Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

House of Commons, 24 July 1998.

DATES OF ELECTIONS AND DISSOLUTIONS

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move amendment No. 150, in, page 13, line 4, leave out from 'If' to 'by' in line 12 and insert 'three months after either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister ceases to hold office the Assembly has not elected a First Minister or Deputy First Minister Her Majesty shall'. The amendment is to some extent consequential to an amendment that we discussed yesterday. It concerns an issue that goes to the very heart of the concept of an Assembly that will sit for a fixed four-year term, unlike this House, which sits not for a fixed term but for a maximum period during which the Prime Minister may, at any time, seek a dissolution. The objection to clause 24(4) is that it undermines the basic concept of the fixed term that is proposed for the Assembly. Subsection (4) says that the Assembly may be dissolved on three conditions. The third, which is particularly sweeping, is that it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved". Who is to consider that? The clause states that it will be Her Majesty, but, in practice, it will be the Secretary of State. A simple provision states that a body that is supposedly elected for a fixed four-year term may be dissolved if the Secretary of State believes that it is in the public interest. That is contrary to the concept of the Assembly's existence and undermines the democratic process. It says to the electorate of Northern Ireland that although they may elect a body, the Secretary of State, who represents and is accountable to no one in Northern Ireland, may, if she considers it appropriate, turn out all its Members. That treats the electorate with contempt and disdain. I trust that it would never happen because no one would be foolish enough to do it. There is therefore no reason why the provision should be in the Bill. Objection can also be made to the other grounds for dissolution set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). The first is that the persons who are the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions". That does not refer to issues of individual incapacity such as the First Minister being ill or unable to discharge his functions, in which case action could be taken. There is no such provision in the clause. We need only read the history books to see that there have been times when persons have occupied positions on the Treasury Benches and been incapable of discharging their functions for various reasons, but we need not go into the details of that. One wonders what circumstances the draftsmen envisaged in which all Ministers, not only the First Minister, would be unable to carry out their functions and, as paragraph (b) states, if they were to resign, the persons who would be likely to succeed them would not be able to carry out their functions". Although the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) are somewhat absurd, it is the provision in paragraph (c) which is fundamentally objectionable. It runs counter to the spirit of the Bill by demonstrating a degree of contempt for the electorate in Northern Ireland, and it undermines the concept of the Assembly as a body that operates for a fixed four-year term. Hon. Members will remember that yesterday, when we were considering the provisions for the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and the consequences of one or other resigning, I proposed an amendment providing for a three-month period subsequent to that resignation in which there would be an opportunity for re-election. We may argue about whether the period should be three months or less—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) suggested a seven-day period, which I thought too short—but we need to provide a period of between one week and three months in which the Assembly should try to re-elect First and Deputy First Ministers. If it were unable to do so during that period, that is the only case in which the Assembly should be dissolved before it had completed its four-year term. 9.45 am The amendments that I have tabled would mean that either of the two largest parties would be able to bring about a dissolution of the Assembly if it were determined to do so, simply by arranging for its leader—the First or Deputy First Minister—to resign, not offering any candidate to be re-elected and using its votes to block the re-election of other persons. However, the procedure would be rather cumbersome and would take time, during which the party would have to justify its action, not only to the Assembly, but to the electorate. That is appropriate. It should not be easy for people to bring about the dissolution of a body that is elected for a fixed four-year term. Dissolution should certainly not be caused by the wave of a hand of someone who is not a Member of the Assembly, who is not elected in Northern Ireland and who is not answerable to its people. That is objectionable in principle. I ask the Government to reconsider clause 24(4) and to consider the amendment, which would provide a procedure to bring about a dissolution while maintaining the integrity of the fixed-term concept by making it difficult to dissolve the Assembly. I point out that, in drafting the amendment, I omitted to provide for the deletion of subsection (5), which would not be appropriate if the amendment were made. We can consider that at a later stage. My crucial point is that these provisions should be deleted because they are objectionable on democratic grounds and contrary to the concept of the scheme, but there may be circumstances in which a dissolution before the end of a four-year term would be appropriate. The amendment provides for that, but the procedure would not be easy to use because it should be biased in favour of the Assembly serving its full fixed four-year term and dissolving before that only when it would be difficult, or almost impossible, for it to continue. It should not be easy to seek an early dissolution and it should certainly not be done on the ridiculous grounds set out in clause 24(4).

Peter Temple-Morris (Labour, Leominster)

I welcome the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) because it is interesting to debate the subject. I will not be supporting it, however, because—this is my central point—the clause provides a necessary reserved power. I follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that using the provision would bring about a dissolution by the back door, but the sad fact is that if one wanted to dissolve the Assembly, there would be several ways of making it unworkable, as there are in any assembly. The history of Northern Ireland contains examples of assemblies which, through no one's fault, have proved difficult to work for various reasons. That is why the Bill contains the reserved power in clause 24(4). The clause is not an attempt to undermine the democratic process. Everyone is trying to give Northern Ireland the maximum amount of representative democracy. This is a reserved power, exercisable through Her Majesty by the Secretary of State. As I have said in other discussions on the Bill, we must realise that we are dealing with the democratic process in Northern Ireland and at Westminster. In making the decision to dissolve, the Secretary of State would be answerable to this House.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

If it is necessary to have a reserved power in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman compare and contrast it with whatever reserved powers there might be in the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill? I do not believe that there is equivalent provision in either.

Peter Temple-Morris (Labour, Leominster)

I think the right hon. Gentleman is right. However, I believe that he has more cause than almost anyone in the Committee at the moment to appreciate and acknowledge the fact that the situation in Northern Ireland is different. The history is different. The effort at devolution to Scotland and Wales is the first in modern times; the circumstances are totally different here, because this is not, by a long chalk, the first effort at devolution toward Northern Ireland. In view of the history and the circumstances, I have no hesitation in saying that the reserved power is necessary. The reserved power deals with the plural—the whole cross-community concept. The power would be exercised if the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions"— plural—and the same for those who might succeed them. Part of the concept is the idea that, if one Minister cannot carry out his functions, it is likely that the other cannot carry out his either. That is how such a situation might come about. In clause 24(4)(c) we have the saving grace—quite apart from the overall accountability to the House—that it is for the Secretary of State to gauge whether it is in the public interest for the Assembly to be dissolved. Then, far from doing a dreadful act to democracy, one goes to the people in order to elect a new Assembly; the democratic process takes over. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for drawing attention to the matter, but I do not believe that amendment No. 150 helps the Bill. It would merely prolong a situation which the Secretary of State must have the power to deem a crisis, in which she would accordingly dissolve the Assembly. If the amendment were passed, we would have three months' agony in such a situation: we would lose a very valuable part of the Bill.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate the points that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made. I do not have clear in my mind the force of the distinction between subsections (3) and (4) of the clause. Amendment No. 150 deals specifically with subsection (4). We have been repeatedly told that the Bill must be in keeping with the spirit of the agreement, so it is interesting that a four-year term is not mentioned in the agreement. We have already stipulated a specific passage of time during which the Assembly should be operative. I am puzzled; I do not see why subsection (4) is necessary. We are considering the concept of Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Secretary of State—but the Secretary of State already has the power to act by virtue of subsection (3). Some people may think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was in dreamland when he tabled amendment No. 150. Some years ago, I visited Holland shortly before a general election. For six months, the two parties that had formed the coalition Government had been unable to come to terms to form a new Government. As I understand it, in such circumstances we would not be in a similar position to Holland, where the existing Government continued to exercise their power until the new Government were in place. We are contemplating a situation where, for whatever reason, the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and other Northern Ireland Ministers were not prepared to work together. If that happened, Her Majesty should have a power by Order in Council to dissolve the Assembly to hold a fresh election after a specified period. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility—humans being what we are—that such a situation might arise. In fact, the Government were considering it. We are suggesting that their proposals are too cumbersome. Our amendment could help by making things easier and more straightforward.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I understand and sympathise with some of the concerns voiced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) too quickly dismissed those concerns. I also say to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that, where possible, and always acknowledging the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, we should attempt to establish similarities in the legislation governing the new assemblies and parliaments that we are creating. He was right to question the difference between clause 24(4) and the provisions relating to a dissolution of the Scottish Parliament. In Scotland, extraordinary general elections are to be held where the Parliament so resolves and, on a Division, a majority of not less than two thirds of its Members votes that it should be dissolved. They are also to be held if the Parlliament does not nominate a First Minister during the period specified. The right hon. Gentleman's anxieties are therefore entirely legitimate. I should like to know the definition of "public interest" in clause 24(4)(c). Clause 24(4)(a) speaks of circumstances where the persons who are the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions". Could such a situation be brought about by a vote of no confidence by two thirds of the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly? I hope that the Minister will treat amendment No. 150 sympathetically. I did not hear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann say that it was a probing amendment, but I believe that it is the type of amendment that should be treated with sympathy, especially when considered in relation to the Scottish legislation.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

What pressures would be placed on the Secretary of State to decide that it was in the public interest to dissolve the Assembly? We well know that, since the process that brought in the Irish Republic, the latter has had, and continues to have, a strong influence on what happens in Northern Ireland. If the Irish Republic said that it was not in the public interest for the Assembly to continue, I am sure that—judging by the past record—that view would be immediately accepted and the Assembly would be axed, because the pressures that have been exerted on Northern Ireland have been largely directed from the south of Ireland. The same thing happened when the Stormont Parliament was first prorogued and then disbanded. We had the same agitation when other assemblies were put in its place, especially the most recent. It is a very serious thing, given that the Anglo-Irish Conference—which continues under the agreement, under another name—would continue to have a very big say in pressurising the Secretary of State to say that it was not in the public interest for the Assembly to continue. The public interest, to the Irish Republic, is its own parochial interest. The Secretary of State is being given a very wide power indeed. The result of all that we have done in the House, and all the talks, can be taken away by a stroke of a pen, without any Member of the Assembly or Minister of the Assembly—even the First Minister or Deputy First Minister—having any say in the matter.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The Question is—

John Taylor (UUP, Strangford)

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

It would be helpful if Members seeking to participate in the debate in the Committee could give a clear indication to the Chair. Otherwise, the Chair may assume that the debate has been completed.

John Taylor (UUP, Strangford)

I would definitely have done so, Sir Alan, had it not occurred to me only two seconds ago that I wanted to speak. I shall make two brief points. First, it seems amazing that, although the Government are not prepared to remove people from the Assembly Executive even though they belong to a political party that is inextricably linked to a paramilitary organisation that is killing people on the ground, they are prepared to take upon themselves the power to remove all Members of the Assembly. I do not follow that inconsistency. Secondly, I share the fears expressed by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the Government will be influenced by the Dublin Government in deciding whether the Assembly should proceed. As a result of that influence, the Assembly could be closed—and there are precedents for that in the history of Northern Ireland. On numerous occasions in Committee, the Government have rejected amendments from the Ulster Unionist party or from Her Majesty's Opposition on the basis that they are inconsistent with the Stormont agreement. I hope that the Secretary of State is listening to this point. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the amendment is inconsistent with the Belfast agreement—because I believe that he certainly cannot do so in this case.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

This has been an interesting short debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) referred to the histories of past assemblies and similar bodies, and reflected on how it was important for Parliament to have the power to dissolve those bodies in the event of various crises. However, I believe that times have changed and that this agreement and this Northern Ireland Assembly will be more permanent. We have consulted widely on this clause in recent days, and we have sympathy with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred to the Scottish comparison, which is a valid point. It is worth examining it so that we may determine whether there is a read-across from the Scottish to the Northern Ireland situation. I think that we should re-examine the clause and the consequential amendments that would have to be made to other parts of the Bill.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Does the Minister agree that proponents of the amendment claim that the clause gives total, absolute and almost dictatorial powers to the Secretary of State? However, clause 24(5) states: No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order under subsection (4) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. That is surely a very strong and adequate democratic safeguard relating to the cause, reason and execution of such a proposal.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

In no sense is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a dictator and she, and anyone who succeeds her, will have to be accountable to the House of Commons and the other place.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

This is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, as such, authority ultimately rests here. In terms of the Assembly's workability, we believe that we should plan not for failure but for success. We propose to re-examine the clause, consult in detail with the parties during August and September and refer the matter to the other place.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Parliament is sovereign anyway, and thus would be able to do what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) suggests. However, Northern Ireland representation in this place is very small, and Northern Ireland parties are not represented in the upper House. According to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP, it would not have any representatives in the other place. My party has never been represented there. Therefore, the House of Lords would not have a full complement of spokesmen to represent the people and put the views. The Assembly should at least—

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Lord Paisley.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I do not think that that will ever happen—and I would not want it to. I would rather be in a place that has real power. Apparently the other place will be dehorned anyway—and does the hon. Gentleman think that I would offer my head for the chop? I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would make such a suggestion. I will allow him to take my seat. It is important that the Assembly be allowed at least to express its feelings about the matter.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

That is why it is important to talk to the parties in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the four-year term. He is correct in saying that that is not in the agreement, although it was discussed during the negotiations and all parties agreed that a four-year term should be the norm. The poll may be shifted up to two months before or after it would otherwise be held in order to ensure that it could be held on the same day as other elections, where appropriate. For example, the Assembly election would coincide with local elections in Northern Ireland, which makes sense financially and would increase the voter turnout. Subsection (4)(c) enables a dissolution of the Assembly at any time during the four-year term. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde raised several issues. There is no specific provision for votes of no confidence in the Administration rather than in Ministers or parties. We could consider a dissolution on a two-thirds majority—which would be comparable with the Scottish model, as my hon. Friend is aware. As elsewhere, the definition of public interest is in statute and it is not easy to define in abstract. They are just a few reasons why it is important to re-examine the issue, and I ask the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to withdraw his amendment.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his response and for his willingness to re-examine the matter. I am glad that the Government have had second thoughts, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) for his comments about the desirability of having a read-across into the Northern Ireland institutions from the newly devolved institutions. I thank the Minister for taking that point on board. It was also pleasant to hear the Minister make the simple but fundamental point—which has been sometimes lost sight of in the past few months through misinterpretation of the position—that Parliament remains sovereign and that, at the end of the day, power over all parts of the United Kingdom returns to the House. That point is made clear in clause 5(6). Therefore, those who are concerned about the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 can be reassured about the absolute sovereignty of the House. That is also the answer for the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). If there is a need for a reserved power in order to act in an emergency, the Parliament has the capacity to do so and has no need of such a clause in this Bill. The one time that it was felt necessary to intervene in the terms that the hon. Gentleman described—I did not agree, but it was done—when the House decided in 1972 to prorogue and abolish the Northern Ireland Parliament, legislation was passed in the course of one day to give effect to that action. The point about the undiminished sovereignty of Parliament remains.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Under the terms of the agreement, Parliament and the British Government have agreed that, in the event of a simple majority of people wishing to leave the United Kingdom, there will be no claim of sovereignty—which is exactly what section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 declared.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong. While the United Kingdom continues, the sovereignty of this House is undiminished. If part of the United Kingdom seceded, the situation would be different. The possibility of secession has been explicit in British constitutional legislation since 1921, so the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) does himself no credit by advancing arguments that are simply wrong in law. I shall not pursue the issue further at this stage. I thank the Minister for his willingness to look again at the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

VACANCIES

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 14, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert— '(2) Subject to subsection (2A) below an order under subsection (1) shall provide that where a seat was last filled by a member of a registered party, any vacancy shall be filled by another member nominated by that party (without a by-election). (2A) Provided that where the condition mentioned in subsection (2) is not met, a vacancy shall be filled by— (a) a by-election, or (b) such other method as the Secretary of State may prescribe in the order.'.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

Amendment No. 100 would write into the Bill the requirement that, if a vacancy occurs in the Assembly's membership, the vacancy shall be filled by a member of the party that had ownership—if I may use that term—of the seat at the time of the Assembly election. The Bill leaves the method of filling the vacancy vague. It gives the Secretary of State the discretion to fill the vacancy in the way that I have just outlined, or to hold a by-election, or to use some other method. Now that we have had considerable discussion of this Bill and the earlier Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill, it is time that we clarified how vacancies are to be filled. Vacancies will inevitably occur, and there must be clarity and precision on the matter now. In our discussions on the earlier Bill, the Minister implied that the Government would have resolved the matter by the time this Bill reached the House. I do not complain about the fact that they have not moved forward since then, but it is appropriate now that we resolve that vacancies shall automatically be filled by members of the same party as previously held the seat. My amendment also provides for circumstances in which that condition cannot be fulfilled—for example, because the member was an independent. Only then would a by-election be the correct method of filling the vacancy. That is a common-sense approach. In our earlier debates, we drew attention to the fact that, under the proposed electoral system, a perverse situation could arise where a member of the nationalist minority lost the seat in a constituency where there was a numerical majority for the Unionist persuasion. If a by-election were held, the Unionist persuasion would inevitably win, which would be a source of considerable irritation, and demonstrably unfair. The opposite could happen in a constituency with a nationalist majority, where someone of the Unionist persuasion might feel unfairly treated. We used as an analogy the European Parliament seat of Northern Ireland. If, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) had sought the presidency of the Irish Republic and got it, there would have been a vacancy. If there had subsequently been a by-election for the European Parliament, the seat would have been won by someone of the Unionist persuasion. That is a matter of fact. The absence of a provision such as I am outlining would create enormous difficulties. With respect to the Secretary of State, I believe that we must resolve the matter now, rather than some weeks or months down the road. Such a vacancy could occur at any time. Numbers are critical to all parties in the Assembly, as we see from the complicated criteria for votes. I hope that the Minister will be persuaded that my amendment improves the Bill.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

