| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Worthington: I am simply addressing the amendment. The part of the clause that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove is one which permits someone who is a Member of the Irish Senate being also a Member of the Assembly. I was addressing the hon. Gentleman's debating point. He was referring to Ministers, rather than people wishing to be candidates for the Assembly.
Amendment No. 21 stands in the name of the official Opposition. The part of the clause to which it relates is about its being all right for citizens of other European states to be candidates. Subsection (7) is identical to the provisions that were accepted by the House of Commons in agreeing to the passage of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. As it happens, that is in line with the law in Scotland as well. I think that that is the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
It is for the citizens of Northern Ireland to decide whether a particular citizen of another European Union state should represent them. We see no reason to exclude them. Accordingly, we would resist amendment No. 21 as well. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked specifically about provisions elsewhere. The provisions in the Bill are the same in this respect as those of the Scotland Bill.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
The way into office in the Northern Ireland Assembly is to get elected to the Assembly. A person can get elected to the Assembly and also be a Member of the Senate of the south of Ireland. There is nothing in the Bill to say that a Minister cannot be a Member of the Senate. Let us be clear. If he is a Member of the Assembly and is not disqualified, there is nothing in the Bill to say that he cannot continue to be a Member of the Senate, if that is his position. A Minister could, under the terms of the Bill, be a Member of the Senate.
On the subject of Dail Eireann, the person would have to be elected, and people in the south of Ireland do not look in too friendly a way on candidates from the north. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is popular in his constituency, but if he went across the border to Carlingford and stood for election to the Dail Eireann, I do not think that he would do well--even with all his great powers of oratory and influence.
Mr. McNamara:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley:
The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, but I will be decent and give way to him in a minute, if he just holds on.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) came out with the outrageous remark that Irish peers still sit in the other place. They do not sit there as Irish peers--they sit there because they possess an English peerage.
Mr. Temple-Morris:
I said that.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
The hon. Gentleman said that they were making a contribution to that House. That is the strangest thing--because someone originally had an Irish peerage, they can remain in that House. They are in that House because they are British peers. There are no Irish peers in the House of Lords. Talk about making bricks without straw--that is what the hon. Gentleman tried to do.
Mention was made of Gordon Wilson. He was not reached out to in the north to come down to the south. He was a southern man--he was brought up in the south. Let us get identities right. The Committee must get its facts right.
The Prime Minister of the south of Ireland can appoint various people to seats in the Senate. Under the Bill, he could now appoint the Deputy First Minister to a seat in the Senate. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) told us that this is probably the Mallon clause. I do not think that it should be in the Bill.
The Minister said that we have had time to discuss the matter. I refer him to Hansard, where he will see how much time we had. The debate came to an abrupt end when a vote was called.
Mr. McNamara:
I am grateful for the graciousness and charm of the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I did not reflect those virtues when he tried to intervene during my speech. First, the Irish peers sitting in the Lords with English titles were bribed with those English titles to get rid of the Irish Parliament in 1800 at the time of the Act of Union. That cost £24 million--a fair sum of money at the time. Secondly, I wish to make a more relevant point about people from the north being elected in the south. The President of the Republic of Ireland came from the north.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
That might well be, but the President of the Republic is not a Member of Dail Eireann. I challenge members of the SDLP to fight seats in the south and see how they get on.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I never asked how those peers got into the House of Lords or what money they paid for their English titles. If that was the way in which they got into the other place, shame on them. The hon. Member for Leominster said that they made a great contribution. What contribution could they make if they got in by paying £300 for their title?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Does the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) want to withdraw his amendment?
Rev. Ian Paisley:
No; we wish to shout no. [Laughter.]
The First Deputy Chairman:
The hon. Gentleman wishes to shout no; I shall put the Question, then.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
We wish to shout yes to the amendment, Mr. Martin.
The First Deputy Chairman:
The Question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye".
The First Deputy Chairman:
To the contrary, "No".
The First Deputy Chairman:
I think the Noes have it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Moss:
I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 15, leave out lines 6 to 15.
The First Deputy Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in clause 30, page 15, leave out lines 30 to 33.
Mr. Moss:
Amendment No. 22 is a probing amendment. It would delete subsections (2) and (3) of clause 29, which provides relief for those who may be disqualified from the Assembly. Amendment No. 23 is consequential on amendment No. 22.
Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 outlines the circumstances in which a person is disqualified from Assembly membership. Disqualification is based solely on an individual holding particular office in, for example, the judiciary, the armed forces, the police, the civil service, quangos of one kind or another and non-departmental public bodies. Clause 29(2) gives the Assembly power to lay an order to direct that the original grounds for disqualifying a person can be waived in certain circumstances.
Even assuming that that is an acceptable power to give to the Assembly, the Bill is not clear whether the order to offer relief would need a simple majority vote in the Assembly or whether such a decision would require cross-community support. As the Bill does not specifically mention the latter, it is not unreasonable to conclude that that does not apply. Assembly decisions on
individual cases could therefore be determined by the majority group of designated nationalists or designated Unionists. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
Much has been made of the fact that the Bill must faithfully interpret and reflect the Belfast agreement, but there does not appear to be a corresponding section offering guidance in this context. Paragraph 25 of the strand 1 section refers to the removal of an individual from office, but not to removal from membership of the Assembly, disqualification from standing for election or even disqualification from being able to sit as a Member of the Assembly. Perhaps the Minister will offer some illumination. Will he confirm that this issue is not covered by a corresponding part of the Belfast agreement? If so, why was it deemed either necessary or expedient, and by whom, to incorporate powers of waiver for the Assembly?
Clause 29(2) is taken almost verbatim from section 6(2) and (3) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which received Royal Assent on 8 May 1975--simultaneously with the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. The Northern Ireland Act does not contain such a section, despite both Acts presumably passing through the House contemporaneously. Why was the difference deemed to be appropriate then, but not now? Do we really want to give the Assembly such a power, especially as it will be administered--if that is the right word--by order, through secondary legislation?
We need the Minister to explain a number of matters.
Mr. Worthington:
These two amendments would remove the Assembly's power, in certain circumstances, to provide relief from disqualification. They would remove some flexibility. I note that the hon. Gentleman said that they were probing amendments. They apply to the fairly exotic circumstances in which people stand for election while disqualified and that is not made known before they get elected. That is unusual, and we believe that it is necessary to give the Assembly some flexibility. The election of such a candidate would be invalidated. People get annoyed--Winchester comes to mind--if they feel that their will has been thwarted through a technicality or for even more serious reasons.
This power allows the Assembly to set aside the disqualification. As the hon. Gentleman said, the disqualification is usually because the candidate holds a post or position that disqualifies him from being a representative in the Assembly. Candidates must put right the reason for which they were disqualified, so they would have to resign from their post. The cause of the disqualification would be removed, and the Assembly could set aside the disqualification if it so wished.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |