Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-03-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Sylvia Eileen Hermon (Independent, Unknown): It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, while we discuss this important Bill, and I will say now that unless the Minister gives me a satisfactory reply, I am minded to divide the Committee on amendment 6 Amendment 6 strives radically to improve clause 8, and I cannot believe that the Minister does not think that that is necessary—the clause certainly needs to be radically improved. We have just spent at least an hour in a useful debate on the establishment of yet another commission in Northern Ireland, namely the independent reporting commission. I am delighted that under clause 2, the primary objective of that commission will be to "promote progress towards ending paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland." It is long overdue for the people of Northern Ireland to be rid of the scourge of paramilitary activity. They will be delighted with that commission when it is established, and will have confidence in it doing a good job On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said something important about the Stormont House agreement, which the Minister has cited regularly in his opening remarks. She stated that that agreement "places fresh obligations on Northern Ireland’s political representatives to work together with determination to rid society of paramilitary activity and groups.—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 70.] I say "hear hear" to that As the Minister rightly explained, clause 8 introduces an undertaking that all MLAs must give before they can participate in any of the Assembly’s proceedings, and as drafted, it goes to great lengths to set out the terms of that undertaking. Among other things, it means that before an MLA can participate in any Assembly proceedings, they must pledge to support the rule of law and to challenge all paramilitary activity and associated criminality. Those are two of the detailed provisions in that new undertaking Having gone to such extraordinary lengths to draft that new undertaking to comply with the Stormont House agreement, the glaring omission—we cannot possibly allow this to get through the Committee unamended—is that no provisions refer to Standing Orders that will investigate alleged breaches of that undertaking, and no Standing Orders will impose sanctions on MLAs who are found to be guilty of such a breach. Let us hope that no MLA would ever stoop so low as to breach their own undertaking, but if such an allegation is made it must be investigated, and if the MLA is found to be guilty, there must be sanctions. The current drafting of clause 8(1)(2) is interesting, because we are already quite happy that: "Standing Orders shall provide for the procedure for giving the undertaking." We are a sovereign Parliament—how often have I heard in recent weeks that sovereignty belongs to this Parliament—and the beauty of my amendment is that it simply adds to what we already have. Standing Orders will be introduced by the Assembly to investigate alleged breaches of the undertaking by MLAs, and to impose sanctions on MLAs who are in breach of that undertaking When I made that suggestion on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said in response to an intervention about sanctions: "In terms of internal matters of discipline within the Assembly, that really is a matter for the Assembly itself to determine."—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 72.]