Will the Member give way?

The Member has now taken his seat.

I welcome these amendments to the Standing Orders, such as they are. Both the Business Committee and the Procedures Committee have a great deal more work to do if we are to run our affairs to optimum effect. A number of remarks are pertinent to the proposals put forward today.

In the past, and sometimes in a slightly different context, we have debated one or two of these matters. I have never subscribed to the view that family-friendly hours should be a particular consideration when deciding how to run our affairs. On the whole, politics is not a particularly family-friendly occupation. I speak as one with a very young new member of my family, so I have some sort of position on that at home as well as here.

However, none of the proposals that I have heard suggests that we lock everybody up in here until about 10.00 pm every night of the week. For the most part, proposals surround the idea of one late sitting a week, and for the time being, at least, that is not the proposal that we hope to run with. The business of the Assembly would be far better conducted if we sat into the evening on the first day, which currently is a Monday, and Members were not inclined to travel a distance to their homes that night. It would be normal practice to stay overnight in the vicinity of the Assembly.

That is a fairly normal practice in most legislatures of countries of any size. In Scotland, which is somewhat bigger than Northern Ireland and has a population of about five million, they manage to conduct their plenary affairs in a day and a half. They conduct their Committee affairs in a further day and a half. They assume that Members will spend two nights staying in the environs of the Scottish Parliament, enabling them to put in three very full days of work.

This has a bearing on the remarks that Mr Gibson has just made about attending to constituency affairs. It seems to me that that is the way to do it as that allows the maximum amount of time in one place and then the maximum amount of time in the other. If you are running your time efficiently, you should not spend too much time running between the two. I have a journey of slightly over an hour, provided I travel outside rush hour to get here. We have not yet fully probed all angles about the times during which we should have plenary meetings.

From time to time, I hear it remarked that many Members sit on councils and have to attend to council business on Monday evening. This is of no concern to the Assembly. We have Members who do two, three and four different jobs, all of them in a pretty patchy manner as far as I can judge. If a Member chooses to try to do two jobs at once, that is his affair. It is not the affair of the Assembly.

We could have addressed a number of other matters when reviewing our Standing Orders that might have tidied things up - such as the banning of Members from reading pre-scripted speeches. That might have made things a little more succinct. We would have a perfectly ample amount of time available if the Business Committee were more selective and critical in its choice of motions, particularly those to be taken on Tuesdays. If we did not devote time to discussing matters well beyond the jurisdiction of the Assembly, we would save a great deal of time. We have some way to go before we can claim that we are operating in the most sensible and efficient manner.

Finally, I entirely support Mr Murphy's proposal that amendments should still be tabled by 9.30 am for a 12 noon start. The matter of amendments to motions for debate on Tuesdays was raised in debate. It seems to me that if we start at 10.30 am on Tuesday, then logically we should seek to have amendments tabled by 6.00 pm on Monday, so as to allow a similar amount of time for the amendments to be dealt with.

If more time were available, these matters would be better dealt with and debated. There is an inappropriate obsession that the Assembly is more macho the longer it sits and that it does greater good the longer it sits. I contend that the reality is the opposite. The excessive amount of time spent in plenary in this Assembly reduces the amount of time available for proper consideration of issues, and it reduces the time available for Members to be properly informed.

Consequently we have a great deal of debate that seems to be poorly informed. While the point I am about to make is more a matter for the Business Committee, I think it is worth making: I calculated that this Assembly will, if it gets to the end of this term, have sat for 37 weeks over the three terms of the year. That is totally illogical. It takes four weeks to do a cycle of ministerial questions. Logically, the number of weeks that the Assembly sits in plenary for a year should be a number divisible by four - 32 or 36.

Order. The Member has digressed well outside this debate and the Standing Orders that are under consideration. We must be reasonably efficient about our time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am actually speaking in parenthesis on the point about the amount of time spent in plenary. That time is both the time in hours on Monday and Tuesday and the time in hours over the year as a whole. Therefore, the point that I have just made is relevant. I do not think that there are very many legislators that have 37 weeks of plenary. Perhaps we will return to that matter on another date.

