Final Stage of Financial Assistance Bill

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 27 January 2009 on Thu 29th Jan 2009

It seems that we are discussing the willingness of parties in this place to implement normal democratic procedures of debate. I want to place on record the Alliance Party's position on the Bill as it has progressed through its Stages and as it stands, because representations on my party's position on the Bill from certain parts of Executive party Back Benches - DUP and Sinn Féin Members - could be best described in parliamentary language as terminological inexactitudes.

I also noted with some interest that there seems to be an almost mathematically perfect correlation between the proportion of a speech that a Member reads and his or her unwillingness to accept interventions or willingness to misrepresent other parties. I acknowledge, in his presence, that Jim Shannon takes interventions. He does not answer them or address the point that is made, but he is willing to engage in open debate, unlike Members who stand with their heads down and their speeches pre-typed; who make allegations about other parties before those parties have even contributed; and who are unwilling to take interventions in which they will be corrected. That behaviour will have to be looked at by the Committee on Procedures, or as Stephen Farry said a couple of days ago, we might as well resort to a position where researchers email the speeches to the Office of the Official Report. That would save a lot of time and effort in the House.

The position of the Alliance Party is simple: we accepted accelerated passage because there was urgency in respect of the matters provided for in clause 1 of the Bill. It is not a state secret that the Alliance Party is not an enthusiast of accelerated passage. We have supported it for parity Bills for social security and for Budget Bills, but, otherwise, we have taken the view that the need for accelerated passage must be scrutinised carefully.

When one considers the Bills that have progressed through the House with accelerated passage, one will see the evidence as to why a Committee Stage is required on a range of matters. It is hoped that those Ministers who continue to promise that they will not use accelerated passage will deliver on those promises.

My party supported clause 1, because there is the need for urgent business to be dealt with in exceptional circumstances by the procedures that are provided for in that clause.

The Alliance Party also sought to make amendments that we considered would improve the working of clause 1, but they were rejected.

We opposed clause 2 standing part of the Bill, not because we oppose the principle or because we believe it represents a power grab - as other Members pointed out, OFMDFM already has those powers - but because we consider the powers to be potentially so wide-ranging that proper scrutiny is required.

However many hours the two Stages in the House last, they do not amount to the same level of scrutiny that would be carried out during a proper Committee Stage. That Stage involves a proper examination of the issues with witnesses, the taking of written evidence, the opportunity to question, and the opportunity for negotiation between Departments and the Committee. That is why something as exciting as the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 was, eventually, a good Act; it was discussed at inordinate length at umpteen meetings to ensure that the work was done properly.

However, on some Bills that are more important to the overall operation of Northern Ireland, we are not getting any discussion. Legislation is simply rammed through with a limited debate and without a meeting of minds, nor any attempt from the other end of the Chamber to achieve one. That is why I cannot accept this morning's statement from the First Minister that the two Stages debated in the House represented proper scrutiny; they simply did not.

Although the Alliance Party supports the First Minister's general contention that there is a need for joined-up government - indeed, some of us have been accused of banging on about it to the exclusion of almost everything else - there is no doubt that the imposition of the will of the First Minister and deputy First Minister through clause 2 is not joined-up government in the sense that it would be understood elsewhere.

I took some notice of the comments at the beginning of the First Minister's statement. He thanked Members who had contributed to the debate, particularly those who had supported his position. As he also thanked those whose contributions had been "constructive", he seemed to be looking at this corner of the Chamber. I am not sure whether he was seeking to embarrass me. Yesterday, Mrs Kelly suggested that the Alliance Party was being softened up for some other reason by kind words from the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That was a tad naive. Anyone who thinks that the Alliance Party's price for playing a constructive role is having people be nice to it has much to learn.

I may be inclined to accept the compliment contained in the nice things that the First Minister said this morning and the nice things that the deputy First Minister has said about the constructive nature of engagement. I recognise and welcome that, as recently as last week, the First Minister used the term "official opposition" in reference to the Alliance Party. However, if the First Minister and deputy First Minister were to go beyond saying that amendments are sensible by accepting a few of them, or by engaging in discussion with those who make constructive suggestions, that would be a much greater compliment. [Interruption.]

Indeed, as I hear a Member behind me say, and as Mr Attwood said earlier, the acceptance of even one amendment would show a willingness to accept that the Chamber is a place for debates and ideas, and that the possession of insight and perfect wisdom is not entirely reserved to those who sit at your end of the Chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Sometimes, the small, or even obscure, points that can be heard from all parts of the Chamber may contribute to the greater overall good. If the First Minister and deputy First Minister wish to impress me, my party and, possibly, Members who sit on either side of me, they should take on board the simple notion that an occasional engagement, rather than regarding OFMDFM as the all-seeing, all-wise Department that can solve everything, might possibly help.

One lesson that Members have learnt during the various debates on the Bill relates to interventions. We have, in part, improved the standard of debate and embraced the concept of taking interventions.

I noted the willingness of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to take interventions, sadly, they were not prepared to take any notice of those interventions. However, at least there is a little movement forward, and we should accept that.

Even today, regarding the merits of amendment No 13, which was proposed yesterday, the First Minister said that the first reason against it was that it might mean that they would have to produce a report when they had not done anything. Given that amendment No 13 simply called for a report:

"on the operation of any schemes made under this Act.",

it is clear that if no schemes were made under the Act, there would be no report. The Alliance Party was not imposing anything at all. Nevertheless, that was the first argument made against the point that we were making.

It seems that while some people -

The First Minister: I gave three reasons; were the other two all right?

Mr Ford: Give me time; I was merely pointing out that the first argument that the First Minister can think of showed that he did not have yesterday's amendments in front of him and that he was not really with it.

The suggestion that an issue such as a formal report being tabled before the Assembly could be met by an offer to an opposition party to table a debate during private Member's time, as opposed to a regular standing proposal for something, does not meet our concerns. Therefore, although a little listening has been done, there has been no willingness to look at the matter.

Although DUP and Sinn Féin Members on the Front Benches - and, indeed, their more intelligent Back-Benchers - have learned that open debate is a good thing, there is an unwillingness to listen; there is merely an opportunity to take an intervention and to ignore it, and set the steamroller on its way.

Those issues apply to both those parties, which regard themselves as taking the lead. They will continue to win the votes because they have the numbers to do so. They may lose the arguments some of the time but they will continue to win the votes all of the time, and to use Ms Ní Chuilín's eloquent phrase - we will "get used to it".

If Ministers wish to see improvements to legislation, and if they wish to see things done properly, it would be nice if they would consider whether matters such as clause 2 really need to be included under accelerated passage and whether there would be opportunities to improve legislation by listening to those of us - indeed, all of us at this end of the Chamber - who have sought to be constructive.