DISSOLUTION AND PROROGATION OF EXIST ING ASSEMBLY AND TEMPORARY PROVISION FOR GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND. (Hansard, 15 July 1974)

§ Rev. Ian Paisley

I had an amendment down which has not been selected. I should like the Secretary of State to think sympathetically about the amendment.

We are in a peculiar position about the Assembly now prorogued. The Secretary of State said in his opening speech earlier—I appreciate it—that he would not dissolve the Assembly because he felt that people should retain their elected representatives and that the elected representatives were entitled to carry on as such in regard to those matters on which they could make representations to him.

We in the United Ulster Unionist Party have grave doubts about whether those people represent the people of Northern Ireland, but we have a situation where another Member has been returned in a by-election to the prorogued Assembly. I remind the right hon. Gentleman—it was the fault not of this administration but of the previous one—that this seat was kept vacant for over a year and the people of North Antrim were not permitted to have their full representation because the previous administration felt that the seat would change hands and Mr. Faulkner's party would be one fewer in n umber.

As it transpired, Mr. Faulkner's candidate forfeited her deposit and a United Ulster Unionist was elected with almost 30,000 votes. This gentleman now finds that he is having difficulty even in getting back his deposit. We expect a candidate who does not get the required number of votes to lose his deposit. However, under the rules of the Assembly the only way in which a person can get his deposit back is by signing the roll and being admitted a Member. I am sure that the Secretary 128 of State would not agree that a person would want to forfeit his deposit and not be able to withdraw it—in fact, he would have sympathy with such a person.

I understand that there is a provision which says that if the person has some physical or mental disability or some other cause—evidently a physical cause—he can get his deposit back. This matter must be dealt with by the present administration. The Secretary of State has graciously said that he will look upon this person as a representative of the people. I think that the Government could in some way—probably by an Order in Council—recognise this man as a properly elected representative. He has been elected by over 29,000 votes. I represent this area in the House of Commons. When I was elected to the Assembly I had only 14,000 votes. The quota was only just over 10,000. Yet others who do not get the quota are regarded as Members and draw pay and allowances, while this man is forbidden by the law to do so. I should like the Secretary of State to consider that carefully and sympathetically.

I am sorry that we are unable to discuss this matter on an amendment. I have taken the way that any parliamentarian would adopt to raise the matter. I hope that after the Glorious Twelfth the Secretary of State will be in good form and will sympathetically consider what I have said—and I hope that I have not riled him by saying that.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has raised a matter that greatly concerns me. He pointed out that there was not a by-election for some time. I have not checked the date, but I think that it was because an order dealing with by-elections was made shortly after the present Government took office.

So far as I am aware, the subject of the remuneration of a Member is a matter for the assembly concerned, and the Assembly is still in being, although prorogued. I am therefore on difficult ground in having to reply. I assure the hon. Member that I shall look into the payment of the gentleman who was elected. At the same time—I am choosing my words carefully—whatever has been done, and I will look into that, this is a matter for the Assembly, and it would be wrong for me to be positive beyond that.

129 The hon. Member has raised this matter very properly, and I assure him that it will be considered. My advice is that the gentleman concerned should write to the Clerk of the Assembly. My feeling is that this matter is within the purview of the Assembly, just as matters of pay for Members of Parliament here are within the purview of the House of Commons.

The deposit is a matter that concerns me. Although remuneration is properly a matter for the Assembly, as it is for Members of Parliament here, matters pertaining to the electoral rules are for the Secretary of State. This is one of the powers reserved for this House.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look at that. It seems to be a technical matter of getting the deposit back if the Assembly is prorogued, because it will eventually be de-prorogued—or whatever the correct legal term is—and the deposit will then be refundable. I should like to look at that, because it seems that it will need legislation.