My final point relates to the starting of our business. Showing flexibility in working hours, enabling at least some of the population to travel to work outside the rush hour, can only be a good thing. However, there are other Members - perhaps like myself - for whom I do not anticipate any change in the time that they start work on a Monday. I start at around a quarter to nine. The work that I normally do on a Sunday, I might now be able to do on a Monday.

I support all the motions.

I support the motions. The first motion is causing the greatest debate. As someone who travels 75 miles on Monday mornings, I think that it is important that there be a discussion within party groups about the order of business for the week. It is unfair to the business of the House if there is inadequate discussion within groups at the start of the week on the order of business.

Currently we have about one hour and forty-five minutes for lunch on a Monday. This motion, under which we would be starting official Assembly business at 12 noon, means that we would be losing under half an hour of actual Assembly time. In order to make sure that all our Colleagues in all the groups are fully apprised of what is going on in the Assembly formally and what is going on in the Committees, it makes sense to have proper discussion in our groups.

It is also important that the Whips have a clear understanding of what is happening so that we have an efficient method of voting on our motions. That would enable smooth functioning and running of Assembly business.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Members who contributed to the debate and those who indicated their support for the amendments we are proposing. The most significant amendment is the first one concerning changing plenary times. It was interesting to hear some of Mr Dodds's arguments opposing the change of time for starting plenary sessions. It would have been helpful to hear those arguments in Committee. Mr Dodds is a member of the Procedures Committee, as is Mr Paisley Jnr, but they chose not to attend any Committee meetings except when the Committee visited Edinburgh, when we were travelling abroad - [Interruption].

Scotland is not abroad.

It is under a foreign country.

Mr R Hutchinson did turn up, and his only contribution to the debate was to tell us that the DUP would be opposing it. Many of the points raised by Mr Dodds were debated and argued at length in the Committee. Had he been there to give his viewpoint, perhaps we could have answered some of the questions he has raised.

On the question of permanence, as Alban Maginness stated in his contribution, this will become permanent only if it proves to be beneficial to the Assembly. It is experimental. We cannot get away from the fact that Mr Dodds says that there will be a reduction in time. The Committee undertook a survey which showed that since the start of this session the average time taken for lunch has been one hour and 45 minutes - wasted time, in effect. The larger parties cannot plan for that because you cannot legislate for when that may happen.

As for the reduction in time and the amount of hours the Business Committee has to play with, if Mr Dodds had bothered to turn up for Committee meetings, he would have known that we are proposing a suspension of that Standing Order, which means that the Business Committee can decide the time. We are not asking the Assembly to adopt a Standing Order that says we start at 12 noon on a Monday. We are, in fact, proposing the suspension of the Standing Order that dictates that we start at 10.30 am on a Monday. If the Business Committee feels that the business merits it, it can decide to start earlier than 12 noon. Our recommendation to the Business Committee is that we try an experimental start time of 12 noon. That is not in the proposal, and it is up to the Business Committee to decide - [Interruption].

Again I make the point that if the Member or his Colleague had bothered to turn up -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member keeps referring to the "bottle" to turn up. I am here today to make points in this debate. Rather than engage in insidious sniping and personal remarks, the Chairperson should answer the arguments in detail, as I did.

Order.

I engaged in the argument.

Order, order.

I remind the Member that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

Order, order. The Member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order, as he knows.

It was a good point, and it was very eloquent.

It may be a point, but it is not a point of order.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. If Mr Dodds had been listening, he would know that I did not say he did not have the "bottle" to turn up; I said he did not "bother" to turn up to meetings. I will make the point again. It is all very well and good making arguments now. However, when a Committee spends months thrashing something out, and Committee members do not bother to take part in that debate, it is somewhat invidious of them to turn up and make their points here.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Committee did not spend months debating this issue.

I am not sure what the intended point of order is.

That is an indication of the level of contribution from Mr Hutchinson to the Committee debate.

I return to the purpose behind this motion. There were some suggestions, attempts at media sound bites, that this was to give Members a lie-in on a Monday morning. That is clearly not the case. Members, especially those from the larger parties, will start work at the same time on a Monday morning, which is the intention of those from the larger parties who support this motion. Rather than coming straight into the plenary session or, as stated by Roy Beggs Jnr, spending less than half an hour dealing with any amendments, they will have two hours to debate among themselves, which is what democratic parties usually do. The DUP has a different approach, which is somewhat ironic considering its party name. That is what democratic parties do; they not only debate the order of the business for plenary days but also Committee business and general political business in the Assembly.

Almost all other items of business in the Assembly have an allocated time slot, apart from party business. There was clearly a deficit in that parties were struggling to find time to meet.

Travel is not the main consideration - it is obviously one consideration, but it is certainly not the main one. The intention of the parties who proposed the motion - from discussion at the Committee - was that they would start their own party business at 9.30 am to 10.00 am on a Monday morning rather than come into the Chamber. That would provide them with time, rather than having a rushed approach, given that the plenary session starts at 10.30 am and that amendments are not available to the parties until perhaps 10.00 am.

Sean Neeson made several points - and I accept that his party is not represented on the Committee because of the way the membership fell. The Business Committee, by and large, agrees the content of the Order Paper on a Tuesday afternoon. However, the Order Paper is not finalised - as the Speaker knows, and as Mr Neeson and his party Whip will know - until Thursday afternoon. Therefore, the full and final content of the Order Paper is not available to the parties until Thursday afternoon when the Speaker has signed it off.

As regards having party meetings on Thursdays, two Committees meet on a Thursday afternoon, and the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee meets on a Friday morning. Most Members attempt to give Fridays over to constituency business and will operate out of their constituency offices. Therefore, for any of the four largest parties, any party meetings called on Thursday afternoons or on Fridays are likely to have up to five members missing due to there being a clash with Committee meetings. This proposal is an attempt to find a slot for the parties to meet when all party members should be available because there is no other Assembly business to keep them from meeting with their party Colleagues.

As regards the Member's worry about the proposal on extending beyond 6.00 pm, I remind him that we are not making such a proposal. The Assembly already has that facility, although it has been very rarely used. We discussed the matter in depth, and we are making no proposal to extend beyond 6.00 pm in this experimental change to Standing Orders.

I agree with Roy Beggs that the current procedures provide too little time. Nigel Dodds reinforced that point when he mentioned the Tuesday morning set-up, and other Members also made the point. The Committee must address the issue, and Members, including Mr Dodds, are correct in saying that 30 to 45 minutes is not sufficient time for people to consider fully the implications of an amendment. It is not enough time for a large party of 18, 20, 24 or 28 members to decide how they will vote on an issue and have a proper democratic discussion on it. Clearly, there is a case for a review of the Tuesday deadline. James Leslie suggested a Monday evening 6.00 pm deadline for amendments, and that is something that the Committee is going to have to consider again.

I remind Oliver Gibson that it is the Procedures Committee that are making these proposals, not the Business Committee. The Business Committee can be businesslike, but I do not know if we can be "procedures- like". The matter of amendments is one that we are going to have to keep under review. It has been raised here, and the Committee will want to pay attention to it.

I agree with the point about family-friendly hours. On many occasions when I have debated this issue with people, I have said that family-friendly hours do not apply to those who live in places such as Fermanagh, West Tyrone or Derry - by the time they get home, they will have travelled for maybe two to two-and-a-half hours. Family-friendly hours do not have much value then.

We must also consider that family-friendly hours do not apply to Members only; they apply to the Assembly staff who are obliged to stay on. That was one aspect considered by the Committee. Assembly staff are obliged to stay for at least an hour after the Plenary session is finished. That was one of the arguments against extending into the evening.

I do not agree with James Leslie's point about overnight stays. I would prefer to go home. However, any matters may be tabled for discussion by the Committee, and if Mr Leslie, through his party representatives on the Committee, wants to table that suggestion, I am sure that it will be discussed.

I hope that I have answered most of the points made. I regret that, at Committee stage, we did not have the opportunity to debate some of the points raised with the Members who made them today. However, it is their preference to choose whether to attend Committee meetings.

TOP

Traffic-Calming Measures in West Belfast

Go raibh maith agat. Obviously the Adjournment motion -[Interruption].

Order. If Members are depriving themselves of the debate on traffic-calming measures in west Belfast, perhaps they would do so quietly. Please continue, Mr Maskey.

On a point of order, is it not unusual for the Minister not to be in the House? He has, in fact, just vacated the Chamber.

It is unusual, but it appears that the Minister is seeking some sustenance for the verbal journey ahead. Please continue.

The motion relates to traffic-calming measures in west Belfast. However, I want to talk about traffic conditions and, to a lesser extent, car crime in the area, and how traffic-calming measures can impact on that in a positive way.

I welcome the fact that traffic-calming measures have been introduced in a number of estates and roads in the area over the last few years. I also welcome the fact that officials from the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development have been involved in discussions with several local schools, together with the West Belfast Partnership Board. However, those discussions were designed as a pilot survey of road traffic and safety issues around some schools only. There is a clear need to complete that survey.

West Belfast is an area defined as suffering from serious social disadvantage, and there is already clear evidence that there are more accidents, road deaths and injuries in such built-up areas. Therefore, I argue that west Belfast should be accepted as an area that requires further extensive action on traffic calming.

The Department constantly tells us that there are established published criteria for the provision of traffic- calming measures. However, it is my experience - and I argue that it is also the experience of many others - that unless there is community and political pressure the Department will rarely act voluntarily to provide such measures in an area. Consequently, these measures are provided in a piecemeal manner and only after long local campaigning.

I understand that traffic-calming measures in themselves do not solve all the issues of traffic management or anti-social behaviour. However, there is evidence to back up the fact that they can help. A variety of measures can be introduced, such as ramps, road narrowing, traffic lights, or crossing islands, which do not always require a huge amount of money.

Given the identified traffic problems in west Belfast such as on the Westlink, Falls Road, Andersonstown Road, Blacks Road and others, most estates are used as rat runs for drivers seeking to avoid the congestion on the main roads. It is welcome that under new planning regulations housing developments will incorporate traffic-calming measures, but this will not affect existing developments or roads in the area.

I refer the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Campbell, to his response to my question on 5 February. He said that his Department remained keen to investigate properly any problems raised by assessing what contribution safety engineering might make to difficulties in any area. Clearly this assertion totally contradicts the response that I received from his Department three weeks later, on 28 February, in relation to the specific question of the Monagh bypass. I use this example to illustrate the difficulty.

The acting chief executive, Mr Fraser, informed me that a meeting to discuss the Monagh bypass would not be of any benefit in tackling the traffic problems and anti-social activity, which continue to bedevil the residents in that area. That response from a civil servant is unacceptable, and I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why his official refused a meeting with a local elected representative.

Over the last few weeks the Monagh bypass has featured quite extensively in the local press due to car crime. Physical measures can and must be introduced on this road, as they have been on others, to discourage speeding and car crime and so ensure the safety of other drivers and pedestrians.

On 7 February, the Minister advised me in a written response that resources had not yet been allocated for the year 2001-02 and that Members would be informed when the allocation had been finalised. At that time the Minister could not give any specific commitment to increased measures in any area. To date, I have heard nothing. I read with interest at the weekend that a councillor - in east Belfast, I believe - claimed that extra funding has been made available for the area. I am happy to hear that.

West Belfast, like many other areas, needs to have a planned programme of traffic-calming measures introduced. It needs to be done in a phased, planned way over a period rather than because of local pressure or accidents in the area.

I seek an assurance from the Minister that his Department will honour the commitment that he gave in the House on 5 February and will explore all options with respect to traffic-calming measures in order to alleviate the chronic traffic problems and car crime that exist in west Belfast. Go raibh maith agat.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>