Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland

Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland Provisional Proposals for new Parliamentary Constitution Boundaries Ramada Hotel, Belfast 20th October 2016 Morning Session Introduction, District Judge (Chair) Good morning ladies and gentlemen, it is now 10am and I formally declare this public hearing open. My name is, and I have been appointed by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland to chair this hearing into its Provisional Proposals for Northern Ireland parliamentary constituencies. I should stress that I am independent of the Commission. The purpose of this hearing is to enable representations to be made about the Commission s proposals, it is not my function to defend them. All I would say is that in producing its proposals, the Commission was constrained by the rules set out in the legislation and so any counterproposals put forward will also need to comply with those rules which you will find at the back of the Commission s report. We have scheduled one day for this hearing which has been broken up into three sessions throughout the day to allow as many people as possible the opportunity to attend. The timings are at present 10am to 1pm, 2pm to 4pm and 6pm to 8pm. If necessary, I will allow proceedings to run on beyond these times to ensure everyone has a chance to speak, however I would say and emphasise that the Commission will treat written and verbal presentations with equal importance. Copies of the Provisional Proposals report and accompanying map are available at the back of the room for your information. This hearing will be recorded and a transcript will be published by the Commission after the consultation period ends on the 28 th November. The purpose of this public hearing is to hear your representations about the Commission s Provisional Proposals for Northern Ireland s parliamentary constituencies. I am not required to provide a report or recommendations to the Commission. My role is to conduct the proceedings as efficiently and effectively as possible. If you have a view on the Commission s proposals, this is your opportunity to be heard. I will not be able to hear representations about issues outside the scope of this hearing, such as the possible impact of the Commission s proposals on future election results or the rules contained within the legislation. I will shortly adjourn the hearing so that anyone who wishes to make a representation can be added to the programme of speakers. As to the order of speakers, I would ask everyone to be as flexible as they can. I will try to accommodate speakers as far as reasonably possible. That said, I propose to adopt the custom of past hearings which is to hear 1

firstly from Members of Parliament and Assembly members followed by local councillors and council officials, followed by representatives of groups and organisations, followed by members of the public. Speakers will be called up to the table at the front to speak into the microphone provided. Please begin by switching on the microphone, stating your name and whether you are speaking in a personal capacity or a representative capacity. Please speak clearly for the benefit of the transcript. I intend to conduct the hearing in a relatively informal manner so formal crossexamination is not appropriate. However, I am happy for people to put questions to speakers through myself. That will happen at the end of each presentation where appropriate. I would ask anyone wishing to pose a question to raise their hand and wait until the microphone has reached them before speaking. I may also have some questions or points of clarification for the speakers. Your submission will be of particular assistance if you are able to explain the reasons why you have taken a particular position and any counterproposals you wish to make and the reasoning behind them. I should, however, be grateful if speakers could try not to repeat points already made by other speakers and where possible to back up their statements with the relevant evidence. It would be very helpful if you could leave a copy of your presentation with my staff who will be happy to make a copy if necessary. This will greatly assist with the transcription of the hearing. If you do not get a chance to speak at this hearing or if you wish to add to your submission you can make written representations to the Commission up until the 28 th November. Feel free to approach any of the support staff with any queries that you may have and they will be pleased to assist you and draw the matter to my attention. I now propose to adjourn for a short period to finalise the order of speakers. Depending on the number of speakers, we may have to ask some of you to wait until the next session to speak. If so, I would ask you to be flexible. I will now adjourn the hearing. Thank you. [Brief adjournment] Ladies and gentlemen, the hearing has now reconvened. I would now ask the Secretary to the Boundary Commission, Mr Eamonn McConville, to make a brief presentation on the Boundary Commission s Provisional Proposals. Eamonn McConville, Secretary to the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland Thank you, Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Eamonn McConville and I am the Secretary to the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland. I will now take you through a short presentation explaining the background to the Commission s Provisional Proposals and the public consultation process. Detailed information about the proposals was published on 6 th September and copies of the report are available at the back of the room and online. At the end of 2

the presentation I will hand back to the Chair who will call forward those speakers wishing to make oral representations. The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland is an independent public body responsible for reviewing parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland every five years. The Chairman of the Commission and indeed, all of the UK Boundary Commissions is the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Right Honourable John Bercow MP. The Deputy Chairman of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland is the Honourable Madam Justice McBride, a Judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland. The two Boundary Commissioners are Dr Bill Smith and Ms Sarah Havlin. There are four Boundary Commissions in the United Kingdom; one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the 2018 Review is being carried out simultaneously by all of the Commissions. Legislation sets out a number of requirements that all the UK commissions must work to for the 2018 Review, these are the use of a formula known as the Sainte Laguë formula which is used to determine the number of constituencies for each region of the UK. Commissions must use the Electoral Register as of the 1 st December 2015. Each proposed constituency must contain an electorate that is within plus or minus 5% of the UK electoral quota. Commissions must hold between two and five public hearings per region and Commissions must provide the respective Secretaries of State with their final recommendations in a report by the 1 st October 2018. The legislation also provides for Commissions to use a number of discretionary factors provided that their use does not interfere with the requirement that electorate numbers for each constituency must remain within the plus or minus 5% of the UK quota. These discretionary factors are: special geographical considerations, particularly the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; current local government ward boundaries; boundaries of existing constituencies; and any local ties which would be broken by changes in constituencies. So when all of the calculations for the 2018 Review were completed, the effects for Northern Ireland were that the number of constituencies reduced from 18 to 17 with the UK electoral quota being 74,769. This means that each new constituency must have a total electorate ranging from 71,031 to 78,507. This contrasts with the number of electors in the current constituencies on the 1 st December 2015 which ranged from 62,643 to 80,251. The legislation does contain a rule that relates only to Northern Ireland, and that is Rule 7. Use of Rule 7 would allow the lower end of the electoral range to fall to 69,401. For Rule 7 to be applied, two conditions have to be met. Certain numerical conditions relating to electoral numbers must exist and, in addition, the Commission must be satisfied that its ability to use the discretionary factors previously mentioned is unreasonably impaired by having to stay within the plus or minus 5% electoral range. 3

In developing the Provisional Proposals, the Commission decided to use local government wards as building blocks, to avoid splitting wards if possible, to take account of the discretionary factors as far as possible but with the need to stay within the plus or minus 5% range always taking primacy. It also decided to keep the name of every proposed constituency that was sufficiently similar to an existing constituency provided that it still matched. For totally new constituencies, the traditional approach of using county names, qualified by compass points would be used and where this was not appropriate, new names based on geographical or historical associations would be used. It was clear at the outset that developing proposals for the new 17 constituency arrangement would be a complex task. It would require changes to all the existing constituencies due to the use of the new local government ward structure and in addition, the need to stay within a much tighter electoral range and accommodating the loss of one constituency. The Commission began by carrying out a number of exercises to test a range of models starting at different points across Northern Ireland and using three seat and four seat options for Belfast. These exercises revealed that using a three seat Belfast arrangement provided the best fit for a 17 constituency model. The Commission then decided to match the area of the three constituency Belfast to the existing Belfast City Council boundary. However, as the total Parliamentary electorate within the council area equals 2.87 quotas, the boundary had to be extended northwards by two wards to satisfy the plus or minus 5% electoral range. Then moving outwards from Belfast, the Commission tried to minimise change as far as possible using the discretionary factors set out in the legislation but at all times having to stay within the plus or minus 5% electoral range. In the Provisional Proposals, the Commission has retained eight of the existing constituency names as the legislative requirements could be accommodated with relatively incremental changes in these instances. Therefore, the existing constituency names were considered to remain appropriate. Six new constituencies are proposed and as the changes required were more substantial in these instances, new names have been proposed based on the naming convention mentioned earlier. This slide shows the proposed three seat Belfast arrangement with the eight constituencies retaining existing names shown in light blue and the six new proposed constituencies in purple. In developing these Provisional Proposals, the Commission did not consider that the use of Rule 7 was necessary or that there was a need to split any wards. All 17 of the new proposed constituencies are within the plus or minus 5% electoral range. This table shows the proposed constituencies in the left hand column. The total electoral within each of these is shown in the next column, and the percentage variance within the required electoral range in the third column. The right hand column shows the percentage variance from the Northern Ireland electoral average for each of the proposed constituencies. This is not a legislative requirement but is shown here for information only. 4

