Northern Ireland Assembly, 25 February 2002

242 contributions from 48 members. The official report.

Assembly Business: Election of Deputy Speaker

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to remind Members that the election of a Deputy Speaker will be conducted in accordance with Standing Orders 4 and 5. I will begin by asking for nominations. Any Member may rise to propose that another Member be elected a Deputy Speaker. Each nomination must be seconded, and I will verify that the Member nominated is willing to accept the nomination. I shall then ask for further proposals and deal with any subsequent proposals in the same way. When it appears that there are no more proposals, I will make it clear that the time for proposals has passed. If Members wish, a brief debate may follow.

At the conclusion of the debate, or, if there is no debate, at the conclusion of the nominations, I will put the Question that the Member first proposed be a Deputy Speaker of this Assembly, a motion that will have to be carried on a cross-community basis. If the motion is not carried I will put the Question in relation to the next nominee and so on until all nominations are exhausted. Once a Deputy Speaker is elected, all other nominations fall.

Do we have any proposals?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I have great honour in proposing that Sir John Gorman, who has resigned as a Deputy Speaker, be succeeded by Mr Jim Wilson.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I second the nomination of Mr Wilson.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I propose Mr Mervyn Carrick.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I second that nomination.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Wilson, are you content for your name to go forward as a nominee?

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I accept the nomination.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Carrick, are you willing for your name to go forward as a nominee?

Mervyn Carrick (DUP, Upper Bann)

I accept the nomination.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Are there any further proposals?

I hear no further proposals, and the time for proposals has expired.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

In an Assembly of this kind, whose only real parallel is the European Parliament where there are a number of Deputy Speakers or Presidents, it is the usual custom that consideration be given to the opinion of the House with regard to the political divides. It is not so in Westminster, because that is a different type of assembly. It seems strange that in this Assembly, where the main division is either pro- or anti- the agreement, we do not see fit to have at least one anti-agreement Deputy Speaker, yet justice demands that in this type of assembly — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I do not know what that man is blethering about. If he wants, I will give way to him, and he can tell us what he wants to say.

I just want to make that point. We have representation from one of the smallest parties — one of our Deputy Speakers is a member of the Women’s Coalition. That is right and proper. However, consideration should be given to the main division that exists in the House. Justice requires that that be considered. It is for that reason that we are putting forward a candidate.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I assure the Member, Mr Carrick, who also has the honour of representing Upper Bann, that there is nothing personal in what I am about to say. I deprecate the suggestion that the election of a Deputy Speaker should be anything other than a matter for the House as a whole, having regard to the candidates who have been proposed, their suitability for the position and their ability to represent and to deal with the House as a whole. It would be most unfortunate if this decision became a matter of pro- versus anti-agreement, or Unionist versus Nationalist feeling. Such political considerations should not enter into it. I have proposed Mr J Wilson because I consider that he is eminently suited for the job: his experience in the Business Committee and otherwise suits him for that, and I commend him to the House on those terms.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Having received no further requests to speak, I will put the Question in the order that the candidates were proposed earlier.

Question put,

The Assembly divided: Ayes 56; Noes 25

Ayes

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.

Unionist

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Other

Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy.

Noes

Unionist

Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Total Votes 81 Total Ayes 56 ( 69.1%) Nationalist Votes 28 Nationalist Ayes 2 ( 100.0%) Unionist Votes 49 Unionist Ayes 24 ( 49.0%)

Question accordingly agreed to (cross-community vote).

Resolved:

That Mr J Wilson be a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I declare that Mr J Wilson has been elected a Deputy Speaker of the House. The nomination of Mr Carrick falls.

Assembly Business: Suspension of Standing Orders

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(6) be suspended for Monday 25 February 2002.

This is a technical measure to enable the Assembly to sit for longer.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Having no requests to speak, I put the Question to the House. I remind the House that a motion to suspend Standing Orders requires cross-community consent.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(6) be suspended for Monday 25 February 2002.

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled, and I have received no indication that any Members wish to speak. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to group the eight clauses, followed by the schedule and the long title.

Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Budget Bill: Further Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled, and I have received no indication that any Members wish to speak. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to group the seven clauses, followed by the four schedules and the long title.

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Review of Public Administration

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the proposed Terms of Reference for the Review of Public Administration.

The review of public administration is one of the major tasks facing the Executive, and will be central to the way in which we deliver, structure and organise our public services in the future. This is the opportunity of a generation to put in place a modern, accountable, effective system of public administration that can deliver a high-quality set of public services to our citizens. It is an opportunity that we must take.

Naturally, the review will attract great interest from the public and the Assembly. In that context, we wrote to the Speaker on 8 January to seek advice on how the Assembly would wish to oversee the review. We understand that the Business Committee has been considering that. We look forward to working with whatever Committee will lead on the review, and we understand that it is the Business Committee’s preference that the Committee of the Centre should perform that role, with the involvement of other Committees as appropriate.

The Executive gave a commitment in the Programme for Government to launch the review by spring 2002, and we are on course to meet that target. The Executive have initiated the debate on the review at the earliest possible point, and we are seeking the Assembly’s views about the approach to be taken to the review before work starts on it. The Executive are determined that this should be an open and transparent process from the outset, and we are keen to hear the views that will be expressed in this debate.

Members will have received a copy of the proposed terms of reference. They include a set of characteristics against which any system of public administration should be measured and a set of questions to inform the conduct of the review.

We identified the need for a wide-ranging review of the public sector in February 1999. The creation of the Assembly and a regional tier of Government lead, rightly, to questions about the overall architecture of government here.

At present Northern Ireland has three Members of the European Parliament; 18 Members of Parliament; and 108 Members of this legislative Assembly. In addition, there are 582 local councillors from 26 district councils and over 2,000 appointees to more than 100 public bodies — all for a population of just over 1·6 million. In that context, therefore, it is only natural for the public to ask whether Northern Ireland is overgoverned.

In the Programme for Government we committed ourselves to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services in Northern Ireland as well as the accountability for the administration and delivery of those services. The review will consider the structure, responsibilities and delivery of services by local government. It will examine the accountability and co-ordination of public bodies at arm’s length from government, and it will consider all elements of public administration against the characteristics that are finally agreed.

Although it is too early to reopen the 18 December 1998 agreement on the distribution of functions among the 11 Departments, the discharge and delivery of services under any one of those Departments can be scrutinised. The review may result in changes to the way in which services are delivered and alterations to the co-ordination and organisation of services.

The introduction of the Executive and the Assembly means that we need to consider the balance with a local government system, the structure and powers of which have remained relatively untouched for 30 years. The review will consider which services should be delivered by regional government, and which should be delivered by local government. It will also consider how many councils are needed and how services should be delivered.

We recognise that many people feel an affinity with their councils and that local councils are seen as responsive to local needs. Against that, there are questions about whether we need 26 councils and how efficient the current system is overall. That highlights the fact that there are balances to be struck between local accountability, public confidence, efficiency and effectiveness.

Of course, there is already much speculation about the outcome of the review. There are fears that councils will be abolished and that towns will lose public-sector jobs. There is, however, no presumption that centralisation, whether structurally or geographically, is better.

We are committed to examining the scope for the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs in the context of an accommodation review that is currently being led by the Department of Finance and Personnel. The objective is to create the best possible system of public administration. We have set out on that with no predetermined outcomes.

With the establishment of the Assembly, much of the democratic deficit under direct rule has gone. Ministers are accountable to the Assembly, and ultimately to constituents, for the services provided. However, there remain issues of accountability for the review to consider. There is long-standing concern at the extent to which financial powers are vested in quangos, with unelected boards supervising a wide range of public services. Those bodies, and the people who served on them, worked hard to deliver a service to the people of Northern Ireland throughout the long years of direct rule. However, we must ask if it is still appropriate to continue the administration of public services through those structures, and if not, how the accountability arrangements should be changed.

Accountability is the first of the headings in the terms of reference under the proposed characteristics of public administration. I have already mentioned efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service. I want to speak about several other important dimensions, although in the time available I will not be able to cover all of them.

Equality and human rights are important issues. We must ensure that not only are finite resources appropriately targeted at those most in need but also that the point of delivery for public services is easily accessible to those who have the greatest need of those services. The location of services must, therefore, continue to meet people’s needs and contribute to their sense of community. In addition to that, an exercise of that magnitude has to take account of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and New TSN policies.

Co-ordination and integration of services will be an important consideration for the review team. Sometimes it can be difficult for people to know whom to turn to, and to know who is responsible for a particular issue. A prime example of that becomes apparent if one considers those people who live in the Cookstown District Council area. They are in the Southern Education and Library Board area, the Northern Health and Social Services Board area, the western area for roads and planning, and the eastern area for water. It would scarcely be surprising if people were confused about who delivers their services. We must examine whether units of administration can be provided at sub-regional level, or one-stop facilities provided locally to assist customers.

Those are some of the issues covered by the draft terms of reference. We are keen to hear from Members whether other issues should be included explicitly.

I wish to address how we envisage the review being conducted. We want everyone to feel that their views will be listened to and taken into account. We envisage that the review team will hold a range of events around Northern Ireland, which can be attended by anyone. In addition to the traditional means of communication, we have already launched a web site dedicated to the review. People will be able to communicate with the review team by using that site.

It is important that everyone can have confidence in the way in which the review will be carried out. There have been calls for it to be completely independent. However, after careful consideration, we have concluded that the Assembly and the Executive must be central to the process. This issue is too important and too complex to leave to an appointed body, with elected Members merely coming in at the end of the process. There would be a huge irony in an unelected body examining the appropriateness of other unelected bodies that had responsibility for the administration of public services.

Given that the review has the potential to shape the future governance of Northern Ireland for years to come, it is essential that there is political input at every stage of the process. For that reason we must lead the review and decide its outcome. That said, we are convinced that there must be a strong independent element throughout the review process. We are in the process of identifying and appointing a small number of high-level independent experts, who are recognised for their expertise in governance and organisational change. The independent experts will have an involvement in all aspects of the review, from quality assuring the terms of reference to participating in setting the strategic direction of the review and offering views, evidence and new ideas to the review team and to Ministers.

The experts will not be shackled. It is hoped that they will work closely with the review team. However, the independent experts will have a direct line to Ministers, if they wish to register an alternative approach or a difference of view. We also intend that the review team will be broadly based. We have initiated a selection process to recruit candidates from local government and the wider public sector as full members of the team who will apply their expertise throughout the review.

The Executive will lead the process, working closely with the independent experts, the core team of public officials, the Assembly and its Committees. That will create a balanced process that offers full accountability of members and the Assembly, and which protects the public interest in the light of the suggestion that the review of the public sector is being carried out by the public sector.

Understandably, the delay in initiating the review was criticised. The Executive rightly waited for greater political stability, for the new arrangements of the Executive and the Assembly to bed down and for relationships with local government to become clear. In addition, an earlier start might have had a negative impact on last year’s council election by discouraging people from standing again or coming forward for election because of uncertainty.

We look forward to the debate. I anticipate that Members will want to range widely, as well as addressing the proposed terms of reference. It is the start of a long process. We will welcome, and give careful consideration to, all the Assembly’s comments, and we look forward to constructive dialogue with Members throughout the review. I commend the draft terms of reference to the Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

First, I will comment on the handling of the review. The Committee of the Centre welcomes the publication of the draft terms of reference. The Assembly has waited for the commencement of the review for a long time. Some Members have expected the review since the former Minister of the Environment announced it at the Ulster Unionist Party conference in the autumn of 2000.

The review will be one of the most significant and far-reaching issues to be considered by the Assembly. If it is to be done properly, it will take time and considerable effort from us all. Several statutory Committees have a role: health, environment, education and agriculture, for example. However, the Assembly needs one Committee to take the lead in scrutinising the review through consultation with the other statutory Committees and by providing input on issues within their remit. That Committee will also monitor progress of the review.

Without a lead Committee, how would the Assembly scrutinise the review? To whom would the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, officials and experts answer on cross-cutting issues and matters that do not fall to a statutory Committee? The Committee of the Centre is best placed to undertake that role. I therefore welcome the Business Committee’s decision of 12 February that the Committee of the Centre should scrutinise the review process, with statutory Committees involved in the issues that are within their remit. The Committee looks forward to working with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) on the review in its early stages and as the review progresses.

I will raise several issues on behalf of the Committee on the draft terms of reference and the accompanying paper that sets out the parameters for the review. On first reading, the terms of reference appear to be detailed and comprehensive. On further examination, however, they raise as many questions as answers.

We do not know the methodology for the review. For example, will matters such as health and education be examined separately, or will the review be split into subject areas such as accountability issues and the delivery of services? Which bodies and organisations will the review cover? How will existing reviews, such as the Hayes and Burns reviews, feed into the review of public administration?

The work could be complex and time-consuming, and we have not been told what will be the structure for tackling it. Who will appoint the review team, and when will that happen? How much consultation will there be with the relevant Committees before the team is appointed? An appointment to the Committee of the Regions in Europe was made without any consultation with the Assembly, as opposed to the approach in Scotland. We hear much about accountability, but there was none in that case. To whom will the review team report, and will there be a project board?

In addition the Assembly should be given the overall timescale of the review, together with timescales and interim targets for the completion of each element. No reference to the estimated overall cost is made in the draft terms of reference and the accompanying papers setting out the review’s parameters — perhaps that is unsurprising. Should the Assembly not be given an indication of that cost? Is there an overall target for savings?

What will be the procedures for equality proofing the review? Will it be done in stages or only once, when the review nears completion? In the letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to the Committee Chairpersons we were told that two levels of independent experts and advice were being sought. The Assembly needs to know the precise functions and costs of those two groups and to whom they will be accountable as the work progresses. How will their work be evaluated?

The review must also address the scope for joined-up government, increased electronic government and one-stop shops, all of which have a role in the delivery of efficient and effective services to the public. According to the papers provided, we must examine what people’s needs will be in five or 10 years’ time. Should such a comprehensive and strategic review not assess the needs of people over the next 20 or 30 years?

As Chairperson of the Committee, I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to tell us when they will return to the Assembly with revised terms of reference, and the target date for the launch of the review.

I wish to raise other matters in my capacity as a Lagan Valley representative. Why does the review not cover the functions that arise from the Belfast Agreement: the Assembly, the North/South bodies, the British- Irish Council, the Civic Forum, and other matters? The First Minister said that it was too early to review those matters. When will the review be complete? I suspect that by that time, it would be appropriate to investigate those matters.

The First Minister mentioned the numbers of public representatives and appointees to quangos. In Northern Ireland there is one quango appointee for every 800 people and one public representative for every 2000 people. Democratic representation costs each Northern Ireland constituency some £1 million. That includes the cost of MPs, MLAs, local councillors, their offices and their administrative back-up staff. How is it possible to have a review that takes powers from Departments — without examining them — and gives more power to the councils? The 11 Departments were set up on 18 December 1998. It could be argued that the issue has been "over-equalitised", however I was unable to check the existence of that word with David Ervine. In my part of the world the appropriate expression is "over-egging the pudding". Fifty per cent of the Ministers were to represent Nationalists, and 50% were to represent Unionists. I suspect that there will be an election before the review is complete.

I would be surprised if the Unionist/Nationalist mix of Ministers in the 11 Departments were fifty-fifty after that, and perhaps now is the time to consider that issue in a more focused way, rather than in a way that would ensure an equal number of Nationalists and Unionists in the Northern Ireland Executive.

Since the Belfast Agreement was signed in 1998, £80 million has been taken from the public purse in Northern Ireland to cover additional administration costs. We cannot ignore that. It was supposed to have been dealt with at an early stage, and promises were made about quangos during the run-up to the Assembly elections.

Approximately £20 million is being spent on the North/South bodies. How can we have a review of public administration without including everything that was established under the terms of the Belfast Agreement? The review is not comprehensive; it is not all- embracing; it will not wholeheartedly deal with the issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland. We cannot have a proper review of public administration unless we encompass all issues.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I welcome and support the terms of reference as they are. It is good to have a debate on them, and it will be beneficial to have the review up and running as soon as possible.

The Department for Employment and Learning has a relatively unique experience in this regard. Recently, it subsumed one of the bodies under its control, the Training and Employment Agency, which was a Next Steps agency. Other Departments may learn how to reduce the number of semi-free-standing bodies related to their administration from such experience. Admittedly, it is not yet clear how far that change has increased the effectiveness of service delivery or cost efficiency.

Invest Northern Ireland, an agency of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, also merits a mention. Its creation resulted in the grouping of several similar agencies, which reduced the total number of that Department’s agencies.

The Department for Employment and Learning is responsible for training. The Committee for Employment and Learning wonders whether there is a training issue relating to the membership of the 100-plus quangos, boards, agencies and partnerships, which, as the First Minister rightly said, have more than 2,000 persons on their oversight and management boards. The Committee is concerned that, in future, those people should receive better training and come with a guarantee that they are equipped to fulfil their remit and tasks.

Most notably, that concern relates to financial oversight responsibility. For example, the boards of governors of several further education colleges have run into severe financial difficulties in recent years. However, the Committee suspects that that is indicative of a more general problem in so-called "quangoland" in which administrative boards do not have sufficient financial management or accountancy expertise to check that public money is being adequately and properly used. The Committee suggests that consideration of the selection criteria for the boards of future administrative bodies and better training for the persons who volunteer to sit on such bodies be added to the terms of reference.

The rest of my remarks are made as an MLA rather than as Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. Mr Poots raised the number of Departments and their functions, and I am sure that others will also do so. I do not deny what Mr Poots said about the increase in departmental running costs. However, it should be put on record that, on the benefit side of the ledger, we have gained from having 11 Departments as opposed to six. They have enabled us to focus more on certain issues.

The remit of the new Department for Employment and Learning used to be subsumed in the large empire of the Department of Education, and for many reasons that was arguably not good. For example, the needs of further education colleges were ignored compared to those of schools.

The creation of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was good because of the added emphasis that was placed on rural development. In the long run, that Department must deal with much more than simply maintaining the farming industry. We must diversify into alternative rural-based economic and other activities.

The old Department of the Environment was similar to the gigantic eastern European public administrative bodies. It was simply too big, and its remit too wide- ranging, to be economically efficient and administratively effective.

The terms of reference of the review represent a great opportunity. This is possibly the first opportunity to look at these issues in depth since the McCrory Report of about three decades ago. It gives us a chance to look, as he did in the early 1970s, at the efficiency of public administration and at the appropriate level of desirable accountability to the electorate and those who use public services.

A key point is that form should follow function. The challenge for the review and the independent experts who will be advising it will be to identify what can most fittingly be added to the functions of, for example, the district councils. Once that is done, the second step will be to decide the appropriate size of those councils, given the economies of scale that will relate to the functions that they may have in the future.

I support the motion.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the consultation paper and the involvement of the Assembly and its Committees during the consultation period. As we progress with the review, we will need one of the Assembly Committees to manage it on our behalf. It should not necessarily be the Committee of the Centre, which already deals with the business of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Perhaps we should consider which other Committees could steer the progress of the review.

We must also take account of independent views. Reviews of public administration have been carried out in other European countries. We should draw on that work, identify best practice elsewhere and consider reflecting that in our review.

The local government units are an important part of the review, and as a member of such a unit — and the only local government unit that has a county boundary that coincides with the unit boundary — I think that we should examine closely how the units that we arrive at identify with local communities. It has worked well in Fermanagh, and, despite local government controversies from time to time, members have often managed to overcome any difficulties and work well together for the greater good of that area. We should give careful consideration to that.

Several characteristics have been identified in the document, and I will mention some that I consider important. First, no characteristic is more important than equality. The governing factor in the delivery of public services must be equal access to them for all. The review should result in structures and mechanisms being developed that can deliver those services fairly and equitably.

Secondly, accountability is important, and it is mentioned in the document. There is a widely held view that many decisions taken on the delivery of services are taken by people who are not democratically accountable or even close to the communities that are most affected by those decisions. It is imperative, therefore, that democratically elected and accountable representatives play a full role in making decisions on the delivery of services that affect the lives of so many.

Partnership is a third important characteristic that is referred to in the document, but it does not have a heading of its own. Many non-elected individuals have specialist expertise, and they can, and do, make an important contribution to the decision-making process. They must be allowed to continue to make that input in a way that complements, and does not exclude, the role of elected representatives.

Fourthly, there is the issue of transparency. Last week, I heard that one quango, on which there are no elected representatives, was denying elected representatives access to the minutes of its meetings. That is most unsatisfactory. We must have better practices on transparency. Local government is a good example of transparency in the delivery of services. However, that does not mean that local government practices cannot be improved upon.

Finally, I wish to address efficiency. I recognise the good work that is being carried out daily by councils and health and education boards. I am aware of the uncertainties that the ongoing speculation about this review has created among public-sector workers. Such workers must be reassured that public services cannot be delivered without the existing, dedicated staff.

Much of the discussion on the review centres on councils. However, we must remember that councils are currently responsible for 3% of public expenditure, so the debate needs to take place in a wide and a balanced manner. It will enable us to make progress on a balanced examination of how services are currently delivered.

We all know of the complications within Health Service management. Ordinary people do not understand the present confusing arrangements, with the maze of structures from the Department through to the boards and trusts.

I remind Members that this matter was referred to in the Hayes review. It recommended structural changes to coincide with a new arrangement for acute hospital services. Therefore, we have to decide whether some Health Service structures need to be changed as part of the acute hospital services review, which we hope will take place this year, or be addressed as part of this wider and longer public service review. That requires more detailed discussion.

I am not saying that the structures recommended in the Hayes Report have to be implemented, rather that further consideration is necessary. The review must look at which agency, or agencies working collaboratively, can best deliver services to communities. I welcome this opportunity to bring the decision-making process closer to the people and do it through a process governed by equality in both its structure and its delivery.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to make several points, and one of my Colleagues will deal with the terms of reference in more detail later. I was interested to hear Mr Poots making forward projections about the likely breakdown of Nationalist and Unionist representatives and how that will affect the various Departments. Given his long- standing democratic credentials, I would have thought he would have been clamouring for majority rule as opposed to some method to deal with that, as he suggested. Nevertheless, perhaps people move on. It is important to recognise that we need to move on the basis of inclusion and make sure that equality is built into any system of governance that we devise.

I want to put on record my disappointment that it has taken over three years from the announcement of the review to bring us to the point today where we are being asked to take note of the terms of reference, although I welcome that. It gives us something firm to deal with, and I look forward to the work that has to be done. However, it is important to record our disappointment at the long delay. I am not making recriminations; rather I am trying to ensure that the reason for that delay is not carried forward into the work itself.

The First Minister mentioned some reasons for the delay, which were more to do with politics than technicalities. It may be fair to say that political judgements had to be made, but, arguably, if the Assembly and the Executive had got down to this important work three years ago, we might not have had some of the political difficulties that we did have. It is important to note that.

In their report the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister listed the 582 councillors, 26 councils, 108 MLAs, 18 MPs, and three MEPs, not to mention the 150-odd quangos with approximately 2,000 public appointees. Many of those public appointees have carried out some sterling work on behalf of the community over the years. However, many — and Mr Gallagher made a relevant point about this — have been unaccountable for years. In fact, looking at the cost of those quangos, the range of activities those people are involved in and the political who’s who of those bodies, I do not think that many have served us well.

It must be remembered that many of those agencies were set up because of many years of misrule here. Forms of government were either abolished or had their powers removed substantially, so we must bear in mind where we are coming from, given the quagmire throughout public administration. The benchmark must now be the institutions that were established under the Good Friday Agreement. Further work is necessary in order to streamline or improve the functions of government, whether here or elsewhere. However, there are specific terms for the review of the Good Friday Agreement and the institutions contained therein, and people will look forward to that.

I hope that we can continue to improve the way in which we represent the people and the way in which we deliver important services. However, it is also important that there should be further explanations from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for the three years it has taken to reach this point, primarily to ensure that we do not have any further delays in the future.

I welcome the manner in which we hope to deal with this major programme of work. There is no doubt that it will take a long time. It is heartening to hear the First Minister talk about the way in which the Assembly, other representatives and organisations will have a full, proper and open input. However, I hope that we will not have the type of spin that we have had from the recently appointed press officer for the Executive, in which presentation rather than substance is the order of the day. For instance, last week in ‘The Sunday Times’ there was a suggestion that one reason for the three-year delay was that many Members are also councillors and therefore resistant to change. I have not heard of any councillor resisting change for the sake of it. My party will actively pursue change, particularly in local government and in how it is delivered. This is not about whether there are 26 councils — that is a matter for debate — this is about examining the role and functions of those district councils and, more importantly, about ensuring that they will have to discharge their business fairly and equitably.

There have been some improvements in recent years through local government, perhaps because there has been a thaw in certain places with regard to broader politics. However, no one can say that local government operates fairly, and the delay in the review has put further back, probably quite considerably, changes to boundaries, which mean that the current unfair system of government will continue for the next few years. The councils and the boundaries that currently exist do not represent properly the demographic changes in our community. Local government will have to be much fairer.

I recommend that we move forward with the local government review and examine the principles contained in the institutions. Although people criticise them, the potential for abuse is less than in local government, because proportionality, equality, safeguards, checks and balances are built into the system, and that must come across into local government too.

The review of local government and the other reviews should proceed quickly and address proportionality, particularly with regard to local government. That will ensure that the people who are represented, and those who have the privilege of representing them, are treated fairly and equitably.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should address the reviews that are currently under way. There have been several recent attacks on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety about the number of reviews in that Department. Some of them are being held up by the review of public administration.

How will the reviews dovetail to be conducted within a time frame and how can the required outcome fulfil the terms of references? There is the review of local government, quangos and public administration. There is also the review of the rates system, and I fail to see how that can be conducted independently of the review of local government. There is also the review of the Civil Service, the review of government accommodation and the question of public appointments. How will all those reviews dovetail?