When the elections were held, each candidate had to list in order a number of persons whom he would want to fill the seat if anything happened to him. What is the use of such a list, if there is no intention of using it? When I was fighting the election and I was asked who would get the seat if anything happened to me, I could refer to the list that I had drawn up.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is correct. One of the up-sides of the electoral system is that, if the amendment is adopted, it will be clear who the substitute, the suppliant or the alternative member will be. It is good for the electorate to understand that. That is the principle envisaged for future European elections in England, Wales and Scotland. The same also applies, I think, to Northern Ireland, but I need to check that. At the next European parliamentary elections on a multi-member constituency basis, the intention is that there will not be by-elections. If a vacancy occurs, a replacement will be supplied from the existing ranking order of the party list. That seems sensible.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

There was nothing in the legislation to deal with the Northern Ireland single transferable vote system. There would be by-elections. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in this sense: if anything happened to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for example and a vacancy arose, there is no way, on an ordinary vote, that a member of the Unionist family would not take that seat. That is unfair. Under those circumstances, the seat should be retained by a member of the same party as held it previously. However, that was not touched on by the legislation that deals with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hesitated because I thought that, perversely, Northern Ireland was the exception in European Union legislation. I trespass on that merely to buttress my argument that England, Wales and Scotland will have the arrangements that I propose in my amendment. It is profoundly sensible and I hope that it commends itself to the Committee.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I concur with the call for clarification of the matter. The appropriate time for that was before the election to the Assembly, when the situation was extremely vague. The Secretary of State by an order brought into play the substitute system. Many of us would prefer by-elections, if a by-election could produce a fair result. If the Assembly is to be frozen for four years, that ensures that no matter what changes take place in the community, the Assembly is cut off from them. If by-elections do not occur because of the substitute system, no account is taken of changes that occur democratically in society. That is one of the dangers of the proposed system. If a party that was in the minority in a constituency lost the seat through resignation or by some other means, it would have little or no chance of winning it in a by-election, and would therefore be disadvantaged for the remainder of that term. Alongside the amendment, we must consider our earlier discussion of the designation of political parties. I think that the Government should reconsider the provision. Under the substitute system, the party did not have control of the substitutes: it was the candidate who had that control. Some put in more than others, but they were in complete control of who their substitutes were. Suppose that a candidate was elected as a Member representing one political party but transferred his allegiance to another. I am sure that he would wish to change his substitutes, who would be members of the party with which he had previously been aligned. There must be some provision for that, and such provision does not at present exist within the Secretary of State' s New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order. Amendment No. 92 is, to a large extent, a probing amendment to give those on the Government Front Bench the opportunity to say that the Secretary of State will modify the order to allow for the natural change that may take place over time.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the electorate should have some rights in these matters and that, if there is to be substitute provision, the names of those persons who are likely to be appointed should also be made known to the electorate at the time of the election?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is my recollection that the chief electoral officer indicated that the names of those persons would be available at the polling stations. However, when I went to vote I never saw any of the names of substitutes at the polling station. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the electorate have a right to know. It could be a circuitous route to get an unelectable individual into the Assembly. A popular person might stand with an unelectable individual as his substitute. He may be elected and then hand the seat over to that substitute. I suppose that that is possible. I agree that the electorate have the right to know.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Bill is turning back the tide of electoral reform to a pocket borough situation?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Many arguments can be advanced against the substitute system, but I do not see a better option if we are to have a system that provides for multi-Member constituencies. In those circumstances, it is the best that can be made of the system. That is what makes me rather concerned about the option that the Secretary of State seems to leave open within the clause, which refers to such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit. It is my recollection that those words, or words similar to them, are in earlier legislation. Yet since then the Secretary of State has come down in favour of a substitute system, which is in play. However, the right hon. Lady still wants to maintain the option of changing the rules of the game somewhere down the line. We either have by-elections or we have substitutes: an unknown alternative which the Secretary of State wants to keep close to her chest is unacceptable. That provision should be deleted so that we run with the two options available to us, with the Secretary of State redefining the order to ensure that there can be updating. That updating does not take place simply because a Member has changed his party. A substitute may have died or may have made known their intention not to take up a seat. That would force us into by-elections unless those substitutes were replaced. For the good working of the Assembly, it is appropriate that the order should be updated to take into account the possibilities to which I have referred.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

With your permission, Sir Alan, I shall speak to amendment No. 151. I shall not detain the Committee for long because there is little support for my views in this instance. My hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) disagree utterly and completely with my view that vacancies should be filled only by way of by-elections. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down pointed out to me that substitutes are the case for local elections in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North reminded me that Norway and Sweden have provisions for substitutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock reminded me, in a not very gentle way, that I had voted for a similar system for the European Parliament elections. Nevertheless, despite this inconsistency, my view is that, in an ideal world, vacancies in any sort of Assembly, whether local authority Assembly or Parliament, should be filled by way of a by-election. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) asked in an intervention, "What about the concerns of the electorate?" We have experienced in recent years in Scotland the disaffection of the electorate with the Labour party in by-elections. All parties suffer that fate; it is not peculiar to the Scottish Labour party. I acknowledge the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, but it is my view that we should aim for vacancies being filled eventually by by-elections. That is the position in the Irish Republic, which has a similar electoral system for its long-established Parliament. I would perhaps go along with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who said that there should just be the alternatives of substitutes or by-elections rather than the clause giving powers to the Secretary of State. The helpful guidance notes state: The thinking behind a system of substitutes is based on the impact of vacancies in a system combining election by a multi-member STV system and an Assembly based on the principles of proportionality. I can understand that, but it still seems to me that we must take into consideration the views of the electorate. I correct slightly what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said about the Scottish system in comparison with what is proposed for Northern Ireland. I refer to the Scottish system in terms of comparative evidence. There is a different electoral system for our Scottish Parliament. Clause 8 of the Scotland Bill provides for constituency by-elections and clause 9 refers to where the seat of a regional member is vacant. My hon. Friend is correct to some extent because clause 9 provides that a vacancy in a regional Member seat that had been allocated to a registered political party will be filled by the nomination of another person from the same party list. However, that party list is known. That answers the concern that has been voiced in this context. My only support comes from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is not in her place at the moment.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) sends her apologies to my hon. Friend. She has a meeting at the Scottish Office.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The name of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill is appended to amendment No. 151. It seems that I am perhaps being over-idealistic in advocating that vacancies should be filled only by by-elections. I am keenly aware of the social, political and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland. However, as an old-fashioned democrat, I believe that we should aim for a system whereby vacancies are filled only by by-elections. At the end of the day, we have to win the consent of the people whom we seek to govern. From time to time, the local electorate may become disaffected with a party, its policies and practices. In between elections, the electorate should be given the right to demonstrate how they feel about a party. If, God forbid, there were to be a by-election shortly in Greenock and Inverclyde, it would be a by-election with a number of candidates representing different parties. That is the ideal for which we should aim in all assemblies—not just within the multinational state that we call the United Kingdom, but everywhere. I make no apologies for detaining the Committee briefly, even though I know that I have no support from my hon. Friends. I have difficulties with the single transferable vote system. Even the Scottish system has difficulties, but it is a hell of a lot better than the system in Northern Ireland. The regional list of registered members of political parties will be known to the Scottish electorate. If there is a vacancy in a constituency where someone won under the first-past-the-post rules, there will, rightly and properly, be a by-election to fill that vacancy. I stick to my guns, although I acknowledge the serious concerns of my hon. Friends at my advocacy of the system. However, one day, I hope that, in Northern Ireland as elsewhere, vacancies will be filled by the tried and trusted procedure of a by-election. That way, we meet four-square the concerns, expectations, needs and desires of the electorate. At the end of the day, the electorate must reign supreme over elections.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

