From Hansard, here’s the initial exchange on Tuesday starting with a point of order from Ian Paisley Jnr

Mr Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I met with the Speaker this morning and have made him aware that I intend to raise this point of order. Yesterday, in the Chamber, one Member accused another of being, in effect, a liar when he used the unparliamentary term “seriously misleading to the Assembly.” — [Official Report, Vol 42, No 5, p234, col 1 (Added Theyworkforyou link)]. I have asked the Speaker to examine the record, given his ruling of 19 November 2007 in which he ruled that the term “misleading the Assembly” or “misleading the House” is unparliamentary language, and I have asked that that language be withdrawn by Mr Declan O’Loan, the Member who made the statement about me.

I have also asked the Speaker whether he can bring a ruling expeditiously to the House regarding the use of other unparliamentary language. I was accused yesterday of unparliamentary language in my use of the words “cheapest”, “lowest”, “dirtiest”, “meanest”, “nastiest” and “cheapest possible”. This morning, I received a verbal assurance from the Speaker that my use of that terminology about Mr O’Loan was, in his words, perfectly correct and used in the proper context of parliamentary cut and thrust of debate. It is important that that is put on the record.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr Paisley Jnr, for your point of order. The Speaker is, of course, considering your complaint and will report at a later date.

Mr O’Loan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I raised a point of order and brought matters to the Speaker’s attention. The Speaker said that he was considering those matters. He has yet to report back to the Assembly. Is it in order for another Member to report at second hand what he says is the view of the Speaker in relation to those matters? It does not seem to me to be in order.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr O’Loan, I am in no position to comment on that. I am aware that the Speaker is considering the points that were made to him and will report at a later date.

Mr Attwood: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point that my colleague Mr O’Loan made is a valid one. There is a fundamental issue about whether Members have the right to reflect to the Assembly what they say the Speaker has or has not said, based on private conversations with him outside the Chamber. That is a fundamental issue regarding the privacy of conversations that the Speaker has with Members; the accuracy of what Members then report as the Speaker’s views; and whether the House will end up being a gossip Chamber that relies on hearsay to give the Speaker’s views to the wider public.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr Attwood, for that point of order. As I have said already, the Speaker is considering the issues at hand, and no doubt he will take a strong view on the points that you have raised. I am taking no more points of order on the issue.

And the Speaker, William Hay, in the Chair later in the session

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to Question Time, I will address a few issues that were raised in the House this morning. A number of Members raised points of order at the start of today’s sitting. In all but one case, I will consider them and respond appropriately in due course.

However, I wish to respond immediately to comments that were made by Ian Paisley Jnr in the House this morning. He said that he met me in my office this morning to discuss a point of order that was raised by Mr O’Loan yesterday. In that regard, Mr Paisley Jnr’s remarks were certainly accurate. However, he went on to make remarks that he attributed to me. I wish to make it clear that those remarks were inaccurate. I take a very dim view of Mr Paisley Jnr’s action.

Mr McCartney: Will he go to jail?

Mr Speaker: Order. Members will know that I encourage them to meet me in order to discuss matters that are raised under points of order. I rightly consider such discussions private and confidential, and expect Members to do likewise. Members will know that I operate an open-door policy and that I do not stand on ceremony. If Members want to see me when I am in the office or in the Building, they can do so. I am always willing and able to meet Members to try to resolve any issues that they feel strongly about, whether they concern my rulings or any matter of business in the House. Nevertheless, it is unwise and discourteous of a Member to recount them in the Chamber after a private meeting with me as Speaker. No matter who comes through my door, a private conversation remains private between me and a Member, regardless of the subject of that conversation.

I will respond to the other points of order that were made, particularly that which was raised by Mr O’Loan, in my own time and in my own nature. I will not allow any other Member of the House to try to put words in my mouth. I want to make that absolutely clear to the entire House, because it is all about protecting the procedures and business of the Assembly. I would like to think that a Member can come through my door and talk to me on any subject and know that the conversation between us will remain private.

The climbdown got off to a bad start in the racket of PMQs, when as he so often does, Gordon fluffed his lines.
No, total spending will continue to rise, and it will be a zero per cent. rise in 2013–14. In 2011–12 and 2012–13, it will continue to rise—[Interruption..(Hansard language for gales of derisive laughter).What nonsense is this?  Andy Grice is the Indy explains.

Mr Brown made a gaffe by speaking of a “zero per cent rise” in total spending. He later admitted his mistake, saying he was referring to a 0.7 per cent average rise in real terms in current spending in future years.

