Proceeding contribution from Mark Durkan (Social Democratic & Labour Party) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 7 April 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [Lords].
Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [Lords]
Let me record my party's support for the Bill, which, as has been said, addresses problems that need to be remedied for the future. I think that people appreciate that, given the uncertainties involved in the process on which we embarked with the Good Friday agreement, it was justifiable and appropriate for members of parties to hold mandates in respect of both the Assembly and the House of Commons. Key issues of process were being played out in both places, and there is still some way to go. However, now that the process has become more settled and the institutions of the Good Friday agreement have become well and truly embedded, the public increasingly want their elected representatives to concentrate, in a committed way, on clear mandates and clear roles. The Bill takes a step towards reducing the allegation of double-jobbing that attaches to people who hold dual mandates, but it does not fully resolve the issue. It would be a mistake for anyone to believe that the progress represented by the Bill, as a result of amendments made in another place, is in itself an answer to the question of dual mandates. That question remains to be addressed, and parties must make more progress on it. I have taken my own stand and approach, and other parties have taken theirs. The signals have been different, conflicting and confusing at times, which does no credit to the political process, whether it be represented by this Chamber or by the Assembly. The Bill's original purpose was to allow the Assembly to establish an independent mechanism for settling the pay and pensions of Assembly Members. That is a matter of consensus and has the agreement of all the Assembly parties. It is not contentious at that level, but it is not unimportant. When the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was passed, it was felt appropriate to give the Assembly control over its own pay and pensions. The Assembly's having control over its own affairs was deemed to be a significant statement of its status, but public attitudes and perceptions of those things have moved on. People now want the Assembly's pay to be settled by truly independent means, and this Bill takes us forward in that. I do not wish to detain the Committee any further, Sir Alan, given that the House has many other matters to attend to today. I know that you warned the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) when he was on his journey covering the trajectory of history, but it is always good to have him here participating. His family seem to have something of a Forrest Gump gene that means that they were present at all sorts of interesting and important occasions in British and Irish history, and he is here, yet again, for this debate on the modest but welcome development represented by this Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 508 c1019-20
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Allowances Dual mandate Pay Workplace pensions Northern Ireland Assembly members
- Legislation
- Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:01:08 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637289
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637289
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637289