| « This Week Sinn Fein Are Annoyed About... | McIlveen Witness Under Threat » |
The "Democratic" House
In a stunning rejection of basic democratic principles, NIO Minister David Hanson persuaded the House of Commons to reject amendments to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill designed to make politics in Ulster more accountable (hat tip Pete Baker).
The first amendment proposed by the Lords would have changed the process of making laws for Northern Ireland. At the minute, most laws for Northern Ireland are passed as Orders In Council rather than full Bills. As Orders in Council are secondary legislation they cannot be amended and Parliament are left with a "take it or leave it" vote, allowing the government a lot of wiggle-room to force through unpopular legislation (education reform anyone?) by using the blackmail inherent to this system. Of course this leaves a great disparity with how laws that only affect England are made, being that they are put to Parliament as Bills which can be fully debated and amended by Parliament instead of being rushed through a committee.
I remember learning of this farcical situation in A-level politics and even as an 17 year old student I could identify how ridiculous it was (especially since the committee voting on Northern Ireland laws, which sits in England unlike similar Scottish/Welsh committes which sit closer to home, only has about 4 of the 16 sitting Northern Irish MPs sitting on it). This has been the way the majority of laws have been made for Northern Ireland under Direct Rule for 30 years. Now, after all this time, it has taken the House of Lords to propose democratic change - which the Commons has now stomped all over. Democratic house, eh? The government have accepted that there needs to be a change to this system, but God forbid they actually do anything before the devolutiond deadline they've imposed.
The second amendment would have ended the ability of parties here to source their funds outside the country. In the rest of the UK, donations from overseas cannot exceed £200 - and with good reason. It's generally a accepted democratic principle that citizens of other countries, or those residing outside a given country shouldn't be allowed to affect politics within it.
Here however nationalist parties, Sinn Fein particularly, source large amounts of funds from the Republic. Nigel Dodds (North Belfast, DUP) said he couldn't understand how the Minister could justify special provisions to allow donations from the Irish Republic when he knew that such donations would disproportionately benefit nationalist parties and Peter Robinson (East Belfast, DUP) claimed the government was doing it simply to benefit their sister-party, the SDLP. The Lords' amendment to plug this loophole and bring Northern Ireland party funding in line with the rest of the UK was also defeated in the Commons, by a large majority.
Unfortunately the Lords failed to stick to their guns and return the Bill to the Commons, and it has already gained Royal Assent.
Trackback address for this post
3 comments
Is this the fault of direct rule or integration I wonder?
Or the fault of how it's being presently being interpreted by Mr Permatan and Co?
For example, if all NI Mps were sitting on this committee, would we see more appropriate laws being passed (it would also certainly put more incentive on SF MPs to start doing the job they were voted to do).
Another slightly off the track point- is there anything constitutionally which prevents the govt from appointing MPS of other parties to ministerial postns. For example, why couldn't Peter Robinson be NI Minister for Transport, Dr McDonnell, minister of health?
My SF MP is doing the job i voted for her to do - NOT attend a waste of time parliament.
"why couldn't Peter Robinson be NI Minister for Transport"
Because we have enough motorways going in the wrong direction.
The rest of the constituents however (whether they're SF or not) are entitled to have political representation in the central parliament that is presently governing them.- hard concept to grasp sometimes, it's called modern western democracy.
So would you care to explain in a bit more detail exactly why Westminster is a waste of time for these unrepresented people?
Witty repose about Robbo, from what I heard he was considered one of the better minister in the late, unlamented Stormont Circus. Did I hear wrong?