You can just about trace the fine print of the climbdown from quotes from Hansard I’ve ripped out of context and strung together..
The capital spending that we have advanced to 2009–10 and 2010–11 is therefore not available after 2011…
I have already said that current expenditure will rise, and continue to rise. Capital spending will rise until 2011, then it will fall…We have already announced a deficit-reduction plan for the next five years. We have taken difficult decisions about efficiency savings and asset sales, and about raising the top rate of tax: about measures that ensure that people who are in a position to pay more do pay more in the tax system—that is, at the top rate of tax..

“Current expenditure” I take it ends in 2011. If that’s the deficit plan it isn’t up to much.  Once he’s started, will be finish? I wouldn’t bank on it..

Likewise it was the bounden duty of each and every member of this puffed-up little parliament to make the effort to listen to her words yesterday. None of the other explanations were at all worthy -

That champion of devolution and doyen of Scottish journalism Magnus Linklater was embarrassed.

The Herald pointed to disenchantment with the institution.

As Holyrood marked its anniversary, an opinion poll last night showed more than two-thirds of voters say it had achieved little or nothing since devolution. The TNS System 3 survey for STV’s Politics Now programme revealed 53% of Scots think Holyrood has achieved little and a further 15% thought nothing.

Though this came three days after a very different poll for the BBC that showed strong support for more powers.

When asked which scenario came closest to their view of how Scotland should be governed, 28% said Scotland should become independent, with the Scottish Parliament able to make all decisions about taxation and spending, while 47% backed Scotland remaining part of the UK, but with increased power of taxation and spending being handed to Holyrood.  A further 22% said Scotland should remain part of the UK, with decisions about taxation and spending made by the UK Government

.  BBC Scotland’s political editor put the poor attendance in perspective.

Will we remember this fact in ten years time? No, not in ten days.

Needless to say Alex Salmond didn’t put a foot wrong. A dig at Westminster was his only partisan note.
Anyway the weather was great and the fantastic £414 million building looked appropriately Catalan in the unaccustomed blazing Edinburgh sunshine. It’s a different flavour of nationalism in Scotland, isn’t it?

Soaring over Mars.  Enjoy.

And also from the Belfast Telegraph report

Fred Cobain, who heads the scrutiny committee overseeing the department which would implement the charges, said: “It is not good enough just to make a decision to defer and leave the worrying about the implications until later.”

But the UUP MLA said: “At this point in time I don’t think they have a clue what they are doing. But they just cannot close their eyes and hope this will go away.”

The Department for Regional Development Committee, on which all parties apart from Alliance are represented, has been taking evidence from Northern Ireland Water, the billing firm Crystal Alliance and others in recent months but members are angry that key questions remain unanswered.

“There is at the most between eight and 10 weeks for this decision to be taken, at least if Crystal Alliance is to have the time it says it needs to prepare bills to go out,” Mr Cobain said. The North Belfast MLA, who opposes water charges, said: “The Executive appears to be paralysed on this issue.

“The Regional Development Minister (Conor Murphy of Sinn Fein) announced he was bringing forward proposals for another three-year deferral in April for the Executive, but so far it appears this has not even been discussed.

“The fact is they have had two-and-a-half years to think about this. The original plan was to introduce the charges on a one-third, two thirds and then full charge basis. But now we just don’t know where we are.”

“I am very concerned at the potential impact of this on pensioners in particular, and families already in poverty.

“A responsible government has to plan properly for the future. They should not just be making announcements and planning policy on the hoof. If they are going ahead with a further three-year delay to the introduction of water charges we are entitled to know where the money to pay for that will come from.”

One must caution of course, against putting all ones eggs into one basket. Frequently in minority language discourse one meets people who in my view over emphasis the importance of one particular strand in relation to others, sometimes to the obvious determent of others.

For example, some may overwhelmingly stress immersion education, children’s’ TV, linguistic rights, news media, marketing, continuing development of modern literature etc. etc. when it would seem clear to me at least that the correct balance of emphasis must maintained among different facets of action with a continuous focus on the big picture.

I believe in that balanced and multi-facetted approach, but it is true to say that I see little prospect of a positive future for the Irish language in Ireland without the establishment of new Irish speaking communities.

It is a simple truth that the Irish language is a minority and minoritised language in Ireland, one which is not universally welcomed beyond the ‘cúpla focail’ and even they can enrage a minority.

What is needed is geographical realities in which the community has the ability to ensure that Irish is the default language of the neighbourhood and its institutions, i.e. school(s), shop(s), club(s), pub(s), etc. Just like in the stronger Gaeltachts.

This is quite a heavy conviction, for I understand only too well how difficult it is the build such communities. The difficulties are numerous, there are financial constraints, there are personality clashes, there is the fear factor, the lack of vision, the political strains, and this is only at the first meeting.

To date, aside from a number of ‘clachan’ size clusters, only two new Irish speaking geographical communities have come about, the Shaw’s Road Gaeltacht and the Gaeltacht in Ráth Cairn, Co. Meath.

For years I have droned on this matter and others have certainly groaned as I pipe up again and again on this topic. Often people agree with me and then they come out with the following words … ‘yes, Foras na Gaeilge and the government [26 co.s] should do something about that’.

Everytime I hear those words now my heart sinks further, once they enraged me but as the years go by I mellow into sadness at them. They are the words of children.

Once we Gaeil were a warlike and fierce people, now we surrender our hopes to the Southern Government and Foras na Gaeilge, we stick a wretched hand out in their direction, and upon them we place all blame and responsibilty and thus divest ourselves of our own.

Thankfully, the young people who built the Shaw’s Road Gaeltacht were made of stronger stuff and sought permission from no-one and waited for no grant to fulfil their vision.

Let us be clear, neither Foras na Gaeilge nor the Irish government are going to back, recommend, permit nor fund any new Irish language community.

Irish spoken as a first community language, even by a small minority is the polar opposite of the Foras na Gaeilge vision for the Irish language, which is that Irish is spoken as a second ‘cultural’ language by a majority, leaving all serious matters to English.

We have in Pobal Feirste, or Gaeltacht Bhóthar Seoighe if one prefers, a wonderful example. A small multi-ethnic, multi-faith, indeed multi-lingual community which maintains after 40 years Irish as its default vernacular.

There are but thirty families, if even, but this community has had a huge impact on their surrounding environment and on the fortunes of the Irish language in Belfast and beyond.

It is from the Shaw’s Road that the Irish medium education system has sprouted and it remains the bedrock on which the Irish language is built in Belfast, steadier and stronger than those institutions based only on the dry sands of grants.

Bóthar Seoighe is not the ‘circled wagons’ of a final stand nor a desperate last minute fortification but a seed planted in rich soil.

It is often said mockingly to me, well, ‘moy hoo’, away ye go and build yer Gaeltack.’ I accept without question that I have never done so. I would dearly love to have even a small amount of the vision, courage and ability which those who built Pobal Feirste had, alas I doubt if I do.

However, my hope is great that there are young people out there with those qualities and above all with the business skills that we so badly need to make a success of such a venture. Who knows.

Firstly, there is the case of TUV Ballymena councillor, Robin Stirling, who was ejected from a fundraising dinner for the Milk Cup at the China Garden Restaurant in the town after heckling the legendary Manchester United and Northern Ireland goalkeeper, Harry Gregg, during a question and answer session hosted by Jackie Fullerton. Interviewed in the Irish News today (subs reqd.), Gregg claims the TUV councillor told him that “rugby players and football players are nothing but hooligans,” before adding the helpful advice that Stirling is “the type of man that should stay away from the gargle.”

Then, there is the case of TUV Antrim councillor, Mel Lucas, who has criticised those who removed loyalist flags erected outside a catholic church in the town (story in the Antrim Guardian not yet online). The flags had been erected by loyalists as part of a plan to ‘halt the march of nationalism’ in the predominantly unionist town. Flags were also erected outside Tesco (the scene of a noble loyalist victory over children participating in a sponsored bag-pack for the local GAA club) and outside the site of the proposed Antrim GAA County Centre of Excellence.

Speaking about the matter in this week’s Antrim Guardian, Lucas stated:
“[The flags] never should have been taken down…..I find it incredible that critics of the flags are suggesting that people proud of their flag are ‘marking out’ territory. That’s patently nonsense because it’s all British- even the bits outside the chapel….Criticise the people who put up these flags? I don’t think so. I salute them.”

Of course, the DUP thrived on sectarian-motivated comments like those of Lucas for generations, so it is unlikely that the Antrim man will lose his electoral base following the remarks.

But Allister is a considerably more intelligent and articulate representative, who knows that the type of electoral advances he requires in the next major electoral contest in the north will require him retaining support from a section of the unionist community who may baulk at such crude manifestations of sectarianism. For example,  Allister’s attempt to play hardball with loyalist paramilitaries over decommissioning may cut little ice with nationalists, but it does little harm in the eyes of those unionists who buy into the narrative of the ‘law and order champion’ he has attempted to cultivate.

It appears he may have to revisit that cloning idea.

Mark Devenport continues

In short, this judgment looks to have cut the legs off any future attempt to judicially review the OFMDFM and to provide a “carte blanche” for meetings without officials and note takers present.

But never fear, if you disagree in the future with an OFMDFM decision, you don’t need to turn to the courts, because our ministers, as Mr Justice Gillen notes “are accountable to the Assembly where they are likely to be questioned and scrutinised”. And we all know just how effective the Assembly has been at carrying out that job in the past.

NI Finance Minister, the DUP’s Nigel Dodds, dismissing his Executive colleague Reg Empey’s criticism as “just a bit of politics”.

Adds  And here’s the Hansard record of the comments which sparked the row off.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me say, for the sake of clarification, that I would have been absolutely delighted to make a statement on the June monitoring round in the Chamber this morning. It was not that the matter was not agreed; rather, it was deferred at the request of two Executive Ministers who wanted more time. Let us be in no doubt as to why no statement has been made in the Chamber today. It was not members of my party who made that request. Can I also say — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel: I am making a point of order.

I am sure that other Executive Ministers and I will be happy to make a statement to the House whenever the House wishes one to be made. It is for the House to decide when it wishes to meet and in what form it wishes the statement to be made. I, and any successor of mine — indeed, any Minister — will comply with whatever the House wishes. At the end of the day, it is not for us to dictate to the House; we must work with the House. I can certainly undertake that, if the House makes a determination on how it wishes to proceed on the matter, it will be followed through on.

Mr Speaker: OK, Members, let us move on, please.

Mr McNarry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is it the same point of order on which I have already deliberated for quite a while, or is it a totally different point of order?

Mr McNarry: It is a further point of order —

Mr Speaker: No. Order —

Mr McNarry: Excuse me; it is a further point of order that is different to the issue.

Mr Speaker: Well, let us hear it.

Mr McNarry: Thank you. Is it the case that the Minister can be permitted by you, Mr Speaker, to —

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. He is coming very close to making the same point of order.

Mr McNarry: But if —

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. I have spent quite some time trying to explain the position and how the Assembly might agree on this. Both the Finance Minister and I have spoken in an attempt to resolve the issue, and the convention for resolving the issue for the benefit of the entire House is absolutely clear.

The Minister for Employment and Learning (Sir Reg Empey): Can I make a point of order?

Mr Speaker: Yes, certainly.

12.15 pm

Sir Reg Empey: When I was sitting upstairs a few moments ago, I heard the Minister of Finance and Personnel refer to the absence of a statement today. I ask the Minister to reconsider what he said. I did not ask for the matter to be deferred. The papers were late and were delivered only an hour or so before the meeting. I said that I was not taking any view on them: I did not ask for them to be deferred. However, why should they be served up to me and the rest of the Executive at such stupid notice?

Mr Speaker: I want to make it clear that the House should not get involved in how the Executive do their business. Let us move on.

Martina Purdy looks ahead at the big question for the autumn.

Adds  From Hansard 29/06/09

Mr Doherty: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In view of the development work, particularly on the exemplar design of the five, and possibly six, schools in Lisanelly, will the Minister, when he next meets the British Prime Minister again raise this issue and press him on not only gifting the site but when it will be gifted?

The deputy First Minister: The First Minister and I are to meet Gordon Brown tomorrow afternoon, and that will certainly be one of the items that we will raise with him.

The world is changing, probably quicker than most of our institutions are capable of recognising. In the US this has put many big media institutions out of business and set others on an inevitable course for bankruptcy. In the meantime the demand for transparency and accountability that was at first facilitated by the Freedom of Information Act (2000), then latterly frustrated by the slowness and obfuscating mechanisms in delivering data and information that smart and insatiable public now believes is its automatic right to view.

In terms of politics, the changes have been as sudden as they have been dramatic. As Patrick Hannan notes in his excellent new book on British democracies recent adventures, one of the reasons the cash for peerages scandal took quick purchase was there was no shortage of evidence that “the political parties were prepared to use any wheeze just to stay on the right side of legality that would allow them to take handsome donations from the rich”. In the 2005 election campaign the Tories shipped £16 million in secret loans (which, unlike donations, didn’t have to be declared), whilst Labour came in just behind them on £14 million.

It’s far from clear where all this is leading. Nor of all of it necessarily going to be good for us in the future. There is some evidence from the states that much of the online infrastructure is being captured by the political parties themselves by captivating their own online audiences, leaving the mainstream media to play catch up on themes of the day.

Add to this the fact that there are no guarantees of anyone’s investment in this technology, and this ‘revolution’ is both unpredictable and scary. But as Matthew D’Ancona deftly puts it in this excellent 4IP debate the technology only defines a change in the means, not the ends. There is no ideological ‘telos’, or end of the Internet. That remains in the hands of the users:

PICamp will have a range of sessions, some like the charter for interactivity in government… We’ll look at the possibilities offered by crowd sourcing policies through unfenced communities; as D’Ancona says, the white heat is no longer in expensive and centralised think tanks, it’s where communities of intelligent others congregate… We’ll ask is there a way that the blogosphere can promote decency in political communications and honesty and fairness from big media?

As the backend falls off conventional commercial public service broadcasting and traditional local newspaper cultures is there a new way for local government to converse with the public at a grass-roots level? And related in many ways, can local government meet the essential pre-condition to any political decentralization that it demands from central government?