It is important that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister give us a wider vision. We must see those reviews dovetailing to a point where we can deliver effective and accountable governance to the people in a reasonable period of time. I look forward to Members’ responses.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the launch of the review of public administration in Northern Ireland. I notice the slippage that has taken place with regard to its launch; it is undoubtedly overdue. I shall be charitable and say that it is better late than never, and I will do so hand on heart as I am a reasonable person.

My main concern about the delay is that this is undoubtedly one area where time has cost money. We know the difficulties that various Departments are under due to lack of finance. I say without fear of contradiction that, due to the delay, hundreds of millions of pounds have been badly spent over the past three years. Again, I am being charitable.

To say that Northern Ireland is overgoverned is something of an understatement. We cannot rehearse the numbers often enough to get the message home. We have three MEPs, 18 MPs, 108 MLAs and either 582 or 586 councillors, and those are just figures at a governmental level for a, lest anyone forget, population of 1·6 million. I should also mention the plethora of health boards, health trusts, education and library boards, planning and roads divisions, Next Steps agencies, and the layer of other bodies that apparently provide useful services to the people of Northern Ireland. Again, I am being charitable. Comparisons will undoubtedly be made with the size of populations in other parts of the United Kingdom and the number of people elected to represent them.

I would like to be able to say that due to all these wonderful layers of bureaucracy, administration and elected representatives the people of Northern Ireland were getting a wonderful deal. However, that would not be a truthful observation. More importantly, those whom we represent and those who send us to the Assembly and other places would not agree with such a sweeping statement. They believe that their money — taxpayers’ money — is being squandered through layer upon layer of bureaucracy and administration.

Members may recall that I have referred to administration in Northern Ireland as somewhat akin to the onion. Those who have any culinary skills will recognise that as one tries to peel away the skins of the onion, it brings tears to one’s eyes. I have no doubt that as the skins of bureaucracy and administration in Northern Ireland are gradually peeled away until we get to the hub, many tears will flow in Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Are those red onions?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

They can be whatever colour of onions the Member likes. I have no doubt that it will cause a degree of pain throughout the administration and bureaucracy here. I am convinced that we must all go through that pain, because we must be to the fore in demonstrating savings and effective use of taxpayers’ money.

For example, there are 26 local authorities in Northern Ireland. Having been involved in local government for quite a number of years, I know a little about it, and on average, 60% to 70% of the rates raised in local government go on administration.

The rates raised at district council level are between about £250 million and £300 million per annum. If one applies the 60% figure to that, one can see the potential saving if, for example, the number of local authorities were reduced. There are hundreds of millions of pounds to be saved, and we must focus on that.

The most difficult question is who should carry out this review. There has been a great deal of talk in the press and media — and it has been mentioned this morning — about spin, the bad name that politicians get and the way in which they conduct their affairs. I emphasise that that is not so much in relation to this House as to other places. When politicians are seen to be examining themselves, and when they consult, the answer that comes back is invariably the answer that the politicians want to end up with, not the answer that the people demand. If we allow the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) or the Committee of the Centre to conduct this review, we will not get the result that the people who sent us here demand and deserve.

Therefore, I think that the terms of reference are slanted in the wrong direction. I appreciate that they will consult with a certain degree of independence, but we are putting the cart before the horse. This review should be carried out by an independent commission appointed by OFMDFM, and it should draw on the various levels of expertise available through elected Members, those who currently serve on quangos, et cetera. I do not have a problem with that. The focus must be on independence or we could stand accused of a hotchpotch job suitable only to politicians. That would be a disservice to the general public.

I said that I was in a charitable mood today, and a little bit of charity towards the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would not go amiss. Another reason for not having OFMDFM carry out this review is that it is overburdened. If it is not — and I stress that I am being charitable — why is there a delay in producing business for the Assembly to be getting on with? Why is there slippage in the various areas in the Programme for Government? I understand that it has hit 20% or 30% of its targets. Obviously there is a problem, and that problem is the amount of business currently flowing through that office. It would be unfair, impracticable and somewhat stupid to add to that, if we want some sort of an out-turn in any reasonable period of time.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I am confused. On the one hand Mr Close has been arguing for less government, but now he is arguing for more legislation and, therefore, more government. Which would he prefer?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I am at a loss to comprehend the import of the question. I understood that the job of an elected body such as this was to legislate. I vividly recall that during the negotiations we clamoured for, and insisted that this should be, a legislative House. Our job is to legislate and bring about the necessary changes that those who send us here demand and need.

My point was that it appears that the amount of legislation generated is being clogged and blocked in OFMDFM, and to add another layer by asking it to conduct this review would be to overburden it. For that reason we must make this review more independent.

I have touched on the financial issues; I do not wish to overburden the House with them. However, another issue is worthy of consideration, and it ties in with Mr Maskey’s comments. Several reviews have begun recently. The review of the rating system is directly relevant to local government and its powers. Therefore, if, within the overall review, we shall be looking at the powers of local government and the number of local authorities, should we not be dovetailing the review of the rating system?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I suggest to the hon Member that the reason for all those reviews is that they are often a method used to justify doing nothing.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

My Colleagues and I pointed out that the initial Programme for Government was littered with reviews, which provided an opportunity to push things further down the pipe. The wheelbarrow approach to pushing things in front of you appears to have been adopted. That may be a little uncharitable. The argument that we are a new Administration that would take time to get to grips with matters was valid two and a half years ago. We have been in existence now for a considerable time. I am reminded of a television advertisement in which a young fellow walks through a field with his grandfather, discussing results. It is all summed up by results and productivity, which are questionable at the moment.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Is it not amazing that although this is a legislative Assembly, there is no legislation before the House? Years have gone by, and there will shortly be another election to the House. What legislation have the Executive presented to the House?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

A dearth of legislation has come before the House. A large question mark hangs over the Executive and their operation. I am not part of the Executive. I do not know what goes on in the Executive. However, it strikes me that they have had opportunities to be more productive. They should let us know what is causing delays. Those who send us here expect and demand more.

I shall return to the theme of the various ongoing reviews. I mentioned the review of local government; there is also a review of office accommodation. How can a firm conclusion be reached on the amount of accommodation that will be required in future, if we do not know how many buildings will be freed up as a result of the reduction in the numbers of quangos, local authorities, Roads Service offices, et cetera? The review that has been launched today must look at the overall situation. We need clear and unambiguous statements and results, not a mishmash. At present, we are seen to be going in several directions simultaneously.

That leads me to the number of Departments. The reason we have 11 Departments, as given in the terms of reference, is that that number was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement. Those Departments were established for all sorts of good reasons. I took part in the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement. I do not have a problem with the number of Departments that were established then. However, if we are going to embark on a review, that issue must be dovetailed with the overall administrative review. A reference to the need for a review of the institutions is included in the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That review was to take place within four years. All sorts of facile arguments have been advanced about when that four years starts, or when it ends. Anyone with half a brain cell would recognise that that review should commence four years from the referendum. That is the only focus date that is clearly identified in the Good Friday Agreement. Four years from the date of the referendum is May 2002. It is February 2002. Can we not dovetail those two matters? Is that beyond the gift, the intelligence and the strength of those who are proposing the terms of reference? I do not think so.

In conclusion, ratepayers and taxpayers seek transparency and accountability in the expenditure of their money. They seek efficiency and effectiveness, and those should be the prime motives and goals of the review, which must be seen to be an independent review of the public sector.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

In such debates, Members often repeat each other’s comments. I welcome the review; it is long overdue. Members have waited for it since the Assembly began, and although we should welcome it, we must be cautious about its outcome. The review is not only about saving money; it is about making improvements. Our aims should be clear. The numbers of quangos and public representatives were mentioned. Those quangos must be removed and replaced by public representatives who were elected to carry out those functions.

There is a reluctance to review Departments, but we need to ensure that they work well and provide the necessary services. For example, it is nonsense that the Department of the Environment should be responsible for road safety while the Department for Regional Development is responsible for traffic calming. We must examine the possibility that we could operate more effectively with fewer Departments. If that is the outcome of the review, we should make the necessary improvements.

We should not regard decisions as the Holy Grail because they are based on the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. We need to make the Government work in the best way possible. If we made a mistake, we should admit that and rectify it. We should not protect a system because we believe that it is provided for in the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement does not state how many Departments there should be. We must make that decision, and this is an opportune time to do so.

We must examine how to provide the best possible services. Alex Maskey mentioned verbal attacks on the Health Minister as reported in the media. She said that this is all about money; it is not. It is about how we provide health — the way in which we provide it is wrong. Many who queue for treatment in accident and emergency units do not need to be there. They could be dealt with by GPs or at health centres. We must focus on ways to free up services, rather than continue in the same way. It is untrue that the only way to deal with the problem is to throw money at it.

The situation in education boards is similar. We need managers, not administrators, in health and education. We must bring the services closer to the people, not further away. We must examine and change those factors. If we do not make changes, we will continue to throw money at the same services. Money is not the question. We must examine the services to find the answers.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On the basis of the old Ulster saying that half a loaf is better than no bread, I offer a cautious welcome to the proposed review. Everyone knows, and it is generally accepted, that the people of Northern Ireland are being slowly crushed — some might say buried — under a great avalanche of bureaucracy.

As many Members have said, it was promised at an early stage that the bureaucracy, which consists of unelected people spending — according to one expert — £5·5 billion, would be removed, or at least severely pruned. Nothing of the kind has happened to date.

One has to look at the source of our problems. In addressing reform of how we are governed, we have to look at whether we are getting value for money and whether this form of administration is fundamentally democratic. The source of our problems is twofold. First, to afford some semblance of a democracy that was not entirely there during the period of direct rule, the NIO invested heavily in an army, culled from the great and the good, on which it could rely as having safe hands — not necessarily safe for the benefit of the community, but politically safe for the benefit of the Northern Ireland Office. The result was that we had an increasing multiplication of quangos and unelected bodies that were administering the place.

When the Assembly was set up, it was faced with two problems. One that I have referred to in the past, but that has not been effectively dealt with in the Chamber, is the black hole of underinvestment in the basic infrastructure of Northern Ireland at the date when we accepted devolution. Economists and financial experts have said that it may be as much as £9 billion.

I raised this point two weeks ago when Dr Farren was speaking on the Budget Estimates. However, he did not deign to respond on that matter as he did not deign to respond to the addresses of Mr Close and myself on quangos. We asked two questions: when would administration be reformed, and what could be done about the missing £9 billion of investment in infrastructure? Dr Farren’s response was to make a snide remark that I was indulging myself in one of my rare visits to the Assembly. That is absolute rubbish. I speak as frequently as anyone else, and more frequently than most, in plenary sessions.

The day after Dr Farren had refused to deal with that matter in the House, there was an announcement from another Department that this great reform of administration was starting. Three days later, in a public address to several businessmen and other financial experts outside the House, Dr Farren said that there was a deficit of £5 billion in infrastructure that would have to be made available in the next three to four years. We should be getting responses in the Chamber to the questions raised here, not having them replied to three or four days later in the press.

The first problem, from which all of these difficulties, including administration, arise, is the failure of those responsible for negotiating the Belfast Agreement to say to the United Kingdom Treasury "You have underinvested here for 30 years, and there is no way that we can make good the absence of capital investment out of the block grant. Therefore, we need an undertaking that, in addition to the block grant, you will begin to pay back some of the money that you saved and pocketed by underinvesting in Northern Ireland over many years." That is the first problem.

The second problem is, of course, connected to that form of government. For 30 years, Northern Ireland was governed through quangos, and we are now burdened with them. We have the twin problems of gross underinvestment and a black hole that cannot be filled out of an annual block grant that is barely sufficient to keep the country ticking over. The necessary money will never be saved unless it is made good by central Government.

Secondly, we are overburdened with the residue of administration arising from the quango system. That problem was apparently recognised at an early date; we have had promises of review after review, but nothing has been done about it until now. My reservation is that the review may be lengthy because, as I think the previous Member said, a review is not action. We need action, not further talk.

What is to be done? The problem of quangos must be addressed swiftly and in a practical way. Mr Close mentioned the absence of — I hesitate to use the cliché — joined-up government. I would prefer co-ordinated government. Mr Close pointed out that a review of accommodation does not go well with a review of the number of people who may be required to fill that accommodation. It simply cannot be done.

The Executive seem to be lacking a strategic grasp of what has to be done. The Departments appear just to function and consider how their own problems can be reviewed, without the review being joined up to see how it will fit into the fabric of an overall strategy for government. The strategic view is simply not there.

In the past, I have also highlighted the number of lobby groups and quangos that exist. There seem to be groups and quangos to deal with everything — including, as I once said, perhaps unhygienically, in the Assembly, nose-picking and bottom-scratching. The only evidence that these people do anything is a very expensive and glossy brochure, generally consisting of columns of expenditure, which no one reads.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Printed by W & G Baird.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Printed by W & G Baird.

