Public Petition: Siting of a Telecommunications Mast at Cavehill Road, Belfast

Employment Bill: First Stage

Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill: Second Stage

One Elected Position

Crime Rates

Wallace Day Centre, Lisburn

Public Petition:
Siting of a Telecommunications Mast at Cavehill Road, Belfast

TOP

Mr Alban Maginness has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

I beg leave to present a petition, which has been signed by more than 1,600 residents of north Belfast, opposing the siting of a telecommunications mast on or near the footpath on Cavehill Road, Belfast. The petition cites the potential health risks, the adverse impact on the visual amenity near Cavehill and the impact on the general environment as good reasons for opposition to the mast.

I present the petition and indicate my support and concern for the campaign.

I shall forward the petition to the Minister of the Environment and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment.

Employment Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 11/01] to make provision for statutory rights to paternity and adoption leave and pay; to amend the law relating to statutory maternity leave; to make provision about flexible working; and for connected purposes.

The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill:
Second Stage

TOP

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey):

I beg to move

Following the legislative changes on economic development that led to the establishment of Invest Northern Ireland, the Department is focused on updating Northern Ireland company law with a series of legislative measures. The Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill is the latest of the four company law measures that I am bringing to the Assembly during the current session. It is the most technical of the four Bills, but, nonetheless, it is an important measure for the financial investment sector in Northern Ireland. The Bill will ensure that Northern Ireland investment firms have the same opportunities for open-ended investment companies (OEICs) as their competitors in Great Britain, thus removing any potential disadvantages to the local investment sector.

To help those Members who are unfamiliar with the subject, I will provide a broad definition of the nature of an OEIC. An OEIC invests in securities, such as the shares of other companies. It issues shares to its investors, and the value of that capital may go up or down as shares are either issued or cancelled. A fund manager, who must be authorised by the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA), manages its investments.

The assets of, or investments owned by, an OEIC must be held by a depositary, who must also be authorised by the FSA. The depositary plays a key role, similar to that of a unit trust trustee, and must be legally independent of the directors of the OEIC. Details of the performance of individual OEICs are regularly reported in the financial pages of the broadsheet newspapers.

Owning shares in an OEIC is an efficient and flexible means of investing in equities and other securities, with all the opportunities for capital growth that that entails. By pooling their investments, an OEIC's shareholders can invest more cheaply than if they owned shares directly, while at the same time spreading their risks and using expert fund managers. That means that OEICs can extend the benefits of wider share ownership to investors who lack the expertise, time, resources or inclination to choose their own stocks.

The current legislation for the regulation of OEICs in Northern Ireland provides only for the operation of the type of company permitted by Directive 85/611/EEC on Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS). Non-UCITS OEICs offer a wider range of investment schemes, including money market and property funds and funds of funds. The investment fund management sector in the UK argued that it would be desirable for the Government to legislate for the establishment of non-UCITS OEICs in the UK to ensure the continued success of the OEIC as a UK investment instrument. The UK Government legislated for that change in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which applies to Great Britain only. The Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill proposes to extend to the Northern Ireland investment sector the ability to form OEICs whose investment powers would take them outside the scope of the UCITS Directive, enabling them to offer the extended range of open-ended investment schemes.

The second effect of the Bill is to transfer the registration of Northern Ireland OEICs from the Northern Ireland Companies Registry to the FSA. That would mean that, as well as regulating OEICs in Northern Ireland, the FSA would be responsible for maintaining a register of them. Under existing regulations, the Northern Ireland Companies Registry undertakes the registration of OEICs, while regulation is undertaken by the FSA.

Those arrangements constitute a cumbersome and unnecessary splitting of responsibilities. The new provisions, in the form of draft Regulations that will come before the Assembly, will, therefore, represent a significant rationalisation that benefits the local investment sector. That is because the Financial Services Authority will act as a single point of contact for OEICs in the United Kingdom.

The third effect of the Bill is to enable the creation of Regulations that will further simplify the governance of OEICs. Those will make provisions for OEICs broadly the same as those for unit trusts, provisions that are contained in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Therefore, there should be no significant divergence in the Regulations that govern unit trusts and OEICs. That will help investors because OEICs and unit trusts are similar investment vehicles, and such divergence could cause confusion. The proposed subordinate legislation will be laid in the Assembly if the Bill is passed.

The decision to register an OEIC will continue to be voluntary, based on commercial consideration. The Bill is intended to offer an extended choice of OEICs to the investment fund management sector in Northern Ireland, similar to that which is available in Great Britain. The Bill will also streamline the arrangements for registration and regulation under a single body, the Financial Services Authority.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will also ensure that investors in the new type of OEIC are protected. That will be done by drafting Regulations that will ensure that those companies are governed by the same standards of investor protection that apply to authorised unit trusts. Although no OEICs are registered in Northern Ireland, the Bill represents my Department's commitment to keep the legal framework for businesses here at the forefront of international best practice. The Bill achieves that by giving Northern Ireland's investment sector the opportunity to take advantage of the extended range of OEIC investment vehicles. That demonstrates that Northern Ireland is a modern economy, anchored in legislation that creates the conditions that allow business to develop and prosper.

This is not the most glamorous of subjects to speak about, but it is important. I welcome the legislation. Departmental officials briefed the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment well on the matter, and the Committee asked the relevant questions on how the legislation would affect investors in Northern Ireland. The Committee unanimously decided that the legislation should be supported, so I do not intend to pick holes or complain about it.

Open-ended investment companies are affectionately known as OEICs, which is an unfortunate acronym. They succeed the old unit trusts, and many Members are investors in unit trusts. I must declare an interest - I hold four investments in OEICs. The returns were substantial until the events of September 11, and the rapid decline of share prices since that date has meant that the Jim Wells benevolent fund has taken a series of knocks from which I do not know if it will recover. Therefore, I have direct experience of investment. As everyone knows, under the old unit trust system there were bid and offer prices, and the spread was normally 5% to 5·5%. There is a single, transparent pricing system under OEICs that means that investors will know almost immediately the value of their funds.

As the Minister said, fund information is published regularly. Indeed, it is published daily in 'The Daily Telegraph' and the 'Financial Times'. Therefore, investors will know the value of their holdings within a day and can calculate it by multiplying the number of units that they hold by the price quoted in the newspaper.

The legislation is permissive; Northern Ireland institutions do not offer OEICs. The legislation simply enables companies such as Northern Bank, First Trust Bank, et cetera, to establish those funds if they wish. We should have no difficulty in supporting that, as this is parity legislation.

Shares in OEICs are regulated in exactly the same way as in unit trusts, so investors are protected. I am glad that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has provided a rigorous and high standard of protection to investors. There has been only one recent example of skulduggery, and, as soon as it was discovered, the FSA acted quickly to rectify the situation. All investors, including myself, were put back into the same position that they would have been in had the discrepancy not arisen. We can progress with a great deal of confidence that this part of the financial market is well regulated, and so this technical change does not undermine investors' confidence in these vehicles.

It is unfortunate that there is limited investment in unit trusts, OEICs and investment trusts in Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, this is an excellent way of gaining exposure to the stock market without the risk inherent in investing in one or two companies. Only when people here have a wider interest in investing in the stock market will Northern Ireland start to establish its own venture capital trusts and other vehicles that invest directly in Northern Ireland firms. We tend to be somewhat conservative and put our money under the bed, which I cannot understand. We tend to put money safely into deposit accounts in banks where it gains a poor rate of interest and does nothing for investment in our industry.

Aside from those minor points, the House should support this legislation. I hope that it will be enacted in time for financial institutions in Northern Ireland to set up OEICs. Perhaps, one day, one of those funds will invest entirely in shares of Northern Ireland companies, which would enable Northern Ireland people to invest directly in the future of the Province. The present difficulty is that we have quite a narrow base. Even our largest company, Viridian, would be very small in the scheme of things on the London Stock Exchange. However, I hope that, as there are already funds that invest entirely in Scottish companies or Belgian companies, we will have an OEIC that will invest entirely in Northern Ireland, so that people can have a stake in the well-being of our plcs.

The acronyms are difficult to wrestle with. I note that the Member's benevolent fund took a dive after 11 September. However, we are all confident that a sufficiently broad back can withstand such pressures and that it will emerge triumphant in due course. The question is how some of us can get a slice of it. Joking aside, the Member made a serious point. We all recognise that we have a grossly underdeveloped financial services sector. The Republic concentrated on attracting financial services to its new centre in Dublin, which was successful.

The Department has a commitment to ensuring that our legislation meets best practice and international standards. While there are currently no companies trading in this fashion, that will not always be the case, so we must ensure that our legal framework is modern, up-to-date and has the benefit, as the Member pointed out, of ensuring that the interests of consumers are protected. We must remember that people may be investing their life savings in such companies.

People suffered shocks in recent years after investing in shareholdings through endowment mortgages and other forms of investment. They experienced shortfalls. It is most important to ensure that consumers are protected, so the involvement of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the streamlining of the administrative processes for establishing and registering these companies, under the remit of the FSA, is a positive development that avoids duplication and will ensure that Jim Wells's benevolent fund will grow and prosper.

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

One Elected Position

TOP

I beg to move

The Women's Coalition is moving this motion because the time is right for debate to be opened on the practice of public representatives holding more than one elected position. With elections to the Assembly due in less than a year and the long-awaited review of public administration and local government gathering momentum, we need to send a clear message to the electorate that things will change for the better under this Administration. As far as the Women's Coalition is concerned, changing for the better means ending what we describe as the unacceptable practice that allows elected representatives to hold dual, and even multiple, mandates.

The Women's Coalition believes that the principle of one member, one mandate is fundamental to best democratic practice. In fact, we absolutely fail to understand how the practice of one person holding a number of elected positions is tolerated either by parties, within Governments, or by the public at large. Figures that are available for all to see show that some Assembly Members hold as many as three elected positions. According to the figures that research has supplied to me, out of 108 Members, 60 are councillors, 12 are MPs and one is an MEP. Also, a total of five hold three elected positions.

We need to think about what that means in terms of time, energy and commitment, about the responsibilities of an elected position and about whether it is possible for one person to carry out two or even three full-time elected roles. We are talking about separate locations, involving air travel, overnight accommodation and extremely demanding responsibilities - huge responsibilities, as we have found. Is it right that this practice of people stretching themselves to the limit and spreading themselves too thinly should continue, and is the service being provided correctly?

I am very interested in your analysis, and wonder if you apply it to yourself. Are you doing your job correctly when you have a second job with the Laganside Corporation?

I suggest to the Member that he speaks through the Chair.

Given that the Member has raised this, I wonder if she applies the same principle to herself. She has another job with the Laganside Corporation, for which I think she gets £7,000 a year. Is she doing that job correctly, and is she doing this job here correctly? Is it not the case that she can do them both because they complement each other? I should like to know, because people might think that there is an element of hypocrisy in this motion.

I am glad to take that intervention. I remind the Member that the motion refers to elected positions and responsibilities. I also remind him that my work on the Laganside board, which the Minister, Nigel Dodds, was commending yesterday at Laganside, takes one morning a month.

That is different from holding three elected positions that involve flights to London and Strasbourg and time out of Northern Ireland away from the constituency and work on legislation, which is vital.

Will the Member give way?

I will not give way at the moment. [Interruption].

A week may be a long time in politics, but it is not enough time to cover three separate elected roles.

Briefly, I want clarification. Why is the Member against an MLA having two mandates but in favour of an MLA having other jobs outside the House?

The big difference is that these are elected positions in which one has a responsibility to the electorate, the voters. There must be clarity on the work that is being done. In speaking about responsibility to the electorate, we can argue that the people vote us into these positions and, therefore, accept that we can carry out these roles. I am trying to make it clear that separate people carry out these roles in other places, and that is not clear to the public. It is important to note that there is recognition of this incompatibility in the European and the Scottish Parliaments and in the Welsh Assembly.

Will the Member give way?

No, I have given way once to Lord Kilclooney.

Does the Member agree that the conditions that pertained in Northern Ireland in the last 30 years were instrumental in bringing about the conditions that she now criticises? Does she agree that the people who willingly gave their time and put their lives on the line for the democratic process are the only reservoir of political experience that we have available? Perhaps in the future, we may be able to build that up, but there are good reasons now for people having multiple positions.

That is a useful point, and it is exactly what I am saying - we are in a new dispensation. Changes are occurring, and we want to be able to let people know that we are committed to change. I acknowledge the Ulster Unionist Party's recognition of the relative incompatibility of holding more than one elected position as its members sometimes do.

I want to know what effect that has on the work and on the legislatures wherein these people with dual or triple mandates hold office. I cannot speak from personal experience about the situation in Westminster or Strasbourg, but here there are serious problems with attendance at debates or getting quorums in Committees. We have all seen Clerks desperately phoning around, trying to get people to come to Committees because there is no quorum. Where are they?

We are also aware of the slow progress of legislation in the Assembly. What is slowing that progress? Is there any correlation - dare I even suggest that there may be - between the fact that Ministers in the Executive are also MPs and councillors?

I would not dare suggest that there was any link, but I want it borne in mind that there is a certain block on the work going through the Assembly.

We talk of power sharing as if the only thing that matters in this new dispensation is the division of spoils between Unionists and Nationalists. Mr Ken Robinson made the point that if we are striving for equality in the truest sense of the word, and if we want to increase democratic participation, we should be freeing up those positions to encourage more women, younger people, those from ethnic minorities and many others to come forward and become involved in politics so that it is truly representative of the people of Northern Ireland. Instead, elected positions are being hoarded, and we kid ourselves, our parties and the electorate that no one else could do the job better. If parties are unable to find suitably qualified candidates for election, that says more about those parties than the voters.

We are moving into an important phase of consultation on the review and reform of public administration. Local government will be an important element of that review. [Interruption].

Order.

When the new legislation is eventually introduced, some 60 Assembly Members who are also local councillors are going to find themselves in a very unusual position. If the proposals are accepted, they will be voting to give local government more power, more work and increased remuneration. We do not have to look too far to see what legislatures beyond this jurisdiction are doing. It has been recognised that holding a dual mandate is no longer accepted practice. In Scotland and Wales the need to reduce that practice has been acknowledged, and only a few stalwart Members are left working as local councillors or MPs.

At community level, a motion has been passed in the European Parliament, pointing out that dual mandates are incompatible, and that holding them will be discouraged from 2004. However, the UK has secured derogation from that until 2009.

There may not be much sympathy on the floor of the Assembly for the motion, given the number of councillors present. However, the public will be more sympathetic. There is a great deal of support for the principle - [Interruption].

Will the Member give way?

I cannot give way; my time is up. [Interruption].

Order.

The public will support the notion of one Member, one mandate, and we will see that at the next elections. I rest my case.

I agree with most of the sentiments in Jane Morrice's speech and motion, though I would qualify them somewhat. We are all aware of the public disquiet about the levels of reward or salary for MLAs and the perceived productivity or effectiveness of public representatives in Northern Ireland, especially in the Assembly. Some of that is to do with perception, and some criticisms are unfair, but we cannot afford to be complacent.

There is clear evidence that a multiple mandate leads to a reduction in the attendance of those individuals who are members of a variety of institutions. For example, recent attendance statistics for the European Parliament show that our party's representative, Mr Jim Nicholson, attends between 80% and 90% of debates in the Parliament in Strasbourg - that is because he has a single mandate. In contrast, the attendance records of our two other MEPs, Dr Paisley and Mr Hume, are much poorer. Their attendance rates are about 40% to 50% - about half that of Mr Nicholson - [Interruption].

Order.

Some of our politicians may claim to be remarkable individuals. However, that remarkable ability does not stretch to allowing them to be in more than one place at a time.

It is generally accepted in most responsible elected bodies that Members should not comment on Members of other elected chambers, not least because those Members are not present to defend themselves. Likewise, the same respect is accorded to Members of this elected body.

I sound a note of caution about how the motion would relate to the overlap that Members who are both MLAs and councillors experience. I am not a councillor, but 60 of our 108 Members are. Experiences and responsibilities clearly overlap in the two levels of government. However, some individuals who are both councillors and MLAs can do both jobs well - they find them mutually supportive.

Councillors are not paid a salary, so it cannot be argued that to hold both posts results in a multiplication of financial rewards, although it could be argued that councillors receive some expense payment, albeit a relatively small amount.

We must bear in mind that we are at a transitional point. The Assembly is a new institution and, until relatively recently, there were some doubts about its survival. Given that, it is understandable that many councillors were also elected as MLAs. However, it should be the long-term aspiration of all parties to strive to reach the position where, as far as possible, councillors are not MLAs and vice versa.

I want assurance that council commitments are not the cause of failure to maintain a quorum in Committee meetings. Many of us have observed the phenomenon that occurs in Committees at 4.00 pm or 4.30 pm when certain Members leave because they have a council meeting to attend that evening.

Potential conflicts of interest will arise, two of which have already been mentioned: the recent Local Government (Best Value) Bill and the forthcoming review of local administration. The public will perceive that councillors who are also MLAs have a conflict of interest. That also applies to Ministers who are councillors, although I understand that the ministerial code of practice makes some provision for that. With the various qualifications attached, I support the motion.

The first thing that struck me about the motion is that its first line calls for recognition of the volume of work involved in serving the various institutions. It occurs to me that much of the work of public representatives goes unrecognised. It is important that we recognise the volume of work that public representatives, by and large, carry out in all the roles that we are considering.

The burden is particularly onerous on Members of the Assembly, Members of Parliament at Westminster and Members of the European Parliament. The SDLP agrees with that part of the motion. My party recently changed its constitution to enable it to work towards that position. Mandates gained should be recognised and cannot be denied. A mandate has authority, and it will take time for any change to filter through. Therefore as a party we aspire to such a position on those responsibilities.

There are several reasons why we disagree, however, with the inclusion of local government in the motion. The concept of public service is crucial in local government. It is not a job in the sense that the motion refers to "double-jobbing". It is certainly not a salaried job. Those of us who have been councillors for many years have done so while continuing with our normal working lives. That is what public service means. We should not attempt to deny that concept; it is valuable, and we should try to ensure that it is maintained.

Does the Member agree, in the spirit of that public service, that the former leader of his party and the leader of my party, and others, by working so tirelessly over the years, delivered a peace package of millions of pounds for Northern Ireland under the Delors scheme, which provided a foundation for this community to go forward; and that if they had left it to others, we would still be waiting for that money to be delivered?

Yes. Indeed, Mr Ken Robinson also mentioned the importance of public service over the past 30 years, and the commitment of people to deliver for the community at every level. That should also be recognised. However, my comments were particularly concerned with the public service element of local government.

Perhaps the proposer's party does not have as much experience or involvement in local government as others in the House. It is understandable that its members may not fully appreciate the concept of asking people to give of their time to serve the community at local government level. To describe the work of local government as "jobbing" of any kind is a contradiction, and it does not sit well with my party. We will, therefore, oppose the motion on those grounds.

My personal view, not necessarily shared by all my Colleagues, is that the Assembly and local government are in danger of becoming too separate. It could become a case of "us and them". That would not be healthy. At least, in the interim period, one of the best ways of ensuring that that gap does not widen is the involvement of Members at both levels.

In that way, we can ensure that this institution and local councils work together rather than in opposition. If people do not take that as a credible point, they should consider the conflict between central Government and local government in England, which has been clearly documented over the past 20 or 25 years, and note how destructive a gap a "them and us" syndrome can be. I see some merit in Members also serving in local councils, at least in the short term.

I agree with many of the remarks made by Mr ONeill. Unlike Dr Birnie, I will be resolutely opposing the motion, and I hope that I will carry the support of many Members. Judging from the interventions of many of his Colleagues, Dr Birnie may also find that many Ulster Unionists will oppose the motion; that is for them to decide.

I oppose the motion on three grounds: it is anti-democratic; it is hypocritical; and it aims at the wrong target. It may be a very old-fashioned view in the new dispensation, but I happen to believe that people get the politicians that they deserve and the politicians that they vote for, and the best system is to allow people to vote for whomever they want. Any attempt to impose standards that specify that people should serve in only one Chamber and should not be allowed to run for a second Chamber - or have to give one up if they are elected to it - is profoundly undemocratic.

The Member makes an interesting point about people being allowed to vote for whomever they want, but does he not admit that the party decides on the person that the electorate vote for?

The electorate votes for the individuals that it wants. It can vote for candidates representing a range of political parties, and that is democracy. Anything that tampers with that is profoundly undemocratic. We should not be surprised that the Women's Coalition is taking up an anti-democratic stand. After all, this is the same party that mothered the Civic Forum, for whose members not a single vote was cast, and whose achievements can be written on the back of a postage stamp.

When we went through the charade of the election of the First Minister last November, that same party was rehearsing for the pantomime even before the Alliance Party had donned the pantomime horse's clothes. I should not therefore be surprised by an anti-democratic proposal from the Women's Coalition. I am also disappointed in the motion on the grounds that it is hypocritical because, if she were here today, the proposer's leader could vouch for the fact that she stood for election to Westminster, presumably on the basis that she would have some sort of dual mandate.

Absolutely not. Will the Member give way?

I have given way once already.

Order. I am quite agreeable for Members to give way, and for a certain amount of toing and froing, but it begins to become inappropriate when those who have either already made speeches, or have the opportunity to make further speeches, intervene repeatedly. If this were the Committee Stage of a Bill, that would not be unreasonable. However, I must ask Members who have the opportunity to speak not to make interventions in this way, but to restrain themselves, marshall their points and bring them to the Chamber at a suitable time. Otherwise, it all gets completely out of order.

The proposer's leader aside, my Colleague Mr Paisley Jnr has already highlighted the sheer hypocrisy of the position. The proposer of the motion is also double-jobbing on the Laganside Corporation. I gather that the pay is around £7,500 a year, but I was not aware that it was for only one morning a month. Perhaps the Member will be changing her name by deed poll to Naomi Campbell, given the rates of pay that she seems to expect. I understand the high degree of overlap between local councils and the Assembly where much of the work is basically the same.

As a public representative, one deals with constituency complaints. I fail to see a direct correlation between being a member of Laganside Corporation and representing North Down in the Assembly. On behalf of the constituents of North Down, I cannot see that they have gained advantages to the tune of £7,500 from Jane Morrice's being a member of Laganside Corporation. I look forward to the announcement of her resignation from that board in her winding-up speech, if she truly believes in the spirit of the motion.

The motion is targeted wrongly, because there is an overlap between the various jobs that public representatives do. However, that is recognised by the fact that MLAs who are also MPs receive only one third of their Assembly salary, because much of their Assembly work overlaps with work in Westminster. There is a large overlap between council work and Assembly work, and it would be a shame if we were to become completely detached from local government.

There is no correlation between the amount of work that people do and their having one mandate or two. Since the last general election, the majority of my party's MPs who are also MLAs have had a better voting record in the House of Commons than David Burnside, who is a single mandate MP. All my party's MPs have a better voting record than Jeffrey Donaldson.

Order. I have already advised the House that it is not appropriate to mention Members of other places by name who cannot defend themselves. Members may choose to refer to such matters in a less definite way, but they must not refer to Members by name. Members of this House would think it inappropriate if they were mentioned by name in other places and found it impossible to respond in a proper parliamentary fashion. I ask the House to observe that.

In that spirit, Mr Speaker, one Member of my party, who is an MLA and an MP, has a voting record that is 80 times greater than that of a former leader of another party in this House who was formerly an MLA. There is no direct correlation between someone's being a single mandate representative and the job being done properly. One MP has voted against her own party on 24 occasions. One questions whether that is a good use of time. A former MP, who has now been replaced by someone who is also an MLA representing a constituency to the north of our current location, was noted for his poor attendance and poor work at Westminster. I am surprised that the American security forces are not searching his former offices for Osama bin Laden, who could hide there without any trouble.

During a former period of devolution, from 1921 to 1972, it was standard practice for people to be MPs either at Stormont or Westminster. There has been critical comment, especially from the Unionist Benches, that the Unionist case suffered - and by extension the Northern Ireland case- because a second eleven was often being sent to Westminster. However, I want to praise a former Stormont and Westminster MP, Lord Fitt, who had a greater impact at Westminster in the 1960s than many MPs who were there with a single mandate.

The motion is targeted wrongly, because the Assembly is based on the examples of Scotland and Wales. If we had managed to get Northern Ireland down to the proportionate level of representation that exists in Scotland and Wales, perhaps there would be some merit in Members having more than one mandate. The Scottish Parliament has approximately 20% more Members than this Assembly, yet it represents three times the population. Wales has the twice the population of Northern Ireland. However, the total number of Welsh Assembly Members and MPs is still less than the number of Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Northern Ireland is overrepresented in the Assembly, but not at Westminster. However, Northern Ireland cannot afford the luxury of having people representing the electorate in only one body.

Of much greater concern is not that Members sit in more than one Chamber - they are doing the same job in each; it is the number of Members who have served on quangos. Ms Morrice is the ideal example. At least councillors, MPs, MEPs and Assembly Members are people who do similar jobs, have similar levels of representation and deal with similar problems. When a person visits his constituency office, or contacts an Assembly Member, he does not delineate his problem as an Assembly matter, a council matter or a parliamentary matter: he wants public representation. It is much more serious when people are double-jobbing through employment in quangos. The Assembly should investigate that issue more closely than the one proposed in the motion.

What ultimately lies behind the motion? It could be naivety on the part of the Women's Coalition; however, that remains to be seen. Ms Morrice told the Assembly that it is about "freeing up" jobs and opportunities. I believe that it is about freeing up opportunities for the Women's Coalition. That party has an abysmal record of failure in elections. It managed to get only two people elected to the Assembly and one to a local council. Together with its proposal to limit the period in which councillors can serve to two terms, the Woman's Coalition is attempting to knock out of some of the political "big hitters" in various parties to give itself a much better chance of being elected to the Assembly and local councils. That is what lies behind the motion. I urge Members to reject the motion because it is anti-democratic, hypocritical and wrongly directed.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The motion is really about service delivery; and to that end it is somewhat disparaging. However, all parties should consider it. One can understand why such a motion, and the questions it raises, finds its way to the Assembly Floor. All Members have experienced the negative aspects of political double acts that have been part and parcel of local politics for more than 50 years. It is hard for some parties to break the mould.

The motion raises the issue of the ability of elected representatives to carry out their work effectively if they are doubling up on jobs - Ms Morrice and other Members have mentioned that. Proper methods of accountability should sort out that matter. However, the motion also questions the integrity and intelligence of the electorate who have elected politicians to jobs in local councils, the Assembly and Westminster - and will, possibly, elect representatives to Dáil Éireann.

The motion implies that it is not humanly possible for one person to perform the roles of councillor, Assembly Member and MP and give effective service to their constituents. That may be the case for some individuals. Although Members acknowledge the volume of work involved in the Assembly, they must also acknowledge that there are politicians who are dedicated to the electorate and who have successfully managed to combine their various elected roles and give their constituents the benefit of both worlds.

Sinn Féin/IRA.

We also know those politicians who have winged it for many years and have relied on their media coverage as a substitute for hard constituency work.

Will the Member give way?

I will not.

We have all heard the single-transferable speeches, just as we have witnessed poor quality of service to the electorate. In principle, Sinn Féin supports the concept that one elected position is the preferred option.

However, that is predicated more on the notion of stability than that of capability. For practical reasons, parties have chosen, to stand for seats in the Assembly, candidates who, in many instances, have already proven that they are electable and who have a good track record in local constituency work.

Therefore, it could be argued that the motion is not only about capability, but stability. Those who are sincere and who believe in democracy would, if given the choice, prefer a more focused and, perhaps, single workload. The problem is not just about doubling up; it is about making politics work, regardless of whether a person holds one job or two. It is to the shame of some parties in the Assembly that we cannot hold up this institution as an example of making politics work. Few elected representatives, if given the choice, would have abandoned their constituencies in the past four years, given the Assembly's instability.

We should cast our minds back to the public outcry over whether Members should be given a pay rise, regardless of whether we double up. The public pronouncements on that were not complimentary. On the whole, people said that we did not deserve a penny because nothing happens in this place - they do not say that nothing happens in local councils or at Westminster.

The real issue is not whether we double up, or do one job or three jobs. It is whether we are good at the job to which we have been elected. The people elected us in the first place to uphold and strengthen the Good Friday Agreement. Regardless of whether we have a single job or whether we double up, we are doing that job well. The jury is still out on that matter.

Sinn Féin has given the matter considerable thought. We have examined whether holding seats on local councils, in the Assembly and at Westminster provides an adequate voice for the Republican electorate who have given us their mandate, which is to pursue our political agenda on an all-Ireland basis. That mandate will change the political landscape on this island and on our neighbouring island. How we progress our agenda and whether we hold two or three elected posts is worked through our party's strategy.

Several Sinn Féin councillors, myself included, have resigned our seats on local councils, having worked out with other parties a mechanism for co-option to ensure that the quality of service to the electorate is not diminished or interrupted. We continually examine matters, not least the conflict of interest between local councils and the Assembly. We are also obliged to continually assure our electorate that the transfer of power from Westminster will produce better local democracy. However, that remains debatable.

Although we support the motion in principle, we shall abstain from voting for it, for several reasons. The principle of co-option in local government, specifically on Unionist-dominated councils, has not been firmly established. The Assembly is still sitting on the Unionist San Andreas fault, with the threat of a seismic split just around the corner. However, there is an advantage in giving the decisive power to the people. They had the choice in the first place and have judged that their local elected representatives can represent their interests on councils, in the Assembly, in Dáil Éireann and at Westminster.

Choice should be restricted only where there is good reason. There is no legal or constitutional impediment to candidates offering themselves for positions - in the final analysis it is the people who have the choice. Go raibh míle maith agat.

I admire the courage of Ms Morrice in batting on a hostile wicket and suffering the wrath of those Members who have served society for many years and whom she attempts to dismiss as double-jobbers. I applaud her courage, and that is where my charity ends.

In declaring an interest, I place on record that I was elected to Lisburn Borough Council, now Lisburn City Council, in 1973. I was re-elected in 1977, 1981, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2001. I am honoured and privileged to have served the electorate of that august city for 29 consecutive years and now to be in my thirtieth consecutive year of elected position.

So am I.

TOP

Next >>