Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Mark Durkan (Social Democratic & Labour Party) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 March 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Northern Ireland Bill.


Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

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.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
488 c924 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Conditions of employment Codes of practice Devolved matters Crime Administration of justice Devolution Finance Inquiries Judiciary Government departments Functions Fuels Judges Ministerial powers Northern Ireland Police Powers Public appointments Northern Ireland Assembly Political parties Public expenditure Parliamentary scrutiny Politics and government Ministers Political impartiality Northern Ireland Executive Police Service of Northern Ireland Standards Terrorism Security Reserve forces Termination of employment Smuggling Royal Ulster Constabulary Commission for Judicial Appointments (Northern Ireland) Attorney General for Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Legislation
Northern Ireland Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk