---

Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [Lords]

I want to touch on the two points referred to by the Minister. Setting up a body to determine Assembly Members' pay and expenses would not have required the Sewel convention, because the Assembly has been crying out for permission to have a body carry out that work. It will have the support of all the parties in the Assembly as it moves forward. Indeed, they are waiting for this legislation to enable them to proceed with their own legislation. I believe that this will be widely supported not just in the Assembly, but in Northern Ireland as a whole. I wish we were dealing with a Bill that took on the issue of double-jobbing. There is a lot of double-speak on this issue when it is suggested that if we have a job outside the House of Commons, whether it be at the Bar, a directorship or whatever, it amounts to great experience. I recall the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) speaking to the Ulster Unionist conference and railing against double-jobbing. I decided to go on the internet to check what double-jobbing he might have been involved in. My computer printer ran out of paper before I could get to the end of the list, yet he was lecturing the people of Northern Ireland on why they should end double-jobbing. This is not double-jobbing, but simply attempting to stop dual mandates. The House needs some understanding of why there was such a significant occurrence of dual mandates in respect of Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It was the view of all parties in Northern Ireland—at least those who could get Members elected to this House—that the experience of Members who had been in the House of Commons was worthwhile in order to ensure that the Assembly had the very best chance of succeeding. They wanted such experience to train—I do not use the term pejoratively—Members coming in to that level of elected service for the first time. It necessarily arose because people wanted to use such experience to ensure that the Assembly's life would not be a short one and that its business could be carried out in the best of fashions. Secondly, some who might have had the Assembly as their first option—there were a number of them—had some doubt about the length of the Assembly's life. It was a bold move to set up the Assembly under those circumstances, when there was no certainty as to whether it would continue. Many Members thus wanted to hold on to their two positions until there was greater certainty. Those were the two reasons for the introduction of dual mandates, which was done with the best of motives. As is made clear in the Library's research paper on the Bill, we intended to phase out dual mandates by the end of the next Parliament, but to do so gradually and progressively. The first step would be to remove Members of Parliament with chairmanships and ministerial roles—with only two exceptions—so that they would be able to attend Committees and participate in other House of Commons work, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) suggested that they should. We always intended—before this became a public issue—to reduce the number of candidates standing for both positions as soon as the Westminster and Assembly elections came around. We have done that, and we wait for other parties to follow our lead. I believe in a system of "one man"—or woman—"one job", so that people can concentrate on every aspect of the work to be done either in this place or in the Assembly.