---

24 Jul 1998 : Column 1351

House of Commons

Friday 24 July 1998

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker in the Chair]

Department of Culture, Media and Sport

9.34 am

Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will no doubt be aware that, in recent days, we have had a succession of Ministers coming to the House to outline the spending plans for their Departments. Is it not a disgrace that, when it comes to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, what we get is an interview on the "Today" programme and a press conference in the National Gallery?

Given the wide-ranging structural changes that are proposed, including the dismantling of the Arts Council and the abolition of the English tourist board, and the fact that the statement has been awaited with great interest by many people across the country whose livelihoods will be affected by the changes, will you use your influence to recommend to the Secretary of State that he comes here forthwith to make an oral statement to the House and to answer some difficult questions on a contentious document?

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As vice-chairman of the all-party tourism group, I know that tourism and hospitality are responsible for creating more new jobs than any other industry. To sound the possible death knell of a strong, independent English tourist board to journalists rather than to the House leaves us in great difficulty when we want to represent the interests of our constituents.

Madam Speaker: As the House knows, Secretaries of State determine for themselves whether statements are made at the Dispatch Box or by means of a written question. If there is not to be a statement at the Dispatch Box, I should expect the Secretary of State to make a statement in the usual way, by means of a written answer, and to see that the supporting documentation is available to Members in the Vote Office. I know that those on the

24 Jul 1998 : Column 1352

Treasury Bench this morning will have noted my remarks, and I am sure that they will ensure that the proper procedures are now carried out.

PETITION

Acid Gas Escape (Killamarsh)

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) rose--

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Barnes: I wish to present a petition, which arises from two incidents in which highly dangerous clouds of acid gas escaped in Killamarsh in my constituency. Following the first incident, I made a speech in the House on the matter on 20 May, but I was prevented from seeking a speech on the second incident, as I was rushed into hospital with a stroke on 4 June. I am pleased to be able now to press my constituents' justified concerns with this petition. It reads:

To the House of Commons


The Petition of the residents of Killamarsh, N. E. Derbyshire


Declares that the siting of the Sarp UK plant (formerly Leigh Environmental) extremely close to centres of population--particularly two schools and a popular country park--is inherently dangerous. We call for its closure.


Until this can be achieved, the Petitioners therefore request that the House of Common


1. Introduce legislation requiring provision of an off-site safety plan to warn the community of dangerous incidents; an


2. urge the Minister for the Environment to:


a) refuse permission for any further developments or extensions of existing licences to Sarp UK or any other company operating on this site which may be requested of his Department;


b) instruct the Health and Safety Executive to conduct a complete safety review of the plant; and


c) instruct the Environment Agency to undertake constant monitoring of the operation of the plant, taking particular account of the gases and foul smells in the atmosphere regularly reported by residents, with a view to providing a complete cessation of these and the foul smells coming from the drains in the village


And the Petitioners remain, etc.

It is signed by Jane Holden of Nethermoor Lane, Killamarsh and 7,191 residents of the area. There are fewer people than that on the electoral register in Killamarsh, but we need to take into account the additional people living in the surrounding area.

To lie upon the Table.

Madam Speaker: It is good to see the hon. Member back.

24 Jul 1998 : Column 1353

Orders of the Day

Northern Ireland Bill

[3rd Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [17 July] [Progress, 23 July].

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

Clause 24

Dates of elections and dissolutions

9.39 am

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): I beg to move amendment No. 150, in, page 13, line 4, leave out from 'If' to 'by' in line 12 and insert

'three months after either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister ceases to hold office the Assembly has not elected a First Minister or Deputy First Minister Her Majesty shall'.

The amendment is to some extent consequential to an amendment that we discussed yesterday. It concerns an issue that goes to the very heart of the concept of an Assembly that will sit for a fixed four-year term, unlike this House, which sits not for a fixed term but for a maximum period during which the Prime Minister may, at any time, seek a dissolution. The objection to clause 24(4) is that it undermines the basic concept of the fixed term that is proposed for the Assembly.

Subsection (4) says that the Assembly may be dissolved on three conditions. The third, which is particularly sweeping, is that

"it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved".

Who is to consider that? The clause states that it will be Her Majesty, but, in practice, it will be the Secretary of State. A simple provision states that a body that is supposedly elected for a fixed four-year term may be dissolved if the Secretary of State believes that it is in the public interest.

That is contrary to the concept of the Assembly's existence and undermines the democratic process. It says to the electorate of Northern Ireland that although they may elect a body, the Secretary of State, who represents and is accountable to no one in Northern Ireland, may, if she considers it appropriate, turn out all its Members. That treats the electorate with contempt and disdain. I trust that it would never happen because no one would be foolish enough to do it. There is therefore no reason why the provision should be in the Bill.

Objection can also be made to the other grounds for dissolution set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). The first is that

"the persons who are the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions".

That does not refer to issues of individual incapacity such as the First Minister being ill or unable to discharge his functions, in which case action could be taken. There is no such provision in the clause. We need only read the history books to see that there have been times when persons have occupied positions on the Treasury Benches and been incapable of discharging their functions for

24 Jul 1998 : Column 1354

various reasons, but we need not go into the details of that. One wonders what circumstances the draftsmen envisaged in which all Ministers, not only the First Minister, would be unable to carry out their functions and, as paragraph (b) states,

"if they were to resign, the persons who would be likely to succeed them would not be able to carry out their functions".

Although the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) are somewhat absurd, it is the provision in paragraph (c) which is fundamentally objectionable. It runs counter to the spirit of the Bill by demonstrating a degree of contempt for the electorate in Northern Ireland, and it undermines the concept of the Assembly as a body that operates for a fixed four-year term.

Hon. Members will remember that yesterday, when we were considering the provisions for the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and the consequences of one or other resigning, I proposed an amendment providing for a three-month period subsequent to that resignation in which there would be an opportunity for re-election. We may argue about whether the period should be three months or less--the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) suggested a seven-day period, which I thought too short--but we need to provide a period of between one week and three months in which the Assembly should try to re-elect First and Deputy First Ministers. If it were unable to do so during that period, that is the only case in which the Assembly should be dissolved before it had completed its four-year term.

9.45 am

The amendments that I have tabled would mean that either of the two largest parties would be able to bring about a dissolution of the Assembly if it were determined to do so, simply by arranging for its leader--the First or Deputy First Minister--to resign, not offering any candidate to be re-elected and using its votes to block the re-election of other persons. However, the procedure would be rather cumbersome and would take time, during which the party would have to justify its action, not only to the Assembly, but to the electorate. That is appropriate. It should not be easy for people to bring about the dissolution of a body that is elected for a fixed four-year term. Dissolution should certainly not be caused by the wave of a hand of someone who is not a Member of the Assembly, who is not elected in Northern Ireland and who is not answerable to its people. That is objectionable in principle.

I ask the Government to reconsider clause 24(4) and to consider the amendment, which would provide a procedure to bring about a dissolution while maintaining the integrity of the fixed-term concept by making it difficult to dissolve the Assembly. I point out that, in drafting the amendment, I omitted to provide for the deletion of subsection (5), which would not be appropriate if the amendment were made. We can consider that at a later stage.

My crucial point is that these provisions should be deleted because they are objectionable on democratic grounds and contrary to the concept of the scheme, but there may be circumstances in which a dissolution before the end of a four-year term would be appropriate. The amendment provides for that, but the procedure would not be easy to use because it should be biased in favour of

24 Jul 1998 : Column 1355

the Assembly serving its full fixed four-year term and dissolving before that only when it would be difficult, or almost impossible, for it to continue. It should not be easy to seek an early dissolution and it should certainly not be done on the ridiculous grounds set out in clause 24(4).

---