The Commission published its Provisional Proposals on 6 th September 2016 for a 12 week public consultation period, this closes on Monday 28 th November 2016. During the consultation period the Commission is holding four public hearings in Ballymena, Omagh, Belfast and Portadown. After this first consultation period ends, the Commission will publish all representations received as well as the transcripts of public hearings for written comment during a second consultation period of four weeks. This secondary consultation is likely to occur in the early part of 2017. After considering all written representations and transcripts, the Commission may amend its Provisional Proposals. Any revised proposals will be published for an eight week public consultation period in late 2017. There will be no further public hearings. After considering any representations received on the revised proposals, the Commission may further modify its proposals. These modifications would not be subject to further consultation. The Commission must submit its final reports to the Secretary of State before the 1 st October 2018. Thank you. I now hand back to the Chair. Thank you, Eamonn. I d like now to call the first speaker who is Mr Alasdair McDonnell. Dr Alasdair McDonnell, MP for South Belfast (SDLP) Chair, it s good to meet you this morning but probably the rest of the staff are fed up looking at me because I was in Ballymena and I was in Omagh and it s because I feel that this is a vitally important thing and will have a knock-on effect, not just on our parliamentary constituencies but on assembly seats and all the rest as we go forward. And I will declare an interest. I am the MP for South Belfast and the proposals that are put forward are intended to remove, eliminate, South Belfast in whatever way and therefore terminate my responsibility for that constituency. I would like to have the option of remaining there at the next election but basically my arguments are much beyond that because I feel very strongly that Belfast should retain four seats and I would have liked to have seen what the Commission s deliberations were around the four seat Belfast proposal. I would argue that we re reacting and, to some extent, the flaws that I would see in the current proposals are the extension of very badly drawn local government wards and indeed, local government districts that don t make a lot of sense. And in turn, in trying to comply or fit in with those, the Commission has ended up with almost an impossible task in many ways. So I am not impugning the Commission or suggesting any serious short-comings on their part, I m basically saying that they ve had to work... And I think at this stage we should be starting to bring things into some sort of conformity both at local government level. It has long frustrated me that parliamentary boundary commission hearings and local government hearings don t quite ever meet. And to some extent, there needs to be some crossover and some dialogue because when somebody sits down to draw up local government wards, 5

some of the shapes that I have looked at in the last three or four weeks are crazy shapes and make it very difficult not to break a ward. In many cases, it s almost essential that badly drawn wards should be divided. I mean, just as an example of that, I would refer you to Mallusk which is just north of Sandyknowes and at the city end of it in a small pocket there is a large densely populated area, which effectively is part of North Belfast. But to all intents and purposes, Mallusk ends up taking in a large slice of rural East Antrim and a large slice of rural South Antrim on each side of the M2 as you go out of Belfast. So that s just one example of a very badly, clumsily drawn ward. Chair, those are just general remarks that I want to make. I believe that it s very possible, and I ve already spoken about west of the Bann at Omagh, and I spoke about County Antrim at the Ballymena hearing. My suggestion here today will largely concentrate on Belfast and the surrounding area. I believe that if we try to maintain the current shape of the constituencies it is not possible when you are reducing from 18 to 17 but it is possible to retain the majority of them in their current shape with minor adjustments sideways, if you like, additions and subtractions. And it s in that context that I would want to try to persuade the Commission that perhaps they should look at the four seat Belfast option. If you do that, yes, the premise that Belfast is some small and irrelevant place you know, is very bad economically, very bad socially, culturally and every other way for our whole community and our whole recovery, peace process and economic process and everything else that s involved there. We need Belfast to be the hub of Northern Ireland and indeed, if possible, even beyond that across the border into some of the border counties of the Irish Republic. But we need Belfast to be a hub if we re going to have the prosperity we need here. And these things, while drawing boundaries might not seem relevant to that, they all have a knock-on effect. Belfast City Council is far too small and I m just bewildered as to why it was kept so small because people in North Belfast have moved out to take in and live in Glengormley. People in South Belfast have moved out to the verges of Lisburn, out to Dunmurry and Seymour Hill, and people in East Belfast have moved out to Holywood. And as I remarked in a previous hearing, my children go to school in East Belfast and they spend half their lives in Holywood because that s where all their friends are. The cross movement between, effectively Holywood is in many ways, a hub for the Stormont area, the Belmont area and that part of East Belfast. So, I would ask the Commission again to look at four seats but in order to do that, Belfast for me starts about Sandyknowes roundabout. When I come in from North Antrim on the M2 motorway and I come to Sandyknowes, I m in Belfast. And I went out the other day and I drove around the Shore Road and it was very clear to me that I was getting into Belfast just after I d passed the University at Jordanstown. 100 yards on this side, somewhere about Jordanstown Road, there s a clear transition from East Antrim into a Belfast urban atmosphere. So, I would be arguing for room for flexibility and discussion as to where exactly the boundary went there and keeping with the wards as best we could, that the North Belfast boundary should go to Sandyknowes and should go somewhere in the region 6

