Page 691 - Week 03 - Thursday, 21 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
matters without examination. I would like to state quite categorically that we on this side of the house will not do such a thing. All Assembly members have every right to examine any report that is tabled in this Assembly, and there is no way that we are blindly going to accept something that has been put before us, perhaps simply to expedite business. However, I am happy to say that, so far as this report on standing orders 79 and 153 is concerned, I am quite happy with the decision reached by the committee.
Members will recall that I raised these matters in the Assembly and they were referred to the Administration and Procedures Committee for examination. I am happy because I believe that I have achieved my purpose, and that was to draw attention to certain practices which had occurred in the previous Assembly and which I thought were quite undesirable. They were that far too many matters of public importance were being raised by a single individual, and that far too many divisions were called for in this house by one person.
I still believe that these are undesirable practices; but I have to say, in fairness, that in this Second Assembly to date - and I know that we are very young - these abuses of the Assembly procedures have not been in evidence. Indeed, I think I can say that yesterday we saw an example of some very sensible behaviour. It is a pity that the Government did not allow Mr Stevenson to have an extension of time; nevertheless, Mr Stevenson acted, I believe, in a most responsible fashion subsequently by calling one division only when, had he wished to do so, under existing standing orders he could have fought every clause of the fluoride Bill by calling a division. He elected not to do so, and that gives me hope for the operations of this Assembly in relation to these two standing orders on future occasions.
I believe that this new sensible behaviour is also reflected in the committee's comments where it states at point 10, in relation to standing order 79, that the committee "felt that these figures were representative of business of the last Assembly and would not necessarily reflect that of the second Assembly". In relation to standing order 153 and the need not to amend it, the committee took the view that "the conduct of the current Assembly was such, to date, that the proposed amendment was not required, but it would be kept under continual review".
The committee has resolved to continue to monitor the operation of these two standing orders. I have no objection to that. I believe that we are on the right track. I welcome the decision of the committee to continue to monitor them, as I shall, and I look forward to an improved Assembly in relation to these two matters, which, I must say, in the First Assembly were a cause of some irritation.
MR LAMONT (10.47), in reply: I take this opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Assembly, and particularly to refute, firstly, a number of the arguments which Mr Cornwell made in his first discussion on this matter when he sought a referral to the Administration and Procedures Committee of these changes and, secondly, some of the comments which unfortunately may have been thrust upon you, Madam Speaker. It was, nevertheless, the collective wisdom of the Assembly that it was the appropriate way to deal with the matter.
The suggestion that in the previous Assembly there was the opportunity for a single member to act in a vexatious way when using the provisions of the standing orders, particularly standing order 153, is not in fact borne out when a close examination is made of the record. In fact, it was used on very few
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .