insert
'may appear before the Assembly and'.
Amendment No. 67, in page 3, line 43, at end insert—
'(7A) Where a recommendation has been made by the Commission mentioned in section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission) Act 2003, the Secretary of State shall within seven days of receiving the recommendation serve a notice on the Presiding Officer requiring him to move a motion for such a resolution.'.
Amendment No. 68, in clause 7, page 6, line 20, at end insert—
'(7A) Where a recommendation has been made by the Commission mentioned in section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission) Act 2003, the Secretary of State shall within seven days of receiving the recommendation serve a notice on the Presiding Officer requiring him to move a motion for such a resolution.'.
Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 16, leave out from 'the' to end and insert 'Secretary of State'.
Amendment No. 25, in page 7, line 19, leave out from 'he' to 'move' in line 20 and insert
'may appear before the Assembly and'.
Amendment No. 26, in clause 8, page 10, line 10, leave out from 'the' to end and insert 'Secretary of State'.
Amendment No. 27, in page 10, line 13, leave out from 'he' to 'move' in line 14 and insert
'may appear before the Assembly and'.
Amendment No. 28, in clause 9, page 12, line 17, leave out from 'the' to end and insert 'Secretary of State'.
Amendment No. 29, in page 12, line 20, leave out from 'he' to 'move' in line 21 and insert
'may appear before the Assembly and'.
Amendment No. 69, in page 12, line 22, at end insert—
'(3A) Where a recommendation has been made by the Commission mentioned in section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission) Act 2003, the Secretary of State shall within seven days of receiving the recommendation serve a notice on the Presiding Officer requiring him to move a motion for such a resolution.'.
New clause 4—Requirement for early debate where notice served by Secretary of State—
'.—Where the Secretary of State has served a notice under section 30(6), section 47A(7) or section 51A(6) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 the Assembly shall debate such a motion within 7 days.'.
Andrew Mackinlay: I want to speak to the series of amendments tabled in my name. Their kernel is encapsulated in amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
As the Bill stands, if the Secretary of State has not been able to persuade the Northern Ireland Assembly to put in train the exclusion of a Minister from the Executive, he has the option and power to take the initiative. In listening to this evening's debates and thinking about the Bill, I have increasingly felt that much of what it deals with will not happen anyway. I preface my remarks with that observation because we have almost been getting into an academic exercise. However, I am not the author of the Bill and I believe that we need to conduct proper scrutiny.
The Bill proposes that, in extremis, when the First Minister and his deputy are unable to take the initiative by going to the Assembly and obtaining cross-party and cross-community agreement to the exclusion of a Minister, the Secretary of State can—this is the point that I invite the Committee to consider—instruct the presiding officer of the Assembly to table a motion. That is absurd. In the likely event of such circumstances arising, it would be much better and in the interests of everybody concerned for the Secretary of State to attend the Assembly and speak to the motion himself. That is what my amendments seek to achieve.
First, it is part of the rules of natural justice that people should be able to face their traducers and probe the reasons for any action against them. Secondly, I invite the Committee to consider this point: if we are in such a critical situation in which there is a paralysis, but the Secretary of State finds it essential that a Minister should be excluded, it will be in his interests to marshal all his advocacy and oratorical skills to persuade the paralysed Assembly—by definition, it would be paralysed—to take the necessary action.
I do not want to labour the point, but it is nonsense that the presiding officer should be the instrument or vehicle for these matters. Clearly, the legislation as it stands implies that the presiding officer would move the motion formally. If I am wrong, however, the presiding officer will be put in an invidious position, especially as he or she can, under existing legislation, be appointed by the Secretary of State and will not necessarily command
widespread support in the Assembly. It seems crazy to introduce a formulation whereby the presiding officer will table the motion to exclude a Minister.
Mr. Dodds: In seeking to require that the Secretary of State come to the Assembly in person to table the motion, does the hon. Gentleman intend that he should be subject to questions? Obviously, the presiding officer would not be in such a position. Does he think that such questioning would be helpful in elucidating the Government's position in such an eventuality?
10.15 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: Absolutely. Let us suppose that, in the absence of the Secretary of State, the presiding officer comes along and tells the Assembly, "I am formally instructed to move this motion." Presumably, that would fall on deaf ears if the Assembly had not already been persuaded, or was not acting on its own initiative. My amendment No. 23 provides for the Secretary of State to argue his case before the Assembly. He would be subject to questioning, and would be able to marshal all his energies to persuade the Assembly that exclusion was crucial to the Northern Ireland political process.
Mr. Carmichael: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the invidious position in which the Bill places the presiding officer, but I am not entirely persuaded that his suggested solution is the best. I understand that the Secretary of State currently has no speaking rights in the Assembly, and amendment of its standing orders would be necessary for him to acquire them. I feel that, by acting through the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman would interfere with the Assembly's integrity. Surely it is every legislature's right to determine its own standing orders.
Andrew Mackinlay: That is an interesting point. We need to distinguish between a devolved and a subordinate Assembly or legislature. Whether we like it or not, painful though it may be, the Northern Ireland Assembly—unlike the Scottish Parliament and, to an extent, the Welsh Assembly—is by definition a subordinate legislature.
We are talking about mechanisms to exclude Ministers who are answerable to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I did not write the provision allowing the Secretary of State to instruct the presiding officer to move a motion to exclude them. If my amendment were accepted, the question of standing orders would become academic.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman may not be giving due consideration to two points. First, in his opening remarks, the Secretary of State made the connection between the proposal as it stands and the agreement setting up the entire political process. That cannot be dealt with arbitrarily, although that is what the Bill effectively does. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State should go and speak to the Assembly. One assumes that he will give the Assembly information. Can we imagine a Secretary of State who cannot divulge intelligence and information that he possesses being able to address an Assembly or answer
its questions? Such an arrangement would be dangerous for the Secretary of State, and I cannot imagine any Secretary of State agreeing to be put in such a position.
Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman says that the Secretary of State might not be able to divulge information to the legislature. Surely it would be 10 times worse for him to lob a letter through the letterbox and tell the presiding officer to read it out. Not only is that an insult, it would carry no clout whatever. In the extraordinary circumstances in which the Secretary of State could not get the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister to take the initiative, and in which it was impossible to guarantee a majority in the voting system of the Chamber, the Secretary of State might well think he could swing it. Having done his arithmetic, he might think that the voting could be extremely narrow.
Indeed, I can foresee circumstances in which the voting could be very close; it could come down to one or two votes. He might be in a position to persuade the legislature to take that initiative.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |