Northern Ireland Assembly, 1 February 1999

269 contributions from 46 members. The official report.

Presiding Officer’s Business

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

By virtue of paragraph 1 of the schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, it falls to the Secretary of State to determine where meetings of the Assembly shall be held and when. I have received a letter to the Assembly from the Secretary of State directing that it shall meet at Parliament Buildings, Stormont at 10.30 am on Monday 1 February until 6.00 pm on Tuesday 23 February. The Secretary of State has also indicated that she will consider a further direction in respect of this period, in particular in the light of any indications she may receive as to the wishes of the Assembly after it has begun to meet.

At the last sitting, several matters were raised with me on which I was asked to give a ruling and on which I offered to conduct investigation. The first, raised by Mr O’Connor, a Member for East Antrim, was about entry to the Chamber by Members during the conduct of a vote. On a related point, Mr Ian Paisley Jnr asked about the authority to have the doors locked.

I have investigated these matters. ‘Erskine May’ cites the precedent of Members being specifically identified in connection with entering a Division Lobby after the order has been given to lock the doors. I believe that this precedent is relevant. I therefore rule as follows.

Dr Ian Paisley and Mr Paisley Jnr entered the Chamber, according to the timed video tape, fully 60 seconds after the order for the doors to be closed had been given, and after a number of Members had voted. Both this and the leaving of the Chamber by any Member prior to the Doorkeepers’ reopening the Doors is improper.

Under Initial Standing Order 2(1), it is within the Speaker’s powers to instruct that the doors be secured during a Division. To do otherwise would be to disadvantage Members whose names occur early in the alphabetical list.

It is not permissible to vote from the Galleries, nor will it be permissible to vote in the Division Lobbies until the Assembly decides, under Standing Orders, that they can be used for that purpose, at which time they will become the proper places to vote. In this situation, however, it is quite clear that the Members entered the Division Lobby after the doors had been closed.

In view of the fact that Dr Paisley was aware of the procedure of the closing of the doors, as is clear from his intervention, recorded on videotape and timed at 5.15 pm, at the sitting on 15 December 1998, and since other Members who held the rules were unable to have their votes recorded on a previous occasion, I rule that the record be amended to disallow the votes of Dr Paisley and Mr Paisley Jnr on that occasion.

Mr McCartney raised the issue of getting advice from the Deputy Clerk. In particular, he enquired about whether it would be advisable to leave the Chamber. Having investigated the exchanges, I am content that the Deputy Clerk acted properly on that occasion.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Following the marvellous achievement of Ulster at Lansdowne Road at the weekend, is it in order for me to ask whether arrangements have been made for the Assembly to receive this great rugby team so that we may all rejoice in their achievement of becoming European champions?

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

I agree with Mr Kennedy, and I understand that some matters are in hand. But I am not sure that this is a point of order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I ask you to reflect further on the meaning and intention of Standing Order 2(1), which you quoted in an earlier ruling. It is clear that your role is to interpret and enforce Standing Orders, but you do not have the power to make new Standing Orders. Quite properly, that power is withheld from you. No Standing Order suggests that the Doors should be closed or locked, and you have enforced existing Standing Orders in such a way as to attempt to extend them. I would like you to look at this matter again because it goes far beyond what the Standing Orders entitle the Initial Presiding Officer to do.

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

On almost every occasion when requested by Members to review a matter I have done so. I will do so again on this occasion. However, I should draw the Assembly’s attention to two matters.

First, I have repeatedly said that the Initial Standing Orders are not adequate for the conduct of the Assembly’s business and that, therefore, I should take other matters into account. Those matters include the draft Standing Orders, the discussions on them, and ‘Erskine May’. I have made that clear on a number of occasions.

Secondly, on the issue of fastening the doors — not locking them — I have not given instructions that they must be locked, although that is the procedure in other places when Members do not accept that the doors should simply be closed. If the doors were not closed our procedure would be improper because advantage would be given to Members whose names came later in alphabetical order, and that could lead to discrimination.

I will look again at the matter, and if I have made a judgement which has gone beyond what is appropriate I will draw that to the attention of the Assembly.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. Will you please provide Members with a list of what you believe is proper and what is not proper. It is extremely difficult for Members to operate properly when they do not know exactly what, in your terms, is proper and what is not proper. According to Standing Order 2(2), you have no right to disallow our votes or to remove us from the Chamber. You have no right to tell us when we may or may not enter the Chamber. For those reasons, we need a list of what, in your mind, is proper and what is improper.

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

I have already given that list. The matter to which I refer is clearly dealt with in ‘Erskine May’, and that was followed in the ruling given.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Will you give the precise paragraph in ‘Erskine May’ which says that doors have to be locked.

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

I am not clear about the purpose of the point of order since, as I have already said, my instruction was not that the doors be locked but merely that they be closed. However, I am content to state the section of ‘Erskine May’ on which I based the ruling on what happens when Members are named as having entered the Division Lobbies after the doors have been locked and the procedure to be followed when it makes no difference to the outcome of the vote. I think that the reference is on page 354. I will advise Members if that is incorrect.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Do you not accept that on all these matters ‘Erskine May’ is not specific but general?

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

The Member must consult ‘Erskine May’. On this matter it is not general but highly specific.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I do not understand. In ‘Erskine May’ there is a clear statement about the locking of doors. Anyone who understands what happens in the Mother of Parliaments knows that the Chamber is never locked against Members at voting time. Sometimes the Lobby doors are locked, but not the Chamber.

You have been taking guidance from ‘Erskine May’. It covers the locking of doors, but you have said that you asked for the doors to be shut, not locked. Therefore your ruling, based on ‘Erskine May’, is not applicable in these circumstances.

How can you make a new Standing Order about voting? You must rule on the basis of the Standing Orders made by the Secretary of State. She alone has the power to make Standing Orders at this time. Your ruling on the issue of voting has not interpreted a Standing Order; it has made a new Standing Order — something that you have no power to do.

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

The Member is suggesting that it is appropriate for Members to vote at any time and in any manner they choose. That is not proper.

The timed videotape shows that the two Members entered the Chamber after the other Members had begun to vote. At the last sitting it was suggested that the Members had been in the Division Lobby at the time. From my investigations it is clear that that is not the case.

I must give rulings to keep things in order. From the first sitting of the Assembly I have made it clear that the Initial Standing Orders are not sufficient for the proper maintenance of order, and there has been no dissent. I made it clear that I would refer to ‘Erskine May’, and there was no dissent. I said that I would call for the doors to be fastened, and there was no dissent. Indeed, Dr Paisley rose at 5.15 pm on 15 December to point out that the doors were locked. In fact, they were simply closed. However, he was right in saying that they should have been opened after the vote was taken. He was correct, but he made no objection to the fact that they were closed at that stage. I assume that if that had been a matter for legitimate objection, objection would have been made. Of course, there are aspects of ‘Erskine May’ that are not applicable — this being a different type of Assembly.

I do not claim always to get it right, but Members must be aware that it is not possible for every matter to be conducted properly on the basis of the Initial Standing Orders. I have taken a reasonable number of objections and points of order on this matter, and I should now proceed to the third item on the Order Paper.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. You have referred to matters raised by Mr McCartney on 18 January regarding statements made, or alleged to have been made, to him by the Deputy Clerk. You said that you had looked into the matter and were satisfied that the Deputy Clerk had behaved correctly. Can you give Members more information about this? Mr McCartney’s comments on that occasion, and his report of the conversation that he had with the Deputy Clerk, do give rise to some serious considerations if they are accurate. Please explain more fully the basis upon which you are satisfied that the Deputy Clerk behaved properly.

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

I have looked into the matter in respect of Mr McCartney’s comments and have received from the Deputy Clerk a written account of what was said. I have also received a letter from the Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party and have responded to it.

From my enquiries I believe that matters were conducted properly. There was a clear dispute: some Members claimed that the Deputy Clerk should have said more, while others feared that he might have said too much. Such was the dilemma that the Deputy Clerk found himself in, and, from what I have ascertained, I am satisfied that the matter was conducted properly.

However, if Members feel that there are matters which have not been drawn to my attention, but ought to be, they should advise me accordingly. If other material comes to hand I will treat it seriously.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. I do not think it satisfactory to leave the previous debate as it stands. Mr Robinson and Mr Paisley implied or stated that your authority is limited to an interpretation of the present Standing Orders. Standing Order 2(1) states

"The Presiding Officer’s ruling shall be final on all questions of procedure and order."

That clearly indicates that, with regard to practical arrangements for the business of the House, your authority goes beyond these Standing Orders.

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

The Member puts it very clearly and, I think, properly. It is impossible to conduct matters solely on the basis of an interpretation of the rather thin Initial Standing Orders. The Assembly is aware of that. I drew this to Members’ attention on the first day and have drawn it to their attention on virtually every other day since. There has been no dissent until now, when Members find themselves on the wrong side of a ruling.

The purpose of Standing Order 2(1) is to address the inadequacies in the current Initial Standing Orders.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Further to the point of order raised by the right hon Member for Upper Bann (Mr Trimble), I wish to make it clear that I do not withdraw in any way the remarks that I made in relation to the information which I received from the Deputy Clerk.

I wish to underline the fact that those remarks were intended not to indicate any imputation against the Deputy Clerk, but merely to establish that the Deputy Clerk was privy, as you were, to information about the intention of some parties to move the closure. Your reaction to that knowledge, which I believe you had, is the issue that is to be the subject of the first debate today. The matter which Mr Trimble raised can be more than adequately dealt with then.

The point that I was making, as will be clear to Members familiar with the rules of evidence, is that it seemed that the Deputy Clerk was privy to something that was going to occur and, by implication, that you were privy to it.

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

I refer to what I said earlier. If Members have matters which they wish to take further I will investigate them and take appropriate action.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, further to the point of order raised by Mr Haughey, that Standing Order relates to a ruling on the Standing Orders. For you to make up procedure under no auspices whatsoever is ridiculous. You can only rule on the basis of what is in the Standing Orders.

You said earlier how terrible it would be if we were all to vote on the call of our names. That happens in the European Parliament when a President is elected. Members stay out of the Chamber until their names are called. Surely the Assembly should be capable of following the procedure of the great European experiment, which Members opposite laud to the highest heaven.

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

I was not aware that Dr Paisley was now advocating the European way.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Further to my earlier point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Mr McCartney’s comments give rise to some serious matters in view of his statement that he does not in any way withdraw the comments that he made on 18 January.

In every such deliberative body it is normal practice for parties, from time to time, to advise the Speaker’s office, in confidence, of things that they may propose to do during the proceedings.

Mr McCartney’s comments of 18 January, repeated today, imply that that confidence was broken by someone in your office. As Mr McCartney stands over those comments, it is important that we establish whether the necessary confidentiality has been breached.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, may I respond to that point of order?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Mr McCartney is not the Presiding Officer, so how could he respond?

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

If it is a question of raising a point of order, that is another matter. The matter has been aired, and if any further material is brought, I will look into it.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Whether there is some pathetic play with words about what a response meant it is neither here nor there. I never suggested at any time that the Deputy Clerk breached any confidence. However, he was clearly placed in a difficult position because he was being asked a question which would have meant his breaching a confidence if he responded positively. He did not respond positively but it was quite clear by inference — and that is all that I have ever said — that he was aware of information to which I have already referred.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. On 18 January Mr McCartney said

"the Clerk told me that ... it might not be opportune to leave the House."

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

As I said earlier, sometimes matters are not necessarily undisputed. If there is other material, Members should bring it forward.

Assembly Presiding Officer: No-Confidence Motion

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

Given my clear personal interest in this matter, I have sought the agreement of the parties to the appointment of an alternative Chairperson for this item of business only. It is for the Assembly to decide when to appoint a Presiding Officer and a Deputy Presiding Officer, although such a proposal would have to follow a motion being tabled and appearing on the Order Paper at least one day in advance of a plenary session. That has not yet happened, nor has the Secretary of State appointed a Deputy Presiding Officer.

In the interests of fairness, and for the protection of the Assembly’s interests, it would be inappropriate for me to preside over this item of business and, therefore, someone else should preside.

After discussions, I believe that Ms Jane Morrice is the most acceptable Member to preside during the debate on item 3, and I beg leave of the Assembly to ask her to take the Chair at that time.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Can you assure us that the alternative Presiding Officer will have the powers that you currently possess to regulate the Assembly’s business?

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

Ms Morrice would act not as an alternative Presiding Officer or as an acting Presiding Officer, but as the Chair for that debate.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

That does not answer my question. Will Ms Morrice possess the same powers as the Initial Presiding Officer to regulate the remainder of the business at this sitting?

John (Initial Presiding Officer, Belfast East)

If the Assembly gives leave for Ms Morrice to take the Chair for the debate on this motion, she will have the authority to conduct the business for that business alone. At the end of the debate on the motion, whatever the outcome, the Initial Presiding Officer will return to the Chair. The Assembly can then decide on how it will conduct matters in relation to the election of an alternative Presiding Officer.

I trust that those proposals are clear to Members. Ms Morrice will, by leave, preside over the debate on the motion.

I will set out the rules where those that were established in the Initial Standing Orders reported to the Assembly on 26 October 1998 are inadequate by reference to parliamentary practices that are described in ‘Erskine May’. This temporary chairmanship is made in the absence of a Deputy Initial Presiding Officer, and will lapse upon the return of the Initial Presiding Officer to the Chair. During the debate, I suggest, Ms Morrice be referred to as Madam Chair. At the end of the debate, and following any Division, the Temporary Chairperson will vacate the Chair.

Under Initial Standing Order 13(5), the Initial Presiding Officer shall continue in office, irrespective of the outcome of the debate. However, should the censure motion be agreed, the Initial Presiding Officer would continue to preside over the Assembly’s business until another Member is elected under Initial Standing Order 13 or until he resigns and the Secretary of State makes another appointment.

I invite Ms Morrice to take the Chair.

Ms Morrice

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move the following motion:

This Assembly has no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer.

Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer, I welcome you to the Chair, however short your sojourn may be. The matter that we are about to debate is very serious — one that concerns a critical aspect of the working of any democratic parliamentary assembly: do Members have confidence in their Presiding Officer? It is important that we set the scene against which the debate took place, the central issue and the Speaker’s handling of it, which is what has given rise to this motion of no confidence.

During the lead up to the preparation of the report by the First Minister Designate and the Deputy First Minister Designate there was considerable speculation about its content. The business managers of the House, who meet in the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer (CAPO), give advice to the Presiding Officer, upon which he makes determinations. Over a number of weeks consideration was given to how this debate would be conducted. A conclusion was reached in the CAPO meeting of the 11 January 1999. I want to put on to the record extracts from the minutes of that meeting, which show what was agreed. Under the heading "Timing" they say

"Mr P Robinson proposed the debate on the Report by the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) should be conducted on 18, 19 and if required 20 January, the remaining business to be completed on 20 January."

That clearly demonstrates what was proposed.

After discussion

"The Initial Presiding Officer suggested the debate should be conducted from 10.30 am to 6.00 pm on 18 and 19 January and potentially Wednesday if required. The debate can be extended by a short period on 19 January if that would complete the debate."

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr Robinson is informing the House that the timing of this debate came from the lips of the Initial Presiding Officer. He said that we could have this debate over two days and, if necessary, a third. It was his decision, made in view of the importance of the subject matter and of the number of Members who wished to participate.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The whole point about CAPO is that it is a Committee to advise the Presiding Officer who takes decisions on these matters. His decision is recorded in the minutes. Furthermore, it is then his responsibility, under law, for the Initial Presiding Officer to publish a business diary, giving to Members in advance, information about what the business of the House will be.

The business diary for that week clearly shows a plenary session for Monday 18 January 1999 and Tuesday 19 January 1999, and a plenary session for Wednesday 20 January 1999, if required. There was no doubt that there was to be a full two-day debate and, if required, a third day on Wednesday 20 January 1999.

The Order Paper was issued on the day of the debate. It set out Monday 18 January 1999, Tuesday 19 January 1999 and Wednesday 20 January 1999 as sitting days. There could be no doubt in the mind of the Initial Presiding Officer about what was reasonable and right in terms of the length of time for the debate. The Business Committee — or CAPO, as it is called — took cognizance of the fact that this was a crucial debate on a very important subject — and this was recognised by all of the parties — and, therefore, that it needed the additional day or two.

All parties were represented at the meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, and not one Member objected to a two- or three-day debate. Nor did any Member move that the debate be shortened in any way. There was no indication that the period allocated for this debate was too long, and the decisions that were taken clearly come from the advice given to the Initial Presiding Officer by all of the parties.

The debate, quite obviously, took fairly predictable lines. It was a normal Assembly debate — not even the references to hijackers and aeroplanes were particularly unusual. However, I listened to the revisionists trying to explain why it was proper to curtail the debate. Some of them said it was petering out: that is absolute nonsense. When the curtailing motion was brought forward, at least a dozen Members had yet to speak. Some Members arrogantly suggested that it be curtailed after they had spoken, since from then — for them — everything was downhill, and nothing further needed to be said. However, the reality was that there was plenty of steam left in the debate.

Then some of the revisionists suggested that there had been repetition. One of them had the audacity to quote my colleague Jim Wells who raised matters that nobody else had. There is nothing wrong with repetition, providing that it is not the same person repeating himself, and that seems to have been forgotten. There was no repetition; under the Standing Orders, it is the Initial Presiding Officer’s responsibility to draw to a Member’s attention the fact that he is repeating his remarks tediously and ask him to resume his seat, but there is nothing to stop one Member from covering the same points that another has dealt with.

It was also suggested that the debate was not the one that was expected. I am not sure what some Members did expect, but the subject matter was clear, and it had not changed. There may have been some delay in terms of one element of the overall report, but that would have been something more rather than less to debate. The debate had not reached the halfway stage when the Ulster Unionist Chief Whip rose to move the closure motion.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

Mr Robinson stated that the debate had not reached the halfway stage, but in his earlier remarks he said that there were at least 12 speakers to be called. I understand that 30 Members had already been called, so can he please explain by what quirk of mathematics he thinks the debate was less than halfway through?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

For the benefit of this intellectual colossus, my statement was based upon what I knew to be the position with regard to the number of DUP Members still to speak. I would not presume to guess the number that other parties would have been putting forward, but it would have been remarkable if the DUP had been allowed to have 12 speakers without any other party making some comments. It is clear that if some Members do not like what is being said, they stop it being said. That is some democracy for this House to enjoy!

I want to examine the decision that was taken, and, incidentally, I do not fault the Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party for rising to attempt a closure motion. The Standing Orders provide for that — within certain limitations — and in terms of those, what he did was fairly acceptable. However, as far as the meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer was concerned, he was breaking his word, because at that meeting it had been indicated that there would be a two- or three-day debate.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Obviously, some people are not expert in the Standing Order. This is a 20-minute speech. [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer, the Standing Order should be put on record:

"After a motion has been proposed and provided that each of the parties present has had a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the debate, any member who has not already spoken to it, or to any amendment which has been moved, may move that the question be now put."

That, as I said, is the part of the Standing Order which perfectly entitled the Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party to stand.

But there is a protection in the latter part of paragraph 11(1):

"and unless it shall appear to the Presiding Officer that such motion is an abuse of these Standing Orders, the question that the question be now put shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate."

The wording of the Standing Order is not accidental. It was not the original thought of the Secretary of State or her advisors; it comes directly from the House of Commons. It is the language of Westminster. When the Initial Presiding Officer, rightly and properly says that he uses ‘Erskine May’ as a guide, then we have the right to look at ‘Erskine May’ to see what guidance he would have found, had he looked there for advice.

There are two main tomes of knowledge in respect of practice and procedure in the House of Commons. One — the most respected — is ‘Erskine May’. The other — perhaps lesser known — is Griffith and Ryle: ‘Parliament: Functions, Practice & Procedures’. On the subject of closure Griffith and Ryle states

"The conditions attaching to the granting of the closure are important. Nothing is formally laid down, but the Chair, in whose sole, personal discretion it lies ……does seek to act within certain broad guidelines, based on previous practice and experience."

I want Members to listen to this:

"Here, practice and practical considerations are important."

And for those who do not know what the moment of interruption is, in terms of parliamentary language, it is usually at 10 o’clock, but it is a moment when a vote is expected.

"For example, a closure will normally be granted just before the moment of interruption at the end of a full day’s debate on a substantive motion ... It would not normally be granted on such business, significantly earlier than the moment of interruption. These cases are easy."

Before I come to ‘Erskine May’ — which is quite revealing on this subject — it might be worthwhile to explain why there are closure motions. As with a great deal of parliamentary practice, the House of Commons was forced to adopt closure motions because of disruption from nationalists. In the early part of this century — and, indeed, the latter part of the last — nationalists attempted to disrupt the proceedings of the House of Commons. They tried to prolong debate, to stop decisions from being taken. And those who are in the House of Commons know that if a Member speaks beyond his time, he can stop a vote from being taken.

Nationalists use these tactical procedures in order to disrupt parliamentary sessions, prevent decisions from being made and prolong debate.

A closure is not a mechanism to cut short a debate; it is a mechanism to stop a debate from being prolonged. That distinction must be made if anybody is to understand how a closure operates. That was the mistake — and I put it in those terms at the moment — made by the Initial Presiding Officer. He read the Standing Order in such a way that the closure motion was one that could cut short a debate. It never has been. It has always been a mechanism to ensure that the proper proceedings of Parliament could be held and not disrupted.

What does ‘Erskine May’ say about this? The chapter on methods of curtailing debate states

"All these methods were originally designed to counteract ... prolonging debate, and so obstructing the progress of business. They are probably a permanent feature of modern procedure, but they are still felt to be an unfortunate necessity and not to be justified except against obstruction or by pressure of business."

He goes on to say that the rights of the minority are protected by the discretionary power, given to the Chair and frequently exercised, to refuse to accept the closure motion. The critical words in ‘Erskine May’ are

"they are probably a permanent feature of modern procedure, but they are still felt to be an unfortunate necessity and not to be justified except against obstruction or by pressure of business".

Consider those two exceptions. The Initial Presiding Officer had indicated the length of time allocated to the debate. It was no obstruction for the debate to take its full course. The only obstruction was the move for closure. That was the abuse of Standing Orders, not continuing the debate according to the time scheduled.

I hardly need to address the subject of "pressure of business". Not even the bravest Member would dare to suggest that this Assembly has been under such time pressure that it had to move on to some other pressing matter. We have only met half a dozen times in six months; there was clearly no pressure of business, there was no other substantive motion to be debated and there was plenty of time to finish the debate. According to ‘Erskine May’ and to Griffith and Ryle, it is abundantly clear that the Initial Presiding Officer was wrong.

I described these circumstances to the Clerks at Westminster, without telling them where the matter had occurred, and asked what the Speaker would do. It was made absolutely clear to me that the Speaker would not have allowed the closure motion.

The consequences of the Initial Presiding Officer’s ruling were many. Parties had marshalled their troops for a two- or three-day debate, not just in terms of attendance but also by selecting their speakers and the order of speaking. To facilitate a balanced debate — and I suspect other parties who were unaware of the tactics of the Ulster Unionist Party may have done the same — this party had spread its key speakers for a two-day debate. We had slotted in several Members for their maiden speeches, which they were denied the opportunity to make.

Perhaps the greatest consequence was that this party at least had decided to divide responsibility for certain subjects over the two days. Contrary to the argument that there would have been repetition, later speeches would have dealt with the unnatural divisions involved in the creation of 10 Departments — Education divided in two, the cutting up of the Department of the Environment and housing going to Social Development. There are many artificial creations, and that would have been the subject of consideration.

The cost and danger of creating ten Departments is clearly a matter of some interest. Certainly it should be of interest to Ulster Unionists. I notice that Jim Nicholson, the Ulster Unionist MEP, found it incredible that ten Departments had been proposed, with an overall cost of £90 million. Mr Nicholson said

"I feel strongly that such proposals are not in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and … have no basis in logic."

Ulster Unionist security spokesman, Ken Maginnis, speaking in South Down, attacked what he called "the SDLP’s ‘snout in the trough’ approach to Assembly structures". He said the proposal that the present three Westminster Ministers managing six Departments should be replaced by ten Ministers —

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

On a point of order. Is the Member making the speech that he lost the last day?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

My ruling is that all Members stick to matters relevant to the debate on the procedure. Mr Robinson is sticking to the procedure.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As the time is moving on I will not get to cover all these issues at this time. I only had 10 minutes on 18 January. However, happily, I have 20 minutes now and 15 minutes later.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Your time is up.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thank you, A Chathaoirligh.

I would just like to make a couple of points. In the past I have had to rise to criticize the Initial Presiding Officer, in particular, on the occasion when Mr Berry made a reference to the Loughgall incident: he, in fact, called for more Loughgalls. I had to draw the Initial Presiding Officer’s attention to the fact that this remark was disgraceful. Mr Berry was calling for further murders. [Interruption] The steam to which Mr Robinson referred has turned into hot air.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Is the Member speaking to the motion?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I ask the Member to speak to the motion.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order. Should the Member not take his seat when you are giving a ruling?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Thank you for reminding me, Dr Paisley, that I should be standing.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It is great to get a parliamentary lesson from the Rev Ian Paisley.

I am speaking to the motion of no confidence. I have previously raised objections to the manner in which the Initial Presiding Officer has conducted business here. There was one very serious incident during which I considered that he was in breach of his responsibilities — the incident in which Mr Berry referred to wanting more Loughgalls, more murders, by the British forces.

From my party’s point of view, the conduct in this Chamber has never been perfect, to say the least. However, Sinn Féin is opposed to this motion because it has more to do with political gimmickry and is a waste of people’s time. Those who voted for or, indeed, against the agreement, find it strange that parties can only find time to discuss a motion of no confidence in the Presiding Officer, who may not hold that position beyond 10 March. We have more important things to do than that.

On the matter of the guillotine motion, the DUP appears to be very smug about its ability to make best use of Standing Orders in many councils across the North. Its confidence does it credit.

To suggest that there cannot be a guillotine motion after 30 or so Members have spoken in a debate is a bit of a red herring. As a member of CAPO I certainly agreed to having two days and possibly a third day for a vote if that was necessary, but that was not binding on any of the parties. We supported the guillotine motion because in our view the matter had been well aired.

Initial comments and the conduct in that debate show that the DUP, the UKUP and other parties had several points of order which lasted for some considerable time. To have an additional 12 Members speaking after all the other contributions had been made would have been completely unnecessary. All parties had ample opportunity to express their views on the report tabled by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). We supported the guillotine motion not because we wanted to hinder the DUP — it may appear on television every day of the week for the high propaganda value it gets from that — but because we were sure that all parties had had ample opportunity to air their views on the report.

The general public watch the antics of DUP Members and of Mr McCartney, who is the other expert at tomfoolery in the Chamber.

We have no interest in guillotining the debate to prevent any party airing its views. We made sure we were satisfied that all parties had ample opportunity to express their views on the report. The debate is a waste of time and energy. It is political tomfoolery, and the public will make their own judgement on that. We have criticised the Initial Presiding Officer in the past and no doubt we may do so in future but overall, he has conducted the Assembly’s affairs satisfactorily, and we therefore oppose the motion.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

At the risk of repeating the words of a DUP Member earlier in the debate, I do not intend to say much in this charade. The debate should have been curtailed. For the DUP, it was not a question of debating the report by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) but of having a go at the Ulster Unionists on the whole question of decommissioning. Most of what DUP Members said had nothing to do with the report.

Mr Robinson chose today to deal with issues in the report that should have been dealt with in the debate on that report. I regret that we are not debating the issue of Assembly staff being abused and bullied at the Doors by some DUP Members. Having raised this issue, will I also be threatened with legal proceedings in the way other Members have been threatened?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order. Is it right for a Member knowingly to raise a matter which is now sub judice or a matter which was raised outside the confines of this building in order to try in some way to interfere in the due process of law?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The matter should not be discussed further at this stage.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

At least I do not put people’s lives at risk by the issues that I raise in the Chamber. Mr Robinson said that this is a democratic, parliamentary Assembly. I conclude by saying that a democratic vote was taken on closure in the Assembly.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

As a member of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, I concur with Mr Robinson’s comments. As Members are aware, after a period of deliberation and debate, the Committee expresses the unanimous view of all the parties that are represented on it, and the Presiding Officer considers our advice. He then determines how business is presented to the House and the manner in which it is conducted.

It is clear, as the record shows, that the parties indicated to the Initial Presiding Officer that a reasonable amount of time was needed to debate the matter fully — one of the major debates that we have had in the House so far.

Having considered the views of all members of the Committee, the Initial Presiding Officer concluded that the debate on the Report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) should last for two, and possibly three, days.

Regrettably, the Initial Presiding Officer, having reached that conclusion, subsequently agreed to a closure motion to cut the debate short. The manner in which the debate was brought to a close was particularly distasteful to anti-agreement Members. They believed that the Report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) was a serious matter, one which will have ramifications, not only for this Chamber and those involved in the political process, but for the wider community in Northern Ireland for many years to come.

The Initial Presiding Officer was wrong to close the debate at that time. In his opening comments today he acknowledged that he does not always get it right, and I believe that that was one occasion when he did not get it right. Although the Initial Presiding Officer has performed the duties of the Chair to the satisfaction of the Assembly, on this occasion, he made a serious error of judgement. Shortening the debate prevented Members from having enough time to discuss these matters fully. It was clear that the thrust towards shortening the debate came from the Ulster Unionist Party. We all know why the Ulster Unionist Party wanted to shorten the debate. It was not because they felt that Members had had a fair opportunity to express their opinions, and it was not because they felt that the debate had become repetitive.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

On a point of order. This is a debate about the Initial Presiding Officer and not about the intentions of the Ulster Unionist Party.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The point of order is that the Member should keep to the subject of the motion, and I ask him to do so.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I believe that I am firmly on target in relation to this subject. The fact that Mr Birnie has risen indicates that I have hit the bull’s-eye.

The motion was guillotined because the Ulster Unionist Party felt gravely uneasy about Members in their ranks who were having a very difficult day — they did not want to have to go through another day during which these Members would question the party’s line.

The Northern Ireland Unionist Party hopes that the Initial Presiding Officer will recognise that he did err in this case. It is hoped that we will not witness such a spectacle in the future. Procedures such as guillotine motions, when used to stifle debate, do nothing for the reputation of this House.

We have heard, since the inception of the peace process, during the negotiations at Castle Buildings and now in the Assembly, about its being an inclusive process. It appears that it is only inclusive, and Members can only fully ventilate their views, if they are in favour of the Belfast Agreement.

If we wish to oppose the Belfast Agreement, we are told by Members such as Sean Neeson that we are not democrats. Mr Neeson has the effrontery to question the relevancy of comments made by other parties. That has never stopped Mr Neeson getting to his feet.

It is not the business of this House, Madam Acting Presiding Officer, to determine whether Members feel that the issues being raised by parties are relevant or repetitive. If that is the criteria, then many of the debates would be much shorter. I hope that this tactic will not be used to stifle debate in the future.

Mr Robinson has explained that this tactic would not be considered normal procedure in any other debating chamber. I hope that in future the good name of this House will not be sullied by Members using procedural matters to stifle debate.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Madam Deputy Initial Presiding Officer (Designate) — perhaps I could simply refer to you as Madam Speaker or Madam Deputy Speaker — the debate of 18 January was by far the most important debate that we have had in the Assembly. The future governance of Northern Ireland centred on it.

Members were aware that it had been agreed that the report formed the essence of the determination to be made on 15 February, upon which the future transfer of substantive powers would depend. It was therefore a debate of grave, constitutional importance for all the people of Northern Ireland, no matter their views. That was recognised in the meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer when it was agreed that there should be a two- or possibly three-day debate. To suggest that this debate today is some form of vaudeville act or political mimicry is just nonsense.

This debate is about the cutting short of one of the most important and essential debates that we are likely to undertake in this Chamber. That is its importance. Mr Robinson makes a number of very valid points about parliamentary procedure, insofar as that is a guide.

The purpose of a closure motion is not to cut short a debate but to prevent the unnecessary prolongation of a debate for the purpose of obstruction. Where the prolongation of that debate would cause obstruction or prevent other pressing business from being attended to, the Speaker has discretion to take the necessary course if a closure motion is put. That was never the position that faced the Initial Presiding Officer when this was proposed. Indeed, we can presume that he was aware some time before that this closure motion was going to be put.

I wish to address very briefly the matter of my remarks about the Deputy Clerk. The Deputy Clerk and I have always had a relationship based not only on respect but also on a good deal of friendliness. I sought his advice because I had no knowledge that he knew, and that the Speaker knew, that there would be a closure motion.

I inadvertently put him in the embarrassing position of having to choose between telling the truth — to admit to me that it would be wrong to leave the Assembly because a motion could be pressed at any moment — and betraying the confidence of the Initial Presiding Officer. I was unaware that he was placed in that position and, in the circumstances, acknowledge that he endeavoured to be honourable and to preserve the confidentiality that is required of him. I was unaware of his difficulty, and, with the benefit of hindsight, if any of my remarks could be remotely interpreted as importuning his good name or his integrity, of course they are withdrawn.

From the record it is quite clear that that was never the case. I was simply indicating that by his answer, which was the only one he could give in the circumstances, he clearly indicated a degree of knowledge about a possible closure motion on the part of the Initial Presiding Officer.

The question arises whether it was appropriate for the Initial Presiding Officer to accept the closure motion and, in my submission, it was not appropriate at that time. In any event, the Initial Presiding Officer was aware that many Members were under the impression that there had been an agreement at the meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer for a two-day or possibly a three-day debate, and Members who wished to speak were apportioned accordingly. The Initial Presiding Officer knew that that impression had been given by the CAPO agreement and by the order of business.

Several options were open to him. He could have said at some stage, or in response to Mr Wilson’s motion, that 30 Members had spoken and, although others had yet to speak, we were approaching the time when a closure motion might be accepted. Alternatively, he could have left it until the end of the first day and advised Mr Wilson that, although the moment for a closure was not yet appropriate, it was approaching. Everyone would have been alerted, and he would have been acting entirely within the rules of the procedure and precedence that are laid down in ‘Erskine May’ and in other books.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

It is for the Assembly to decide whether it is nonsense. Sedentary remarks are usually not worth much.

I will vote against the motion because I believe that, to date, the Initial Presiding Officer has demonstrated great qualities. It is generally recognised that he has endeavoured to be fair to everyone, and he has dealt with the business with intelligence, good humour and understanding. However, that does not remove the fact that on this occasion he was wrong in terms of procedure and precedent in accepting the closure motion. Knowing that many were under the impression that the debate would go on for two days, he was wrong to curtail it. He must have been aware that many Members held strong views on the Belfast Agreement.

They had a desire to be heard. Justice is not just about winning a case; it is also about having an opportunity to speak and to put the case. Everyone knows that ultimately — since this was not taken as a vote requiring cross-community support — it would almost inevitably have been carried. Therefore there was no loss to anyone. There was certainly no loss to the Ulster Unionist Party or to the SDLP in letting this debate run its course by allowing everyone to be heard. At the end of the day they were going to succeed in having it carried.

So what purpose was served by the Presiding Officer’s accepting the closure motion? No purpose was served. People were denied the right to speak, people were obstructed from airing views on matters that meant a great deal to them. I therefore believe that the behaviour of the Presiding Officer on that occasion was totally wrong. He was complicit with the Ulster Unionist Party in accepting a procedural motion that had no merit, no justice and no place in public or political morality, a motion which should have been refused.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

This motion was proposed by Mr Peter Robinson, a Member for East Belfast, who assured Members that this was a critical issue for the House. Having proposed the motion he promptly left the House along with his Leader, Dr Paisley, and most of the members of the DUP have been absent from the House since then.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order. May I inform the House and the Member that Mr Robinson has left to attend to council business and that Dr Paisley has left to attend a funeral.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That is not a point of order.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Is it in order for a Member to read out a list of names and say whether those people are present or not in the Assembly? Can the Member tell us where the Leader of the SDLP is? Can he tell us where the Deputy First Minister (Designate) is? Is it in order for a Member to do that?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I do not recognise that as a point of order.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Madam Chair, I repeat that the proposer, of the motion, having assured Members that this was a vital matter of immediate concern and of critical consequence to the House, left the House, along with the Leader of his party and most of its members. There may be those who take the view that Members are not grievously deprived or disadvantaged by the absence of Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson, but, having called Members for this vital debate, they should have had the courtesy to sit and listen to the debate — which they have not done. If this were a court of law —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Well, it is not.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member has a right to be heard.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

If this were a court of law and the motion in front of the House were a charge, I would be moving now for the dismissal of the charge because the motion is wasteful.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

It is as well that the Member knows nothing about law.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

It is spiteful, frivolous, self-indulgent, and characteristic of the quarters from which it emanated.

One of the things that puzzled me on the day of the debate was that Members were assailed by the strong view from the DUP that the only guidance that Members had for the regulation of the House, and its order of business, is the slim little tome — or perhaps I should say tomb. It is certainly a very grave matter.

"This is all we have" they said. Dr Paisley spoke at length about procedure in the European Parliament and the Mother of Parliaments, as he calls it, and Mr Robinson also quoted from ‘Erskine May’ in support of their case. And what is their case, Madam Chair? Their case is that such precedence and guidance have no bearing here. How much more absurd can you get than that? There is no case to answer here.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Will Mr Haughey give way?

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

No.

Standing Order 11(1) provides that

"After a motion has been proposed and provided that each of the parties present has had a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the debate, any Member who has not already spoken to it, or to any amendment which has been moved, may move that the question be now put."

That is on the paper, which we are assured is the supreme guide for this House.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I will read it in a minute.

There is therefore no question of Mr Wilson’s right to raise the motion, and Mr McCartney and others accept this. Standing Order 11(1) further provides

"and unless it shall appear to the Presiding Officer that such motion is an abuse of these Standing Orders, the question that the question be now put shall be put forthwith."

What is an abuse of the Standing Orders? The Presiding Officer is empowered by Standing Order 11(1) to make a judgement.

On 18 January six UUP Members, seven SDLP, five DUP, five Sinn Féin, two Alliance, two NIUP, one PUP, one NIWC, one UKUP and one UUAP had spoken. Every party was given the right to speak. Every party made an input.

Let us look at the input that was made. It is instructive. To be fair to Dr Paisley, he did refer to the report in very generalised terms. He was followed, for his party, by Mr Campbell who devoted all of his remarks to decommissioning, a matter which was not on the agenda and was not dealt with in the report. Mr Wells followed for the DUP, and likewise did not speak about the report. Mr Shannon followed, and he dealt exclusively with the Good Friday Agreement and decommissioning. Mr McCartney then followed with the Good Friday Agreement.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I will take a point of order. Could the Member please sit while I am standing?

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Is it in order that a Member should say that the Acting Initial Presiding Officer, on a previous occasion, when my hon Friend was speaking, permitted him to speak on something that was not relevant. Is it right that there should be such criticism of the Chair?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

This is not a point of order. I also ask that the Member stick to the relevance of the debate.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I am sticking entirely to the relevance of the debate. The debate is on whether we should have confidence in the Presiding Officer, and that is affected by whether he made a reasonable judgement on this occasion. Did this party have an opportunity to make an input into the debate. I am pointing out it did, and that it did not avail of it. I have listed the Members who made contributions — Mr Watson, Mr Carrick, Mr Boyd, Mr Roche. All those members of the anti-Agreement family had opportunities to speak, although they dealt almost exclusively with matters that were not before the House at all.

To argue that they did not get an opportunity to deal with the matter in question is clearly wrong and absurd especially in circumstances where almost none of what they had to say was relevant. I quote Initial Standing Order 2(1):

"The Presiding Officer’s ruling shall be final on all questions of procedure and order."

If I have any criticism of the Initial Presiding Officer it is that he showed a little too much indulgence to the codology, the guffawing, the sniggering, the catcalling, the schoolboy, schoolyard antics of the DUP and associated anti-agreement parties. They assert that this is a vital matter affecting everybody, but then rush to the door. The previous day Ulster was being sold out — a shameful betrayal — and they were behaving as though they were at the movies. There was laughter, guffawing and sniggering of a kind and duration that few of us have had the misfortune to see in the past.

Mr Robinson referred to the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. He is calling for the rule and the rubric to be quoted word by word. Where do the rules give CAPO the right to determine and regulate the business of the House? CAPO’s role is to advise the Initial Presiding Officer, and that is clearly laid down in the regulations that established CAPO. Its decision to allocate two or three days to this debate was indicative — not imperative. Those who are shamming and crying that they did not get an opportunity to make their views known had that opportunity but did not bother to deal with the issue that was before the House. The Initial Presiding Officer’s ruling was entirely valid, appropriate, and intelligent, and I support it to the hilt.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

Regrettably, it is necessary for this issue to be brought before the House. I welcome the opportunity to support the motion.

On 18 January, the Assembly was presented with the long-awaited report of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) on the future government of Northern Ireland. Its content was crucial to the whole community, and that was clearly identified by those who were responsible for formulating the business of the Assembly because two to three days were set aside for the debate. Having agreed the schedule at the outset, the Initial Presiding Officer was aware of the need to permit as much input as possible to the debate. He made a poor judgement in his decision to permit the Assembly to govern itself on this matter.

One of the main selling points of the agreement was the fact that a 108-Member Assembly would be put in place to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it was agreed to increase the number of seats in each constituency from five to six — a change from previous decisions. That was to permit maximum representation from within our community, thus allowing the maximum contribution on behalf of our constituents.

For example, in relation to my constituency of East Antrim, if Mr Neeson had not been called in his capacity as leader of the Alliance Party, it is possible that no one from that area would have had the chance to express his views to the House, irrespective of whether he was pro or anti-agreement. That results in a serious under-representation of our communities and sends the wrong signals to the general public.

While the Initial Presiding Officer’s actions may have done a great disservice to many Members, he has also created a perception and a lack of confidence in the Assembly by the electorate. To many, it seems that when the going gets tough and the heat is on, the guillotine will be produced and the debate ambushed. That is the wrong message to send to the outside world. I have highlighted what the community expects in such circumstances, but there is also a need for equality within the House.

The Standing Orders were quoted by my colleague Mr Robinson. They state that closure occurs after a motion has been proposed and provided that each of the parties present has had reasonable opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Did the Initial Presiding Officer really deem this to be the case?

12.00

On previous occasions many parties had between 40% and 50% of their Members speaking in the debate. On 18 January 1999 the Democratic Unionist Party, the third largest group, had less than one third of its membership called despite the fact that all Members wished to speak. The Initial Presiding Officer had recognised this deficit on past occasions but failed, on 18 January 1999, to redress the matter and show equality.

After the community and the party, I as an individual, having been called by the Initial Presiding Officer, rose to speak but was ambushed and guillotined by the Initial Presiding Officer upholding the intervention of Mr J Wilson. If a Member has been called, his freedom of speech should be acknowledged, and any closure or putting of the question be put on hold. I have not yet received a satisfactory response to the question which I put to the Initial Presiding Officer on 18 January 1999.

On the question of individual Members’ participation, the issue must be raised as to why the Initial Presiding Officer determined a debate of two to three days, knowing the maximum time allocated to each Member and then, after five hours, allowed the debate to be closed. This indicates a serious misjudgement and clearly shows that a reasonable number of Members had not taken part in the debate.

Thirty Members may have contributed before the closure, but the time allocated would have allowed at least another 30 participants. If it had not been for the misjudgement of the Initial Presiding Officer many Members like myself from grass-roots Unionist and Loyalist backgrounds would have been able to give our views on issues raised in the report such as departmental structures, cross-border bodies, executives and, of course, the D-word — decommissioning.

It was, of course, the highlighting of the decommissioning issue which led to the unease among the Ulster Unionists, and despite assurances from the Deputy First Minister Designate that all would be listened to, both the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP contrived with others to force the Initial Presiding Officer to make a very poor decision.

While decommissioning was the word on most people’s lips on 18 January 1999, the D-word today is democracy. If democracy cannot be upheld through freedom of speech then the wheelbarrow Mr Close referred to can be loaded up with democracy, wheeled down the mile-long driveway and dumped outside the gates on the Upper Newtownards Road.

I once again commend the motion in the hope that, in future, such blatant acts of denial of freedom of speech are ended and reasonable opportunities are afforded to constitutional parties and individuals who adhere to the democratic process.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does the Member agree that it is more than a little hypocritical of the hon Member for Mid Ulster, Mr Haughey, to attack and lambast the Leader and Deputy Leader of this party for leaving the Chamber and then to do likewise within minutes of sitting down?

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I agree totally.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I call Prof Monica McWilliams.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order. Mr Hilditch drew attention to page 473 of the Official Report, where he is reported as having said

"Having been ambushed and guillotined again, I am asking for a ruling on the putting of the Question. My freedom of speech has been affected. I had been told that I was to speak and was on my feet when I was interrupted. Was the putting of the Question ultra vires?"

You will note from the continuation of The Official Report that that question was not answered. It is important and incumbent upon yourself to give us a ruling on that matter.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I do not understand the point of order being referred to.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The point of order is that during the course of his speech today Mr Hilditch has drawn attention to the fact that the Initial Presiding Officer at the last meeting and again this morning in his comments failed to give a ruling on the point he raised: the interruption of his speech by Mr J Wilson was ultra vires and therefore the putting of the Question was ultra vires.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I understand the point you are making, and, certainly, a ruling was required and requested of the Initial Presiding Officer at the last meeting. It should be put to him at a later stage.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order. Given the confidence on this side of the House that our motion will be successful, how can I put it to him if he is not returned?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Put it to the Initial Presiding Officer — whoever that may be.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I am putting the question to you, as you are in the Chair today, to make these rulings.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

If Mr Hilditch and Mr Ian Paisley Jnr looked further down the same column of the report, they would see, on page 473, that the Presiding Officer did give an answer to that question.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Madam Chair. You have not yet given me a ruling on this matter. It is not for another Member to supply you with his interpretation of a ruling; it is up to you to give a ruling on the matter. After Mr Hilditch spoke, three other Members made additional points of order that could be interpreted as being repetitious. Mr Hilditch’s point of order was a completely separate matter, and he has not yet received a ruling from the Initial Presiding Officer.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Initial Presiding Officer will return to the Chair after this debate. It is more appropriate that he should deal in that matter.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I welcome Ms Morrice in her position as acting Chairperson.

Our Initial Presiding Officer has had difficulties. It has often been said in the Chamber that this is not Westminster. Nor is it the Forum, which existed for two years before the Assembly. There seems to be much confusion about the Assembly’s procedures. The Initial Presiding Officer has tried to interpret the Initial Standing Orders, and he has often made the point that he would like the Standing Orders Committee to provide him with final Standing Orders that could be approved by the Secretary of State. Until such time, he must follow the Initial Standing Orders.

The Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer is exactly that. It is a committee that advises; it is not a committee that rules. The final authority rests with the House. In allowing the closure motion on 18 January, the Initial Presiding Officer was asking Members whether they wanted the Question to be put then. Seventy-five Members said "Aye" and 24 Members said "No". In other words, the Chamber ruled that we move to close the debate.

The record of proceedings of 18 January shows that we asked the Initial Presiding Officer to close the proceedings earlier than the Wednesday morning, which, according to Mr Robinson, was when the debate should have closed. However, page 466 of Hansard quotes Mr Peter Robinson as saying that if it was possible to close by Tuesday night, the Initial Presiding Officer could do so. That shows, therefore, that we have already given the Initial Presiding Officer authority to close a debate earlier than was agreed in the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. However, the Initial Presiding Officer chose to ask the Assembly if the Question that would close the debate should be put.

We should, therefore, vote against today’s motion and show confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer. He had no alternative to putting the procedural Question on that occasion.

From time to time, Members may not like the rulings of the Initial Presiding Officer, and there have been occasions when we have asked him to rule, in consultation with ‘Erskine May’, on whether some of the language and behaviour in this Chamber has been discourteous or unparliamentary.

We have heard rulings which may not please every Member, but if this Chamber is to operate, it must accept them. We may be unhappy with them but we must work to ensure that proceedings in this Chamber are not discourteous.

It does not help the Chamber, in its early days, that a vote of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer is sought. This is more a quarrel about the fact that some Members did not get to speak on that occasion.

The Initial Presiding Officer has had to take account of the number of Members present and of the mandate of parties and make rulings on who should speak and who should not. Some Members have been displeased when debates have been closed, and not all have been able to put their positions. The Initial Presiding Officer might not get it right all the time, but I think that he has got it right most of the time.

I oppose the motion of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I rise today as one of those who was deprived of the opportunity to speak on 18 January. The motion before the Assembly today is one of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer.

I am a member of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. Those who attend that Committee will recall that it decided that Monday 18, Tuesday 19 and, if necessary, Wednesday 20 January should be designated as the days for debating the report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). Everybody agreed that that was the best way forward.

It is often asked "What is a person other than his word?" When Mr Jim Wilson moved that the Question be now put, he did so knowing that he was breaking his word and a commitment already given. He found plenty of allies in his new-found friends in the SDLP and Sinn Féin/IRA. By so doing he has put future decisions of CAPO under the spotlight.

Never again can we place any confidence in what Mr Wilson tells us. Mr Wilson, the Ulster Unionist Chief Whip, should be in the dock today too, but he is not.

I will repeat what Mr Wilson said at a meeting of CAPO because the Assembly is entitled to know what motivates him. Mr Wilson said that, if expedient — his word, not mine.

He is nodding. He is saying that that is what he said.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

May we please have a ruling that this is a motion of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer, and not one dealing with the conduct of Mr Jim Wilson.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I must ask the Member to remain with the relevance of the motion.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Wilson is on record as saying that, if expedient, he would, of course, do those things in the future which would be an advantage to him or his party. He put "him" first.

We know what motivates Mr Wilson: himself. I took the time to check the definition of "expedient" in the dictionary. It is quite interesting. It means to do something based on —

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

On a point of order. The last point of order seems to have been lost on Mr Morrow. I ask for a firm ruling that he must stick to the subject of the debate.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

May I remind the Member that the issue is one of confidence or not in the Initial Presiding Officer and not the movements or decisions of Mr J Wilson.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

If the Member persists, is it appropriate that he be ruled out of order?

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am trying to set the scene. The House carries out its business, and it is CAPO which decides what that business is. Never before, to the best of my knowledge, has the House or the Initial Presiding Officer refused to take the recommendations of CAPO.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Will you give a ruling, Madam Speaker, on the purpose of the CAPO meeting? Does it take decisions, as has been said, or is its purpose to give advice to the Presiding Officer?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

It is clearly the latter. The purpose of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer is, as its name implies, to advise the Presiding Officer.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I repeat that CAPO’s recommendations have never been turned down, and I hope that Mr Wilson will take note.

As I was about to say before I was interrupted, at least we know what motivates Mr Wilson. It has been said that he had additional reasons —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

May I remind you that the motion is on the matter of the Initial Presiding Officer and not of Mr J Wilson.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I am enjoying it.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

During the Adjournment debate on 18 January, Mr Tierney of the SDLP indicated that he had been under the impression that the debate would go on. He said

"I nearly voted along with the DUP tonight!"

Maybe he is prone to exaggeration.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

That is what I said.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, and he went on

"The reason was that I was told last week that I was speaking on Wednesday. At lunchtime today I was told that I was speaking tomorrow night —

the fellow was undoubtedly confused, but then most members of the SDLP are —

"and two hours ago I was told that I was speaking tonight."

To keep favour with his Chief Whip, he then said

"I am not criticising my Chief Whip"

for confusing me — my words, not his —

"but I will raise the matter at our next meeting."

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Madam Chair. Standing Order 10(1)(iv) says that if any Member of the Assembly intentionally refuses to conform to any Standing Order, the Presiding Officer has certain powers. It is beyond dispute that Mr Morrow is not conforming to Standing Orders. He is not being relevant to the matter in front of us. I call upon you, Presiding Officer, to exercise your powers.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Further to that point of order, Madam Chair. I do not know what the problem is with our Chief Whip’s speaking, but I have now counted five separate occasions on which people have tried to interrupt him with bogus issues to prevent him from completing his speech. He was prevented from making it two weeks ago, so can we allow him to make it today?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Numerous points of order have been raised asking that the Member restrict his comments to those that are relevant to the debate. He has drifted from the point, and I ask him to keep to the subject matter. [Interruption] I will take those points of order. I have to say, however, that Mr Campbell made the point that his Chief Whip had been interrupted on a number of occasions and if I take these points of order, that will mean further interruptions.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Why was Mr Haughey called? He had not asked for a point of order. He asked for it only after you had called him — let us be clear about that. He stood up and remained standing whilst my friend was on his feet making a speech — that is not the order of the House.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I took Mr Haughey’s point which referred to a Standing Order. Had he not begun his point, I would have asked him to sit.

There were three points of order raised — Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Wilson and a third. Do you wish to put these points of order? If not, I ask Mr Morrow to continue.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Madam, had I been left alone, I would have been finished by now.

In case it has slipped anyone’s mind, I want to draw the attention of the House to what was being debated on the day the guillotine was operated on Mr Wilson’s initiative. It was, of course, a report produced by a so-called Unionist Mr Trimble and by a strident Nationalist Mr Mallon.

It is significant that a debate on that report — a report which was supposed to have far-reaching effects on the future of this country — was guillotined and that I and others were not allowed the time to speak. My view was that the report was not only rotten from the core but rotten to the core. I should have been allowed to give my observations on it, but I was prevented from doing so by those who see expediency as being the order of the day. It ill behoves those who behave in such a manner — stealing cheap points — but maybe it is better to have something like this happen early on in the Assembly because they can be dead sure it will never happen again.

In that report, a way forward for Northern Ireland was recommended —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Please let me know in what way the content of the report is relevant to the motion.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Was it right for the Presiding Officer not to permit Members of the House to speak on that day even though they had already submitted their names? I conclude that he was wrong and that on this occasion he looked around and, under the pressure coming from the two largest political blocks, he wilted and decided to put the procedural Question. Everybody in the Assembly has a right to speak, but the Initial Presiding Officer was pushed by Mr J Wilson and others.

They were also wrong to use the term "expediency" to convey to the outside world that there was little debate or interest in what was happening in the Chamber. I hope that in the future parties will be given a better crack of the whip. Mr Trimble had problems that day, and Mr Wilson was aware of them. There were at least four Members on his bench who were prepared to deviate.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, will you please tell the House precisely what you are going to do? Several times you have informed the Member that he is out of order, but he clearly has no intention of paying you any respect. He is ignoring you. What are you going to do?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

There are one and a half minutes left for this Member. I have reminded Mr Morrow several times and referred to this as being the last time. I was grateful that in the last minute he did return to the motion, but then he left it again. The Member may have his last minute to speak, but I will remind him that if he strays once more from the no-confidence motion he will have to terminate his speech.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order. I hope you are going to use the same whip hand against other Members of the House when they stray. We had, for instance, Mr Haughey’s quite deliberate diversion about Assembly Members’ reputations, as well as points of order raised by other Members.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Thank you for that. I will.

Mr Morrow, please continue.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order. I have noticed that the clock has been stopped during these points of order. This is evidently a new practice. Does it apply only to points of order or also to interventions?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I understand that the clock is normally stopped during points of order.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am concerned about the way in which the Initial Presiding Officer handled the Assembly sitting on 18 January. Will he allow himself to be used again in future sittings? A precedent has now been established, and future sittings will be abused in the same way that we witnessed on 18 January. We must keep in mind Mr J Wilson’s warning that expediency will be the order of the day.

I believe that the Initial Presiding Officer was wrong to put the procedural Question on 18 January. He should have used his discretion and allowed the debate to continue until at least Tuesday.

The sitting was suspended 12.29 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

The Presiding Officer is supposed to act impartially, and the fact that this motion is being debated today shows, sadly, that many Members feel that he has not done that. The Speaker’s role is to provide guidance and help Members to rise above party politics and the factions which exist within this Chamber. The perception is that the Speaker has failed to fulfil that role.

"The arms issue must be tackled at the beginning with clear commitments given which will be honoured by actual decommissioning beginning in a short period."

This statement from David Trimble shows, as far back as June 1996, the feebleness of the Ulster Unionist Party leadership’s confronting of Sinn Féin. In January 1999 Members were asked to approve a report which contained stand-alone cross-border bodies with executive powers.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

May I ask the Member to restrict his comments to the motion.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

Madam Chair, there are references to the motion in every paragraph of my speech.

We were told that we had been ambushed. The togetherness of Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party in that ambush says it all. The depths to which the Ulster Unionist Party has sunk beggars belief. The coalition of the Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Féin/IRA and the SDLP shows the future in store for principled, anti-IRA Unionists.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order. Is the Member for East Londonderry keeping to the motion?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I was very generous, during the earlier part of the debate, over the relevance of issues. I ask those Members yet to speak to be extremely careful in keeping to the motion under debate. I will not be so generous this afternoon.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not think that it is possible to determine whether or not a Member has kept to the issue in question until he has completed his speech. It would be quite arbitrary to make a ruling on this.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I acknowledge the point of order made by Mr Roche. However, it should be obvious to all Members what is relevant to the debate and what is not. I ask every Member to adhere to the motion.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

You have said that this morning you were generous in allowing certain leeway, but that this afternoon you intend to adopt a different approach. I do not believe that anyone could consider that to be fair and proper.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Mr Douglas had been speaking for one minute and 35 seconds when it was suggested that he was straying from the subject. He had not started to develop his argument. That treatment was described as lenient. Surely it is wrong to suggest that after less than two minutes one can decide that a Member is straying from the subject. Mr Haughey spoke for 10 minutes and not once touched on the subject.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order. Is it right for Mr Haughey to attack me in my absence when I was at the funeral of a close friend? In any debating forum it is sensible to know the reason for a person’s absence before commenting on it. I have a good parliamentary record, and I know that people should remain in the Chamber. After Mr Haughey made his speech he left the Chamber. I had to attend a friend’s funeral, and I make no apology for that.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I do not think that that was a point of order. I should like to give Mr Douglas the opportunity to continue.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Further to the point of order. Every Member must have an opportunity to develop his speech. It is unfair for experienced Members to use points of order to disrupt the speeches of new Members. I ask for a ruling on that abuse of the system.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I agree that Mr Douglas should have the opportunity to develop his speech.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Further to the point of order. Is it not pertinent that on this occasion the Arthur Daleys of Unionism are already trying to derail the debate by engaging in their normal political promiscuity?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That is not a point of order. Mr Douglas, please continue.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

Many Members tell us that they are democrats and must allow that I am entitled to speak.

Every paragraph in my speech contains a reference to the motion. What did the Ulster Unionists achieve by voting with Sinn Féin in an ambush against their fellow Ulster citizens? Our refusal to acquiesce in approving Sinn Féin’s entrance into government has caused a political impasse. Accepting armed terrorists in an Executive is morally wrong. Token gestures of Semtex and other explosives will not suffice. Not to debate the report in full was also morally wrong.

No amount of smart moves, shady dealings or strokes to stifle debate, with or without the help of the Initial Presiding Officer, can hide the emerging voting pattern involving Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist in a coalition. Why have a debate at all? I put to David Trimble the question that he posed to the Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, in September 1997: how can anyone justify bringing to the table of democracy those who have been responsible for murder and other iniquitous crimes for which they have not paid their debt to society? By their actions, David Trimble and his negotiating team have done exactly that. These people will not now be brought to justice. David Trimble has secured a virtual amnesty for IRA and INLA murderers and bombers.

In 1997 David Trimble told the people "We are here not to talk to Sinn Féin but to confront them and expose their Fascist character." However, on every occasion in 1998 and 1999 the Ulster Unionist Party has voted with Sinn Féin/IRA — its friends in the Assembly. Not even a fool would call that confrontational. Instead, the Ulster Unionist Party has bestowed on IRA/Sinn Féin a worldwide credibility usually reserved for statesmen. It regularly meets privately with Gerry Adams.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Madam Chairman, this has got absolutely nothing to do with the motion. This is another example — [Interruption]

Members are engaging in a sixth-form debating routine.

Mr Douglas has said nothing that bears any relationship to the motion.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Although Mr Douglas said that his points were relevant, there are certainly some that relate more to the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin than to the motion. I remind him to speak to the motion.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

In approving the January report, one must ask if this will provide an opportunity for Sinn Féin to get into government? For my colleagues and me the risk is too great. It would be like giving a seal of approval to Sinn Féin/IRA and any Government that they are accepted in while they maintain their armed capability. The cutting short of the debate was a great disservice to those who elected us, but it exposed the togetherness of Sinn Féin/IRA and the Ulster Unionist Party.

Obviously the Ulster Unionist Party feels that this is not the case. They guillotined the anti-Agreement Members, but at what price? Despite the ambush, our heads are still on. There was much confusion among the Unionist Assembly Members about the ramifications of voting on the report. Did the fear of what they were voting for forge the alliance?

Many do not want to see Sinn Féin/IRA take part in an Executive without decommissioning. Why punish our own people again and again? Will we be ambushed again today? Now Unionists are expected to approve cross-border bodies, with stand-alone executive powers, without one gun being handed over. Those who had any doubt that the approval of this report was a back-door passport to allow Sinn Féin/IRA into an Executive should have voted against it. The Ulster Unionist Party leader could have defended that action by explaining that the IRA are unreconstructed terrorists. Instead, the party choose to ambush fellow Unionists by jumping into bed with its friends, IRA/Sinn Féin. This motion would be unnecessary if protocol had been observed.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Is the Member speaking to the motion? I am not making any excuse for Sinn Féin, but he has gone off the board completely.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Mr Douglas, your references to guillotining and ambushing are relevant, but you have approximately four minutes left and you must refer to the motion and not to other issues.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Chairman. How can it be in order for you to declare that what we are discussing is a debate that was brought to an untimely end by the Chairman? Surely the Member is entitled to go into the details of the debate and of the way his party was dealt with during it. Fifty per cent of the Members of your party spoke in the debate, but now, when a Member is describing what took place and making the point that his party did not get a fair say, you rule that that is not relevant.

This is a very wide debate. It deals with the Presiding Officer and says that Members have no confidence in him. Members could roam from Dan to Beer-sheba in this debate. Members such as Mr Foster and Mr McGimpsey need to go to the House of Commons to see how much goes into a debate there. Of course, they will never make it.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

Madam Chair, I have not much more to say. Indeed, had certain Members not interrupted, I would have finished long ago. This motion would have been totally unnecessary had proper protocol been observed. The voting alliance of the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin has now been exposed. I hope that such motions will be unnecessary in future. I support the motion — free speech is a right, not a privilege. I hope that the behaviour of the Presiding Officer, which has caused so much offence and hurt, will never be repeated in this Chamber.

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

I am one of the Members who were listed to speak on 18 January in a debate which was originally billed as a three-day event. I understand that it had been agreed to by all the parties at a CAPO meeting. I contend that the Initial Presiding Officer — namely, the Member for East Belfast, the Lord Alderdice — in allowing the closure motion to be put on Monday 18 January, did quite wantonly and outrageously, and apparently without regret, disenfranchise a significant proportion of the electorate in my constituency.

I also assert that by his action he deliberately pandered to the wishes of certain pro-agreement elements in the Ulster Unionist Party and beyond. Had I been able to speak on 18 January, as it was my steadfast hope to do, I might well have concluded that the Assembly, having been set up with such ill-advised haste following the signing of the Belfast Agreement, had resulted in an unholy mess. The befuddled thinking behind the emanating documentation, including the report presented to the Assembly on 18 January by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), beggars belief.

The First Minister (Designate) attempted to explain away his folly by telling Members that a final report would be necessary as there were certain areas of government which had not been fully considered. It was due to his ineptitude that these essential areas — for example, the Child Support Agency — were overlooked, forgotten or ignored. They should have been included in the agreement between the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP reached on 18 December 1998. Perhaps Mr Trimble should be congratulated — after all, he seems to have made a virtue of his crass stupidity.

It seems that Mr Trimble’s stupidity — some would say infamy — knows no bounds. In a recent letter he says

"critics have complained that the allocation of 10 departments will not reflect the community balance."

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Madam Chair, I must again draw to your attention that what Members are hearing is a contribution dealing with the content of the First and Deputy First Ministers’ report of 18 January, and not with the motion being considered today.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I remind Mr Robinson, as I have reminded his Colleagues, that this debate is about the Initial Presiding Officer and not the First Minister (Designate).

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Trimble penned these words:

"critics have complained that the allocation of 10 departments will not reflect the community balance."

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The Member is continuing to focus on the First and Deputy First Ministers’ report. I ask you, Madam Chair, to rule on whether or not the Member is adhering to the motion.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Is it in order for a Member to say to the Chair that he must insist? He can insist on nothing; he must abide by your ruling.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I remind Mr Robinson that he was continuing in what appeared to be the same vein. Can he please return to the motion?

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer, I must request your indulgence. Is it not the case that when a Member is making a maiden speech, as is my honour today, he is normally afforded a greater degree of courtesy and latitude than I appear to be receiving?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

My apologies, Mr Robinson. I was not aware that this was a maiden speech, and I should like you to continue, without interruption if possible. However, you must restrict your speech to the subject of the motion.

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

The most glaring, startling omission from the report that was presented to the Assembly on 18 January is the total failure to address and, more importantly, to resolve the issue of decommissioning.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Madam Chairman. It is not consistent for the Members involved in this ludicrous exhibition to insist that these are the only Standing Orders under which we can operate. Furthermore, these Orders make no provisions for a Member making a maiden speech to be given licence to disregard the motion before the House. I ask you to rule that the Member’s remarks are not relevant to the debate and to call upon him to discontinue.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order. You have made a ruling. Will you please ask Mr Haughey to keep it down?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have made two rulings. The first is that there should be no inappropriate interventions. The second, which is the order of today, is that the Member should keep to the motion. I ask for order and for there to be no further inappropriate interventions. Mr Robinson has six minutes left.

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

The authors of the report cannot even bring themselves to pay lip service to the essential issue of decommissioning. Why is that, since this issue renders by comparison all other issues redundant? Mr Trimble’s letter dated 8 January states

"The Ulster Unionist Party has now fulfilled all of its obligations under the Belfast Agreement. There remains only one party still to honour its commitments, and it is Sinn Féin/IRA on whom maximum pressure must be now exerted. As your leader I wish to assure you that Sinn Féin will not be included in the agreement that I have referred to above, if Sinn Féin/IRA do not honour their commitments to decommissioning made under the Belfast Agreement. If they do not, the Ulster Unionist Party will not form an Executive that includes Sinn Féin".

In illustration of a political reality, the dogs in the street and the cows in the field are often referred to. They, together with everyone else in Northern Ireland, know full well that Sinn Féin/IRA have no intention whatever of effectively dealing with the issue of decommissioning.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

We are in grave danger of bringing the House into disrepute by contributions that are outside the terms of the motion. I seek your ruling on the continuing disregard of your earlier rulings on this matter.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I raised the issue with the Chair. Two weeks ago there was an attempt, which is the subject of today’s motion, to deprive Members of an opportunity to speak. That attempt succeeded, and that is the issue that we are addressing. Other avenues are being used to deprive Members of their democratic right to speak. You should exercise your authority, Madam Chair, and request that Members desist from attempting to stop a democratically elected representative from making his maiden speech.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Further to Mr Farren’s point of order, not only are the Member’s remarks irrelevant, and persistently irrelevant despite the advice of Madam Chair and of Members who have intervened, but it is clear that he and his colleagues are trying to overturn the democratic decision of the House by creating circumstances in which they can make the speeches that they were unable to make at the previous plenary session. That is an abuse of the Initial Standing Orders, and I ask you, Madam Chair, to rule on that.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

By Standing Order 8(6) I may direct a Member who persists in irrelevance or repetition to discontinue his speech. I mention that as a warning. I will allow the Member another chance, but if he moves away from the subject of the debate, I will direct that he discontinue his speech.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Madam Initial Presiding Officer. You mention a Standing Order about tedious repetition. Will you rule that it also relates to those who repeat the same point of order time after time with the sole intention of interrupting the Member who is speaking?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order. You have ruled that you wish the Member to continue his speech. You do not want interruptions. Some Members obey your ruling only when it suits them. When it does not, they try to silence other Members.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

When a Member is making his maiden speech, he should be allowed to speak without interruption. It is also important that the speech is relevant. I shall now ask the Member to finish his speech and to bear in mind my warning in relation to Initial Standing Order 8(6) should he move away from the subject of the debate.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer. The clearly established precedent is that on a maiden speech a Member is given much more flexibility in terms of relevance.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have been flexible. I ask for no further interruptions so that the Member can finish his maiden speech.

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer. You may be relieved to hear that I have almost finished.

Is it not disingenuous of the Ulster Unionist leadership to beat their chests and claim that without decommissioning there will not be an Executive that includes Sinn Féin? These same Ulster Unionist leaders lied when they told the Unionist electorate that terrorists would not be released from prison until decommissioning had taken place.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I asked the Initial Presiding Officer what authority you would have, Madam Chair, and he told the House that you would have the authority that is given to him. You have heard umpteen points of order. Will you now rule that this Member is out of order?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

No Member has a right to direct how you rule. No one can ask the Speaker to rule in his favour. Where does the Member think he is — Glengall Street?

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

To conclude, as one of those who suffered as a result of the scandalous decision unilaterally taken by the Initial Presiding Officer, Lord Alderdice, I cannot now, or in the future, be comforted that he will be any more judicious than he has been to date in looking after the interests of Back-Benchers. Their fate is a pitiful one.

How are we to be heard? What arbitrator can we turn to in the face of high-powered political predators who wantonly call in the weapons of expediency to guillotine discussion? How can we ever stimulate our constituents if the roar of our rhetoric is to be denied? The sole interest of the Initial Presiding Officer seems to be the aiding and abetting of ruthless party managers who will stop at nothing in order to foist an unwanted and rejected agreement on the majority of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland.

I therefore support the motion.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thought that Mr M Robinson had a point of order to develop before I spoke.

There have been a number of references in this debate to the meeting of CAPO. It was hard to find them in among the diatribes against the Ulster Unionist Party, but there were one or two. I wish to establish clearly what happened in those discussions in CAPO because not one but two meetings of that Committee were called to consider the arrangements for the plenary session on 18 January 1999. The normal CAPO meeting was held on 11 January 1999, and at that meeting a suggestion was made which led to a consultation on extending speaking time.

Proposals on which there was consultation were that the proposer should have up to 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes; that all parties in the first round should have 20 minutes rather than 10 minutes; that there should be wind-up speeches for the larger parties of 20 minutes (a precedent); and that the winding-up by the proposer of the motion should be extended to 20 minutes. Those would have been major changes in the time allowed for Members to speak.

We also discussed the length of time for debate at that meeting, and we talked about setting aside Monday and Tuesday with the possibility of running on into Wednesday. We never talked about a three-day debate, but we did, when we were discussing longer speeches, refer to a two-day debate. Consultation was required on that as well as on other issues relating to the motion to be debated. To have changed the length of the speeches would have required a variation of the Standing Orders, and that could only have been done by leave of the House.

We needed to consider the matter and meet again, which we did on Friday, 15 January 1999. There was no agreement at that meeting on changing the length of speeches, so we had no further discussion. Perhaps, at that point, we should have had more discussion.

Perhaps the entire membership of CAPO was at fault in considering whether we needed so long if the speeches were going to be shorter. It could be argued that we should have discussed it. What is not true is the kind of suggestion that has come from several DUP Members that we had agreed a three-day debate when we knew there were only going to be 10-minute speeches. That is not the case. What we did was ill-considered, but when we decided not to change the length of the speeches, clearly a change was made to the length of time required for the debate as a whole. We had originally been allowing for the possibility of longer speeches.

What we established at that point is what we have established today: this debate has absolutely nothing to do with whether we have confidence or not in the Initial Presiding Officer. We are not discussing the issue in the way CAPO discussed it or voted on it. It is quite clear from the speeches from the DUP and the UUAP that they are merely trying to rehash the debate that was shortened on the 18 January 1999, and to discuss this any further is a waste of time. There are other more important matters to discuss in a fortnight’s time and much more to do. Since the DUP is incapable of talking to the motion it has proposed, it, like I, should cease speaking now.

Wilson Clyde (DUP, South Antrim)

I support all that has been said by my DUP colleagues today. I have no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer because of the way that he acted during the debate on 18 January when he allowed a guillotine motion to bring to an end a debate that was very important for Northern Ireland. I question his judgement and the reasoning that lay behind his allowing the premature closure of what had already been agreed would be at least a two-day debate.

It was a false statement levelled against the DUP and democracy, although one could say that his judgement was in line with the so-called peace process, which, by its bending of the rules, denial of the truth, and "Yes" campaign’s spin doctoring, was deforming democracy to suit its own ends. By his actions on 18 January, the Initial Presiding Officer denied me democracy. True democracy is a precious jewel with many bright facets, including the freedom of speech and the opportunity to exercise that freedom. By allowing the guillotine motion, Lord Alderdice denied me the opportunity to speak during the debate.

I object to the formation of 10 Government Departments when only seven are required to run Northern Ireland efficiently. Three extra Government Departments will add an additional £90 million to the Northern Ireland budget — money that would be better spent on our hospitals, education and infrastructure. However, it seems that Ulster Unionist Party Members — even against the better judgement of their own Westminster MPs and European MP — are determined to have "jobs for the boys".

On 18 January the Initial Presiding Officer decided that democracy was downgraded for all, not just me. As the DUP representative for South Antrim I have recently received views from many outraged Unionists. They expected that such an important subject as the proposed future structures of the Government of Northern Ireland would have been afforded at least the time agreed during the Committee meeting — namely, two days. They were not surprised that the Ulster Unionist Party Member for South Antrim moved a motion to close off debate. It seems to be more important for the Ulster Unionist Party to keep their new-found friends in the SDLP and Sinn Féin happy. Mr Trimble was quoted in the ‘Irish News’ on Tuesday 29 December as having said

"we are, I think, fast becoming inseparable."

This newly formed alliance between the UUP and SDLP Members worked well in order to bring about the guillotine motion, and the Unionist majority is asking what other tricks lie in store from these new-found friends.

I support this motion of no confidence motion. The Initial Presiding Officer’s actions on 18 January added to a process that will see democracy being demolished. Some Members know all about demolishing. They have demolished lives, families, friends, towns and villages. All they seem to know is how to destroy and demolish, and they are now involved in a process of demolishing democracy. These might seem like strong words, but it is my honest opinion and that of the majority of Unionists with whom I am in contact that this is pulling down democracy. The process is clear to see — for example, the issue of decommissioning, or should I say the total lack of it.

Democracy has not been well-served: this issue is continually side-lined by some and pushed further down the pipeline by others. No, democracy has not been well served. Nor was it well served when Lord Alderdice took the decision on Monday, 18 January to move the guillotine motion, a decision which, to many inside and outside this Assembly, was taken rather quickly. I was amazed at the speed of that decision if, indeed, he had no pre-knowledge of what was going to happen. It was all settled rather quickly.

I am sorry that, for the reasons I have given, Lord Alderdice does not give me, or the people I represent, reason to have confidence in him.

I support fully the DUP’s no-confidence motion.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It was not my intention to become embroiled in this debate, but I do contend that the motion is uncalled for and is of shabby appearance. It is really an attempt to redress injured pride rather than be constructive for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.

I do not agree with all the philosophy of Lord Alderdice, nor, I am quite sure, does he with mine. However, I do contend that he performs the onerous duties of Initial Presiding Officer of the Assembly with great skill, consistency of integrity, impartiality and obvious responsibility, and that has to be admired. He brings commendable dignity to his role and to the Assembly. I am not convinced that there are many others who could do equally or even nearly as well.

What was his problem a couple of weeks ago? He carried out his responsibilities — nothing more and nothing less. The meaning of Standing Order 11(1) which has been mentioned before — and I will not read it again — it is very clear. Thus I contend that this motion is shabby; is intended to be disruptive; and is sheer hypocrisy. It is an endeavour to destabilise the Assembly by stone-walling, filibustering and freebooting methods. It is pitiful, unforgivable, very base and typifies low-grade politics.

There are Members of the Assembly who, when we talk about origins, profess loud and lustily the Word of God. My experience here and at the Northern Ireland Forum, is that many Christian virtues are lacking. There are biblical words that apply to all of us:

"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

I make that point today because what we have is self-gratification — an attempt to redress damaged pride, which falls short of Christian virtues. I am told that pride was a greater share than goodness of heart. [Interruption]

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order. Is any of this Member’s speech relevant to the debate? He was quick to insist that quotes and points raised by Members on this side of the House were not relevant. Surely his speech so far has been irrelevant.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Although you have mentioned the motion, you have not dealt with its subject, which is that this Assembly has no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer. You have referred to the context of the motion; I would prefer now that you deal with its content.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Is it in order for those Members in the back corner to behave like boot-boys and thugs while somebody is speaking?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

May I have order please.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Madam Chair, I am fed up listening to the insults that have been traded. [Interruption]

Madam Chairman, I cannot be heard.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

This is bringing the House into total disrepute. I do not mind the juvenile delinquents on the Back Benches, but Mr Robinson should know better. He is hurling insults at our Colleague who is trying to speak. It is up to you, and not Mr Robinson, to rule on this.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Madam Chair, will you make a ruling on the comments made by the Member for South Belfast. While pointing in this direction, he described Members as "bootboys and thugs". May I ask you to ask him — no, to direct him — to withdraw those remarks immediately.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I would like to draw Members’ attention to the unruly and unparliamentary behaviour which we have seen in the last 30 minutes. It is inappropriate. We are not paying each other proper parliamentary respect and courtesy. Members should speak to the Order Paper and observe proper order in the Chamber. I would ask Dr McDonnell to reflect on what he has said.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer. May I point out that this is not a matter of choice for the Member for South Belfast. He has used unparliamentary language, and if it is allowed to remain on the record, similar language will be used by other Members in the future, a precedent’s having been set. Clearly it was unparliamentary, and the Member should be asked to withdraw it. Then we can leave it at that.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have asked the Member to reflect on what he has said.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I did not refer to the Members in the far corner as "bootboys and thugs"; I said that they were behaving like bootboys and thugs. I will withdraw the remark, if that will make a useful contribution to the debate.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order. It is perfectly legitimate for the Member to give us the reason we are having this debate. If it is acceptable to refer to what took place at a meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer in order to provide the background to criticism of decisions made by the Presiding Officer, it is perfectly legitimate for the Member to give reasons for the behaviour of these detractors.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I wonder if Mr Foster recalls the endless Friday afternoons at the Forum, when we sat and listened to tome after tome of speeches from the DUP’s back-room speech factory.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

What is the point of order?

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

It is not a point of order. My Colleague agreed to take an intervention.

We owe a debt of gratitude to my Colleague for introducing the guillotine motion. By doing so, he saved us from having to listen to endless prattling. I think Mr Robinson is frustrated because he lost his speech. His party must be thoroughly embarrassed at being caught on the hop in this way.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I take Mr McFarland’s point. That is why I referred to virtuousness. As Mr Ervine said, I was trying to explain why certain Members are speaking to the motion in this way.

In conclusion, I would say that we reprove, not in order to correct, but in order to persuade them that we are free from faults ourselves. I reject this motion because I find it repulsive, hypocritical and totally unnecessary.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I have listened attentively to the debate, and I have heard the word "ambush" being used — some Members in this Chamber know all about ambushes. It was rather sad to see the Ulster Unionists get involved in an ambush on fellow Unionists on 18 January, to try and stifle debate in this House.

It was also interesting to note that they waited until a member of the Democratic Unionist Party got up to speak before Mr Wilson brought the guillotine down. They were not on their feet trying to stifle debate when Sinn Féin/IRA was speaking. On 18 January the Ulster Unionists, along with the SDLP and Sinn Féin, knew exactly what they were doing — strange bedfellows.

Who informed the Initial Presiding Officer of the timing of the guillotine motion, and when? Lord Alderdice obviously knew that the debate was not going to last until Tuesday or Wednesday, and there are a number of questions he must answer. Clearly the SDLP knew all about it, because during the debate on housing that evening, a Member referred to the situation. His information on the day was that the debate would end in a few hours. Obviously it was a conspiracy on the part of the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP, and their good friends in Sinn Féin.

For them to come into this House and get into bed with Sinn Féin in a conspiracy is hypocritical. The Ulster Unionists knew —

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I will not give way. Sit down. The Ulster Unionists knew exactly what they were about. That is the sad reality.