David Thompson: Stormont’s Speakers should allow more debate, not constrain it further

McMonagle was convicted of child sex offences last year, and the fallout from his sacking prompted an Assembly probe into salaries and expenses.

It was the biggest political scandal since devolution returned. Yet this week the Speaker Edwin Poots backed his Sinn Fein deputy Carál Ní Chuilín’s intervention against the TUV man, laying down the law to MLAs by making clear that both he and his deputies are in charge – and their word is final.

​It’s not an unreasonable position as any legislature needs rules and a level of discipline and order over how business is conducted. The problem arises over what provoked his statement, and what it says about the ability of members to hold other parties, and the executive, to account.

Earlier this month, Ms Ní Chuilín stopped Timothy Gaston contributing to a debate on ‘accountability and trust’ after he expressed criticism of SF; an assembly report into the McMonagle affair; and a committee on which she sits.

The SF politician’s rationale was that it wasn’t within the scope of the debate. To anyone watching it is unclear how arguably the biggest political scandal since devolution’s return is not relevant to a debate about trust in the institutions.

However, that was her decision. And it wasn’t the first time that Ms Ní Chuilín shut Mr Gaston down when he raised the McMonagle affair. In December, the TUV man complained to the speaker after Ms Ni Chuilin objected to his attempts to raise the use of public money to fund party press officers – but allowed another MLA to discuss Israel.

On that occasion, Mr Poots slammed interventions by Mr Gaston and UUP MLA Steve Aiken for challenging his deputy – saying Mr Gaston’s actions “cannot be tolerated”. Mr Aiken had questioned how the decision was “equitable”. The pair apologised.

Many observers might be surprised that this week the DUP heavyweight again so forcefully backed his deputy over what has been perceived by some as attempts to stop criticism of SF. But to undermine his deputy would have serious political consequences, not least for the authority of anyone in the speaker’s chair.

However, it is unlikely to have been a decision Mr Poots would have made himself. He has previously bemoaned the standard of debate in the chamber – something he has said he will have more to say about in the coming weeks.

The South Belfast MLA last year blasted Alliance for seeking to have the record corrected over the phrase ‘nationalist republican Alliance’. He said: “I’m not here as speaker to be some speech watchdog”, adding “this is a debating chamber where people are allowed to have a go at each other, as they do in other debating chambers across the world”.

He told MLAs that Stormont it is not a student debating chamber, but that is exactly what it feels like. Ms Ní Chuilín’s approach to an MLA raising an issue which undoubtedly damaged trust in Stormont showed just how amateur the assembly is. She brought Mr Gaston to a halt when he accused Sinn Fein of “creaming off public money to feed their press operation”.

If the rules prohibit interventions beyond the very strictest interpretation of what is relevant, they need to be changed. However, like everything in Stormont, that would likely require a political consensus to do so, and it suits the bigger parties to have a system in which debates are tightly controlled.

The rest of this assembly will likely see Mr Poots taking one approach and his principal deputy speaker another. While he may back his deputy’s authority, he should continue to stand up for robust debate.