Where do we go from here? As Mr Close pointed out, we have a population of 1·6 million. I will not recite all the layers of the onion, though I do feel like weeping when I look at it. Are these layers to be permitted to continue, or will they be endlessly reviewed? The problem must be promptly addressed.

The people in those quangos to be reviewed can say, as was once said 2,000 years ago, "Physician, heal thyself." The quango reviewers are really the biggest quango of all. We have 108 MLAs operating 11 Departments. As a result, in the newspapers and other media yesterday and today there has been talk of the £4 million spent on constituency allowances and travelling. I have no doubt that much of that money has been properly spent. Many Members work hard in their constituencies and offer a constituency service.

However, is it really necessary to have six Members for each constituency, and, where those MLAs represent different parties, to have a multiplicity of constituency offices when the 18 constituencies are already served, or should be served, by the constituency office of the Member of Parliament? It is not a question of how individual Members spend their allowances; it is a fundamental question of whether 108 Members are required.

Similarly, do we need 11 Departments that not only possess an army of formal civil servants but a multiplying hoard of special advisers? How many special advisers do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have, and how much are they being paid? Is it £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year? On what issues do they advise that the experts in the Civil Service cannot? The problem is approaching crisis point for the United Kingdom Government, but it should also be addressed here.

During all the toing and froing that took place at the time of discussions on the number of Executive Departments that we were to have, I was asked to meet Mr David Trimble and Mr Séamus Mallon, who were then the Ministers-in-waiting. I said, "Gentlemen, I have one question to address to you, and, depending on the answer, I will not detain you. Will the number of Departments be determined purely on political considerations, or is it to be determined on the number required to give the best value for money and to provide the most economic and the most effective service?" The answer was that it was political.

As recently as two weeks ago, Dr Maurice Hayes appeared in the BBC radio programme ‘Inside Politics’. He said — and I hope that I paraphrase him correctly — that the number of Departments could no longer be justified and that we must have grown-up or mature Government, because, as has already been pointed out, various functions were cannibalised in order to provide 10 Departments for political reasons. Experienced civil servants were disorientated through being shifted about. For example, planning is within the purview of three separate Departments, as are the prevention of accidents and responsibility for the roads. The Departments are a complete mess.

Before we start to examine the quangos, we must examine the Assembly.

Several Members, including Mr Billy Hutchinson and Mr Seamus Close, said that we must address the issue and cost of overgovernment in the Assembly before we can address the various other local government bodies, et cetera.

Two weeks ago, during the course of debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates, I said — and this figure is off the cuff — that £570 million was being requested as an Estimate for next year. The briefing paper indicated that that sum was usually 45% of the estimated amount of money to run for the whole year. After doing a simple calculation, which may not be precise, it looked as though the total sum for administration for next year was £1·2 billion. I do not know what proportion of the block grant that is, but it seems to me as though it may be in excess of 10%.

When we say that the function of government is serving the people — providing the best value and most effective service, particularly in education, health, the environment, housing, and so on — we have to justify how that huge percentage of the block grant is providing the best service possible.

The electorate looks at the Assembly and sees that administration costs £1·2 billion — and that may not be the whole amount. That is a large proportion of the block grant. Such expenditure might be justified if the public were getting a "Rolls Royce" form of government with effective hospital, education and roads systems, and with money available for the Westlink, for example, in order to stop Dublin taking over entirely and sucking out all of Northern Ireland’s transport that is currently going through the Port of Belfast. There may be no money for that.

If the public were getting a "Rolls Royce" service in those aspects of government, then it could be said that "You get what you pay for — really good government costs money." However, that is not the case. The public is seeing an enormous proportion of the block grant being spent on administration — on various layers of the onion — and possibly the worst hospital waiting lists in Europe, 50% worse than those in the United Kingdom that are the subject of vast public criticism and complaint.

The public sees an education system in which many schools need upgraded facilities, and in which there is no money available for infrastructure and barely enough to cover running costs. The environment, the roads, water and various other services will soon become Third-World standard unless there is further capital investment. The public is not getting what it deserves because of the inertia of the Executive, the absence of a strategic plan and the failure to have co-ordinated work between the excessive number of Departments.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I wish to inform the House of the Committee’s view of the draft terms of reference for the review, as set out in the First Minister’s letter to the Committee dated 12 February 2002. The Committee discussed the review at its meeting on 21 February, and I subsequently wrote to Ministers. The Committee believes, as do many Members, that the review is long overdue. I say that despite the First Minister’s having said to the House today that

"The Executive gave a commitment in the Programme for Government to launch the review by spring 2002, and we are on course to meet that target."

I remind the House that the then Minister of the Environment announced at the Ulster Unionist Party conference in autumn 2000 that there would be a review of public administration and local government. Following that announcement the Committee wrote to the Minister and received a response dated 11 October 2000:

"In the Assembly debate on the Agenda for Government on 3 July 2000 the Deputy First Minister stated that the Executive Committee ‘would set in hand over the coming months a fundamental appraisal of the structures and location of public services’ … It is the Minister’s intention to inform that process, through consultation, thereby ensuring that delay in the important area of local government is kept to a minimum … Executive Committee papers are confidential, but the Minister will consult with the Environment Committee as progress is made."

The then Deputy First Minister made his statement on 3 July 2000, and the Minister of the Environment wrote his letter on 11 October 2000. Both said that the review would happen in the coming months. The letter of October 2000 said that any delay in the important review of local government would be kept to a minimum.

The Ministers are now latching onto the promise that was made by the Executive in their Programme for Government to suggest that the target of initiating the review by spring 2002 has been met. We have sought on numerous occasions to find out where the review of local government has gone. The Minister promised that he would consult the Committee for the Environment as progress was made. I suppose that his difficulty was that no progress was being made, and, therefore, there was no need for consultation. That is why my Committee believes that the review is long overdue.

In a letter received by the Committee on 12 February 2002, the Ministers said that they wished to ensure that the review was initiated in an open and transparent way. I ask for the whole review to be conducted in such a manner. The Ministers’ letter and paper reveal little about the process, approach and structure of the review.

Failing that, my Committee suggests that an options paper addressing a full range of proposals for reform of public administration should be published, followed by detailed draft proposals. There should then be a draft report on actual recommendations based on the selected proposals, followed by a final report. However, we do not want the review to be without targets. Target dates for bringing the final report before the Assembly and acting on it must be set.

As a statutory departmental Committee with scrutiny, policy development and consultative roles in relation to the Department of the Environment, the Committee must be fully consulted at all stages leading to the final report. The Committee particularly wishes to be consulted on the formulation of options, detailed draft proposals and recommendations on the reform of local government, as that is part of the Minister of the Environment’s primary responsibilities.

My Committee submitted some specific comments to the Ministers on the detail of the proposed draft terms of reference. These included the need for a reference to review arrangements for policy formulation and bringing forward legislation and the need to reflect the key policy theme of promoting sustainable living, as set out in the Programme for Government. The Committee also suggested that the review team should ensure that environmental policy impacts are considered for all key public policies to achieve effective protection of the environment, prudent use of natural resources and high and sustainable levels of economic growth.

I urge the Ministers to come forward with proposals for the review that give clarity on the approach, structure, timetable and consultative arrangements. Written answers, for example, reporting a non-defined first stage of 12 to 18 months, are not good enough. Members have waited long enough for this important review and deserve full and proper proposals, swiftly followed by action, with regular progress reported to the House.

Page 5 of the First Minister’s statement reads:

"Given that this review has the potential to shape the future governance of Northern Ireland for years to come, it is essential that there is a political input at every stage of the process. For that reason we need to lead the Review and decide its outcome."

Who are the "we"? Later, it states:

"Throughout, the Executive will lead the process, working closely with the independent experts, the core team of public sector officials, the Assembly and its Committees."

Committees should be encouraged that they got the end of the tail — "its Committees". On behalf of my Committee I make it clear that we will not be put to the end of anything but will carry out our full statutory role of scrutiny of any issues under the remit of the Department of the Environment, including local district councils.

I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; who will appoint those persons? Taking off my Chairperson’s hat, I will take careful note of who is chosen and whether the First Minister and Deputy First Minister make these appointments. On many occasions, whether in appointment to a review or any other body, the Democratic Unionist Party had no representation whatsoever. The first criterion set down by the First Minister was accountability. Openness and transparency must be the very centre of the whole process so that everyone can see it from beginning to end. We will watch the next part of the process with great care.

In his opening remarks, the First Minister stated that it is not time to look into the review of the House and its workings. I cannot accept his reason for that. Many people believe that it is not too early to look into the distribution of functions among the 11 Departments and, consequently, the workings of the House. Strong opinion was expressed in the debate on the matter. In the light of that, what action by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will take account of the views of Assembly Members — or do they feel that they are above the opinion of the Assembly?

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the review. However, as a caveat, I hope that it is more than a review. I hope that it will lead to action. It seems to me, and to many other Members, that for a long time we have seen reviews, consultations and discussions — but nothing has been done. Nothing ever changes. The people on the street do not see that anything gets better or that what we do in the House is worthwhile.

It is essential that we implement a review that will lead to real action and change, which will show the electorate that the Assembly benefits them.

Some DUP Members’ comments are interesting. Recently, Peter Robinson commented forcibly on the number of Departments and the over-administration in Government. Those comments were amusing, given that they came from the member of a party that, according to an article by Mr Alex Kane in the ‘News Letter’ at the weekend, has claimed £20 million during the lifetime of the Assembly — some anti-agreement party.

Peter Robinson, his wife and both their sons work for this place. According to Mr Kane’s article, that adds up to a Swiss bank family Robinson fortune of £181,000 a year — so much for bringing down the Belfast Agreement — that was a sideswipe.

It is essential that in Northern Ireland we look seriously — [Interruption].

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

You are pathetic.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

Interestingly, Mr McCrea’s son hopes to join us next year as a Mid Ulster representative. In local newspaper reports Mr McCrea seems uncertain of whether he represents Mid Ulster or South Antrim.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Don’t be so cheap.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

Members agree that Northern Ireland is over-represented. Too many arms of Government overlap and often duplicate their functions. Do we need four health boards? I have yet to be convinced of what essential functions the health boards carry out that could not be fulfilled by the Department. Why do we have them? The Minister intends to introduce another layer of administration between the health boards and the hospital trusts. It seems that rather than reduce the overall amount of government, we are increasing it.

We have 18 Members of Parliament. What is the cost of those MPs? There are 108 Assembly Members, who are supposed to deal with devolved matters. Meanwhile, the 18 MPs are trying to deal with the same matters. How much does it cost Departments to liaise with MPs on devolved issues that are the subject of discussion by elected Members in this House?

Do we need 26 district councils? Before we decide how many Government bodies we need, we must ask some hard questions about the number of existing Government bodies and what we are trying to do with them. Rather than assume that the number of local government bodies should be decided according to the number of counties, we must consider what they are trying to provide. When we have determined that, we can consider how many we need. Given the size of this House and all the other administration, it will be hard to persuade anyone that we need 26 district councils. It is interesting that several Members, who are members of district councils and claim financial reward for that, have not declared that interest today.

Mr McCartney’s points were interesting. It was pleasing that, for once, he did not give us an exposition on why the Belfast Agreement is the root of all evil in society. Instead, he focused on the key issues. He said that the structures that existed before the creation of the Assembly, the institutions and the Executive were introduced by the Government to deal with a shortfall in representation. However, we have inherited those structures and, having created new institutions and an Executive here, we do not need to retain them.

The review should consider whether the structures should be retained or what could be put in their place. We should not simply shuffle the pack. We should not be satisfied at the end of the review to draw neat charts that show to whom each body reports without any great change to the overall cost of administration.

It is essential that the review streamlines public administration and makes it more efficient. In addition, unfortunately, it will probably reduce the number of people that work in the public sector. If it is deemed that certain education and other boards are not necessary, people who work for them will not have a position in the future. That is a hard choice, but it is one that the House must make. We cannot have a review of public administration that simply results in four health board chief executives being reshuffled into senior positions on equivalent salaries in other places, which is often exactly what happens after a review of government administration. The staff will tell you themselves that they are not afraid of reorganisation because they know that they will be put into another job on the same salary.

In carrying out such a review and making changes, it is important that we deliver to the people who put us here some genuine change in the administration and in the delivery of services. We must get rid of some of the health boards and expensive bodies and spend the money on new schools, hospitals and other things that people want the public administration to provide instead of an ever- expanding number of managers, administrators and MLAs.

It is essential that this House is part of the review as well. It is not good enough to be fully prepared to throw stones all around us without taking a good look at our glasshouse first. We must demonstrate to the people that we are prepared to make hard choices about our futures and positions and the perks and privileges that come with this place. We must show that, if necessary, we are prepared to make changes to the Assembly to streamline Government service. It should not be the case that everything else is changed while the Assembly, its 108 Members and all the Departments remain in a protected bubble. The House must consider the possibility of reducing the number of Members. I see no reason for such discussions not being included in the review. I say to the First and the Deputy First Ministers that the House should be included in the review. Members who have spoken so far have given a clear impression that that should happen.

The Belfast Agreement did not dictate the number of Departments. It provided for a maximum of 10 Departments. That does not mean that there have to be 10 Departments. Of course, Parkinson’s law applies to politics as well, and inevitably we expanded to fill the available space, but we do not have to keep 10 Departments. It may be that we have the best structure and that, following other streamlining measures, we retain 10 Departments. However, let us consider whether that is the case as part of the review. We should not fall into the trap of accepting that number of Departments and addressing only the structures beneath them. We should look at the Departments as part of an all-encompassing review of administration, and it would not be right for the House to be protected from that. It may mean that some Members will have to make some tough decisions about themselves. It will be interesting to note how the 60% of Members who also serve on district councils will feel about voting their district councils out of existence.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

We are not going to vote them out of existence.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

That is interesting. I hope that if, as common sense will inevitably dictate, councils such as Castlereagh Borough Council are reduced and an expanded Belfast City Council introduced, the £14,000 that the family Robinson take out of the former will be gladly given up and that it will be happy to see that administration improved.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Member will not be representing anybody after the election.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

It is obvious that I have hit a nerve.

No date has been set for the completion of the review. The First and the Deputy First Ministers should seriously consider setting a target date. We should not allow this to be one of those reviews that drags on only to be followed by a further review and a consultation on that review, because, before we know it, we will have completed yet another Assembly term. We should ensure that the review is conducted in a relatively short time, so that we are in a position to take some action either at the end of this Assembly’s lifetime or at the beginning of the next. I sincerely hope that I see that happen, whether I witness it from the Gallery or the Chamber.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The SDLP welcomes the opportunity to comment on the terms of reference for the review. The outcome will have a lasting impact on the efficiency, accountability and overall shape of public service delivery in Northern Ireland. The subject of delay has already been mentioned — that delay might not have been so lengthy if all those responsible for implementing the agreement had done so when they were supposed to.

For many years the SDLP has expressed concern about the shape of government in the North with reference to structures and accountability generally and the operation of quangos in particular. I trust that we will take this opportunity to address those and other long-standing concerns about the inequality of service provision and the proportion of funds spent on administration rather than directly on services. In addition, this review must be linked closely with the review of local government accommodation, which has already been referred to, and examined with a view to decentralising public-sector employment opportunities.

Several major principles always spring to mind when addressing this issue. Among those that the SDLP considers to be at the heart of this work are the best possible delivery of services, equality of provision, appropriate structures and responsiveness. In other words, the SDLP would like to see the development of high-quality public services, a means of supporting economic and social development. That commitment goes beyond the philosophical conviction that every citizen is entitled to a warm home, a good education and high-quality healthcare. It is also based on the practical recognition that resources deployed for public services play a vital role in generating economic stability and success, and, if properly managed they can be seen as an investment.

We are all concerned about funding and health, and there have been some suggestions about cutting other Departments’ budgets to support health. However, the contributions of many Departments to health education combine to produce a better outcome — for example, in health and safety on our roads. The public service overall must be designed to work as a cohesive network rather than pull in different directions. Mechanisms for co- operation should be explored so that services are integrated and coherent. As many aspects of services are delivered by different bodies, the respective roles must be set out clearly — it should not be up to a citizen to arrange multiple meetings to clarify the extent of responsibility on each side. As representatives, I am sure that many Members have often experienced that sort of situation, which often results in a paper chase. They must also be flexible and adaptable, taking account of changing public needs.

Equality of service provision is a second principle in keeping with the TSN principles. Recent decades have seen many inequalities addressed, but the underlying structures that facilitate inequality of access to public services have not been tackled. It costs more to service, for example, rural areas, and some district councils are badly stretched because of that. The cost of service provision for the whole of the North is greater than that for similar areas with a less dispersed population spread, and that must be openly addressed and dealt with. The new obligations of Government require significant attention to be paid to the equality duty under section 75, human rights developments and targeting social need commitments.

A further principle is democratic accountability. Public expenditure levels are an interesting indication, and it is remarkable that less than 5% of our public budget is spent by elected representatives on councils, while some 65% is currently spent by those appointed to unelected bodies. That comparison always startles and concerns me. Although we all recognise — as has been outlined already — that it is partly the result of the particular difficulties that the region has endured over recent decades, it has, nevertheless, raised anxiety about the level of public accountability for the delivery of public services. That is not to detract from the good work done by many people in such roles, but, like justice, public accountability must be seen.

A fourth principle, which has also been referred to by others, is value for money. Whether the resources are scarce or plentiful, there is an onus on the Government to spend public money as efficiently as possible. Again, that is of particular significance, given the North’s low population density and the relative scarcity of resources in comparison to the level of investment required to regenerate our economy and rebuild our public services. Questions arise about the level of duplication under current arrangements, inefficiencies resulting from inadequate co-operation or inappropriate structures and the cost of administration itself.

Take, for example, the simple, mundane matter of grass-cutting. In deference to the Member who has just spoken, I should declare an interest, as I am still a councillor. Those Members who have experience of working at local government level with other bodies and boards will know that grass-cutting is carried out by councils, education and library boards, health trusts and the Roads Service. Some of those bodies do it by contract, others by direct provision. Surely that is an awful waste. If this were packaged together, it could be delivered more effectively. There are quite a few other similar matters, such as building maintenance, that could be looked at in the administration review under value for money.

A further principle has to do with decisions being taken as close as possible to the people. Our party has always been strongly committed to local government, and we wholeheartedly endorse the principle of subsidiarity. Decisions should be taken as close to people as possible in a context of effectiveness and efficiency. We are the party of co-operation, and the SDLP is a long-standing advocate of European union. That is consistent with an approach based on co-operation and collectivity where appropriate, while acknowledging the wide variety of issues and services that are best dealt with at local level.

The final principle is that of cross-community concerns. The partnership principles at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement must be delivered upon at all levels in the public sector. The context that created a need for protections in this House also created a need for mechanisms to ensure confidence in decision- making at other levels. While the key principles and issues that I have identified should be pivotal to the operation of the review, the SDLP would also like to see specific attention being paid to sectoral issues in the various areas of public administration — education, health, et cetera. It might be useful to have an appendix to the terms of reference that listed the sectoral areas to be subject to examination. We could then see the issues in a sectoral fashion and see how best to cover them. That is a lengthy list, but it might be useful and important.

We congratulate OFMDFM on its decision that the Assembly and the Executive should be central to the process. Some were concerned about the meaning of "we" — it is the Assembly and the Executive, with a strong, independent element, to guide us throughout. That is an innovative approach to an elaborate process, which will include what is inevitably important: political input based on good, sound, independent advice, help, support and direction.

We welcome the launch of the review and want to see incorporated some of the points that my Colleagues and I have made.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Peter Robinson was named by a Member earlier in the debate and has requested the right to respond to the comments that were made about him.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful for the courtesy that you have shown me, Mr Speaker, in allowing me to respond to Mr Dalton’s remarks.

In any democratic institution there are conventions and procedures that require a Member, if he intends to make a personal attack on another Member, to inform that person beforehand, so that he or she can be present. That convention was not extended to me, so I respond now, having heard about Mr Dalton’s comments from others.

I met with advisers this morning, with a view to taking legal action against the Belfast ‘News Letter’ and Mr Kane, who wrote last Saturday’s article, because it contained many inaccuracies and clear defamation. With regard to my opposition to the Belfast Agreement, every decision that I take in my political life is based on the principles that I stand for, and there will never be any reflection on those principles from any remuneration that may result from a decision.

The article and Mr Dalton’s comments are inaccurate because I get no pecuniary benefits from the Assembly. It is well known publicly — at least to those who want to listen — that my ministerial salary goes to my party. Those who are aware of my position in East Belfast know that the one third of my Assembly salary to which I am entitled is used to provide a first-class service in my constituency. Although Members of Mr Dalton’s party have no full-time advice centre in East Belfast, the DUP has two advice centres there, thanks to the remuneration that does not go into my pocket, but which funds the work in East Belfast. The article in the Belfast ‘News Letter’, to which Mr Dalton referred, suggested that my family received around £181,000 — absolute nonsense. The Assembly does not pay my two sons, so his argument falls yet again. I get no benefit from the Assembly, so I would like to see how they can make up that figure.

It is worth pointing out that the person who is best paid in the Assembly is the Member’s mentor, the First Minister, Mr Trimble. Not only does he get, and keep, more money than any other Minister in Northern Ireland, even when he gets peace prize money, he keeps it, while John Hume hands his money over to support good causes. Therefore, it ill becomes the Member—

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is in order for me to point out that the Member did refer earlier to how Members should deal with other Members. I simply draw that to his attention without further comment.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If I get to a personal attack on Mr Trimble, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that he will know it.

Reference was also made to Castlereagh Borough Council. No area in Northern Ireland has benefited more from the policies that have been pursued by my colleagues there and me. The net value to Castlereagh Borough Council can be seen in its rates bills every year. No cheap and nasty politics from Mr Dalton will dent the council’s continued faith in the policies that I have pursued in that area.

In the short time that I have used up, I have attempted to show that the remarks made in the ‘News Letter’, and repeated in the House today, are a total fabrication. They are the work of the dirty tricks department at Glengall Street, and they will be judged as such by the general public. Even at this stage, I am willing to give way if the Member wants to stand over any of the comments that he has made, but I see that he is making no move to do so. That simply shows the utter discredit of any remarks that he has made.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I call Mr Francie Molloy. Mr Molloy will have to bear with an interruption for Question Time, but there is no reason for his not continuing afterwards, if he needs the time.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I wish to make my contribution in two parts. First, I will speak as the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and afterwards as a private Member.

On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the opportunity to debate the review of public administration. The Committee is glad that the review is being initiated as outlined in the Programme for Government, and it is supportive of the need to consider all aspects of the public service to ensure that services are delivered in the most effective, efficient and economical way. The Committee also endorses the approach taken to ensure that the views of MLAs, Committees and other interested bodies are sought before the terms of reference are confirmed. However, we do need to move on.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

In any review of this magnitude, the terms of reference are important to ensure that the exercise considers the wide remit and is not restricted in the options for reform that will be considered in the future. A fine balance must, therefore, be struck between being too specific or too general in the terms of reference.

On a general point, the scope of the review as it currently reads is extensive and will generate a large amount of work, which is likely to be contentious in many parts. A clear plan is needed to manage and deliver the programme of activity involved. The Committee is concerned to ensure that representatives from the Departments and the Committees are involved in all stages of the process.

The Committee believes that the review of public administration should commence, but it is also aware that the accommodation review and many other reviews are ongoing. Members are keen to see the accommodation review being moved forward, but it should not prejudice or prejudge the outcome of the review of public administration. The Department of Finance and Personnel is responsible for several Next Steps agencies, some of which are undergoing reviews and examining options for their future status. The Committee would like some consideration to be given to immediate and short-term activity on the agencies’ status, which might be connected directly to the review of public administration.

The terms of reference show that this could be costly. The Committee believes that the costs of the exercise and any implementation plans should be made known to the Assembly, and the Assembly should be able to respond to them.

I want to distance my next comments from my position as Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. Speaking as a Member for Mid Ulster and west of the Bann, I want to restate the need for an urgent review and rebalancing of the services of local government, Government jobs, economic development and structures across the different levels of administration. There is a need to see this review in terms of the Hayes review, the Burns review, the review of Civil Service jobs and the reallocation of jobs. To achieve greater democracy and accountability, we must ensure that power is located in local government. If that is going to happen, and if we are going to see more powers —

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Mr Molloy, I regret having to stop you in midstream. You will have the opportunity to speak again later.

Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Question 8 has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment how much of the funding promised to Fujitsu, in letters of offer in 1994 and 1996, totalling £1·7 million and £2·9 million for its Springvale site project, was taken up by the company.

(AQO 902/01)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

As Fujitsu and Trivirex are currently negotiating a takeover of the Springvale factory, it would be prejudicial to future employment prospects on the site if I were to make public the amounts of grants paid. Those matters are commercially sensitive at this time.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I appreciate the sensitivities. Given that response from the Minister, he may not be able to answer my supplementary question either. Is there any need for clawback on any moneys that have been awarded or offered to the company?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

That is an understandable question. However, the commercial arrangements between the companies are still being negotiated, and those aspects are sensitive. I understand that Fujitsu could agree to continue to place levels of manufacturing with the Springvale facility to ensure its continued operation, so that there would be no redundancies until the new owners can progressively transfer in their own work.

There are a variety of possible combinations of events, and we are conscious of clawback issues arising in those situations. The question of what assets remain — plant, machinery, and so on — is still under determination. Due diligence is under way, and it will be a few weeks yet before we know the final outcome.

Despite my regret at the Fujitsu decision, the outcome may not be negative for the Springvale site. I regret that I am unable to give the Member a fuller response at this stage, and I hope he understands the sensitivities of ongoing negotiations.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what steps have been taken to promote Northern Ireland as an investment location in Europe.

(AQO 898/01)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

In January 2001, Mr David Trimble, Mr Séamus Mallon and myself launched IDB’s European marketing campaign at events in Paris, Düsseldorf and Berlin. The objective was to raise the profile of Northern Ireland as an attractive location for investment. Despite the global economic downturn, IDB continues to build on contacts made then and has appointed a new sales representative in Brussels.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I was aware of the launch; that is why I asked the question. What opportunities have been developed for local companies to create linkages with other similar businesses in Europe to improve efficiency, development and marketing opportunities?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

In addition to our office in Düsseldorf, we have a representative based in Brussels who looks after the Low Countries and also has a role in France. We have an office in the British Embassy in Paris that we can use from time to time to promote events. The European market is crucial, and inward investors to Northern Ireland are frequently attracted on the basis that we are part of the European Union, with access to that huge market.

There are opportunities. However, while we have had some successes in software in the last year or so in Germany, the currency issue is a difficulty.

We do not have to give up because the current climate is negative. We must put in the groundwork to ensure that we continue to get a flow of inward investment. On a positive note, Trade International, the international trading arm of IDB, continues to lead missions and attend exhibitions in Europe. Those have been successful, well attended and supported by the business community, and we consider Europe to be one of our main areas for economic activity for the future.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail the cost of producing documents for consultation in the past three years, including preparation, printing, distribution and all ancillary costs.

(AQO 882/01)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

As the Member’s question requires a considerable co-ordination exercise across my Department and its agencies, I am not yet in a position to provide the information that he seeks. I shall, therefore, with the Member’s forbearance, provide the information by way of a written answer.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I accept the Minister’s reply. I am pleased that he has given the question the care and consideration that it requires. As he is taking more time and will be replying in writing, will he also give consideration to any cost benefit analysis on the expenditure of the money? Will he also make it clear that the money thus spent is used, in his view, more beneficially than, for example, the expenditure on hip replacements or coronary care?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I understand and have listened carefully to the views of several Members in recent weeks about the costs and time involved in consultation exercises. Some of them are subject to statutory requirement. I share the frustration of some Members. We may have got the balance wrong somewhat, but the Member will be the first to acknowledge that we come from an era in which consultation meant nothing. It was a play-acting exercise, where councillors would be asked what they thought, knowing that the legislation was already written. There was a façade of consultation under direct rule. Therefore, I suppose that there is a natural reaction to that. If the Member has been on planning committees he will know what I mean — they were a joke. However, the fact remains that people are entitled to be consulted on matters that affect them, regardless of the legalities. As citizens, they are entitled to have a view and an input. What remains to be seen is whether we have tipped the balance too much the other way.

I think that we have, but I am sure that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is looking at those matters, and I have no doubt that Members of the House will return to the issue. I apologise to the Member for being unable to give him precise figures, but I could not guarantee their accuracy if I were to give them to him today. I hope that when we have received responses from our different agencies I shall be able to provide him with accurate information.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail his strategy for developing the tourism potential of the Sperrins; and to make a statement.

(AQO 864/01)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Sperrins Tourism Ltd is a partnership of tourism interests that represents all sectors. It plays a co-ordinating role and is committed to maximising the natural resources of the unspoilt environment, including that in the Sperrins. In 2001-02, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board provided the company with funding for marketing activity to promote tourism and production in the area.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that the Sperrins’ potential is as yet unrealised? The area is relatively undiscovered and is a superb area for fishing, walking, cycling and cultural activities. Will the Minister work with Mr McGimpsey and Dr Jim McDaid TD to look at how the cultural heritage of Glencolumbkille in Donegal has been marketed for tourism purposes, and reflect that in the Glenelly valley, especially in the western Sperrins, where the Irish language was spoken until the 1950s?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member has raised some matters, which, as he conceded, are not relevant to my Department. However, I am conscious of the Sperrins’ potential. Since 1989, the Sperrins area has received approximately £7 million from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. That amount has come in the form of financial assistance towards capital infrastructure and support for marketing activities. As the Member rightly says, the Sperrins have a fantastic product to offer for angling, walking and cycling. If the Member is suggesting the development of cultural tourism, he will find a receptive ear in my Department. Cultural tourism is developing across Europe, and Northern Ireland with its historical and cultural events is uniquely placed to benefit from that.

I am in regular contact with Dr McDaid. We work closely together with regard to Tourism Ireland and marketing. Cultural tourism has resonance with some of the markets that we wish to attract. I will ensure that officials draw that matter to the attention of my Colleague Mr McGimpsey, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Last year was a disaster for all aspects of tourism, and the forecast for 2002-03 is not much more hopeful. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for public funding to sustain the tourist infrastructure in the Sperrins and to publicise the region much more aggressively?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The truth is that one can never market any region enough. However, local authorities and the regional tourism organisation, which is funded by the Tourist Board, are very proactive. Recently, a new hotel opened in Maghera. That has been a major boost to that area, which was hard hit last year by foot-and-mouth disease. Rural-based and natural-resource- based tourism products such as walking and cycling were banned for months. It has taken a long time to recover, but I am thankful that that plague is behind us. I do not dispute the Member’s main point that much damage was done, that people lost revenue, that that has held back investment and that, as a result, some businesses have been struggling to survive. However, there is strong partnership in the area — Magherafelt District Council was deeply involved. I visited the area and spoke to the people involved, and I did not detect any tailing off of enthusiasm among those who were most directly affected. They know that they have a good product, which, if marketed successfully, will ultimately bring economic regeneration into the area.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment when the accounting officer of his Department will be in a position to publish the most recent audit report on the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

(AQO 885/01)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Department signed off the report on 13 December 2001. Subsequently, the Northern Ireland Audit Office received comments from other parties and, in the light of further revisions to the text, correctly invited the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to reconsider the draft in January and again on 6 February. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board responded finally to the issues on 14 February 2002.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I fully understand the importance of having accurate facts in the Northern Ireland Audit Office reports, but the Minister will understand — [Interruption].

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Order.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

My constituency of East Londonderry has a high dependency on tourism. I have a particular interest in the Tourist Board and how it functions. Will the Minister confirm that whatever action is needed as a result of the Audit Office report, which is published tomorrow, will be taken immediately? Members must have confidence that taxpayers’ money is being properly controlled in the Tourist Board and used efficiently for the promotion of tourism.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member should not assume that I wait for a report before I take action. Many of the issues raised in the report — which are serious, and which I take seriously — were identified by the Tourist Board itself. Many were identified by our own internal audit procedures before the Audit Office became involved. In many cases action was taken some time ago.

However, that does not relieve us of the obligation to be continuously vigilant. To an extent, I am restricted in the response that I can make to the Member. It is appropriate for the hearing to take place first, as I may be called upon to make further statements at that stage, and I believe that those are better made to the House initially, rather than to the media.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Does the Minister view it as somewhat odd, and as a matter of grave concern, that, despite being personally cleared by the Audit Office, the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board continues to be the subject of a political witch-hunt led by leading members of the SDLP?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I have great sympathy for the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. When Mr Bailie was appointed to the post by my Department some years ago, it was well known that he was a supplier of printed materials to the board. If I understand it correctly, the amount of business that he did with the board was greater prior to his appointment as chairman than subsequent to it, and I made that point to the Assembly when the issue first arose last year.

It is also important to note that the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr Dowdall, has accepted that the chairman did not influence contracts, and he also made it clear that he believes that it is important to make the point that W&G Baird Ltd was not the only company to benefit from poor procedures within the Tourist Board. When making his initial comments, Mr Dowdall indicated that he accepted the assurance of my Department that the chairman acted entirely properly in all matters in relation to Northern Ireland Tourist Board procurement decisions. It has, therefore, been a matter of regret to me that the chairman has been singled out and has had to defend himself against allegations that were not true.

Clearly there have been procedural failures, and there is no doubt of that. If any matter is drawn to my attention that requires action to be taken to ensure that taxpayers’ money is properly and adequately spent and accounted for, I will not be slow to take those actions. My Department has been told, from the top down, that I expect this matter to be resolved satisfactorily, so the Member can be assured of that. However, it is important to make the point that the individual concerned, who has been caught in the crossfire, should not be personally pilloried or have his reputation damaged. I am not in possession of any information that would lead me to the conclusion that he was culpable, and the auditor has clearly exonerated him in reports that have been drawn to my attention.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister has stated that the Northern Ireland Audit Office is making an announcement in relation to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Is the Minister aware of a television programme to be screened tonight that will specifically feature the audit report? What input has the Minister had, if any, to that programme?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am aware that a programme will be screened tomorrow night. It has been in preparation for some weeks, and I was invited to appear on it. However, due to the difficulties and restrictions of protocol in the handling of Public Accounts Committee reports, I have been unable to appear on the programme. I have, however, issued a statement, and I understand that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is doing the same. The Member will forgive me if I am not able to respond as fully as I would like, but I have to restrain myself until such times as the Assembly deals with the report. A formal hearing is to take place in May in front of the Public Accounts Committee, and I will have the opportunity, subsequent to that, to make my position clear. However, I believe the facts, as the Member states them, are correct.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

6. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, pursuant to AQW 645/01, to clarify (a) the number of employees needed to constitute a strong design and manufacturing capability; and (b) to give a commitment to retain this workforce.

(AQO 865/01)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

It is a matter for the company to judge what it needs in design and manufacturing capability in order to compete effectively for aircraft projects. I am not in a position to give a commitment that jobs will be retained. I have, however, received assurances that Bombardier is committed to retaining a strong design and engineering capability in Belfast. IDB will ensure that that is taken into account when negotiating packages of selective financial assistance.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister confirm that, as technology improves and business practices become more efficient, the size of the design team employed by Bombardier Shorts in Northern Ireland may decrease, and that future reduction in the numbers of those employed in the design and engineering sector of the company will not necessarily reflect a desire to wind up those interests in Northern Ireland?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am conscious of Mrs Robinson’s interest in the matter. She is not alone; I have had representations from trade unions, other elected representatives and local authorities.

It is clear that technology makes a difference to design. When I visited the headquarters of Bombardier in Montreal before Christmas, I drew the senior management’s attention to my concern that adequate facilities should exist in Belfast to deal with the design and engineering capability. IDB believes, as do I, that having the capacity to tender and design the product within the group is a critical issue to obtaining future work. I know that the trade unions are very concerned. My understanding is that there are no future plans to reduce that capacity in the company, and I can assure the Member that when I meet with management, locally or internationally, the point is emphasised at every opportunity.

I can also assure the Member that in any of its negotiations with regard to future packages, IDB is taking the situation into account. IDB is continuously emphasising to the company that if it became clear to us that any withdrawal or significant reduction in capability were to take place, that would colour its judgement as to any future financial assistance it would be prepared to offer.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

In general terms, does the Minister agree that a full economic recovery will take place only if it is grounded in the knowledge-based economy? In that area, our spend is less than half that of the UK.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

The supplementary must be based on the question in the Order Paper. It is unclear as to how the Member’s question is related to question 6.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The question is related to design and manufacturing R&D spend.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

You may proceed.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

What initiatives does the Minister plan to take to bring R&D spend, whether private or public, up to UK levels?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am aware of the difference between our R&D spend and that of our competitors. The Member will be aware that there is a commitment in the Programme for Government on that subject. My Colleague, the Minister for Employment and Learning, her predecessor and myself have been working hard on the matter. Before Christmas we had meetings with the vice chancellors of the universities. We have had ongoing dialogue with other Government Departments where there is a significant public-sector R&D involvement.

One of our industrial development policies is to identify companies without an R&D capability and to encourage them. We are trying to encourage inward investors, as well as indigenous investors who are reinvesting, to go for an R&D capability. We are skewing our financial assistance in favour of those companies, as there is greater potential for the stability and longevity of an enterprise here if it has a significant R&D commitment.

The Member knows that only too well. I take the issue seriously, and my Department tries to configure its expenditure in that way. The Executive Members are working together at departmental level to ensure that we increase the figures to a reasonable level in compliance with the commitments made in the Programme for Government.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

7. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what financial resources will be invested in the development of tourist facilities; and to make a statement.

(AQO 868/01)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

My Department and its agencies administer several programmes for the development of tourist facilities. Over the next three years approximately £18 million should be available under the tourism development scheme, the EU Peace II programme and the International Fund for Ireland (IFI).

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The Minister referred to £18 million of funding coming from Europe to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, which should be added to the £57 million of European funding that has been allocated to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Can the Minister tell us what criteria will be used to allocate those funds to individual projects? More importantly, will he consider seriously the necessity to revitalise and regenerate many of our tourist centre attractions? I am plugging some of the most sensitive and beautiful areas around Newcastle, Kilkeel and Warrenpoint, which, together with many other areas in the Six Counties, have not had the revitalisation of tourist infrastructure that they need.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I thought that I might receive a question from that direction, so I asked my officials to prepare a note on that topic, and an interesting statistic emerged. A total of just over £109·5 million of financial assistance has been offered to tourist accommodation and amenity projects throughout Northern Ireland in the past 10 years. The South Down constituency has received the second largest proportion of financial assistance, which represents 13·8% of the total grant offered in that 10-year period. The Member must concede that his area is not exactly deprived in that regard. However, I take the wider point seriously. Tourism is receiving some assistance from the European Union, the IFI and our own recourses. To that cocktail of funding we can add the contributions from the local authorities and the tourist industry.

The tourist board and the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee are carrying out reviews, as the Member will be aware, because they recognise that, from time to time, they must decide where the emphasis lies. The Member also said that regeneration is required. One scheme is under way at present to examine guest house provision and accommodation standards. A debate is raging in the Newcastle area about having a major amenity as a gateway to the Mournes. These are all significant measures. However, the Member must agree that the biggest boost we can give to tourism in Northern Ireland is the removal of the sort of scenes that appear constantly on television screens — nationally and internationally — which drive people away.

I have told the House may times that the tourism industry is operating at one third of its potential. That is a crying shame. There is huge potential for jobs and, given that agriculture will be under pressure for the next few years, the rural community and natural-resource-based tourism will be able to take advantage of a wonderful opportunity. That will happen only if the opportunity can be provided.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

9. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail the total jobs lost and total jobs created in the Strabane and Omagh District Council areas over the last three years.

(AQO 879/01)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

It is not currently possible to provide information on redundancies for district council areas. However, over the past three years, 193 redundancies were confirmed to the Department in the Strabane job- centre area and 217 in the Omagh job-centre area. Information on the number of jobs created is not available. However, figures from the NI census of employment can be used to estimate the net change in employee jobs between censuses. Latest figures show that between 1997 and 1999 the number of employee jobs in the Strabane and Omagh district council areas increased by 90 and 786 respectively.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Mr Hussey may ask a supplementary question, but I suspect that he will receive a written answer.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I understand the constraints of time. The Programme for Government shows that growth is constrained by the structure of the economy. It highlights declining sectors such as textiles. The Minister realises the difficulties that exist in west Tyrone, which comprises the two district council areas of Strabane and Omagh. Given those concerns, can the Minister assure the House that the employment figures for west Tyrone will at least reach the Northern Ireland average?

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

The Minister will supply a written response to the question. Time is up for questions to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. There will now be questions to the Minister for Employment and Learning. I wish to advise Members that question 4, in the name of Mrs Nelis, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Employment and Learning

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning whether further education colleges have had their fees remitted as a result of the support package initiated by her Department last year.

(AQO 893/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Tuition fees for full-time students aged 19 and over who are attending vocational courses in colleges of further education were abolished with effect from 1 August 2001. Guidance to colleges about student eligibility and details about the funding available were issued in a departmental circular on 26 July 2001.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister inform the House what the eligibility requirements for the remission of fees are?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Colleges should remit fees for full-time students who are aged 19 or over on 1 July before that academic year and who are undertaking a vocational programme of study at national vocational qualification (NVQ) level three or below and who meet the European residency criteria. Purely academic programmes of study at that level, such as GCSEs and A levels and programmes at level four and above, are excluded.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Given that several further education colleges have severe financial problems and deficits, what is the Department’s view of colleges that may raise fees for various short courses to raise funds to redress deficits?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Department pays colleges a maximum of £840 per annum for each full-time student enrolled after 1 August 2001 who meets the eligibility criteria. That sum is based on the average amount received by each college before the introduction of the fees remission policy.

John Fee (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what capital investment programmes are planned by her Department.

(AQO 888/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

In 2002-03, capital funding of £21 million will be invested in the further education sector. That funding will be targeted primarily at major works, health and safety maintenance, access for disabled students and capital equipment — including funding for information and communications technology equipment and centres of excellence.

Regarding higher education, the Department’s planned capital budget for 2002-03 is £9·4 million. That will be used for various projects, including enhancing infrastructure and facilitating compliance with forthcoming disability legislation. In addition, 2002-03 will see the first tranche of grants under the Science Research Investment Fund programme. That aims specifically at strengthening science research, and grants of £7 million will be available in 2002-04.

John Fee (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

It is very welcome to have the assurance that some £37 million will be spent on the capital investment programme. Can the Minister give more precise details about which schemes will be introduced for funding in the further education sector?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am examining the capital programme for the coming year. The Department for Employment and Learning is making progress with several private finance initiative schemes to provide brand new build accommodation at Omagh College of Further Education and East Tyrone College of Further and Higher Education and a new campus for the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education. There is also a partnership between the Belfast Institute and the University of Ulster to provide brand new accommodation at Springvale in west Belfast.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree that one of the most urgent capital requirements relates to the Henry Garrett Building at Stranmillis University College? Part of the building was recently closed on health and safety grounds. The teachers of the future surely deserve better training facilities.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I agree that there are financial issues with the Henry Garrett Building, which I visited some weeks ago. The Member is probably aware that they are being addressed, and I can give him more details in writing.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

3. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what financial support is in place to address student poverty.

(AQO 890/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Grants are being reintroduced in higher education from September 2002, targeted specifically at students from low-income backgrounds. Households with incomes of less than £15,000 are eligible for grants of up to £1,500. Childcare grants have been in place from 1 September 2001. The level of parental income at which a contribution towards tuition fess becomes due has also been increased. Student loans, which, as the Member knows, are highly subsidised from public funds, are also available.

In further education, fees for full-time students over 19 years of age on vocational courses have been abolished. A system of discretionary grants was introduced in September 2001. Students who experience particular financial difficulties during their studies can also avail of access and hardship funds in further and higher education.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Can the Minister outline any further ideas or steps that she may have in mind to address the problem of fees, given its importance? How much would it cost to abolish fees?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

My officials have calculated that the abolition of fees across higher and further education, both full-time and part-time, could cost up to an additional £35 million per year. The Department must ensure that the money it has reaches the areas where it is needed most. This year, £116 million has been spent on student support. Next year, that figure will rise to £133 million. In addition to that, there is £65 million from Seán Farren’s support scheme.

A considerable amount of money is being spent. The threshold at which student fees are paid has been raised. Currently, over half the students in higher education do not pay fees, one quarter pay 50% of fees and only the remaining quarter pay the full amount. The income threshold for the payment of fees has been raised to £20,000 per household. The threshold at which student grants are available has also been raised.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Do the high levels of student debt deter potential students, especially those from low-income backgrounds, from entering higher and further education? The number of Unionist students from low-income backgrounds entering further education is particularly low. Is that related to a lack of information about grants that may be available?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Recent evidence from Market and Opinion Research International (MORI) suggests that we are better at attracting and retaining students from lower- income backgrounds than is the case across the water. I do not have the figures to hand on the community background of students, but if they are available, I will supply them to the Member.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

5. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to detail (a) the number of personnel currently employed in her Department; and (b) how many of these jobs may be decentralised between January and December 2002.

(AQO 895/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Department for Employment and Learning currently employs 1,512 staff, of whom 602 are employed outside Belfast. There are no plans for further decentralisation. However, the Executive have commissioned Deloitte & Touche to carry out a review of Northern Ireland Civil Service accommodation.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I welcome the moves afoot to examine the problem at least. Why must so many jobs be located in Belfast, and why is it not possible to proceed with decentralisation?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Decentralisation is under review. There are obvious advantages in locating headquarters close to Stormont and in having ready access to senior civil servants. However, it is necessary to examine more closely the possibility of locating our services beyond Belfast. The extra costs and time involved when staff travel from other areas, including car parking and other factors, must be taken on board. My Department has JobCentres throughout Northern Ireland, but there may be the potential to build on that.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

6. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what the main findings of the evaluation of the New Deal published in January 2002 are.

(AQO 894/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The evaluation was generally positive. It found that New Deal worked well with motivated participants and with those who had positive experiences of the labour market. Many instances of good practice were found. The role of the New Deal personal advisor emerged as a significant factor in the successful delivery of the programme. The programme was less effective in dealing with those who face multiple barriers to employment, and my Department is working to rectify that.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I am gratified that the evaluation found that New Deal worked reasonably well. Where is there room for improvement in the delivery of the programme and what measures could the Minister’s Department take to make those improvements?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Although the evaluation was generally positive, it showed that there is room for improvement, particularly when dealing with participants with multiple barriers to employment. My Department is reviewing how best to tailor that provision to meet the needs of those groups. In addition, the evaluation highlighted the need for refresher training for personal advisors, and a comprehensive programme for their training commenced recently.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

7. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning how many applications have been received for further education boards of governors positions.

(AQO 892/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Three hundred and seventeen applications were received.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for that concise answer. Why was it necessary to advertise twice for applications for positions on the boards?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Advertisements were placed in local papers twice to gain the number of applications that were needed for particular colleges. The Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 specifies that governors must be drawn from certain backgrounds. There were insufficient responses to the first advertisement from those with the appropriate backgrounds, particularly from the business sector.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Given that governors are ultimately responsible for overseeing the finances of colleges, how adequate are the financial management skills and training of governors? What is the Minister’s Department doing to address any shortcomings?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

In the last few years, further education colleges took over their management from the education and library boards. Some are managing better than others. That is why the criteria for governors are so important. A board of governors must comprise members with specific backgrounds, particularly from business and other professions, members from the further education college itself and a representative of the student body. The board requires members who have that expertise.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

What steps has the Department taken to ensure that boards of governors are representative of the religious balance of catchment areas?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am sure that the Department deals with that, but I do not have the answer here. I will respond to the Member in writing.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

8. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what strategy the Springvale Outreach Centre will employ to ensure wider access by the community in west Belfast to courses at the proposed Springvale University.

(AQO 901/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I believe in the principles of regeneration, reconciliation and education for local people, which are the principles of the Springvale Outreach Centre. Education for local people is widening access to education. It is for local partners to ensure that the strategy fits with these principles, and I will meet with them to offer all the help and support that I can.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for her reply. I raised the issue with her predecessor, Dr Farren. I know that the Minister cannot commit herself to a date for a meeting today. However, given the need for Springvale to be a centre of excellence for education, the importance of regeneration for that area and the huge amount of public money that goes to it, can the Minister assure the House that, when she meets the area’s social partners, she will seek to provide some of them with resources?

As the local partnerships span west Belfast, the Shankill and north Belfast, it has been difficult to ensure that they are resourced and will benefit the community in the final analysis — an issue that we have raised with the Department.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am aware of some of those problems, and I will do my best to ensure that all the partners are kept informed and on board.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Recent research commissioned by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister illustrated the extent of non-progression to further and higher education, particularly among Protestant working-class males. What will be done in the light of that to ensure that Springvale will actively seek the involvement of that marginalised and volatile sector of our society?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

If Springvale is to be a centre of excellence — and it must be no less than that — it is essential that it is outward looking and involves the wider community, including the Shankill.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

9. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what measures have been put in place to encourage more young people to take up training in the construction industry.

(AQO 899/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Responsibility for encouraging young people to take up training in the construction industry rests with the Construction Industry Training Board (Northern Ireland) (CITB), which is the only remaining statutory training board in Northern Ireland. Its remit is defined under the relevant legislation as the encouragement of adequate training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the industry. The Department facilitates the industry through the work of the careers service and provides funding for trainees and apprentices in the sector through Jobskills, Focus for Work and New Deal.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her response. Does the Department recognise that the number of young people who take up such trades has decreased? Does it recognise that those trades are essential to the future well-being of Northern Ireland? Does the Department intend to develop a programme that will encourage more young people to take up traditional building trades?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Employment levels in the construction industry have grown constantly in the last few years, and the effect of growth in the industry in the South has caused a tight labour market. The Member is right — it is more difficult now to encourage young people to take up these trades. In the last full year, staff from the CITB made a total of 478 school visits. Since 1995, the board has invested £50,000 per annum of its levy in careers promotion. Activities have included job sampling across a wide range of construction skills, careers publications that explain the opportunities on offer and attendance at events such as school open days. I agree that we must do all that we can to encourage young people to learn those skills.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

10. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what financial support exists for students at further education colleges.

(AQO 886/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The main support that is available includes the remission of tuition fees for full-time students, aged 19 years and above, on vocational further education courses; discretionary access bursaries for full-time further and higher education students, aged 19 years and above; and support funds for part-time and full-time students, aged 19 and above, whose access to or participation in further education is inhibited by financial considerations. In addition, higher education students have access to student loans.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I welcome the change in provision for that category of students in the past year or two. What help is available for further education students who suffer financial hardship? Are there any plans to increase such help?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Support funds are earmarked funds for further education colleges to provide financial help to students whose access to or participation in further education is inhibited by financial considerations or to those who, for whatever reason, including physical or other disability, face financial difficulties in meeting their living costs. The available funding has increased significantly in recent years. For example, new money was made available following the abolition of full-time tuition fees to compensate colleges for their subsequent loss of income. The support fund budgets, which assist students who face financial hardship, have increased significantly from £665,000 in 1998-99 to £1·6 million in 2001-02. The residual threshold at which a tuition contribution becomes due for higher education has been raised to £20,000.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

11. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning if Walsh visas remain available to those seeking work-related training in the United States of America.

(AQO 876/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The US legislation will provide visas under the Walsh visa programme until September 2002. My Department continues to promote the programme and to recruit participants. Some 30 young people are currently engaged in pre-departure training. They are due to travel to the United States on 3 March 2002.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

A short time remains for those who wish to take up the programme. Is the Minister satisfied with the progress of the Walsh programme so far?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Following the start-up phase, recruitment, selection, pre-departure training and US hub management have been strengthened significantly. Those measures have ensured that participants are better prepared and better supported to meet the challenge of living and working in the United States. They will also be better prepared for their return to Northern Ireland.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

12. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to detail when the learndirect network will be extended to all district council areas.

(AQO 877/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The University for Industry Ltd has approved the proposals for a learndirect centre in all district council areas, with the exception for now of that of Larne Borough Council. A total of 31 centres, including one in Omagh, are operating already. A further three will be opened in the near future.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I am reflecting on the shock expressed by those to my left.

I appreciate the Minister’s answer. However, she should note the concern at the length of time that it has taken the learndirect network to become fully operational. That is of particular concern in an area such as Strabane. A learndirect centre would greatly assist the rejuvenation of the area. I declare an interest as a member of Strabane District Council.

Is the Minister aware of any reasons for the North West Institute of Higher and Further Education’s not being awarded a learndirect contract in Strabane?

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

The question deviates slightly from the topic of discussion. Does the Minister wish to answer?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I will do my best. The essential feature of learndirect is that its courses and support from tutors are available on the Internet, and the University for Industry encourages its centres to co-operate with community-based partners to provide outreach access points — for example, in workplaces and local community facilities. If that has not yet been done, Omagh could spread that out. However, I honestly do not know why learndirect has not reached Strabane. I will get back to the Member on that.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

13. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to detail the cost of producing documents for consultation over the last three years, including preparation, printing, distribution and all ancillary costs.

(AQO 889/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Every effort is made to minimise printing and distribution costs through the production of consultation documents in-house and, where possible, through the use of e-mail. It is a matter of finding a balance between transparency and openness and not getting caught up in bureaucracy. The Member will be aware that my officials are working to provide details of costs where available, and I will write to him on that.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for the promise of a comprehensive reply, and she is correct, I was already aware of that fact. Can the Minister also take into consideration the cost benefit analysis that was carried out on that expenditure? Does she further agree that the money could perhaps have been better spent on hip replacements, coronary care, day-care surgeries and so on?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

As I have already said, it is a matter of finding a balance between transparency and openness and not getting caught up in bureaucracy.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

15. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to detail the main targets of the task force on employability and the long-term unemployed.

(AQO 896/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The task force targets are set out in its terms of reference. Those targets are: to research the factors affecting people out of work; to engage with others outside the Government; to make recommendations; and to prepare an action plan that integrates action across Departments and agencies. The first two stages have been completed, and we are now engaged in the final two stages — setting short-, medium- and long-term targets.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

How will the Minister measure the success or otherwise of the task force?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

We must set targets to create employment in deprived areas, to improve training and reskilling, to remove the obstacles to work and to give more support when people first enter employment.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

16. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to give her assessment of training levels within the tourism industry; and to make a statement.

(AQO 869/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Executive have recognised the potential contribution of tourism to the Northern Ireland economy. My Department has been working with the industry and, through the Tourism Training Trust, has helped to establish a training strategy for the sector. In addition to young people training for the industry through modern apprenticeships, Jobskills and further and higher education provision, several training initiatives have been put in place. The Northern Ireland skills task force has recently commissioned research to assess the demand and supply of skills for tourism.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Are there specific trainee programmes dealing with the broader spectrum of tourism, particularly tourist activity and the hospitality aspect of tourism? At this stage, does the Minister consider it necessary to undertake a review of training within that industrial sector? Furthermore, having completed that review, can she ensure that funding is made available to modernise the training courses and techniques?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Northern Ireland Skills Task Force has commissioned research on skills and training specifically within the tourism and hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, and I expect to receive the report very soon. For that research to be meaningful, it must involve all aspects of tourism and the hospitality industry. Adequate funding is also essential if the review is to be meaningful.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

17. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning when the "One" service will be operational in Strabane and Omagh; and to make a statement.

(AQO 870/01)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The "One" service, which is a single work-focused gateway to a range of welfare benefits, is currently being piloted in the Dungannon area. The roll-out of the service to other parts of Northern Ireland is subject to a full evaluation of the pilot, which has been extended to March 2003.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a freagra. Has there been any preliminary feedback, or have lessons been learnt, from the Dungannon experience?

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Unfortunately, we are out of time. Perhaps the Minister would write to Mr McElduff with a response.

Social Development

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the total number of rural cottages in Strabane and Omagh district council areas that have yet to be included in the programme for refurbishment or replacement.

(AQO 878/01)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

There are 23 rural cottages in the Strabane District Council area and three cottages in the Omagh District Council area that have yet to be included in the programme for refurbishment or replacement.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

It is refreshing to receive a straight answer, an answer which clearly demonstrates that something must be done about the balance between the two parts of west Tyrone.

The Minister will be aware of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive consultation document, ‘Places for People — A Rural Housing Policy Review’, the overall objective of which relates to the regional development strategy. A recent audit in the places for people review has identified the need for a clearer focus on rural new build. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that he will use his influence to ensure that planners, even though they may be located in another Department, are encouraged to be supportive of rural new build?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

First, I thank the Member for his reference to straight answers. It helps if a precise question is put to which one can give a definite answer, and in turn I compliment him on his question.

Planning issues lie outside my remit. Although the Member makes a relevant and important point, it is not something over which I have any control. With regard to my Department addressing issues such as unfitness in rural areas, the Member will know that there are provisions in the housing Bill, which is due to come before the Assembly, to address some of those issues. I hope that they will go some way to alleviate the issue of unfitness not only in rural cottages but also in rural areas generally.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Who will carry out the refurbishment of rural cottages? Why have housing associations not undertaken this work in the past? How can the Northern Ireland Housing Executive continue to plan, design and complete such work when its new build capacity has been removed? I hope the Minister can be precise.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I certainly will be precise, because the answer is clear, and anyone who knows anything about housing would know the answer. The Housing Executive is involved in the design and planning of all new build programmes, and housing associations may carry out this work. The Housing Executive plays a central role in identifying needs throughout Northern Ireland, and in consultation with communities draws up new build schemes. There is nothing different about rural cottages. To be precise, the replacement cottages are being provided by housing associations. The schemes have been included in the social housing new build programme, and the timing will depend on how speedily the technical problems can be resolved.

Of the 50 cottages in the Omagh area, 18 have been replaced, nine have been improved, 20 have either been sold or tenants have refused the work and three remain to be assessed. In the Strabane area there are 212 cottages, of which 46 have been replaced, 12 have been improved, 22 are in the process of being replaced by housing associations, 20 are in the housing association new build programme, 89 have either been sold or tenants have refused the work and 23 remain to be assessed.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

There is unfitness in the rural housing stock, particularly in West Tyrone, which is a real problem. Can the Minister indicate how he intends to tackle that problem, and can he comment on whether it can be eradicated?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

As I said in answer to the earlier question, the housing Bill will include provisions that will go some way to addressing some of those issues. It will give the Housing Executive the power to use more discretion in relation to the private sector grants scheme, and that provision is aimed specifically at allowing it to target resources to areas such as the western part of the Province, where unfitness levels are highest, and to other rural parts of the Province. Members have frequently drawn my attention to that issue, and we will be addressing it in the housing Bill.

I have already mentioned that a programme of work is under way to tackle unfit cottages in rural areas and to replace them. We are trying to address rural unfitness, and the provisions in the housing Bill will be critical in that regard.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

2. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the number of Housing Executive houses that were built in the Lisburn district in the years 1998-99; 1999-2000; and 2000-01.

(AQO 900/01)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Housing Executive built 19 houses in the Lisburn district in 1998-99, two houses in 1999-2000 and two houses in 2000-01. As the Member will know, housing associations now provide all new build social housing in Northern Ireland, and, in the above periods, they provided 86 houses, 229 houses and 17 houses respectively.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister recognise that the number of house sales is far exceeding the number of new houses that are becoming available at a public level? Consequently, will the Department for Social Development lobby the Department of the Environment in relation to the Belfast metropolitan area plan so that a portion of that land can be designated for public sector housing, given that the public sector obviously cannot compete with private developers in acquiring land, which is quickly running out.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It is a matter for the Planning Service, as the Member knows, to identify areas that are suitable for housing. The Housing Executive engages in discussions with the planning authorities and others about the appropriate housing mix for areas, and that will continue.

I note the Member’s point about the Lisburn area. As far as my Department and the Housing Executive are concerned, we are trying to build sustainable communities, and that entails a mixed housing provision, involving private ownership, social housing and co-ownership. I am convinced that that approach will, in the long run, provide for stable communities. It is for the planners to identify suitable areas, but my Department and the Housing Executive will discuss the appropriate housing mix for Lisburn, and other areas, with them.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline his plans for solving the current housing shortage in Portstewart and Portrush.

(AQO 883/01)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

In Portstewart 40 households are considered to be in housing stress. Acquisition of suitable sites for new social housing continues to be a problem. However, as an interim measure, housing associations have been asked to acquire existing properties to help reduce the waiting list. Four dwellings have already been purchased, and a further four are in the pipeline. In addition, housing associations are actively seeking sites for new housing. If those can be identified and acquired, there is provision in the housing programme to start 10 new dwellings in 2002-03 and a further 10 in 2003-04. My Department has earmarked the funding to undertake this much-needed work.

Thirty-nine households in Portrush are considered to be in housing stress. In 2002-03, Ark Housing Association plans to provide 15 properties for people with mental health problems. In addition, housing associations have been asked to identify sites for 10 dwellings for elderly people in 2003-04.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The Minister will be aware that there are enormous pressures on land in desirable areas such as seaside towns. Does the Minister agree that in these circumstances social housing is a particular problem given the enormous financial power of developers to acquire all available developing land for holiday homes? Does he agree that the time has come for special measures to ensure social housing is ring-fenced for people who cannot afford to buy into the private sector?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

That is a well-made point. That is an issue in particular areas, such as the Portrush/ Portstewart area and other areas that are popular with tourists. It also applies to areas where land prices are expensive. The issue of second homes in the Portrush/Portstewart area adds to the difficulty. The need for new building is acknowledged, and the Member will agree with that. Housing associations are actively looking for suitable sites. Sites are expensive in that area, and that undoubtedly impacts on the ability of housing associations to produce viable projects at reasonable cost, and so on.

I will consider the matter. To some extent, we are at the mercy of market forces. Nevertheless, the issue identified by the Member — and raised by other Members on several occasions — is important, and we in the Department, in conjunction with the Executive and housing associations in particular, will be doing everything in our power to try to address that issue.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

4. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the timescale for the introduction of the housing Bill to the Assembly; and to make a statement.

(AQO 875/01)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Subject to the approval of the Executive Committee, I hope to publish the draft housing Bill for consultation in the near future, with a view to introducing the Bill in the Assembly in June 2002. That timetable will be subject to the outcome of the consultation process.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I am delighted to hear that yet again we have a timetable in the not too distant future for this hairy and old Bill. I hope that the Bill’s gestation improves as we go along. Will the Minister give a preview of the matter and confirm whether the provisions of the proposed Bill will deal in general terms with the future of the Housing Executive as a meaningful Housing Executive? Secondly, will there be a provision in the legislation whereby the disabled facilities grant for children and other such groups would not be means-tested?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Clearly, it is our desire to ensure that the Bill is advanced at the earliest possible opportunity. The matter left the Department for Social Development some time ago. As I said, it is subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. There will then be a period of consultation, and the matter will be brought before the House.

As the Member has indicated, many of these issues have been around for years. I want to debunk the myth that many of the provisions in the housing Bill are landmark, far-reaching proposals. Some of them will make a significant difference to the quality of housing in Northern Ireland, particularly with regard to antisocial measures, grants issues and others. Some of these issues date back as far as 1995-96. It is now time that we made progress and got some of these provisions onto the statute book.

The Member raised the issue of the disabled facilities grant. That is currently under consideration and discussion, and a review is under way. I dealt with it on my last appearance at Question Time. We have not yet concluded our consideration of that matter, but it is something that we are looking at. There would be costs attached to any of the changes that the Member wants, and we would have to look at that and bring it before the Assembly. I will write to the Member about the other matter.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister is right when he says that the housing Bill will contain many provisions that will be of great benefit to people in their everyday lives, including the legislation on antisocial behaviour, et cetera.

Given the delays in bringing the Bill to the House — and he might want to comment on why there have been delays — will the Minister assure us that it will be on the statute book before the end of this Assembly session?