What I suggest is not in any way a panacea. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the Irish Republic not so long ago, the Irish Labour party won seats in by-elections in two constituencies, causing some difficulties for the Administration? There are difficulties with every kind of system. It might be democratic purism, but the concept of vacancies being filled by by-elections is long established.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Thank you, Mr. Martin, for allowing me to participate in the debate. The question before the Committee is how properly, adequately and continually to represent to the views of the electorate. For Northern Ireland, another overriding consideration is added to that: we desire an Administration who represent a deep cross-section of our community and a system which enables minority groupings to have political expression and representation. That is the basis on which we should be approaching the structures and the way in which people are elected to them. We have not only proportional representation, which is the foundation of such a model, but six-member constituencies, which is a high number per constituency. The purpose is to ensure the maximum possible representation of a broad political spectrum. We should keep those two principles in mind, because they should be the yardstick by which we measure the filling of vacancies. Under PR, minority grouping representation could go out of the window in by-elections because, by the mathematics of the situation, the largest party in any constituency will inevitably win every by-election. In England, there may be a swing from one side to the other, but there have not been dramatic swings in Northern Ireland since it came into existence in 1920, so representation by minority groupings would be withdrawn from the electorate. A Member may change party allegiance during his term of office. Notwithstanding that, the electorate would still have elected a person on a party ticket. If allegiance were transferred, that would be the fault of the representative, who would deny those who voted for him and for his party or philosophy. On substitution, it is intriguing that participants in the Assembly elections were required in their nomination papers to nominate a maximum of six substitutes. As I recall, that was not a legal requirement, but it was a legal opportunity. The electorate could and should have made themselves aware of whether substitutes were of the same temperament or of the same political party or philosophy as the primary candidate. They made their decisions on the basis of candidates' nomination papers and their nominated substitutes, so what is the legal situation and what would it be if we made a change? My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said that I have already reminded him of this practical point, but I must do so again: in the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland, which are also elected by PR, it is the norm to fill a vacancy by substitution, through the nomination of the party whose representative previously occupied that elected position. Indeed, I can recall no recent by-elections. The community already accepts and operates—

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

rose—

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

rose—

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I think that I was first to ask. I readily acknowledge that my hon. Friend presents a powerful case for substitutes, but does he agree with clause 27(2)? It states: Such provision may be made by reference to by-elections or substitutes or such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit. Does he think that we should we have by-elections or substitutes, not a three-options system?

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I now give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Although such a system may be the norm, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has to be unanimity in the council chamber, and that, if anyone objects to not holding a by-election, he overrules the council? The hon. Gentleman will agree, because he has wide experience of local government, that holding an election, perhaps six months before the whole council went to the electorate, would throw the electorate into spending a lot of money.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The hon. Gentleman has made a helpful contribution, which is unusual in my experience. To take the point further, in multi-party council chambers, there is usually agreement across the parties that vacancies should be filled through substitution by the party that has a vacancy. That has been the norm in local government for about a decade; there is nothing unusual or unacceptable about it, and it has cross-party support. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to clause 27(2). I probed this matter earlier; substitutes have already been nominated in the electoral process, and his question is difficult to answer because we need clarification of the legal situation. If the current legal position is to continue, how can we make changes midstream when the electorate have already cast their votes? There is much validity in all the arguments about filling vacancies, but I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are basing our decision on the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. We are endeavouring to achieve the greatest participation by the greatest number of parties and philosophies. The tenor of the Bill is based on cross-community, cross-party support for the way forward. In that context, substitution, as predicated by the electoral process, is probably best, although I hope that there will be evolution as time goes on.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I thank you, Mr. Martin, for calling me to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), not after the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Õpik). I woke up this morning saying, "X is equal to minus B, plus or minus the square root of B squared, minus 4AC, all over 2A—or is it?" I did not want to go back to using squared paper.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman means a Mensa membership. I can remember mensa, mensam, mensae, mensa, but that is thanks to the Irish Christian Brothers, not the academicals attended by the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) demolished his own case. He considered all the examples and everything that had been said, and was left hanging on to the straw of what happens in the Irish Republic. There is considerable difference between what happens in the Irish Republic and what is happening in Northern Ireland. First, people in the Republic vote for a sovereign Government, not for a devolved Assembly. The second and more important difference is that, by and large, candidates in the Republic of Ireland accept the political institutions and the allegiances to, and sovereignty of, the state. That does not apply in Northern Ireland, and the agreement recognises that in its references to citizenship. In our electoral system, parties divide on a class or ideological basis—if one is able to talk in those terms nowadays—and, especially in Northern Ireland, according to allegiances. The proportional system was introduced in Northern Ireland specifically to allow allegiances, and differences of opinion within those allegiances, to be adequately represented. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said, if we change to a system of by-elections, the majority in a particular constituency could take the day. I shall refer only obliquely and briefly to last night's debate, Mr. Martin. If that were to happen, it would mean challenging the acceptance of the whole basis of the d'Hondt system. That brings us back to the question whether a person in the new Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to cross the Floor, to change party or to change designation if that would upset the arrangements under which the elections took place. The electorate vote for candidates for a particular purpose. People vote for the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party or the Alliance party knowing where that party stands on constitutional, social, political and economic matters, and believing that, if the successful candidate died, someone from the list of substitutes would take that person's place on the basis of his allegiances and his known stance. If we do not have substitutes and if we give the Secretary of State the discretion provided in the Bill—although she will have to bring the orders before the House for resolution—we shall be leaving matters up in the air. The most sensible thing to do is for the Secretary of State to adopt the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock either in a new clause or a new schedule outlining the specific means of substitution. We should also specify what should happen if a person crosses the Floor or changes his political allegiance. The position in Northern Ireland is different. People are elected not only for their innate qualities—I am sure that that applies to every Member of this august Assembly—but for their political allegiances and their understanding of how that can affect matters in the overall body of the Assembly. That is of the utmost importance.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I have never denied the strength of the case put by my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I am sorry that my hon. Friend for Hull, North thinks that my view that the electorate should reign supreme hangs by a straw. I think that he was referring to the example, which I used to strengthen my case, of what happens in the Republic. Does my hon. Friend think that the reference to by-elections in clause 27(2) or the phrase such other method of filling vacancies should be deleted?

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I think that both should be deleted. I suggest that the Secretary of State, either in a new clause or in a new schedule—the latter is probably the best place—should outline the precise system and should say how substitution should be treated when a person crosses the floor. It is important that the electorate should not be misled. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said that I do not believe that the people are sovereign. I hope that he will support my ten-minute Bill on Wednesday, which will show that the people are sovereign on membership of the House. However, we are talking about a devolved Assembly that will be elected, we hope, for a fixed period. People will know what is happening and will seek to ensure that their views are represented in a particular way. That is best achieved by a system of substitutes, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will table an amendment in the other place to meet the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and others.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The debate, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), has been interesting and useful. Schedule 14 to the Bill provides that the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998 remains in force after the appointed day. If a vacancy occurred, it would be filled by a substitute from the list submitted by a candidate at the 25 June elections. Much of the debate has centred on the principle of substitutes versus by-elections. During the consideration of the previous Bill dealing with this matter, there was no doubt that a system of substitutes must inevitably be the one we use. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who said that, for the system of elections to the Assembly, there is no real alternative to the use of substitutes in order to maintain proportionality and the important cross-community aspects of the Assembly. The Government propose to ensure that the substitute system remains. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock wanted more detail included in the Bill. His amendment refers to registered political parties. We shall see what impact the Registration of Political Parties Bill has on Northern Ireland. We shall have to consult political parties in Northern Ireland on that matter. We can make any necessary changes to the system of substitution in future through an amendment to the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East referred. Under the provisions of schedule 14, that will continue to apply to elections to the Assembly. I propose to discuss this matter further with the parties, because I know that they regard it as an important issue. There is the matter of by-elections being held if substitutes die or do not wish to take up their place. We shall have further consultation on that. It may require changes, although not necessarily to the Bill.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister referred to by-elections and to the substitute system. What was in the Government's mind when they added the rider or such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit"?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

That is exactly why we need to consult further. It is unclear. We should consider how we deal with by-elections if a substitute does not want to take up his seat, dies or moves away. Because of the lack of clarity, we need to talk with parties in Northern Ireland. Changes could be made by order and not necessarily by amendments to the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock to withdraw his amendment.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I hope to hear further news from the Minister over the summer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

DISQUALIFICATION

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in clause 28, page 14, leave out lines 32 to 34.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 21, in page 14, leave out lines 38 to 41.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The amendment deals with an interest that Northern Ireland and its people expressly have, in that Ministers of the Crown, as they may well be called under the new system, may also be nominated by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic and take their seats in the Senate of the Irish Republic. It is not consistent that a Minister of the Crown in one part of the United Kingdom should take a seat in the Senate.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

