Others in the Chamber can also take a bow on achieving a wonderful record, and I applaud them.

Why has Séamus Close been on Lisburn Borough Council, now Lisburn City Council, for 30 years? A couple of answers spring to mind. People may wish to suggest others, but the two fundamental reasons are that Séamus Close decided to put himself forward to the electorate and that the electorate, for better or worse, decided to elect him. If a mistake was made in 1973, the electorate has had many opportunities to rectify it. It has decided, however, to elect and re-elect Séamus Close. That is democracy in practice.

I maintain that I am a democrat. I believe in, and respect, the voice of the people. It is my prerogative to think that at times they may have got it wrong, but it is their prerogative to decide who will represent them. The people are the final arbiters when choosing their representatives, and I shall defend that right against any attempts to enforce petty, stupid rules for as long as I can.

In case any Members think otherwise, I am not a Member at Westminster. Before people jump to their feet to tell me that I tried often enough, I concede. I tried many times to become a Westminster MP, and I failed on each occasion.

Miserably.

I shall not use that term, because it reflects on several representatives of the Member's party who polled fewer votes than I did. If my result was miserable, I shall allow the Member to comment on the results of his party Colleagues. However, he did not really mean that. He endorsed my view that, as a democrat, I accept the decision of the people. They decide either to elect me or that they do not want me as their MP, and in future they may decide that they do not want me as their councillor - next year they may decide that they do not want me as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. That is the people's prerogative. How dare anyone try to deny the people the right to choose? That is an insult to the electorate.

Ms Morrice said that it was not clear what the public should do to elect representatives - "It was not clear to the public" is a direct quote. Was Ms Morrice suggesting that the electorate are stupid? Is she suggesting that when people enter the polling booth they do not know for whom they are voting? The electorate in Northern Ireland are extremely intelligent. Members who have canvassed will appreciate just how tuned-in our electorate are. It is far off the mark to suggest that they are lacking. Post-election, a candidate may think that the electorate were silly because he or she did not get elected, but that is the electorate's prerogative. If the people of the Lagan Valley constituency and the city of Lisburn wish to have Séamus Close as both a councillor and a Member of the Assembly, so be it. That is a highly intelligent electorate.

There are several impediments to standing for election. A person under 18 cannot stand. If a person is insane, he or she cannot stand - though there are a few in the Chamber who appear to have slipped through. They shall remain nameless. All credit to them - they must not be as mad as they seem. There are others, predominantly outside the Chamber, who would say that all those who put themselves forward for election qualify to be described as insane. The third obstacle to standing is bankruptcy - in financial terms only; it does not refer to bankruptcy of thought or political content or ability. To add to that list of impediments the circumstance of being already elected to another body would be to deny the electorate the opportunity to exercise their intelligence and the right to make a democratic choice.

Like other Members, I want to know what motivated the motion. Why is it on the Order Paper now? It was not on the Order Paper 12 months ago. Is it just coincidence that 12 months ago local government elections and, more importantly, a Westminster election took place in which one of the proposer's colleagues stood as a candidate for South Belfast? That is particularly pertinent to the motion. Like myself, she was unsuccessful; although I received a few more votes than her. Has the motion been tabled by a johnny-come-lately party - perhaps it should be referred to as a Monica-come-lately or a Jane-come-lately party - that wishes to change the political process because it has failed to gain more than one mandate? I cannot assert that as a fact. I can only question the motives behind the motion.

The motion poses other questions. If Ms McWilliams had been elected last year, would the motion have been tabled? If so, would she resign her seat as a Member of the Assembly, thus denying her constituents her wisdom and her ability to contribute to the House and the Committees?

Alternatively, would she have given the Westminster seat a trial run for a few months before deciding to resign, forcing a by-election at great cost to the electorate? If politicians cannot obtain two mandates, why criticise those who have them, especially as the electorate choose. That is petty politics; it is not good politics and is not in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. As has already been mentioned, a large degree of complementarity runs through all elected positions. If someone comes to me with a problem, I cannot decide whether that person has done so in my role as a councillor or as an Assembly Member. There is an overlap. The representative role can often be fulfilled better if one has more than one elected responsibility.

Many politicians in Northern Ireland cut their political teeth in 1973 - that is when they learnt the intricacies of the great profession that is politics, when they learnt how to represent people and when they learnt the basis of service. When I think about those bygone days, I must say that those of us who stood for election to the respective councils in that year did not think about financial rewards. There was no such thing as financial reward. We stood to serve the people. Are we to be dismissed now as "double-jobbers"? That is an insult to those who, during the 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s, were the only democratic bulwarks in our society against terrorism and against those who wished to see democracy go down the plughole. I could tell the House of numerous occasions when I was under attack inside and outside the council chamber and in my home because I dared to be a democrat, and because I dared to put my head above the parapet in days when it was fashionable not to be bothered.

Let us look at some other practical experiences. What would have happened if the rule had been in vogue in 1973, and people who had been elected to our newly formed local authorities had been prevented from standing for the proposed power-sharing Executive? Where would the pool of necessary expertise and talent have been? What would have happened if the rule had been carried through to the 1975 Constitutional Convention, or to James Prior's rolling devolution experiment of 1982-86, of which I was privileged to be a member? Having been elected to the local authority in 1981, was I to say that I could not stand in 1982? As Ms Morrice said, I would have been elected in 1982 and forced to resign one seat. That experiment lasted a few years. It fell because of the Anglo-Irish Agreement - I am not making a political point, merely stating a fact. If that stupid, petty rule had been in vogue in the 1970s, what would have happened, and where would we have been in Northern Ireland if all those who had developed expertise since 1973 in the new local authorities were suddenly without a "job"? Where would democracy have been?

When Members table motions, they should think the matter through and give it some consideration. It does not do any of us any good to hear what I can only refer to as a half-baked idea that denies people democracy.

I am sure, Mr Close, that, in the interests of democracy, you would not deny other Members their opportunity to speak, so will you draw your remarks to a close?

I conclude by saying that reference has also been made to the fact that one cannot do two jobs. I can relate only to my roles as a councillor and as an Assembly Member. I defy any Member, or any member of the electorate, to look at my attendance record in any of the Assembly Committees on which I serve, my record on any of the committees on which I serve at Lisburn City Council or my attendance at any of the full council meetings. I will be at one of those meetings, if God spares me, tonight to represent the people. I am in the Chamber now, and I will leave here to attend a Committee in the Assembly. The roles are complementary, and any tinkering with them should be avoided at all costs. Let the people decide.

If Members restrict themselves to seven minutes, it will be possible to include everyone who wishes to speak.

Although the motion is welcome in the sense that it allows us to discuss the matter, it is a blunt instrument in its current form. As Mr Close said, one cannot be over-prescriptive - people have a choice. We must break the system down into its various components. For example, there are four Ministers serving as councillors. In the long term, that is not sustainable because conflicts of interest may arise, although interests are declared and such conflicts do not arise frequently.

Mr ONeill spoke about the concept of public service and said that local government is in a different category from the European or Westminster Parliaments. There is some substance in that. As Mr Close said, we must remember that, at one time, local government was the only fragment of democratic representation left at local level. It was a very watered-down system. As you know only too well, Mr Deputy Speaker, people kept that alive during very difficult times when there was no glory and there were no resources. It was hard work for often little or no reward, and local government had few powers. However, local government has been improving, and I hope that it will improve further as a result of the review of public administration.

However, we should debate the issue of simultaneous membership of the Westminster Parliament, the European Parliament, the Assembly and, indeed, the Executive. Although I accept Mr Close's point that people are entitled to their choice, there is a point where it becomes physically impossible to be fully effective in every role. This is a Europe-wide problem and is not confined to the United Kingdom.

Members of the French National Assembly are often mayors in their districts. The President of France used to be the mayor of Paris. He held that position while he was also a member of the French National Assembly. People also hold positions simultaneously in the Assembly and in the Départements that are the units of regional administration in France. The same situation is found across the European community. A great deal of the work of the European Parliament is done in Committees as well as in the monthly meetings in Strasbourg, and it is not possible, physically, to be in Committees here, at Westminster and at the European Parliament, while attending plenary sessions at the same time. It is not physically or humanly possible.

Although I fully accept that our three MEPs have a good record of bringing help to Northern Ireland, how much better might it have been if they had done that full time and concentrated on it exclusively? Similarly, in Westminster, sporadic attendance at Northern Ireland Questions when the cameras are there and at the odd committee, especially a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, is fine - it is a good contribution. Squeezing in a few votes on a motion on which there will be many divisions so that MPs can maintain their voting record is all very well. However, that is only part of the job. There are other parts. Some Members here refuse to sit on Committees, and it is not because they are not available. Such Members do not face any financial consequences. Therefore, before we beat the drum too hard, perhaps we have to get our own House in order.

There needs to be a debate about how a person can realistically occupy three or four significant positions simultaneously and hope to do all the jobs as adequately as he could if he were concentrating on one of them - but that will take time. Mr ONeill's point is valid, because there is more difference between representation at local government level and the Assembly than there is between representation at Parliament and at the European Parliament. Nevertheless, if, as I hope, local government returns to a more recognisable form, and the jobs become more substantive, then the question will arise again. I accept that the people in Northern Ireland are an informed electorate. They have a choice to make, and they know who and what they are voting for.

I welcome the fact that we are having this discussion and debate. There is an issue about Ministers holding more than one position, and it is something that we will have to address. Part of the reason for people holding more than one position is that the Assembly was perceived as a fledgling institution that had not settled, and many of us might have reconsidered our decision to stand for election last year had the circumstances been different. Moving forward to the position that Mr ONeill has outlined: for those who are not Ministers the local government role and the Assembly role can be compatible, but it is something we will have to look at.

The EU is moving to a point where it will not be possible to be a member of the European Parliament and other elected bodies after 2008-09.

Elections to the European Parliament are a matter for UK legislation; what the European Parliament says is of no consequence.

The right hon Member is correct. However, there is a tide of opinion among Governments in the EU that may soon lead to it not being possible to have dual mandates. When we have a situation where there are people with three or four mandates and jobs - which we have here - we reach the point of overdoing it. The hon Member for Lagan Valley, Mr Close, defends the electorate's right to choose, and I accept that. I also understand that the situation has particular temporary exigencies. However, it is useful to have the debate. We will have to return to this subject, and in the long term the game is probably up for those holding three and four jobs. The position is not sustainable. However, local government is a different matter.

Like Séamus Close, I am bewildered at the reasons behind this act of political masochism by Jane Morrice. She appears to be happy to have set herself up in the Assembly with the motion. I suppose she has got the support of Esmond Birnie - whether that is of any comfort to her, I am not so sure. She has not even succeeded in getting the support of the members of IRA/Sinn Féin beside her, who are well known to be in favour of doing the double. For a long time, their members were required to have a night job as well as a day job, and only recently have they allowed conscientious objectors into the ranks of the public representatives of the party.

Of course, this has been a useful exercise for Séamus Close. He has had a wonderful opportunity to electioneer for next May. I notice that he has told the electorate that he has been a representative for 30 years and has been very pleased at the support they have given him. He admired their generosity, knowledge, and wisdom. At least Jane Morrice has given Séamus Close a chance to get some publicity for himself.

Mr Close is right that many people will be amused, amazed or bewildered by the motive behind the motion. The Women's Coalition is not against double-jobbing. It is not against it in principle. On many occasions, I have heard Monica McWilliams and Jane Morrice champion the cause of the working woman. They ask for crèches, nurseries and facilities to free them from the sink and get them out to work. Therefore they are not against double-jobbing in principle - a woman can be a mother and a housewife, and she should be helped to do another job as well.

As we heard from several people, they are not against double-jobbing personally. The register of Members' interests makes interesting reading. Ms McWilliams, who is too busy to attend the debate even though her name is on the Order Paper, has registered an interest as an external examiner and as a non-practising professor, though I do not know what that means. Ms Morrice is on the board of Laganside. She said that that does not really matter because it is only for one morning a month. I got the attendance records, and in the past twelve months she has managed to get to only three out of every four meetings. She seems to find no difficulty in having a non-elected position as well as an elected position.

What is the motive behind this? Now and again, the Women's Coalition comes up with some bizarre ideas. Ms Morrice's most bizarre idea before this came during the debate on the memorial for the millennium. She proposed that every house, without qualification, and every tree that was over 100 years old - how that could be worked out, I do not know - should have a protection order placed on it. It did not matter what condition it was in, so long as it was over 100 years old. That was how we should remember the millennium.

What about Séamus Heaney's house?

It was not 100 years old, and it was still falling down. Perhaps this was just another bizarre idea.

We also know that the Women's Coalition is a party of interferers. It loves civic forums, commissioners, agencies and commissions. If there is a way to interfere in people's lives, the Women's Coalition will find it. If it has not yet been discovered, it will be. Perhaps this interfering tendency is behind the motion, or perhaps, as has been suggested, it is not about efficiency; it is all about jealousy. Members of the Women's Coalition could not get elected to two positions; so, if they cannot have two, nobody else will.

We have had a constructive debate today, but it is up to individuals to decide whether they want to set themselves up for more than one elected position. If they want to be sad, if they want to run from this place to that place, from this person to that person and from this role to that role, that is up to them, and the Assembly should not legislate for it.

It is also up to their parties to decide whether they do the jobs efficiently. Some people can organise themselves better; some find one job enough to hold. It reflects on the party if people get elected and then do not do the job well. The electorate will decide that they do not wish to have that person about the place. The people know whether someone holds more than one elected position. Let them decide if that is the kind of person that they want to represent them.

Let us not accept such an "interfering busybody's" attitude from a party that has no Member with a double mandate. Despite Ms Morrice's comments, Members are not hoarding elected positions, and parties with Members who have a double mandate do not lack suitably qualified candidates. Was the Women's Coalition so bereft of suitably qualified candidates in South Belfast that it had to put forward Monica McWilliams? Could another Women's Coalition member not run for election? Ms McWilliams was fielded because the party believed that her profile as an Assembly Member gave her a better chance of winning a Westminster seat. They were wrong. Ms Morrice should not come here with sour grapes, because she got it wrong.

I call Ms Morrice to make her winding-up speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker, dare I?

I expected blood to be spilled, and no less. We have had a valuable start to an important debate; it is only the beginning.

I thank Dr Birnie for his support and clarification of the issue. Sir Reg Empey said that Ministers who are councillors could have a conflict of interests and that eventually it would become physically impossible for them to remain fully effective as representatives. That vital point supported my comments about the difficulty of juggling the responsibilities of elected positions, which can involve air travel and accommodation difficulties.

Mr ONeill agreed that MLAs should not be MPs or MEPs. He made the vital point that mandates represent authority and must be recognised. In addition, I thank him for his point about timing. Mr ONeill and Mr Close stated that local councillors provide an important public service. I do not wish to detract from the hugely important service that is provided at local council level. Patricia Wallace is the Women's Coalition's councillor in North Down, and we appreciate the work that her position involves. I congratulate Mr Close and others who have served their communities so well for so long; however, times have changed.

If MLAs relinquished their council positions, by-elections might be called, even if the major parties agreed. I am sympathetic to Ms Morrice's argument, but does she not agree that, to facilitate the relinquishment of council positions by MLAs, we need a mechanism whereby vacancies are filled through automatic co-options rather than by-elections?

That is a valid point. I commend the former SDLP leader John Hume for relinquishing his seat in the Assembly because he recognised the heavy burden of the role. He passed his mandate to Annie Courtney, enabling her to participate also. The appropriateness of a similar system at local government level to allow for co-option is an important point for debate.

Will the Member give way?

I will not give way. I have only 10 minutes in which to cover all the points.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will deal soon with Mr Weir's comments that the motion is anti-democratic, hypocritical and wrongly directed.

Several Members made the point that Monica McWilliams stood in South Belfast in the Westminster elections. Some of the comments were quite absurd. There is no question that members of one body must be allowed to stand for election to another. However, if elected, they should give up any other positions they hold at the earliest opportunity. That is our policy, and it is not hypocritical. Elected representatives should not even contemplate taking up several posts at the same time.

The point was made that co-options and alternates are a valuable way of bringing new people in. Several Members mentioned that things were different in the past. I acknowledge that. However, as far as the Northern Ireland Assembly and the new dispensation are concerned, times have changed. We desperately need new blood, new thinking and young and different voices. That is why debates such as this are so valuable.

I thank Sinn Féin for its position on the issue. Fair enough, it is not yet at the stage of fully supporting the motion, but it supports the concept that one elected position is the preferred option. Sinn Féin is at least moving in the right direction. I also recognise the point that Mary Nelis made about the importance of stability.

Mr Weir said that the motion is anti-democratic. We must consider who chooses election candidates. I was interested to hear Mr Close's remark that he chose to go forward and the electorate voted for him. I was not aware that that is how parties operate. I thought that party members put themselves forward for nomination as a candidate and that the party then selects the candidates. Is that not the case? It is not common practice for the Ulster Unionist Party to select a candidate who already holds another position. Such practice is a nod in the direction of the motion.

Parties choose their candidates. Surely parties should be encouraging new, young blood to join their ranks. I am not trying to interfere, but there is recognition in the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and in parties here - the SDLP and Sinn Féin have nodded in this direction - that it is a physical impossibility to carry out the work of three elected representatives at the same time. Three people should be doing that work.

If one person can do three jobs, why not consider the antithesis of that and have two people job-sharing an elected position? Is that not a novel approach, not unlike our millennium preservation fund mentioned by Mr Sammy Wilson, which could have perhaps saved Séamus Heaney's house?

Another issue that Mr Sammy Wilson and others might dismiss is the dual currency debate on the euro, yet there is growing support for that. Those ideas are not as wild and crazy as some would have us believe.

We are here to challenge traditional thinking, and to make people think new things. We want to get support from the public: we believe that we have that. We have laid ourselves open to this sort of criticism, but it is worth it in the end.

Crime Rates

TOP

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I wish to advise Members of how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated two hours by the Business Committee. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List. The amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. The round of Members who wish to speak will follow that order. When the debate is concluded, I shall put the question on each amendment in turn. If amendment No 1 is made, I shall not put the question on amendment No 2.

If that is clear, I shall proceed.

I beg to move

Policing in Northern Ireland is causing grave concern. Political interference in policing - due to the Patten proposals, which stem from the Belfast Agreement, and the damage that those proposals have done to the numerical strength and morale of the Police Service - has contributed directly to an escalation of crime on the streets of Northern Ireland.

Public representatives receive communications on a weekly basis from people expressing their concerns about letting their youngsters go out at the weekend because of the number of attacks on people at places of entertainment. Parts of Belfast and other towns have become notorious for the number of attacks on young people in particular. Parents who thought that the alleged ending of terrorist campaigns made it safe to send their youngsters out without their being blown up are now afraid to send them out in case they get beaten up.

People are concerned about the effects of increasing lawlessness on their property - car theft is rampant, and there is damage to cars and burglary. According to the police, the number of reported incidents of crime in the last year rose by 11·6%. As a result of the decimation, demoralisation and curtailment of the Police Service, detection rates have gone down from 27·5% to 18·8%. The detection rate for car theft and damage to cars has fallen to half of what it was a year ago. That means that of the 16,000 incidents of car theft and damage to vehicles occurring each year, only a small proportion of the people responsible are being identified.

That has undermined confidence in the Police Service in Northern Ireland. It has caused increasing frustration among people who do not have a political agenda. They want to bash the police not because they are anti-police, or because they consider the police to have changed as a result of the Belfast Agreement. They are unhappy about policing because they believe that the level of service that they are entitled to as citizens has been affected. Their property and their families are being affected by the rising crime rate. The police appear to be powerless in the face of that crime rate.

I am sure that other Members will say that that is the case. That is true whether people come from Nationalist or Unionist backgrounds or from working-class or middle-class backgrounds. It does not matter what race they are. People want to live in safety and have their property protected, but that is not happening.

There is general concern, which I am sure will be expressed today. I do not wish to harp on, but this point must be forcefully made. Unfortunately, the Police Service of Northern Ireland is less effective because people voted for political interference in its running. They voted for political correctness instead of police effectiveness. The effects of that can be seen on the ground.

We were told that those sacrifices, hard choices and difficult decisions - words that I have heard from members of the Ulster Unionist Party - were made because policing had to be accepted. We were told that were the Police Service accepted, it would become more effective. Immense sacrifices were made. People who had given years of service to the community in the most difficult circumstances were hurt, damaged and, indeed, besmirched by some of the Patten recommendations that were later accepted in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.

What has the effect been? Have all those changes led to an acceptable police force? I do not wish to bore the Assembly with all the comments that have been made, but there are sheaves of statements from IRA/Sinn Féin that use exactly the same language about the "Pattenised" Police Service as they used about the RUC. The police are still called human rights abusers. They are still called a police force within a police force. They are still unacceptable. Sinn Féin representatives still publicly say that they wish the members of the Police Service to be treated in the same way that members of the RUC were treated. There has been no change. Opposing proper policing supports criminality.

Let us make no mistake. IRA/Sinn Féin cannot condemn the police in the terms that it has expressed and yet wring its hands in lament at the criminality that has descended upon its community. Opposing the Police Service means that criminality is supported. Of course, we can understand that people who were and who are criminals will hardly support those who are meant to deal with criminals. Despite sacrifices having been made, and the subsequent effect on the ground, there has not been the acceptance that we were promised - far from it. In fact, even more changes are demanded.

One of the proposed amendments to this motion calls on those who support criminals to get on board with the Police Service. I do not wish to turn this debate into a call for Sinn Féin to get on board policing in Northern Ireland. The inherent criminal tendencies in that section of the body politic should have no part in policing. Although the poison of Sinn Féin may have affected this institution, I am glad that the Policing Board can get on with its work because that poison has not been injected into its veins.

The Government are going to make the mistake of making further concessions to those who continue to churn out their hatred of the police. What further concessions can be made to involve them in policing? Should terrorists be involved, just to bring Sinn Féin on board? That would be wrong for several reasons. My party joined the Policing Board, albeit with reservations because of the probable effect of Patten's weakening of the police. The SDLP joined on terms which were acceptable at the time. To change those terms to facilitate the intransigent supporters of criminals would be a travesty and a betrayal of those who joined on the original terms.

For the Government to pander any further to IRA/ Sinn Féin would be a grave mistake. First, it would undermine those who have joined the Policing Board. Secondly, more concessions will only weaken the police and have a grave effect on their morale, which is already at rock bottom.

This motion is timely, because of the concern at the reduction in the Police Service's effectiveness as a result of the Patten reforms and the subsequent Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. As the Government head towards a review of policing and the 2000 Act, the Assembly must issue a warning. I hope that the voices of the SDLP Members will be raised in public, as they have been in private, to warn the Government that concessions have weakened a vital service in society and that no more can be made.

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 2 delete all after "detection rates in Northern Ireland" and insert

Sammy Wilson began, at least, to mention that part of the motion that deals with the increasing levels of crime and the falling detection rates. He went on to make several political assumptions and observations. I share many of his concerns about the levels of some crimes, particularly those which have, unfortunately, been highlighted again. The elderly are vulnerable members of the community who continue to fall prey to criminals. Many of them have been brutally attacked in their homes, yet no one has been arrested, tried or convicted for those crimes.

The problem with policing here is not the fault of Sinn Féin. I remind Members that Sinn Féin was involved in the negotiations for the Good Friday Agreement, which included a section on policing. Those involved in the negotiations and those who signed up to the new beginning for policing acknowledged that there was a fundamental problem with policing in the Six Counties.

The motion condemns the public stance of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin's position and public stance is clear. It believes that Peter Mandelson's Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 usurped the new beginning that was promised in the Good Friday Agreement. However, critically, Sinn Féin will continue to press the British Government to undo the damage of the 2000 Act and to fully legislate to provide for an effective and accountable police service.

The motion is bogus. It aims to make Sinn Féin the scapegoat for the absence of an effective police service. It is unclear whether the proposer blames Sinn Féin or the Ulster Unionist Party - perhaps he is trying to get at both. Sinn Féin, therefore, will not support the motion.

Sinn Féin will not support the second proposed amendment, because it too is also fundamentally flawed. The 2000 Act has undermined our ability to create an effective and accountable police service, although that aspiration was endorsed by the electorate last year when the SDLP and Sinn Féin published an analysis of policing that had a significant bearing on the outcome of the election. Sinn Féin was returned as the largest Nationalist party, showing that its overall position, including its views on policing, was endorsed by the electorate.

As is the SDLP's right, its proposed amendment asks all parties to endorse its party position. However, as the SDLP did not join the Policing Board until after the elections last year, it appears that it did not have the courage to inform the electorate of its position then, which would suggest a lack of confidence in the Nationalist community's support for the policing arrangements set out in the 2000 Act.

Sinn Féin's amendment, standing in my name and that of John Kelly, is designed to bring the debate back to the core issue, namely the fulfilment of the demands of the Good Friday Agreement. I pledge to all communities that Sinn Féin will tirelessly work to establish the police service that it negotiated for in the Good Friday Agreement. Sammy Wilson may not be pleased to hear this, but I look forward to the successful outcome of those negotiations, because it will enable Sinn Féin to participate in the establishment of the service that it endorsed on Good Friday 1998 but has since been denied. I look forward to Sinn Féin's role in overseeing the new police service.

Regrettably, my community is all too aware of criminal activity. Tomorrow in west Belfast we will lay to rest Kieran Conlon, another victim of so-called car crime. The long-term legacy of bad policing in my constituency contributed to his death, and I extend my sympathy to Mr Conlon's family. I assure them that his death is not a party political issue in the Chamber today. Proper policing structures are an imperative of the Good Friday Agreement, to which all parties signed up.

Sinn Féin's view, and the view of many others, is that we have not yet reached the new beginning, but Sinn Féin will continue to strive to do so. I assure all those who have been recently bereaved, hurt by plastic bullets or denied justice, that Sinn Féin will work to establish a new, effective and impartial police service that all in the community can embrace and find beneficial.

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 2 delete all after "detection rates in Northern Ireland" and insert

I wish Sammy Wilson and Joe Byrne, and Fred Cobain of the Ulster Unionist Party, well for this time tomorrow when they will sit on the interview panel for the new Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. At least they are not shirking their responsibility to make real the new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland.

In its discussion tomorrow, will the Policing Board explain to the people of Short Strand how they ended up on the receiving end of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is supposed to be the new police service?

I shall answer that in the details of what I will say.

The Assembly should note that the new Chief Constable will be appointed tomorrow. The post is our most significant public appointment: none has greater consequences. People who assume the responsibility for making such an appointment must be acknowledged and applauded. They are at least trying to sign up to the Good Friday Agreement and the changes suggested in the Patten Report, even if some of them do not like those recommendations and may indeed deny them. Others are not prepared to acknowledge their policing responsibilities, although they are fulfilling every other aspect of the Good Friday Agreement.

I should like to respond to some of Sammy Wilson's points. The SDLP accepts that not everything in policing is right; only a fool would claim otherwise. However, it is improper and unfair to say that many things are wrong; and it is particularly unfair and wrong to blame everything on the Patten Report. Our policing and political problems pre-date the Patten Commission and are not a consequence of its report. The Nationalist community was unable to support the RUC and to join it in representative numbers, and too often that force failed to account legally and publicly for its actions. That failure, and the RUC's wider associations, caused division and dispute in our society over policing - and all of that pre-dates the Patten Report. To blame Chris Patten and the other commissioners for what is now wrong in policing ignores all our history, all the evidence and many of the facts.

Although it is arguable that those factors pre-dated the Patten Commission, that body was supposed to cure them. In fact, the factors have been exacerbated since the Patten Report, and that is why this debate was proposed.

I acknowledge that argument, and, as I said, there are still difficulties in policing. It will take a long process and much heavy lifting to get it right.

If the present policing system is being assessed, then why not acknowledge that there have been several recruitment exercises and that 50% of those joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) now come from a Catholic background. The latest evidence suggests that people from that background come from every constituency in the North and from all types of Catholic backgrounds. That was not the case when the old RUC existed, but is true in the days of the PSNI.

If people are saying that there are still problems with policing, they should also acknowledge that a recent household survey confirmed that 75% of the Protestant community have confidence in the work of the Police Ombudsman, who is an essential partner in the new beginning for policing. Eighty-one per cent of the Catholic community have confidence in her work. So much for those who say that the Police Ombudsman is a toothless tiger. In her statement on the Omagh bombing, whether we like it or not, Nuala O'Loan demonstrated her real teeth, her real power and her real ability to affect policing change in the North.

If Bob McCartney is right to say that policing is worse than when the RUC existed, why does the Nationalist community test policing in some places; why does it support it in others; and why does it join the PSNI in yet others? Why do we not acknowledge all that is changing and all that is positive, rather than saying that policing is worse now than in the past? That is Sinn Féin's argument, because even if the glass were full, it would claim that it was half-empty. Those who believe in the new beginning for policing, or who at least participate in it, should not indulge Sinn Fein's attitude that regardless of what is right, some things will always be wrong.

Sammy Wilson said that crime figures show that there is more crime and less detection. I do not deny that rates of crime and detection must be addressed. However, as Sammy Wilson and other Policing Board members know, the acting Chief Constable said on the record that the new system for recording crime had affected the results so that more crime was recorded, inevitably creating a higher recorded rate. Crime facts and figures must be discussed frankly and fully; we should not be selective.

Sammy Wilson said that the new crime figures are a result of the decimation and demoralisation of the police. Even if there are occasional and short-term losses, there will be many longer-term gains. When we have a representative, accountable, civilian Police Service that conforms to human rights standards, we will have made a breakthrough in the community's culture and processes so that everyone will have confidence in the police.

Alex Maskey asserted that we should not make policing a party political issue. He will know what I am about to say, because I have said it before: who made policing a party political issue by referring to Policing Board members as "collaborators"? Sinn Féin in Derry City Council referred to SDLP members and supporters of the Police Service as "collaborators". Is that not party politics? Who referred to all the Policing Board members as "dummies"? Martin McGuinness. Is that not party politics? Who said that no Nationalist or Republican would join or support the Police Service? Who had the high-handedness and arrogance to make those claims? Was that not party politics from Gerry "there but for the grace of God go I" Adams? Such remarks show who is playing party politics and preying on people's worst fears.

Party politics are embedded in every policing document that the SDLP has ever produced. For example, at the Brehon Law Society conference a few years ago in the United States, the party's then deputy leader said that the RUC was upholding the law of the jungle in Northern Ireland, implying that the RUC perpetrates terrorism, rather than protects citizens from it. If that is not a disgusting politicisation of policing, I am open to persuasion.

Recently, the SDLP has been getting every aspect of policing policy and practice right - that is the most compelling argument for its amendment. If the SDLP had not been on the Policing Board, Ronnie Flanagan would still be the Chief Constable, and Nuala O'Loan's report on Omagh would have been "decimated", to borrow a word.

Policing power would not have been turned on its head, as it was in the board's response to Omagh, if the SDLP had not been on the Policing Board. There would not have been a code of ethics, which the human rights community has acknowledged as being positive and progressive, if the SDLP had not been on the Policing Board. There would not be a multidimensional strategy to put into practice Patten's imperative to integrate Special Branch into the wider Police Service if the SDLP had not been on the Policing Board.

Through the scientific research programme commissioned by Patten, plastic bullets may be banned. Sinn Féin has stated that that threshold is acceptable, and that if it were implemented in full, it would join the Policing Board. This gives an opportunity to introduce other methods of riot control that conform with human rights standards, are consistent with minimum force requirements and rightly protect the police and the public from the riots that are so often seen on the streets of Belfast and elsewhere. I commend this amendment to the House.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>