of Jordanstown Road or that vicinity. That, in effect, would be including a lot of urban Newtownabbey into North Belfast. North Belfast would become rather large at that stage and what I would be doing and suggesting is, that the Crumlin Road that has been a natural boundary for a long, long time should become the boundary between north and west Belfast. And, to keep numbers balanced, I would suggest that the urban part of Ligoniel, because again, Ligoniel is a bit like Mallusk, you have a small urban concentration at the top of the city bit of the Crumlin Road and then it scatters away out over a wide area. But I would be suggesting that Ligoniel relates to the Upper Shankill and relates easily and could be treated as West Belfast. It s lying to the south west of the Crumlin Road as the Crumlin Road goes on up and around. That would keep numbers tidy. I would be suggesting that South Belfast recovers Dunmurry. That was part of South Belfast some time ago, was then taken into Lisburn and was then hopped into West Belfast. Dunmurry fits into, it s an extension of Finaghy, in fact, Dunmurry and Finaghy are the same community. And on the eastern side, I would be suggesting Chair, that South Belfast continues as exists, to go out to Carryduff as we see there on the green (part of the map). On the eastern side, I would suggest that East Belfast takes in at least the two if not the three closest wards. I m talking about this bit here of North Down would go into East Belfast. I would argue that this is a big scattered ward and it s quite possible that this area, this is Cultra, could go into East Belfast but it would probably deprive East Belfast. In that context, there are enough numbers. The only difficultly is that East Belfast might still be about 1,000 votes short and it might be necessary, even though these wards are badly drawn, to leave half of that ward where there s a natural boundary or indeed this bit, the Cregagh Estate with East Belfast just to make the numbers up. But in that case the Belfast wards would all meet the minimum if we apply Rule 7. And that s the other point I want to come to. Rule 7, I think, has to be applied. It is crazy because without applying Rule 7, trying to expect Northern Ireland constituencies to meet the UK number, which is 74,500, whereas our average is about 73,500. It s basically giving us so little variation. There are a number of our constituencies that would fall just under the UK base level. If we look at it here, the Northern Ireland average is 71,000 whereas the UK average is 74,000, no 73,139. I think you ll find that Mr McDonnell, I think it s Page 16 of the Provisional Proposals and that gives the figures that you ve just referred to, yes. Dr Alasdair McDonnell MP 73,139 is tying us then in turn to a UK figure of about 74, 000, so effectively, it s only giving us less than a 3% variation. In that case my argument is, and indeed this is an argument that s running very freely at Westminster among all parties of interest, that the rules they ve made here, that they ve realised now that the rules they ve made at 5% are too tight anyway, so tying us to a 3% variation I think is difficult. 7

So, Chair, that s in the context. My argument is very strongly that it is possible and it is important for the City of Belfast that it retains four MPs, whoever they might be and I m not making any presumptions to who might be elected. That would have a knock-on effect. North Down, as a result of that, would require to take in the Ards Peninsula because I would also be including, sorry I should have said there that I d want to include Dundonald, this bit here of East Belfast that somehow or other has been off here. Dundonald is East Belfast. It s all the people from the Newtownards Road and that area that have moved out there over the last 30 years so it makes absolutely no sense tying them to Bangor. They are part of Belfast, they live and eat and sleep and work in Belfast and Dundonald. There are five or six wards there would fit in East Belfast. But to compensate North Down for the loss of Dundonald and that little bit of Holywood, they would get the Ards Peninsula and that in turn, would push Strangford westwards. The problem you have is by reducing Belfast to three seats you create what I perhaps described as a tsunami at a previous hearing, which falsely creates two malformed territories called West Antrim and West Down. These are abstract areas. These are abstract concepts and basically what would happen would be that Strangford would move, taking in quite a bit of what is there described as West Down. In turn, South Antrim and Lisburn would fit together reasonably well. Lisburn would probably give up some of its County Down wards, the wards in the County Down side of Lisburn to that Mid Down constituency but equally Lisburn would pick up wards going as far north as Aldergrove Airport. I had suggested in an earlier hearing, just for completion, that Dalriada move across in this bit here because from my life time, Coleraine, Ballymoney and Moyle has been an administrative unit health service wise and every other way government wise. Therefore to divide Coleraine off from its hinterland, so by taking across that hinterland, Garvagh, Kilrea and Macedon I think it is, and some other ward there, that that basically makes Dalriada North Antrim, a much more coherent constituency. It allows you to take the Ballymena area, that area north of Ballymena that I think is described there as West Antrim is not good, it s not functioning and Antrim town would then switch. And I was also putting Ballyclare, to compensate East Antrim for the loss of the bits of Newtownabbey that were going into North Belfast, I would have suggested that Ballyclare was going into, that s just, I covered that at the Antrim hearing and I will put all this in writing in detail. So the point is, Chair, I can talk all day, I m not going to do that, I ve given you a flavour of what I m talking about. I wouldn t do much around South Down, I think others may have some views on that that they will make but I would try to keep roughly the shape of the current constituencies and I think that s possible. One thing I would question was the sanity of taking Blackwatertown ward out of Newry and Armagh and putting Mahon in. Mahon is part of Portadown and to go into Portadown and split Portadown and take a corner of Portadown out, that s the southern end of Portadown, and put it into Newry & Armagh and take a bit of Blackwatertown out of Newry & Armagh which is very much the hinterland of Armagh, basically doesn t make a lot of sense. But I would probably look at that 8

more in the next hearing that I would hope to attend as well and deal with that area there. Chair, the point I will make is that I feel that it is entirely possible to retain four seats in Belfast relatively comfortably and albeit I will admit that there would be close to the lower numbers but I think that s perfectly natural because I know myself that there s 10,000 people in South Belfast who are not registered in South Belfast, they re registered in Fermanagh or Tyrone. That s not something we can consider here particularly, so it s not a factor we can bring in to the equation here. But in South Belfast we have about 100,000 people yet there s only 65,000 to 68,000 of them registered because many of them register in other places and some place called home that they lived in ten years ago. So I think it s reasonable in the urban constituency to allow them to be at the lower limit because they carry a heavier load in terms of population. So I feel that what I m suggesting would reduce the number of constituencies that are radically changed. I would keep most of them. The only constituencies that I see radically changed are Mid Down and the Dalriada one at the North, and the others would be roughly in shape. Some of them might lose 25% and gain 25% in another direction. But I would urge again, the Commission to implement Rule 7 and to give us a shape because my worry here, Chair, is probably well beyond my political life time, once this is set it has a tendency to be set in stone and set in concrete. And if we get it wrong here, it has a knock on effect into Assembly elections because currently we use these constituencies to elect five Assembly members and I think it s very, very important to try and create constituencies that work. The other point I would make, again, it may not be immediately relevant to the Commission, is that quite honestly, it s a struggle for all political parties to keep themselves organised with volunteers and others. A radical change as we see here, totally disrupts the structure and function of the political parties in meeting their effort to work with the electoral office, to work with the election commissions and all the rest that is necessary. So there s a number of things here, Chair that basically simply insist that we retain, we take a serious look, review the thing and take a serious look at a four seat solution in Belfast and that we prevent as much, we minimise the change that goes out through the other constituencies. But I ll leave it at that Chair and I will continue to work with the Secretariat in terms of the detail of that. I m working at it with Raymond here and we re crunching the numbers and we ve got the numbers almost perfect, just it s a tweak here and a tweak there. The final point I would make is it may be necessary, to get this right, to split some of the dysfunctional wards that are there as building blocks. So I ll leave it at that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr McDonnell. Just remain there. Does anyone from the floor have any questions for the last speaker, Mr McDonnell? 9

Billy Dickson, Blackstaff Community Development Association Just from the political side of things. By the way, I am very pleased to see you as my MP for South Belfast. Dr Alasdair McDonnell MP Good man, Billy, that s the endorsement I thought I d never get. Billy Dickson Well actually I think it s a very good point. We don t lose any sleep over the fact that we have an SDLP MP, we don t lose any sleep over it. We feel confident that, ok, you could be re-elected the next time but we know it s in our power to change. How do you feel that with South Belfast, it s so diverse a constituency, that people feel comfortable with the diversity and if they were moved into the proposals to have a South West (Belfast) that they would have the same political options in fact, if maybe tied to one party rule? How would you feel about that, if you understand my question? Dr Alasdair McDonnell MP I understand your question entirely. I m afraid it s not something that I would comment on here but I think you ve made the point very well for me. Thank you for your compliment and even though we may differ on things at times, I have tried very hard to accommodate and tolerate and include people like you in everything I try to do and it s a great compliment to hear that coming from you. The point is this, I m not safe in the South Belfast seat and I m not arguing here because I m guaranteed a safe seat or Rotten Borough or whatever. Basically, somebody else could take that seat at the next election, I ve been hanging on there by my fingernails. The points that I am making are not to preserve a seat. The points I m making are to preserve South Belfast as that diverse community you re talking about with all sorts in it, both local all sorts and immigrant all sorts and all the rest. And in that it s rich and in that I think South Belfast has probably led the way and shown example to the rest of the city. The other three constituencies, I didn t come here to question them, but they would be less diverse and less tolerant than we are. That s a consideration that is very important in a community context. The fact that I do canvass and leaflet drop and all the rest on the Donegall Road and in Sandy Row and in areas that might be seen that s something that I think is important. And equally, I know Unionist politicians can go into most of the area whereas in other parts of the city it s not easy. And I think you re right, I think we probably don t want, we want our culture of tolerance and understanding to spread rather than to be smothered. That may be a consideration but as far removed from the numbers, I ve tried to stick with the numbers here. Thank you, any other questions from anyone present? No, well thank you Mr McDonnell again for your presentation, that s much appreciated, thank you. Could I then perhaps call for the next speaker we have and that is Mr Colin McCusker. 10

Colin McCusker, Councillor in Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Borough Council representing the DEA of Lurgan (Ulster Unionist Party) Mr Chairman, I wish to once again, thank the Boundary Commission and their staff for all their hard work to date. I hope they are getting a fuller picture of public opinion regarding how best to amend the current proposals as set out. I have been asked to speak on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party today, mainly representing the views and opinions of the party membership in Belfast, North Down and Strangford. Today I will be focusing on the new proposed constituencies of Belfast North West, Belfast South West, Belfast East, North Down and Strangford. Mr Chairman, for the record, while we welcome the efforts made to preserve several of the existing constituencies, we believe a suitable configuration can be made to keep more of the remaining seats closer to their existing boundaries. While with many others we were not surprised to see Belfast reduced from four seats to three seats, we are very concerned because Belfast is our capital city and the main population hub with the north, south, east and west constituencies giving identity to those areas for many years. Over the years, the Belfast constituencies have expanded with population changes and movements, both into South Antrim and North Down, to the extent they now take in Glengormley, Carryduff, Dunmurry and Dundonald. It is apparent that any further expansion to maintain four seats based on the current figures would likely require the inclusion of areas such as Holywood, Carnmoney and even Greenisland. However, bringing in these areas would also mean that considerable proportions of parliamentary Belfast would be well outside Belfast City Council s boundary and this would lead to many residents even more unsure whether they live in Belfast or not. Mr Chairman, for the record, the new Belfast Council boundary was created on the 11 council model following the Review of Public Administration which the then Environment Minister introduced in 2008. At that time as a party we voiced strong opposition to the council boundary for Belfast believing it created an artificial boundary, far smaller than the city s true extent and thus, downgraded the importance of our capital city. To illustrate the point, on the south side of the city the initial boundary post for Belfast was set at Galwally Park on the Ormeau Road. The Local Government Boundaries Commission recommended it be moved southwards to reflect the expansion of the city but this was overturned by the Minister and Stormont Executive leaving the boundary exactly as it was in 1918. I m sure few would see the rationale in that decision given the growing extent of Belfast. This has created a situation whereby it is understandable albeit regrettable, why the Commission have closely followed this boundary to create the three new Belfast seats. To now argue for four seats clearly highlights that Belfast has been, and I quote the Right Honourable Member for Belfast North who said It has been shrunk to unnatural and limiting borders by RPA and perhaps the council boundary could also be up for discussion at some future stage. With regards to current proposals for Belfast, the Lagan River makes for a natural and historic dividing line between East 11

and South West Belfast, however the divide around South West and North West Belfast is more cumbersome with some strong local ties being broken. Regarding North Down, we are content that the name and constituency of North Down be retained and the addition of Dundonald, Ballybeen is a direct result once again, of Belfast being reduced to three seats. Although it is a strange looking fit for some, it was previously part of North Down and the other option of adding parts of the Ards Peninsula we believe probably causes more issues. Strangford is also being topped up with wards from urban Belfast. For Forestside Shopping Centre to now be connected with Portaferry will be strange for many, as will the ongoing omission of the village of Strangford from this constituency. However, as the proposals involve very few electors leaving the constituency, we believe it is generally quite fair. Mr Chairman, in summary, there is a requirement to lose only one seat under the current review. Therefore, the overall loss of ten constituencies and the creation of nine new ones creates a vastly disproportional upheaval to what is necessary. As I ve said at the previous two hearings, as a party we will be making detailed proposals with a written submission but will also carefully consider any suggestions brought forward during these various hearings across Northern Ireland. Thank you. Thank you, Mr McCusker. If you could remain there a moment please. Does anyone here present have any questions for the last speaker? No? Thank you Mr McCusker for your presentation, that s appreciated. Could I then call forward our next speaker, Mr Billy Dickson, please? Billy Dickson, Chair of Blackstaff Community Development Association I basically finished writing down my notes this morning. I stayed up to watch a certain event on television last night and so if I ve made any mistakes put it down to the Trump effect. The Blackstaff Community Development Association is the oldest and continuous community organisation, representing the Blackstaff Ward. We held our inaugural meeting on Tuesday, 2 nd May 1978. A lifetime. And believe it or not, I m only the second chairman, the first chairman was a Mr Thompson, headmaster of Kelvin School and I took over from him. There has only been two chairmen and maybe February s election maybe, hopefully I ll be able to walk aside and retire from it but somehow or other I don t think I will. I m very committed to my community and as long as I m wanted I ll be there. Two of the main objects of the Blackstaff Community Development Association are: (1) To provide a forum where complaints may be ventilated and, by discussion and constructive criticism strive to improve the standard of life for the residents of the Blackstaff Ward. (2) To assist Government Departments, Local Authorities and other bodies, by discussing and giving possible reaction to schemes proposed; to initiate 12

discussions on schemes which, in the opinion of the association, would contribute to the development of the Blackstaff Community. On behalf of the Blackstaff Community Development Association and in response to the Provisional Proposals for the new parliamentary constituency boundaries, I would just say that given the strength of feeling from within the South Belfast community, that we would urge the Commission to reconsider the Provisional Proposals relating to the South Belfast constituency. The Blackstaff Community Development Association has a close working arrangement with many other South Belfast groups, including the South Belfast Partnership Board, which brings together representatives from all sections of the constituency. Although we cannot speak for the South Belfast Partnership Board or any other South Belfast group, we nevertheless value the unique working relationship that we have with them. However, our concern is that with the proposed disappearance of the South Belfast Constituency, this relationship with other groups would be lost. And I think I alluded to that in asking our MP a question earlier on. There is quite a diversity in all the groups and they work together basically through the South Belfast Partnership Board. I have to say that I am very faithful attender at all their meetings and other community meetings including neighbourhood partnership boards and so on. Although we officially represent only one Belfast City Council ward, our contacts and involvement in issues, which concern South Belfast as a whole, are very much appreciated by other groups and, in return, Blackstaff Community Development Association appreciate their contributions. We believe that groups in the South Belfast constituency have a unique working arrangement that has taken many years to develop. There is very, very wide diversity in South Belfast and as I ve mentioned, that applies to the groups. And it hasn t been easy to develop these relationships and working relationships within the various groups. I must congratulate the South Belfast Partnership Board whose membership is very diverse but they do work together and I am particularly encouraged with the enthusiasm that they have and that enthusiasm has brought forward proposals, ideas for South Belfast that is going to take some years to see fulfilment. And I honestly think that our political representatives will be able to express those views far more forcibly and with far more clarity than I can. However, as a community representative, I just feel that we re in danger of losing so much that we have worked for down through the years and we have a long way to go but we feel that we re going to lose so much and I think that would be a disaster for South Belfast. Blackstaff Community Development Association values being part of a constituency which is the most diverse of the four Belfast constituencies. It is our concern that this uniqueness will be lost to the groups within the Blackstaff Ward. There are also the natural and physical boundaries, along with local identity, which is very important. Blackstaff Community Development have made attempts to get residents 13

involved with projects across the divide including shared use of the Bog Meadows Nature Reserve. I have made every effort myself to get involved in organisations in West Belfast, our neighbours, because I believe we should try to work as best we can. I have made contributions to the South West Gateway Project but I have to say this, all our efforts have seen limited success. In fact, I m almost tempted to say no success. And it is very clear that the majority of South Belfast residents don t really feel any emotional, cultural or attachment to West Belfast despite all the efforts that we have made. The carving up of the existing South Belfast constituency is of great concern to our members. For Blackstaff and other South Belfast wards to become submerged in a Belfast South West constituency will only cause a large, but a minority section of residents within the new constituency, feeling alienated without any sense about belonging. It would take years, if ever, for community cohesion to develop. In fact, I ll maybe point out some of the new wards that have come into South Belfast, we re having even that problem at the moment to try and get them to be fully involved and be seen as part of South Belfast. We believe the citizens of Belfast, after years of conflict, need stability and a sense of belonging. These are points that might not be seen as relevant, but we believe given due consideration, these will be seen as being very important. Creating a population balance in each constituency should be seen as being of minor importance. I would prefer Chair to leave those points about statistics and so on to our political parties. We obviously will be giving our opinions and views on that but I m basically talking from a community point of view, a residents point of view, not as a political party or trying to score political points. In that regard, could I just say, Chair we are delighted that at the last review that some of our points, the Blackstaff points were taken on board and acted upon and for that we are very grateful. We agree with the South Belfast Partnership Board in the 2012 review, which stated: 'South Belfast has a unique identity in itself that risks being damaged by the proposals. It is felt that the proposals could weaken the collective voice and representation of communities in South Belfast, which will in turn have implications for service delivery and attracting inward investment'. I think I mentioned that earlier on about the ideas and proposals for the future that we feel could be very much put at risk. The Ml Motorway, the Westlink and the Bog Meadows continue to provide a demarcation between South and West Belfast. However, the revised constituency of Belfast South West includes wards either side of this physical and natural barrier. There are now additional wards in South Belfast from the last review. Within our own Blackstaff ward there has been quite a number of residential developments. In my own particular area there s been 114 new houses. Within the next six or seven years we will have another 70 to 80 private houses. There are many developments 14

that have been identified in the wider South Belfast area and there will be developments in the future. Maybe this should be taken on board with the remarks of the MP for the area regarding the numbers of people living in the constituency who don t actually have a vote in the constituency, they have votes elsewhere. So basically, Chair, the boundary change to the South Belfast constituency as proposed would not be the best proposals for the residents of South Belfast. We therefore urge the Boundary Commission to reconsider the Provisional Proposals and retain the four Belfast constituencies. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Dickson, just remain there a moment in case there s any member here wants to ask a question from the floor. OK, thank you, Mr Dickson for your helpful submission. Could I next call forward our next speaker who is Mr Kenneth Millar? Kenneth Millar (Alliance Party) Mr David Ford sends his apologies. He attended the Omagh and Ballymena hearings and spoke a lot about the west of the Bann boundaries. I will focus on Belfast and Antrim and Down today. First of all, I want to thank the Commission for their work, I think they ve done a tremendous job. The Alliance Party never fully agreed with the legislation around this. We believe that an attempt to equalise votes across constituencies does not, despite what we were told, make every vote equal. Only PR in a first past the post system does that and that s not possible but given what you ve had to contend with, especially with the 5% swing either way in each constituency, we think you ve done a tremendous job. In this hearing, I m going to risk sounding like a spokesperson for the Boundary Commission because I m going to agree with a lot of what you ve said. We agree with reducing Belfast to three constituencies. In an 18 constituency Northern Ireland that reduces to 17, it makes sense to lose one of the capital city s constituencies. Indeed, in the 2013 review whenever we were reduced to 16 constituencies, a three constituency Belfast was suggested. It is also likely that in five years time when a new boundary review is undertaken that we will reduce to 16 constituencies again and at that point a three constituency Belfast will be even more likely if we don t go ahead with it this time. Belfast has 2.87 quotas, that means three seats with top-ups from outside. Under these proposals, that means that the top-ups come north of North West Belfast and what is currently North Belfast. Adding in Collinbridge and Valley from the Newtownabbey end of the constituency is a sensible solution. Those wards are connected to traditional North Belfast through the Antrim Road, the Shore Road and the M2, main arterial routes that people in those communities use to get into Belfast for work or to socialise. That makes sense to us and I think it should be retained. We also believe that if you expand Belfast to four seats again, under the new rules around how many electors are allowed in each constituency, you will have a very 15

expansive Belfast, as has been touched upon by Dr McDonnell and other speakers. In the north of the city you would be requiring the boundary to go as far as Jordanstown, possibly depending what way you do it, around to Ballyrobert. I work in the South Antrim constituency a lot, I speak to people from Ballyclare and Ballyrobert. The people of Ballyrobert and Ballyclare do not see themselves as North Belfast and never have done and never will do and they cannot be expected to be based in a constituency that identify as such. In south Belfast, you ll have to extend the boundary out towards the city limit of Lisburn. Now, there s a long running joke that Lisburn is an extension of Belfast, not one I agree with but it s a long running joke. If Lisburn ever felt that way, extending the capital city s boundary out to Lisburn would compound that problem even further. In the east of the city you would be required to extend it into Newtownards, essentially dissecting Newtownards in half if you didn t add Holywood. Chair, I believe that adding Holywood to East Belfast is a mistake as that makes the North Down boundary, which I ll speak about slightly later, almost impossible. And equally, in the west of the constituency, although not many additions will need to be made, you will need to either add Derriaghy to the south, which has its problems, or go over the hill and add Clady and Stoneyford to the West constituency which in my opinion, makes that very difficult. In addition, in the proposed three constituency Belfast, we agree with the proposals recommended. If I start in East Belfast, using the city council limit and the River Lagan as natural boundaries through which to base a very sensible East Belfast, is for us, the best solution. Given the legislation that you had to contend with, there was always going to be difficult wards, difficult shaped constituencies. That s a matter of fact that we re going to have to live with but we believe that East Belfast the way it is proposed on these boundaries, it is the best solution. In terms of splitting South Belfast with West Belfast and equally, West Belfast with North Belfast, which is where I m from, we believe this is the most sensible solution. North Belfast and West Belfast share many characteristics. They share many issues. The issues of inner north and inner west Belfast are very similar in terms of community tensions especially around things like peace walls. Equally, splitting South Belfast and West Belfast, although we appreciate the community and the community characteristics of South Belfast, we believe it will do more to bring the city together. Belfast cannot continue to exist as four separate entities, as four separate communities with separate characteristics. We need to do more to bring the city together and as a three constituency city we can do that. We can share the characteristics of South Belfast which should be celebrated as a diverse community and extend them out across to more troubled parts of our city where diversity isn t quite or may seem not to be quite as embraced. So therefore, the Alliance Party will accept the Belfast boundaries as they are because we believe a four constituency Belfast is not viable. If I move into Antrim before I talk about Down, we are highly frustrated, although we understand that Newtownabbey has to be split in four separate ways. At the moment, Newtownabbey is split in three ways and under these proposals it will be 16