When we were interrupted by the important announcement that has just been made, I was dealing with this matter as it relates to the views of many people in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members who do not know the constitution of the Irish Republic might like to know that there is a two-chamber system, made up of the Dail Eireann and the Senate. The Senate is a strange body, in that it is not purely elected. Many of its Members are nominated, and it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic to fill many of its seats. It has always been the custom and political strategy of the various Governments—especially when Fianna Fail has been in power—to put prominent people from Northern Ireland into the Senate. Some Members of Parliament, including nationalist Members of Parliament and various other prominent republicans, have been put into the Senate. The Deputy First Minister designate of Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), was nominated to the Irish Senate, but he was then elected to an Assembly in Northern Ireland and was removed from the Assembly because he had disqualified himself by accepting the nomination to the Irish Senate. We had a very short debate on that subject when we debated the first Assembly Bill that came before the House. In fact, shortage of time prevented the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh from explaining the position in which he found himself and the resultant expense that he was put to. He has said that he is grateful that, if a similar thing happened again, he would not have that problem. Perhaps, therefore, the Deputy First Minister designate has his eye on sitting in the Senate as well. That would not help the situation in Northern Ireland. Ministers and others must choose whether they want to sit in the Assembly or in the House of Commons as part of the United Kingdom, or whether they want to be a Member of a Parliament of another state. That leads me to the question, who will be eligible to stand for election to the Assembly? I notice that the Bill deals with that matter in such a way that those from the Irish Republic can stand for election to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I believe that those matters should not be in the Bill. It should be made plain to those who wish to take part in the Assembly that they should not be permitted to be Members of a Parliament of another state. It would also be wrong for a Minister of the Assembly to sit in the Senate of another state. The two roles are incompatible; such a thing should not happen. The House should realise that. I do not believe that the House would tolerate it if a Minister of the House were a Member of another Parliament, even of another European Union country. I wonder why the Bill allows such a thing to happen. I am sure that the Prime Minister—whoever it may be—in Dublin is just waiting for the opportunity to make use of the freedom that the Bill allows, because a Senate seat would be in the prerogative of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. The House should make it clear that people should give their loyalty to one place, not to two states.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

This might be called the Seamus Mallon clause—and perhaps it should be in honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The important thing about the agreement and the feature that helps it to gel is the recognition of the legitimacy of both traditions within Northern Ireland. On constitutional issues, the agreement says that the parties will recognise the birthright of all people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland. One wonders why the limitation applies only to the Senate of Northern Ireland and not also to its lower House. Any Irish citizen should be free to be elected to represent any area.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

May I finish my little story, and then I shall give way? I am reminded of a similar situation when an Irish peer with a second subsidiary title came to Britain during the recent troubles and was stopped at the point of entry because he was holding an Irish passport. When asked what he was coming to this country to do, he replied, "To legislate for the likes of you". That may not have been the most polite reply, but it illustrates the free flow that has occurred between the various institutions and the elasticity of rules that apply everywhere in these islands except in the north of Ireland. An Irish citizen may be elected to this place and to the Dail Eireann—there is no problem with that. Therefore, why should we not recognise and welcome the lifting of the partial ban because it embodies the spirit of the agreement? It also recognises the fact that, in the past, Irish and British men and women from both communities have been members of the Senate of the Irish Republic. For example, I refer hon. Members to the late Senator Gordon Wilson and Senator John Robb—people do not have to come from the nationalist community to serve in the Senate. We should welcome the fact that that generosity has existed and resent the tardiness that resulted in the problems faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh. We should welcome the clause overwhelmingly.

Peter Temple-Morris (Labour, Leominster)

I welcome very much the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and I agree with every word he said. Although the entire Committee may not agree with him, I think that the vast majority of hon. Members do. Clause 28(5) is a good provision and I hope that the Government will not give way on this point. As my hon. Friend said, it is a very useful clause. It also suits the philosophy of what we are endeavouring to achieve: a cross-community, co-operative view that recognises that there is another side to the argument. It is in line also with the aims of the cross-border bodies to which I wish all health and strength. Any loss of sovereignty is surely a matter for the Republic of Ireland. In response to the claim that its acceptance of people who are not technically its own is some sort of political strategy, all I can say is that people in the Republic of Ireland have been greatly reassured by that policy. My hon. Friend mentioned the late Senator Gordon Wilson, who was a great encouragement to the people of the Republic of Ireland in terms of their attitudes to Protestants in the north of Ireland. The policy was a triumph in encouraging everyone—including many hon. Members—who had anything to do with Ireland, north and south, to continue their efforts for peace when they were discouraged for various reasons. The measure is good for the Senate and for the Assembly. We have an interesting example of the policy in action within this building. Ever since Irish independence, the House of Lords has contained a healthy number of Irish peers. There are a number of peers of Irish extraction, although of course they sit as United Kingdom peers. That is an excellent thing, and I am sure that members of the other place would agree. The old ones who remained after 1921 have all gone, but there are members of the House of Lords and those who aspire to membership of it who are resident in the Republic of Ireland now. The Earl of Mount Charles, whom some of us know, nearly ended up as Member of the Dail, when he could easily have been in the House of Lords were it not for his father's deserved longevity. We are dealing with the understanding between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I shall speak to amendment No. 21, which is a probing amendment. It would delete subsection (7), which deals with the grounds for disqualifying a person from becoming a Member of the Assembly. The purpose of the amendment is to restrict membership of the Assembly to citizens of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth. Given the importance of the concept of devolution to Northern Ireland, as well as to Scotland and Wales, and the need to transfer the democratic deficit to local political input, it seems strange that, under those devolution powers, we should not restrict membership of such an Assembly to people who belong to that community, thereby giving it maximum input. Subsection (7) qualifies the disqualification rules set out in section 3 of the Act of Settlement by inserting a condition that that would be negated if a person were a citizen of the European Union. Can the Minister tell us whether the proposed measure is unique to Northern Ireland? It does not seem to be contained in the original House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 or the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. It may have been added at a later date, subsequent to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, following the Maastricht treaty. It would be helpful if the Minister gave the Committee some clarification of the matter, and also justified the notion of citizenship of the European Union in relation to the laws of Northern Ireland.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The amendments seek to remove the exemption from disqualification, first, of Members of the Irish Senate and, secondly, of citizens of other European Union states. I associate myself closely with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). He referred to the late Senator Gordon Wilson, and I remember going to the late Senator's funeral. I found it a moving experience to be there with representatives from both north and south. Those present were, I suppose, expressing their appreciation of what Senator Wilson's life had meant. They were saying that what happened at Eniskillen was totally unacceptable both north and south of the border. The invitation to him to be a Member of the Irish Senate was a powerful expression of such sentiments. The House of Commons has considered these matters recently. It had the opportunity to discuss the issues during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, which included identical provisions. It would be very much in conflict with that Act if we were to accept the amendment, which we shall not. There have been many distinguished people from Northern Ireland who have sat in the Senate in the past. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred on several occasions to what he saw as a conflict of interest between a Minister being in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the Senate as well. However, the amendment is not about Ministers but about disqualification from membership of the Assembly.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Is the Minister saying that if someone got into the Assembly who was a Member of the Senate he would be blocked, if he became a Minister, from continuing in the Senate? Surely the way into the Government is by election to the Assembly. If that gets someone into the Assembly and he becomes a Minister, there is no blockage set out in the Bill to keep him from being a Member of the Senate.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am simply addressing the amendment. The part of the clause that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove is one which permits someone who is a Member of the Irish Senate being also a Member of the Assembly. I was addressing the hon. Gentleman's debating point. He was referring to Ministers, rather than people wishing to be candidates for the Assembly. Amendment No. 21 stands in the name of the official Opposition. The part of the clause to which it relates is about its being all right for citizens of other European states to be candidates. Subsection (7) is identical to the provisions that were accepted by the House of Commons in agreeing to the passage of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. As it happens, that is in line with the law in Scotland as well. I think that that is the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). It is for the citizens of Northern Ireland to decide whether a particular citizen of another European Union state should represent them. We see no reason to exclude them. Accordingly, we would resist amendment No. 21 as well. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked specifically about provisions elsewhere. The provisions in the Bill are the same in this respect as those of the Scotland Bill.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The way into office in the Northern Ireland Assembly is to get elected to the Assembly. A person can get elected to the Assembly and also be a Member of the Senate of the south of Ireland. There is nothing in the Bill to say that a Minister cannot be a Member of the Senate. Let us be clear. If he is a Member of the Assembly and is not disqualified, there is nothing in the Bill to say that he cannot continue to be a Member of the Senate, if that is his position. A Minister could, under the terms of the Bill, be a Member of the Senate. On the subject of Dail Eireann, the person would have to be elected, and people in the south of Ireland do not look in too friendly a way on candidates from the north. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is popular in his constituency, but if he went across the border to Carlingford and stood for election to the Dail Eireann, I do not think that he would do well—even with all his great powers of oratory and influence.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, but I will be decent and give way to him in a minute, if he just holds on. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) came out with the outrageous remark that Irish peers still sit in the other place. They do not sit there as Irish peers—they sit there because they possess an English peerage.

Peter Temple-Morris (Labour, Leominster)

I said that.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The hon. Gentleman said that they were making a contribution to that House. That is the strangest thing—because someone originally had an Irish peerage, they can remain in that House. They are in that House because they are British peers. There are no Irish peers in the House of Lords. Talk about making bricks without straw—that is what the hon. Gentleman tried to do. Mention was made of Gordon Wilson. He was not reached out to in the north to come down to the south. He was a southern man—he was brought up in the south. Let us get identities right. The Committee must get its facts right. The Prime Minister of the south of Ireland can appoint various people to seats in the Senate. Under the Bill, he could now appoint the Deputy First Minister to a seat in the Senate. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) told us that this is probably the Mallon clause. I do not think that it should be in the Bill. The Minister said that we have had time to discuss the matter. I refer him to Hansard, where he will see how much time we had. The debate came to an abrupt end when a vote was called.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I am grateful for the graciousness and charm of the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I did not reflect those virtues when he tried to intervene during my speech. First, the Irish peers sitting in the Lords with English titles were bribed with those English titles to get rid of the Irish Parliament in 1800 at the time of the Act of Union. That cost £24 million—a fair sum of money at the time. Secondly, I wish to make a more relevant point about people from the north being elected in the south. The President of the Republic of Ireland came from the north.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

That might well be, but the President of the Republic is not a Member of Dail Eireann. I challenge members of the SDLP to fight seats in the south and see how they get on.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

rose—

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I never asked how those peers got into the House of Lords or what money they paid for their English titles. If that was the way in which they got into the other place, shame on them. The hon. Member for Leominster said that they made a great contribution. What contribution could they make if they got in by paying £300 for their title?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Does the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) want to withdraw his amendment?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

No; we wish to shout no. [Laughter.]

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We wish to shout yes to the amendment, Mr. Martin.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Aye.

EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION AND PROVISION FOR RELIEF

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 15, leave out lines 6 to 15.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 22 is a probing amendment. It would delete subsections (2) and (3) of clause 29, which provides relief for those who may be disqualified from the Assembly. Amendment No. 23 is consequential on amendment No. 22. Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 outlines the circumstances in which a person is disqualified from Assembly membership. Disqualification is based solely on an individual holding particular office in, for example, the judiciary, the armed forces, the police, the civil service, quangos of one kind or another and non-departmental public bodies. Clause 29(2) gives the Assembly power to lay an order to direct that the original grounds for disqualifying a person can be waived in certain circumstances. Even assuming that that is an acceptable power to give to the Assembly, the Bill is not clear whether the order to offer relief would need a simple majority vote in the Assembly or whether such a decision would require cross-community support. As the Bill does not specifically mention the latter, it is not unreasonable to conclude that that does not apply. Assembly decisions on individual cases could therefore be determined by the majority group of designated nationalists or designated Unionists. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position. Much has been made of the fact that the Bill must faithfully interpret and reflect the Belfast agreement, but there does not appear to be a corresponding section offering guidance in this context. Paragraph 25 of the strand 1 section refers to the removal of an individual from office, but not to removal from membership of the Assembly, disqualification from standing for election or even disqualification from being able to sit as a Member of the Assembly. Perhaps the Minister will offer some illumination. Will he confirm that this issue is not covered by a corresponding part of the Belfast agreement? If so, why was it deemed either necessary or expedient, and by whom, to incorporate powers of waiver for the Assembly? Clause 29(2) is taken almost verbatim from section 6(2) and (3) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which received Royal Assent on 8 May 1975—simultaneously with the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. The Northern Ireland Act does not contain such a section, despite both Acts presumably passing through the House contemporaneously. Why was the difference deemed to be appropriate then, but not now? Do we really want to give the Assembly such a power, especially as it will be administered—if that is the right word—by order, through secondary legislation? We need the Minister to explain a number of matters.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

These two amendments would remove the Assembly's power, in certain circumstances, to provide relief from disqualification. They would remove some flexibility. I note that the hon. Gentleman said that they were probing amendments. They apply to the fairly exotic circumstances in which people stand for election while disqualified and that is not made known before they get elected. That is unusual, and we believe that it is necessary to give the Assembly some flexibility. The election of such a candidate would be invalidated. People get annoyed—Winchester comes to mind—if they feel that their will has been thwarted through a technicality or for even more serious reasons. This power allows the Assembly to set aside the disqualification. As the hon. Gentleman said, the disqualification is usually because the candidate holds a post or position that disqualifies him from being a representative in the Assembly. Candidates must put right the reason for which they were disqualified, so they would have to resign from their post. The cause of the disqualification would be removed, and the Assembly could set aside the disqualification if it so wished. The hon. Gentleman said that a section of the community could vote, perhaps on a sectarian basis, for someone to be disqualified. Other Members of the Assembly would be free to challenge any such move, and the petition of concern is a further safeguard. If 30 Members of the Assembly feel that decisions should be made on a cross-party basis, they can cause that to occur. I think that that deals with the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. The provisions reflect those that applied to the previous Assembly in Northern Ireland; which apply to the House of Commons; and which are in the Scotland Bill. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's points.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for the Minister's response. Can a candidate who is deemed to be disqualified, for whatever reason, from taking his place in the Assembly appeal against that disqualification under existing law? Why does it require the Assembly to lay an order? That allows the Assembly to decide whether the disqualification should be waived. The Minister said that a similar measure applies to the House of Commons. As I said, it is contained in section 6 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Going through the House at the same time was the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, but this measure was not in that legislation. Do I understand from his final remarks that he is now saying that the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 has been amended to bring it into line with the measures applying to the House of Commons?

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I regret that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's last point immediately. He raised the issue of an appeal against disqualification. Again, it is difficult to give an instant answer without knowing the grounds on which an appeal was being made. A person is disqualified from standing for the Assembly if he holds a particular position. That is usually a cut and dried case—either one holds a position or one does not. Obviously, there would be an appeal—to use the word loosely—within the Assembly by the Assembly Member concerned or his or her representatives when the Assembly could hear the case. We are talking here about the Assembly's ability to set aside the disqualification if the grounds for disqualification have already been resolved. It would be against the law for a person to continue to hold a specified post and become a Member of the Assembly. Although it would be grounds for disqualification for a person to stand for election to the Assembly while holding such a post, if he or she had given up the post, the Assembly would have the power to set aside the disqualification that had previously applied. The hon. Gentleman may wish to enlighten me later, but it is difficult to think of other grounds for an appeal. There could not be an appeal in respect of the merits of holding the post. That is simply the law of the United Kingdom Parliament. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman. It seems fairly obvious that the Assembly requires some flexibility, as the consequences of setting aside the results of an election on what may be a technicality or a post-holding issue that has been resolved by resignation are too serious to leave the Assembly without the power to set aside that disqualification.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. When I spoke about an appeal, I was asking about an appeal by a person who has been disqualified in clause 29(2)(a) who feels that the grounds of disqualification or alleged disqualification which subsisted or arose at the material time have been removed". I wondered whether that would be possible without necessarily giving the Assembly the power to do that by order. The Minister said that he would write to me or speak to me at a later date, but I am still puzzled why, if the provision is already incorporated in Northern Ireland statute, I could not find it in the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. It may have been added later, in which case it has simply been brought across and presumably will fall from the earlier legislation. I am quite happy to accept the Minister's statement that it already applies to Northern Ireland and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

COMMISSION

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 32, page 16, line 37, at end insert— 'Such directions shall not be given without cross—community support.'. Clause 32 deals with the Commission, which is akin to the shadow business committee that currently exists to deal with the day-to-day requirements of the shadow Assembly. Subsections (1) to (4) have been substantively dealt with by the creation of the shadow committee, of which the Commission will be the successor. The committee was created under the requirement of cross-community support, and my amendment to subsection (5) would mean that special directions or requirements given by the Assembly to the Commission in connection with its functions would also require cross-community support. It may be argued that the amendment should apply to all of clause 32. If so, I should be happy to hear the Minister accept it in those terms.

Peter Temple-Morris (Labour, Leominster)

I support the amendment. The Assembly will give directions to the Commission, which will be the body on high for the whole operation. Most of clause 32 has to do with membership of the Commission, which is covered by other parts of the Bill. Subsection (5) is distinct in providing that The Assembly may give special or general directions to the Commission for the purpose of or in connection with the exercise of the Commission's functions. That goes very wide, and the Commission's role may be altered by it. There is a clear case for adding the safeguard suggested by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), which is provided in the rest of the Bill.

Peter Temple-Morris (Labour, Leominster)

It is, and that is the spirit in which the hon. Member for South Down moved it.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The amendment deals with the Commission that will provide the property, staff and services of the Assembly. Clause 32(5) empowers the Assembly to give special or general directions to the Commission in relation to its functions. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment supported by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). The Commission will be the servant of the Assembly, and should carry out its functions dispassionately. However, the Bill already contains safeguards. A motion to give directions to the Commission could, for example, be subject to the petition of concern procedure, which would require a cross-community vote. Equally, the Assembly Standing Orders could ensure that there was cross-community support: we assume that the Standing Orders under clause 32(2) on the appointment of members of the Commission itself ensure that members are representative of the Assembly as a whole. There could be ambiguity about the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster referred to the mystical ways in which this place is run. I have never troubled myself with that, but one sees that it runs in a fair way. No doubt, directions are given all the time; one would not want to come to the House so that they could be given all-party support. It is necessary to delegate at times, but I believe that the safeguard is there in the petition of concern. The safeguard will be there in the terms of the membership of the commission.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I hear what the Under-Secretary says regarding the various safeguards applying to many aspects of the running of the Assembly and the business committee, or, as it is called in the Bill, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, but clause 32(5) gives the Assembly statutory authority to give any special or general directions to the Commission without cross-community support. As a layman, that is my interpretation of what clause 32(5) does. I urge him to give this matter further consideration, if necessary. The normal mechanisms that he has described, which apply to other aspects of the clause and other aspects of the management of the Assembly per se, have the same criteria for support—that is, cross-community support—that we had anticipated.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

If the Assembly looks like it is going to give, in a biased, partial way, special or general directions, that would, I assume from the Bill, have to come to the floor of the Assembly. It will then be open for people who object to the way in which the Commission is developing to have a petition of concern, and for 30 Members to say, "This should be on a cross-community basis." Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman seeks is there for the safeguarding of his Members or other Members. I fear that if one said that everything that the Commission had to do in managing matters had to be on a cross-community basis, there would be an element of paralysis about it, but, if, at any time, Members were concerned about the way in which the Commission was developing, there are safeguards in the Standing Orders, in the membership of the Commission and through the petition of concern mechanism, to ensure that things are done through cross-community support. We are listening to the whole debate. If there are any grounds for us to think that the safeguards in the Bill are inadequate—at the moment, I think that they are adequate—we shall contact the hon. Gentleman, or, if he wants to flesh out what he is saying about his concerns, we shall look at the matter again. However, at the moment, I feel that what he wants is within the framework of the Bill and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

In view of the Under-Secretary's last remarks and his very generous offer of reconsideration and, indeed, communication on the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 17, leave out lines 32 to 36. Clause 35 deals with Members' interests. The amendment would delete subsection (3), which deals with the power of the Assembly to establish Standing Orders that may prevent or restrict the participation of a Member with a registerable interest in a matter to which the Assembly's proceedings relate. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee on to where the proposal in subsection (3) emanates from? It has certainly been incorporated in the Scotland Bill, which recently proceeded through the House, but I could not find an earlier reference in relation to Standing Orders for this Parliament. The rules of this House have certainly been tightened in the year or so since the Nolan report, but, so I am led to understand by the Clerks of the House, we have nothing that goes so far as to prevent a Member from participating in our proceedings, save that a Member is not allowed to act as an advocate for a person or body for which he or she has a registerable interest. Subsection (3) gives the Assembly wide-ranging powers to impose severe and possibly unacceptable conditions on its Members that could inhibit debate. Significant contributions can often be made by Members with expertise and a particular interest, registerable or otherwise, in a particular subject. So long as that interest is registered and declared at the appropriate time in the Assembly's proceedings, there is nothing to be lost, and much to be gained, by exercising tolerance and reasonableness. Given the various other constraints placed on the operation of the Assembly, essentially through the separation of excepted and reserved matters from transferred matters, why should the Assembly be given powers that would work against the interests of openness and democracy in its proceedings? The amendment would remove the particular power from the Assembly to make such Standing Orders. In our submission, it would leave, in the remaining subsections of clause 35, considerable opportunities for the Assembly to make Standing Orders to regulate the participation of Members with a registerable interest. For example, subsection (4) deals adequately with advocacy and the payment for initiating a cause in the Assembly, which are quite rightly to be prohibited. Subsection (3) is superfluous to requirements. It is not to be found in the agreement. The amendment would help the proper and effective working of the Assembly by not placing unreasonable restrictions on the free speech afforded to its Members. That is a sentiment which I hope the Minister and the Government will find persuasive.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

We think that amendment No. 24 is a strange amendment, as it would remove the Assembly's power to provide in its Standing Orders for preventing or restricting the participation in proceedings of…a member with a registerable interest…in a matter to which the proceedings relate. The subsection is not telling the Assembly; it is giving it the power to include such a provision in its standing orders if it wishes to do so. Clause 35(3) has to be read in conjunction with 35(2), which requires people to make a declaration of interest. That requirement is clear cut. However, clause 35(3) provides that the Assembly may—not "shall", which is always a point of confusion in legislation—take the power to decide that it is not sufficient for a Member simply to declare an interest, but that, in some particular instances, there should be extra powers to restrict a Member's participation. There is nothing unusual about such a provision. As someone who moved from UK local government to UK central Government, I thought that it was very strange that all that was necessary to carry on speaking in this place was to declare an interest, whereas in local government one would not be allowed to speak in a debate or to be part of a committee that was considering a matter in which one had a declared interest. One would not be allowed even to be in the room when a decision was made on the matter. We think that, in the majority of cases, it will be sufficient simply to require Members to declare an interest. However, in other cases, it may be appropriate for a Member to be prevented from voting on a matter in which he or she has a close interest. Although I do not want to deal with too many speculative issues, one might wish, for example, to give to the Assembly the power to introduce Standing Orders that, in some circumstances, would prevent a Member voting on an issue in which he or she has a significant financial interest—just as happens in local government.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

As my hon. Friend said, is not "may" the operative word and the essential point? In most cases, a financial interest will be registered if there is one, and there will be no prohibition on a person speaking. However, if an interest, for example a contract, is so blatant or commercial, such a safeguard is reasonable and wise—especially in the post-Nolan world, and bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments on local government—but is likely to be used only very rarely.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am grateful for that intervention, which very much made the point that I wanted to make. We are saying not that such a provision has to be made, but that it will be for the judgment of the Assembly to decide the matter in formulating its Standing Orders. It can include the provision in its Standing Orders if it so wishes. We believe that it must be right to enable the Assembly to restrict or prevent in certain circumstances the participation of Members from proceedings in which they may have an interest. We think that that will add very considerably to the Assembly's credibility and openness.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

May I draw the Minister's attention to the largest industry in Northern Ireland, agriculture? A number of Members of the Assembly have agricultural interests, which are naturally financial interests. If they—the representatives of that section of the Northern Ireland community—were prevented from participating, the result might be extremely skewed decisions, because those decisions would have been taken by people who did not have a financial interest. It is for that reason that I tend to agree with the amendment rather than with the Minister.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

My point is that we should give the Assembly the power to exercise its own good sense in respect of its Standing Orders relating to what is an interest, the level of interest that should be declared and what action is to be taken. I have no problem whatsoever with the proposition that those involved in agriculture should defend the interests of agriculture; their expertise is perfectly acceptable and should be used by the Assembly. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it would be quite inappropriate for someone who would personally benefit financially from a decision of the Assembly—someone whose farm would benefit specifically—to be required only to declare an interest. The Assembly might regard that as an inadequate disqualification of a person from participation in making decisions on that matter. The matter is for the Assembly to decide in its Standing Orders relating to the declaration of interests and the role to be played by special interests within the Assembly. We should give the Assembly the power to draw up Standing Orders that enhance the standing of the Assembly in the eyes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we are giving the Assembly that power, which is a sensible power.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister still has not answered the question that I put to him. Where does the clause come from? He has not told the Committee whether it appears in legislation pertaining to the proceedings of the House. He referred to local authority standing orders, so the provision might well have been lifted from local government legislation. Notwithstanding the support that we would give to proper constraints relating to Members' interests in the operation of the Assembly, as I have said, we believe that there are adequate safeguards in clause 35. I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that there should be proper safeguards. The clause uses the word "may", but we would conclude that there are sufficient safeguards already in clause 35. For example, subsection (4) states: Standing orders shall —not may— include provision prohibiting a member of the Assembly from…advocating or initiating any cause or matter on behalf of any person", or, indeed, on behalf of his or herself, no doubt, by any means specified in standing orders, in consideration of any payment or benefit in kind". I should have thought that that was a catch-all provision and that subsection (3) was therefore pretty irrelevant.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

On the question of where the provision comes from, the situation has been evolving since Nolan, so I cannot say that it is a straight copy from any specific legislation relating to the House. We are making proposals that seem appropriate to the new post-Nolan position. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the matter is not covered in the agreement, but we could not, in those miraculous few days, expect the agreement to cover all such issues. However, I am sure that it is obvious to everyone that there should be a provision in the Northern Ireland Bill that sets up the Assembly covering the matter of Members' interests. We have simply put forward the proposition that, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, there should be a discretionary power for the Standing Orders of the Assembly to allow a ruling to be made as to whether, in some circumstances, the body needs to go beyond what exists in other respects. I am told that the provisions in the Scotland Bill are the same, almost word for word, and give flexibility to the Scottish Parliament.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I do not want to be controversial at this time of the afternoon. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend agrees with me, but it would not be a bad idea if we introduced the same Standing Orders in the House of Commons.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is interesting to hear what is in my hon. Friend's mind at this time on a Friday afternoon. The provision is sensible and it will be up to the good sense of the Assembly to decide how to use it, if it wishes to do so.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Obviously, there must be adequate safeguards in the Assembly to deal with Members' interests. No one is suggesting that that should not be the case, but this may be a safeguard too far. We are in danger of over-legislating, and there are plenty of other adequate provisions in clause 35 to deal with Members with registrable interests. It is interesting to hear the Minister admit that it is all right to add to the agreement, but not to detract from it. The Bill makes many additions to the agreement, which was presumably cast in tablets of stone on Mount Sinai. As this point may be revisited in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: TAXES

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I have received representations about clause 45, including representations from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that there needs to be consistency between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on these matters. Although I recommend that the Committee supports the clause, we may return to this matter on Report.

PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: SECRETARY OF STATE

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in clause 46, page 23, line 20, at end add— '( ) Subject to subsection ( ) below, the Secretary of State shall make such a payment at least once every financial year. ( ) No such payment shall be made unless the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons a statement certifying that the payment recognises the needs of Northern Ireland in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole.'. I welcome the Minister of State's remarks about clause 45. Clauses 45 and 46 are as important as many others in the Bill. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to have its own Consolidated Fund, although clause 61 of the Scotland Bill will set up such a fund for Scotland. The Province has always been subject to the same taxes as the rest of the country, which are collected by UK Departments. Its share of those taxes and any other revenue collected in Northern Ireland is paid into its Consolidated Fund. Parliament then adds a further amount—the so-called subvention—to that fund each year. That consists, first, of an automatic increase, calculated under the Barnett formula and, secondly, of an additional payment negotiated in each year's spending round. Under the Barnett formula, any change in spending in Great Britain is also applied to Northern Ireland, but scaled down to reflect the Province's smaller population. That means that if spending on relevant Great Britain programmes is raised or cut by £100 million, funding for Northern Ireland increases or decreases by about £2.91 million. That figure is now adjusted annually to take account of population changes. I believe that the figure for last year was £2.87 million. The Minister, who is responsible for finance, will no doubt confirm that. The Barnett formula determines only the annual change in funding for Northern Ireland, not the baseline figure. Moreover, as the change is based on levels of expenditure in Great Britain, it does not even work to maintain higher per capita spending in the Province. Indeed, if an increasing amount of the Province's funding is based on the lower level of spending in Great Britain, the gap narrows. 1.15 pm That has not happened in practice because, for some time, every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has always secured an additional payment for the Province. However, it may be more difficult for Secretaries of State to do so after devolution, because the Bill says only that The Secretary of State may from time to time make payments into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland out of money provided by Parliament. Amendment No. 26 would add the following: Subject to subsection ( ) below, the Secretary of State shall make such a payment at least once every financial year. The Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill say "shall"—not "may", the word used in the Bill before us. The second part of our amendment reads: No such payment shall be made unless the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons a statement certifying that the payment recognises the needs of Northern Ireland in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole. In short, we believe that the amendment guarantees that the Province will continue to get the funding that it needs, based on an accurate assessment of those needs in relation to spending in the United Kingdom as a whole. No Minister in Northern Ireland, and I expect no Ministers of the Assembly, as and when it starts to do its work, would want a situation to arise where the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland are left waiting for the crumbs from the Treasury table, unable to question whether the money paid into that Consolidated Fund, plus any extra moneys, is related specifically to the unique needs of Northern Ireland, which have been recognised by every Government and Secretary of State since direct rule.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The amendment suggests that money to supplement the Consolidated Fund in Northern Ireland may be given without proper consideration to the balance of public expenditure throughout the United Kingdom. That is not the case; it is given on the same basis as money in any other part of the country. It is unusual only in being identified in statute. In Scotland, by comparison, there is no division into attributable and non-attributable payments. The Northern Ireland subvention is properly authorised annually by Parliament in the United Kingdom, in a process which, of course, takes account of the financial requirements of all parts of the United Kingdom. The changes proposed are unnecessary. The existing funding mechanism enables the comparison to be made—which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned—between the needs of Northern Ireland and those of the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe that it reflects population and needs, as in the case of the other regions and countries of the UK, and I do not believe that we should single out Northern Ireland in the way that the amendment proposes. As I said earlier, there is force in the argument that the arrangements in clause 45 for attributing a share of taxation to Northern Ireland are wrong. That is why I spoke briefly a moment ago. It is only right that we should be concerned about the way in which Northern Ireland is funded—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that—and that the needs of the entire United Kingdom are taken into account. I think that the allocation is fair; it has been with us a long time and the arrangements will be similar under devolution. The measure has operated for many years, including when the hon. Gentleman was a Northern Ireland Minister. I do not think that it would be right to go further than that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Minister for that response. However, two questions remain unanswered. First, why does the clause say that the Secretary of State "may" when the word "shall" is used in the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill? Can the Minister explain why Northern Ireland is different? We should certainly firm up the wording to incorporate the word "shall" instead of the word "may". That would give a little more comfort to future Members of the Assembly and to Ministers who will take over in Northern Ireland. I am reassured by the Minister's comments that he believes that the future distribution of moneys to Northern Ireland will be fair and will take account of Northern Ireland's unique needs. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom has the pressure of law and order and terrorism on its budget. I hope that that is a thing of the past, but nothing on the horizon suggests that expenditure in that area will diminish in the short term. Perhaps the issue will be revisited in another place, but I think that we should give Assembly Members and the ministerial team further assurances that Northern Ireland's unique needs will not be left to the whim of a Secretary of State but be set down in statute. That would give them the firm reassurance that I am sure that they seek. On the basis of the Minister's response, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I realise that the hon. Gentleman intends to withdraw the amendment, but he may be interested in my response to his two questions. First, he referred to the use of the word "may" in the clause. That matter will be considered as a consequence of our re-examination of clause 45. As he knows, the issues to which he referred are transferred matters and do not include the law and order budget. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

FINANCIAL ACTS OF THE ASSEMBLY

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 28, page 24, line 38, at end insert 'or'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 24, line 39, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 40 and insert— '(2A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and any Order in Council made under the provisions of this Act, the Assembly shall neither impose nor vary taxes.' No. 30, in page 24, line 43, leave out from 'appropriated' to end of line 1 on page 25.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Clause 50 deals with the Assembly's financial powers. Tax-raising powers in general are defined as excepted matters and are to be found in paragraph 9 of schedule 2 to the Bill. They include taxes levied across the entire United Kingdom and any existing taxes in Northern Ireland. The list includes inheritance tax, stamp duty, general betting duty, pool betting duty, duty on gaming machine licences and duty on vehicle licences. From a reading of clause 50(1), which states: in pursuance of a recommendation which…is made by the Minister of Finance and Personnel; and…is signified to the Assembly by him or on his behalf', it would seem that the Assembly could pass a vote which imposes or increases a tax". That is in subsection (2)(d). In addition, under subsection (3), powers are given to the Assembly to impose or increase a tax, as long as there is cross-community support. It is not clear from the Bill, however, which tax or taxes that applies to—presumably, any taxes outside the list that I enumerated. Those tax-raising powers seem to be new powers given to the Assembly, but the Minister may correct me. I found identical provisions in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, in terms of the definition of taxes under excepted matters. Where do tax-raising powers appear in the Belfast agreement? I could not find them. No doubt, this is one of the necessary additions to that agreement about which we spoke earlier. Our amendments would remove the powers of the Assembly to raise taxes. Even if the power remains on the statute, it is vital that the taxes referred to in the Bill are clearly and unequivocally defined.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I have much sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) about the misleading nature of the clause. I understand that, for various technical and legal reasons, it would be difficult to amend the clause. However, it must be read in conjunction with schedule 2, which makes it clear that the clause does not refer to general tax-raising powers, about which the hon. Gentleman was troubled. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) spoke about tax-varying powers. Those were not part of the agreement and were not finalised. I have subsequently consulted parties in Northern Ireland, who are generally of the view that there should not be such powers. The clause refers to the regional rate in Northern Ireland, which was set up by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and which is used to discharge many functions in Northern Ireland that are normally discharged by local authorities in England and Wales. The Assembly will retain the right to raise the regional rate, but there are no plans in the Bill for a general tax-levying, tax-raising or tax-varying power. Consequently, I ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Perhaps the Minister and his civil service draftsmen will look again at the wording of the Bill. It might be helpful to define the tax as the general rate. That would overcome the problem quite easily. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE