I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I have also heard him say on many occasions that the DUP does not want to go into devolution in circumstances in which there would not be a default position. Here we have the devolution of justice without a clear default position. Some of us do not believe that devolution without default should mean returning to direct rule. Some of us do not want to pull the direct rule communication cord just because political games are going on. We tabled amendment 23 to make good the problem that I identified earlier, which I shall not rehearse again.
Amendments 19, 20 and 21 relate to a point touched on by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael): the role of the nominating officer. Previous Government models for various forms of election of a Justice Minister allowed the nominating officer to consent to the nominations, and also to have a role in the removal of a party member from office. That is clearly absent here.
A number of questions arise, including those put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. There is nothing in the Bill to protect a Minister of Justice from being ousted from office on a pretty capricious basis. The fall-back—or non fall-back—position in paragraph 5(2)(b) of schedule 1 is to do with whether or not the Minister and deputy Minister can be from the two largest parties. Even if an Alliance Member had occupied the post on a transition basis, they might be discriminated against and eliminated from the fall-back model. That is why the Alliance should not, perhaps, trust everything in these arrangements.
There is another question for the Alliance party. It might not want a role in terms of the nominating officer and nominating or appointing the transitional Minister, because it might want to be able to say that they are not an Alliance Minister—it might want to be able to say that it is still the principled Opposition, and that it has not nominated or directly appointed a Minister, but that they are an Assembly nominee. Therefore, the Alliance would protect its position as being the Opposition, as it would claim. Our amendments are intended to address these matters.
Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)
Proceeding contribution from
Mark Durkan
(Social Democratic & Labour Party)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 March 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Northern Ireland Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
488 c924 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:04:15 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536335
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536335
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536335