What is surprising, perhaps, is that the first suspension of an MLA should be as a consequence of a unionist-on-unionist attack, rather than a unionist-on-Sinn Fein attack. Both the DUP and UUP have made fairly barbed comments about Sinn Fein outside the Assembly – indeed, David Simpson has accused the Sinn Fein Deputy Speaker of being a security mole for decades – but no unionist MLA has pushed the verbal assault to the point of provoking disciplinary action.
On November 5, Iris Robinson accused Michael McGimpsey of "misleading the House", when he claimed that he hadn't signed off on the budget. For uttering these words the Speaker has now decided that she was guilty of using "unparliamentary language". When she refused the opportunity to withdraw the accusation, the Speaker "named" her and had her escorted from Parliament Buildings.
But what, exactly, constitutes unparliamentary language? In terms of the House of Commons (to which the devolved Assemblies look for guidance in these matters) it is language which breaks the rule of politeness in the Chamber. What rule of politeness, you may wonder! Isn't it part and parcel of parliamentary exchanges for political opponents to land blows and try and rough-up or ridicule each other?
That is true, but only to an extent. One of the roles of the Speaker is to ensure that MPs do not use gratuitously use insulting or rude language and do not accuse each other of lying, of being drunk, or of wilfully misrepresenting each other's words. Over the years, words like blackguard, coward, git, guttersnipe, hooligan, rat, swine, stoolpigeon and traitor have all been ruled as unparliamentary and, therefore, unusable in the Chamber. In our own Assembly, the word "bigot", if preceded by Orange, Unionist, Protestant, Papist, or suchlike, was ruled as unparliamentary at a very early stage.
In general, the rules can be summed up as: don't call another member a liar; don't suggest a member has false motives; don't misrepresent another member's language; and don't use words or phrases which a member may reasonably interpret as abusive or insulting. Of course, some members can be particularly inventive in their efforts to sidestep the rules, notably Winston Churchill's use of "terminological inexactitude" when he meant "lie".
On March 20, 2001, Lord Alderdice, the then Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, made this ruling: "If members sail too close to the wind, I will undoubtedly consider the matter – particularly when it is raised by the member to whom such a remark is directed. When my attention is drawn to it, I will then consider the question and see whether or not it is appropriate, inappropriate, parliamentary or unparliamentary – as distinct from true or false, which is a different matter."
I suspect that Speaker Hay had his predecessor's ruling in mind when he gave his own ruling on Iris Robinson. That said, and Mrs Robinson herself made the point, the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled very recently (in reference to a somewhat theatrical and predictable showdown between the Prime Minister and David Cameron) that, while "deliberately misleading" was an unparliamentary term, "misleading," by itself, wasn't. So what's the difference between the Prime Minister's use of the term and Mrs Robinson's?
Speaker Hay seems to have decided that, irrespective of the truth or otherwise of Mrs Robinson's accusation, namely, that Michael McGimpsey was "misleading the House", her use of the phrase was inappropriate and therefore unparliamentary. In other words, he seems to have decided that Mr McGimpsey's view, stated three times, that "I have not agreed the Budget…I have agreed a draft Budget…" was misrepresented by her opinion that since all ministers had "signed off on the draft Budget" he was fudging the issue and therefore guilty of misleading the House.
There is a difference, albeit a fairly subtle and semantic one, between what Mr McGimpsey said and what Mrs Robinson thought he was saying, or not saying. But it is in the very subtlety of that difference, and in her refusal to back down from her interpretation or inference, that one of the definitions of unparliamentary can be found.
I do have a few concerns about the ruling, not least because I'm not sure how much leeway it gives to members in general and ministers in particular. There is a difference, again perhaps a subtle one, between misleading and deliberately misleading, and this ruling leaves the difference open to exploitation. If "misleading" is now defined and listed as an "unparliamentary" term in the Assembly chamber, then how can an MLA challenge what he believes to be a misleading statement or answer? The McGimpsey-Robinson clash hinged on whether or not the minister's words had been misrepresented by Mrs Robinson; but what happens in a case in which a minister really is misleading the House?
The spat also raised another question about the general issue of accountability within the Assembly. A few weeks ago we had the Finance Minister laying into the Social Development Minister over what had or hadn't been agreed in the Executive Committee. Now we have the chairman of a departmental committee laying into the minister over whether or not the Budget is a done deal or open to further tweaking. It's bad enough having a mandatory coalition which isn't subject to the rigours of an Official Opposition, without the added problem of ongoing personal and political ding-dongs between ministers and chairmen.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the whole business, however, was that Speaker Hay, probably in the face of great pressure from his own side and some private reservations, stamped his personal, impartial authority upon the House. In the long term that will prove good for the credibility and conduct of the Assembly. It's precisely why we have a Speaker.
And, while he's at it, he should do something to curb the sheer number of MLAs who seem incapable of saying anything in the Assembly unless they have a speech in their hands. Reading aloud makes for very dull debate. He should also exercise a great deal more discretion when it comes to "catching the eye" of that clutch of members who seem determined to give us their personal opinion on every single debate. Government by Mogadon is no substitute for genuine debate on relevant policies. Boring the electorate into submission is hardly the best way of promoting the supposed merits of devolution. But, maybe, I'm taking a very unparliamentary approach to all of this!