Northern Ireland Assembly, 24 June 2002

116 contributions from 36 members. The official report.

Public Petition: Siting of Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant in Donaghadee

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mrs Eileen Bell has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I beg leave to present to the Assembly a petition, signed by over 1,888 residents of Donaghadee, opposing the siting of the proposed sewage treatment plant in the carpet factory in Donaghadee.

Mrs E Bell moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will forward the petition to the Minister for Regional Development and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development.

Public Petition: Reduction of Funding for Knockloughrim Primary School

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Armstrong has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I beg leave to present to the Assembly a petition signed by all the 72 parents whose children attend Knockloughrim Primary School in Magherafelt, opposing the reduction of funding to that school. The petition shows the serious impact that this reduction will have on staffing, class sizes and the general quality of education in the area. This has particular significance given the backdrop of a rural area already suffering from high levels of social deprivation.

Mr Armstrong moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Education and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Education.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill: First Stage

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 20/01] to provide for the appointment and functions of the Commissioner for Children and Young People for Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Education and Libraries Bill: First Stage

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 21/01] to amend the law relating to education and libraries; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill: First Stage

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 22/01] to make provision for the protection of children and vulnerable adults.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Planning (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Planning (Amendment) Bill (NIA 12/01) be agreed.

I am pleased to present the Bill to the Assembly. It is the first major piece of planning legislation since 1991. Therefore, I wish to make my position clear and to give clear direction on the way forward on these matters.

In March 1999, the Department of the Environment and the pre-devolution Ministers considered what should be done on planning. The Ministers made it clear that they wanted the matter to be left until there was devolution in Northern Ireland. Hence, we are here today.

On devolution, the Planning Service was underfunded, under pressure and underperforming. It was — and still is — the subject of much criticism from the public and from elected representatives. The Planning Service needed more resources, and it also needed a complete overhaul of its policies, processes and powers.

Since becoming Minister, I have viewed that as a matter of utmost importance. I wish to see a speedy and effective planning decision process for those who operate within the law. However, I also wish to see a speedy and effective sanction for those who flout the law. The Department has received resources. Early in 2001 we started to consider the Planning (Amendment) Bill. Since then, the Department has engaged with the Committee for the Environment to discuss the various proposals. The Committee has welcomed, and had already identified, many of the issues that we have taken forward in the Bill. However, it has expressed concern that some issues were not being addressed.

The first such issue was development without planning permission. The Committee expressed concern that there were no provisions in the Bill to make the commencement of development without planning permission unlawful. Since becoming Minister of the Environment and being involved in these issues, I have empathised with the Environment Committee’s wish to see that highly undesirable and unwelcome practice addressed.

My Department commissioned research from Queen’s University into the extent of the problem in other jurisdictions, and initial findings confirm my view that there is considerable merit in creating a new offence, as proposed by the Committee. That could be done by amending the Bill. However, several important issues and procedural matters must be considered before making such an amendment. I want constructive discussion with the Committee, but some questions need to be addressed. What will the new offences be? What fines and penalties should there be? To try to answer those questions, I sent a policy paper to the Committee earlier today.

If we were to create a new offence, the Executive would have to agree any proposed draft amendment. Above all, we would be creating a new offence in Northern Ireland law, and that would require the approval of the Secretary of State because creating a criminal offence in planning is a reserved matter. I have had preliminary discussions with the Secretary of State about this in principle, and I intend to consult him further if firm proposals come through.

The Committee was concerned that the maximum fine in a Magistrate’s Court for breaching planning legislation is an insufficient deterrent to those who flout the law. However, the Bill already provides for a significant increase in the fines that a Magistrate’s Court can impose — from the current maximum of £5,000 to a proposed maximum of £20,000 — which is in line with the position in Great Britain. The Bill also includes provisions to enable a case regarding general enforcement notices to be brought to trial before a Crown Court, where there would be no limit on the level of fine that could be imposed. Those significant measures should be welcomed.

However, I empathise with the Committee’s concerns and intend to consider further the level of fines that a Magistrate’s Court should be able to impose. Again, as a basis for discussion, I sent a detailed policy paper to the Committee on that today, too. After that discussion, I hope we will consider whether an appropriate amendment can be brought forward. As I said, the creation of a new offence must involve the Executive and the Secretary of State.

The Committee also expressed concern, which I must address, that there is no provision in the Bill to introduce third-party appeals. I am less sympathetic to the Committee’s concerns on this — it would not be judicious to proceed at this stage. I accept that the Committee, and many others here, support the introduction of third-party appeals. Many argue that it is a matter of natural justice. A developer or householder who does not get planning approval can appeal — whereas those who object to an approval have no right of appeal. There is, therefore, a matter of natural justice between the two sides.

Much has been said in favour of third-party appeals. Members have argued that the lack of such a provision breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. That is not so, as has been amply shown by several recent Court of Appeal and House of Lords decisions. I am satisfied, on the basis of legal advice, that our planning processes, together with the availability of judicial review, comply with the European Convention, so there is no legal imperative to introduce third-party appeals.

In addition, the introduction of third-party appeals would represent a fundamental change to the planning process. Research carried out by Queen’s University suggests that they would be a new insertion into the legislative framework. That would cause serious difficulties for the planning process, particularly for its operational efficiency, which must be considered. There would probably be increased delays in making decisions; the delays are bad enough now. It would also result in uncertainty for people who wished to invest in Northern Ireland. More recent research by Queen’s has shown that several issues need to be considered, and policy objectives must be absolutely clear. There are many different ways in which third-party appeals could be introduced.

Mr Close said that, through the review of public administration, some authority might be devolved to local government. If decision-making powers and planning are to be devolved to local authorities, the Assembly would have to be concerned about the desirability of that when a third-party appeal would allow a decision go to the Planning Appeals Commission. I ask the Assembly to consider that. The potentially adverse implications of introducing third-party appeals must be carefully considered — not just the benefits that have been referred to often.

As with the other two matters that were raised by the Environment Committee, I want to discuss that with it. I have today sent a third paper to the Committee as the basis for further detailed discussion on third-party appeals. Those three papers show my genuine efforts over several weeks.

A motion is to be moved in the Assembly tomorrow to extend the Committee Stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to 17 October 2002. During that period, I wish to have earnest discussion on those three issues, which the Environment Committee raised as being of particular concern.

No major decision on third-party appeals should be made without exposing the full range of options and consequences to full and detailed public consultation. Therefore, I propose to publish a detailed consultation paper on that important subject as soon as possible. Third-party appeals cannot, and should not, be dealt with in this Bill. Indeed, to attempt to do so might jeopardise the passage of the Bill in its entirety.

I turn to the wider context in which I have been dealing with the Planning (Amendment) Bill and the wider aspects that must be dealt with. I said that resources were needed. Additional resources have been secured — 103 new staff have been recruited and 50 more are to follow. New powers have been proposed in the Bill. It is one thing to have new powers, but to be truly effective, those powers need resources to deliver on the law. Therefore, I will be targeting further resources for enforcement matters.

We are also bringing forward new area plans, updating and revising policy planning statements, and modernising the planning process. The modernisation proposal was published in February, and a statement will be made later in the year. I emphasise that this is the most comprehensive review of planning processes in Northern Ireland since 1973.

I have made a substantial bid through the Executive programme funds to overhaul the IT systems of the Planning Service and move its IT provision into the best practice of the twenty-first century. If that bid is successful, it will move the Planning Service to the cutting edge of IT and produce a quantum leap in the way in which the service operates. Those elements represent a substantial programme of work to improve the operations and functions of the Planning Service, and they must not be forgotten in the context of the Bill.

There are 32 clauses and two schedules in the Bill. Clauses 1 to 14 propose a substantial strengthening of enforcement powers. For example, clause 1 proposes the introduction of a planning contravention notice. Clause 2 provides for a breach of condition notice. Clause 3 deals with the very important matter of injunctions, where the Department will have direct recourse to the courts to prevent breaches of regulations. That will speed up and strengthen the enforcement process. It is also planned to introduce increased fines for non-compliance with enforcement notices, stop notices and hazardous substances controls. Fines will range from £5,000 to £20,000. If the Bill is enacted, it will, for the first time, allow a Crown Court in Northern Ireland to impose an unlimited fine.

In addition to higher fines for contravention of listed building enforcement notices, there is to be a new provision for custodial sentences for those offences where a listed building is tampered with, by demolition or otherwise, of up to six months in the Magistrate’s Court or up to two years in a Crown Court. There will also be new powers of entry for the purposes of investigation of alleged breaches of planning control. The Bill will also allow enforcement notices to be withdrawn or varied.

Clauses 15 to 23 deal with controls over development. By way of example, there will be controls over the demolition of buildings. There will be new powers to decline to determine planning applications.

Moreover, clause 22 introduces a building preservation notice, a matter that has exercised the minds of those in the Chamber over the past weeks: it is commonly referred to as "spot-listing". A building can be spot-listed immediately and a full investigation carried out over the subsequent six months to determine if it is worthy of listing. That important provision will allow the Department to move quickly in circumstances where buildings are at risk and provide a breathing space where necessary. It is the very thing that Members were concerned about several weeks ago, and I said then that such a provision would be included in this Bill.

Clause 23 deals with the protection of trees. There are new enforcement powers to provide greater protection for trees that are subject to preservation orders. For example, there will be a new duty to replace such trees. I remind the Assembly that breaches of the requirements will be subject to the same level of fines as previously mentioned — up to £20,000. Should a case reach a higher court, there may be no limit on the amount of the fine. A new provision has been made to enable the Department to protect trees in conservation areas.

Clauses 24 to 32 of the Bill contain miscellaneous provisions. For example, there are measures to give primacy to development plans in the determination of planning applications. There are provisions for new powers for the Planning Appeals Commission to dismiss appeals in certain circumstances, and for the Department to extend its grant-aiding powers in respect of the built environment.

The provisions of the Bill will significantly improve the legislative framework under which the planning system operates. Importantly, the Bill will enhance the Department’s enforcement powers and will enable enforcement action to be taken more quickly and effectively.

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

I suppose that I speak for most Members in welcoming the Bill. I thank the Minister for the detailed exposition of his intent and purpose, and his "empathies", as he called them, in his presentation of the Bill.

I have a sense of déjà vu about the Bill, in that in 1995 the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee held an inquiry into planning in Northern Ireland and, some two years later, issued a full report. However, it has taken a further five years for some of the report’s recommendations to see the light of day in this Bill. I am reminded of some of the evidence given to that Committee in the House of Commons.

The Minister referred to aspects of the Bill that are important to the ordinary citizen — if it is possible to identify an ordinary citizen nowadays. Although these are not in order of priority, the first was the matter of demolition. The Minister correctly said that recently there have been some "headbanging" examples of demolitions that should not have taken place. I refer not only to the Heaney residence, but to Oxford House, which I read about in the national press last week. That beautiful building and its surrounding mature trees were destroyed in an afternoon.

The Minister rightly spent some time describing the Department’s enhanced powers to prevent the demolition of those structures and buildings that should be retained and, perhaps, rehabilitated for posterity. He touched on the question of preservation of the surrounding environment — not just trees. I am not sure that he was convinced that the Bill gives him, the Department and the planners the ability to step in with the urgency and immediacy that are required.

I presume that, in order to do so, the Department will have to identify those buildings and environmental assets that will require either a prevention order or a preservation order. That will be an enormous task in itself because, very often, once a deed is done, it cannot be undone. Will the Department therefore conduct a survey of properties that should be preserved and attach an early warning signal to them that would enable enforcing orders and preservation orders to be triggered?

The Minister said that he had empathy with that, but things are easier said than done. All Members have experienced the rapidity with which modern machinery can obliterate our heritage before anyone can keep a tab on it.

That brings me automatically to an anomaly in the planning law, which the Bill will address. It is the issue of the legalisation of actions taken before planning permission is granted — assuming that it is granted. There seems to be no justification for the continuation of that anomaly because there is a statutory requirement for six to eight weeks to elapse between the submission of applications and the granting of permission. Therefore the retrospective legality of taking action before planning permission is not a matter that we should continue.

One of the few measures that the Minister did not have empathy with was third-party appeals. It is an important provision, which is missing from the Bill. It is also missing from the consultative document on modernising planning processes. I do not know whether it is contained in the three documents that the Minister said have been issued to the Committee for the Environment today. I hope that those documents will be issued for wider consultation to enable others, who are not members of the Committee and who have an interest in such matters, to make their opinions known to the Department and the Minister before the introduction of the next planning Bill.

The Minister has set his mind against provision for third-party appeal — perhaps those words are too strong, but he has quoted liberally from as yet unpublished research by Queen’s University on the matter. However, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee conducted an in-depth inquiry, and all the political parties and most of the district councils argued for the need for third-party appeals. Therefore it is a major issue that must be addressed, and it should have been addressed as a matter of considerable urgency by the Department. I cannot lay blame at the door of the Minister, who has been in office for only a few months, but I can blame the process. There was a body of opinion — [Interruption].

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Any reform is bound to make a change in the legislative arrangements for planning. Therefore to suggest that third-party appeals would make some change in the legislative arrangements is no argument at all.

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

The hon Member has just referred to a matter that puzzles me, and it is one that I am about to come to. The Minister stated that he had little empathy for two aspects. First, that there is no legal imperative.

I do not understand the phrase "no legal imperative" — that simply means not doing anything about it. However, there is a community imperative to do it. The fact that there is no legal imperative means nothing, given that we are here to make the law. That is why that was a rather odd phrase to use; perhaps the Minister meant something different from what I picked up.

The Minister also said that another reason for not having third-party appeals was the possibility of delays; I did not quite catch his words. Third-party appeals are difficult, and I do not deny the difficulty of accommodating them. Many European countries, and, indeed, our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland, have a third-party appeal process that does not unduly hamper the planning process. Individuals have a significant right to third-party appeals, so there is experience that we can learn from. The Minister can hear from several European countries, including the Republic of Ireland, about the matter. It must be addressed urgently.

The Minister also said that recent cases in the House of Lords and elsewhere show that human rights are not being infringed. I hope that he is right, but I also suggest that with the correct emphasis on human rights, it will not be long before someone challenges him on that. It would be better to deal with a messy legal situation involving human rights, third-party appeals and planning by emphatically pre-empting it in the legislation.

I know that many other Members wish to participate, so I shall quickly touch on two other matters. First, the legislation gives primacy to development plans when determining planning applications. A plan-led system could raise concerns that development plans will take precedence over policy, so it is essential to know in the development plans — which will be the criteria on which applications are adjudicated — that full consultation and the subsequent input of an agreed planning policy have taken place. The policy should be overriding, irrespective of what has been written in a plan, and a fairly in-depth consultation is needed to achieve that.

My second point deals with the problem that most Members, as public representatives, have had when dealing with planning matters, which is the lack of uniformity in applying planning policy. As we travel in our fair countryside we see glaring examples of that, and that brings planning into disrepute. A person who has been refused or denied some aspect of his planning application will immediately say "Ah, but what about?" That phrase is used so frequently. When travelling at the weekend, I noticed startling examples of where planning permission had been granted to undeserving private houses and of where the planning policy of one area should have been the policy of other areas but was not. Legislation is not necessary, but planning officers who deal with applications should be trained in interpretation.

Finally, I am surprised that mobile phone masts are not mentioned in the Bill. The Minister’s predecessor promised us that the legislation on this would be brought before the Assembly before the end of May.

We are now nearly at the end of June, and we are heading towards recess at the end of next week. This is one aspect of planning that agitates many in the community, whether they are users or non-users of mobile phones. Representations have been made by many bodies and people over the past few years, culminating in the promise of the Minister’s predecessor, Mr Sam Foster, that legislation would be brought to the House before the end of May. It is strange, therefore, that nothing has been mentioned about it in the Bill or anything else that I have read. Will the Minister tell us where that legislation is and what stage it is at? Given that this is one of the most emotive issues facing the community, will that legislation be resurrected, dusted down and brought before us?

In general, I welcome the legislation. Having voiced my criticisms and concerns, I hope the Minister will view them as constructive criticisms and expressions of concern in the public interest. I hope that those who are not on the Environment Committee, and those who are not in the House, will have ample opportunity to address the issues raised, or not raised, in the next planning Bill, which should follow fairly quickly, and in the three consultative documents put to the Environment Committee, details of which I tried to jot down as the Minister was speaking.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the enforcement powers that address the matter of builders and developers breaching planning control. However, a major concern is that the fines are too light, particularly for large construction companies. I welcome the introduction of penalties for those involved in the demolishing of listed buildings.

As a member of the Environment Committee, I view the new powers enabling the Department to enforce the duty to replace trees that are subject to tree preservation orders (TPOs) as a progressive step. However, tree replacement should be made on a like-for-like basis — the size and species of the tree should be taken into consideration.

The issue of third-party appeals requires more consideration, and the adverse absence needs to be taken into account. The Committee’s concerns should be looked at in greater detail and should involve full public consultation. The Committee recognised that the procedure would affect the planning process. However, the procedure already operates in the Republic, and it seems to be working properly. Third parties here have no right of appeal under the present rules. Where planning practice is not to the satisfaction of the local population, it should be clarified for all concerned. District councillors are concerned that their views on third-party appeal issues should be heard and taken on board.

Mr McGrady mentioned mobile phone masts. There is no mention of proper development of planning policies on them, other than that full planning permission is required. That is not good enough. The local population is very concerned about the matter. I ask the Minister to readdress the problem. Go raibh maith agat.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

On behalf of my Alliance Colleagues, I give a general welcome to the Bill. For too long the planning system has failed to operate for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland. The updating of planning law is long overdue — it should have been one of the first acts of the devolved Government.

My Colleague David Ford has already been involved in detailed discussions in the Committee for the Environment on various aspects of the Bill. He and other Committee members have much work to do to improve the Bill and to ensure that it becomes the best possible Act to set the terms for planning in years to come.

As this is the Second Stage, I wish to put a few questions to the Minister. I have no doubt that some of them will not be answered to our satisfaction this morning, but I ask him to consider them seriously. The Minister has spoken on the issues about which we have concerns, so perhaps he will take my comments on board.

First, the biggest gap in the Bill is the absence of a third-party appeal system. The Minister and other Members have spoken on that matter. It is simply not acceptable for an individual who is refused planning permission to have a right of appeal, while objectors to the granting of permission have no right of appeal, apart from an expensive and legalistic judicial review. We all know who benefits from that. I do not wish to allow a neighbour with a grudge, but no objective reason for his or her objection, to delay the granting of planning permission in every case. We must achieve a balance, as none exists at present. Surely it is possible to devise a form of words that will allow a right of appeal for objectors who have substantial backing. For example, we could measure support by requiring a significant proportion of a local council to support the objectors or by requiring a certain number of signatures. If third-party appeals are not to be included in the Bill, when does the Minister hope to introduce such an appeal system?

Stronger enforcement powers are necessary. The details of the clauses show how deficient the law is. However, clause 12, as described in the explanatory and financial memorandum, mentions only some marginal financial implications. What on earth is the point of stronger enforcement powers if the Department does not have the resources to make use of them?

The procedures for listed buildings are known to be archaic and cumbersome. We know what has happened recently in Belfast. We need a better system than the Minister standing in the street crying, "Shame!" as the bulldozers do their work. I welcome the proposals for building preservation notices and temporary listings in clause 22. I hope that the Committee will ensure that those powers are as robust as they are in other parts of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland.

One of the principal concerns that many citizens have on planning issues is the preservation of mature trees. That leads on to the need to protect growing trees and saplings and to the protection of woodland, which includes small copses and units, and the scrub, brush and wild flowers that grow under the trees.

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

Does the Member agree that the legislation does not make it clear what would happen if a site were purchased, sold on, cleared by the second sale and sold on again, and possibly sold on for a fourth time before a development application were made? How does the Department propose to include in the legislation provision for checking up on the land, for deciding penalties for desecration and for imposing those penalties?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for drawing that to our attention. We agree with his comments. The Minister listened, and I am sure that he will answer the question appropriately.

Should there not be a presumption that all mature trees on a site for development will be preserved under a development plan until that development plan has been approved, rather than a presumption that anything that is not individually protected can be destroyed?

We must know more about the penalties and the requirements to plant replacement trees; otherwise there may be large financial benefits for people who cut down trees. That follows on from Mr ONeill’s remarks. Will the Minister tell us whether his proposals will protect undergrowth in woods, which is so important to wildlife?

The Alliance Party supports the Bill in principle and welcomes the Second Stage. I hope to see the Bill strengthened at Consideration Stage.

Denis Watson (UUAP, Upper Bann)

As a Member of the Committee for the Environment, I apologise for the absence of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, who had previous engagements. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Members of the Committee for the Environment look forward to discussing the clauses of the Bill at Committee Stage, so I will keep my comments relatively short.

The Minister will be aware that the Committee has already had several detailed presentations on the consultation exercise that preceded the Bill and on the draft Bill. There will be a further presentation and discussion on major policy issues this Thursday with departmental officials. This demonstrates the importance with which the Committee views the legislation — and, indeed, all legislation — and its clear determination to come to terms with the detail of some complex legislation. For too long, the outdated and ineffective planning laws in Northern Ireland have failed to reflect the demands of a modern developing society, and this has been coupled with inadequate resources, lack of co-ordination between the various agencies in the former Department of the Environment and a lack of political resolve to address the real issues.

One major problem, given that the Bill is long overdue, is that so much is expected of it. Planning law is not only concerned with what may be built, where and when, and ensuring that what is built conforms to the permission given, but is also about giving vital support to those charged with the conservation and preservation of our built heritage. The forthcoming presentation by departmental officials, which is to be based on recent research at Queen’s University, will focus on three important and relevant matters. The first is third-party appeals. For too long, the planning system has been biased — and I do not use that word lightly — in favour of developers, and those most affected are often left feeling helpless once a decision has been given. In previous presentations to the Committee, departmental officials have been anxious to explain the difficulties involved with the introduction of third-party appeals into the current planning system, and consequently their introduction into the Bill. The Committee appreciates fully that there may be difficulties, but members want to hear solutions. If third-party appeals work elsewhere, why can they not work in Northern Ireland?

Secondly, the Committee will wish to discuss fines with officials. The Bill will increase fines for those developers who commit the most serious breaches of planning law to a maximum of £20,000. From the outset, the Committee has questioned the inadequacy of fines, and it continues to do so. What kind of deterrent is a £20,000 fine to a developer who will make £1 million profit for breaching a planning law? The Department has told the Committee — and this has been reinforced by the Minister’s words today — that a new culture will ensure that more lawbreakers are taken to a higher court where unlimited fines, and even imprisonment, can be imposed. I have seen no evidence of that and cannot see how the Bill, as it is worded, will change radically the Department’s enforcement policy and practices.

The Committee will examine this aspect of the Bill very closely. It has been told that the new fines are the same as those in England and Wales and cannot be increased without the Secretary of State’s approval. Will the Minister tell us why fines are being introduced that will mean little to those making huge profits? Will he also tell us what representations regarding facts and statistics about planning law abuse he has made, or will make, to the Secretary of State?

Finally, departmental officials will discuss with the Committee the introduction of a new offence that will make it illegal to start development before planning permission is given, or even applied for. All too often, developers move to demolish a building or level a site without planning permission. That must be stopped, and the Bill is the opportunity to do something about it.

We have again heard from the Minister on this, but the Secretary of State must be pressed to give his approval. What representations has the Minister made, or will he make, to obtain that approval? Although the Committee believes that the legislation is long overdue and must progress with all speed, its members have already identified some concerns with the Bill. We will have to examine how those concerns have been or will be addressed.

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

When the Minister came before the Committee in March 2002, we discussed a proactive approach to co-operating with him to deal with no less than five Bills coming from his Department. At that time, the Minister agreed to forward policy memoranda on Bills to the Committee as early as possible, and the Committee pledged full co-operation with the Department, subject to being fully satisfied with the terms of the Bills. That is still the Committee’s intention. However, I can assure the Minister that the Committee will be both diligent and thorough in its consideration of the details in the Bill, as he would expect. If necessary, we will come back with amendments at Consideration Stage.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Members are aware that this is a hugely important issue. Every MLA is aware of the local community’s increasing frustration at how the planning process has operated in the past. The Bill is a vital change in updating that process. This is our opportunity to make our mark on something that affects every member of our community. We know that through the stack of letters on our desks.

Mr McCarthy said that the planning procedure to date has failed the local community. We agree; it must be changed, and it needs teeth. We welcome the Minister’s attempts to do this, and we were very pleased to hear Mr Watson say on behalf of the Committee for the Environment that it will dedicate itself to scrutinising this and putting pressure on the Minister to ensure that the changes happen.

The most important thing in updating planning legislation is to change the culture of the legislation. Members have touched on that. We are talking about equality of opportunity; as Mr Watson said, planning legislation is in favour of the developers. Last week, I asked the Minister to detail the number of applications from developers that are successful on appeal; the number was extremely high. Nevertheless, the local community has absolutely no right of appeal. Why does the local community not have equal opportunity? This is about third-party appeal.

We do not at all accept that third-party appeal could bring unwanted delay. Development is progress, and progress should not be stopped short. However, if it is to the detriment of the desires of the local community, it is not valuable progress. The important thing is that equal opportunity be given to the developer and the local community in third-party appeal. Research is under way to consider how it may be introduced, but I fail to understand the reluctance I detect to third-party appeal. If it has been introduced elsewhere, why can that not be done here? I am tempted to say that it could even be introduced on a trial basis, but that would not work. We must accept that the local community needs a right to reply and a right to appeal. For example, in dealing with large development projects, environmental impact assessments are carried out. We ask the birds, bees, flowers and trees to see what effect it will have on them, but there is no community impact assessment to ensure that the neighbours and the local community are consulted in these stages of the development process.

That is an essential aspect of planning, and the Minister must take that on board. If the Environment Committee does not attempt to introduce amendments to allow for third-party appeal, we will do it ourselves. I assure the Minister that there will be a great deal of pressure, either from the Committee or from individual Members, to get provision for third-party appeals added to this legislation.

Some Members have already mentioned demolition. We have all seen the effects of that, whether it is Ardmara in Bangor or Séamus Heaney’s house. I have written to the Minister regarding properties in Demesne Road and Bangor Road in Holywood that are also at risk. We do not want to see the Minister on television again saying that it is a shame. There will be egg on his face at some stage if these demolitions keep occurring and nothing is done to change the legislation to prevent it from happening. The issue of demolition should be part of the planning application process so that developers cannot knock down buildings to ensure that planning permission goes through.

I welcome the increase in fines, although it will never be enough. Sometimes fines are drops in the ocean when they are increased by a couple of thousand pounds. I have a suggestion that might be useful. Some of the money raised from fines could go to voluntary environmental and heritage groups, such as Conservation Volunteers Northern Ireland, to bolster their highly valuable work. They alert us to what is going on, and their work should be rewarded in some way.

Spot-listing is one way of stopping demolition in advance. However, when the legislation was brought over here the reference to spot-listing was removed. Why was it taken out, and why can it not be slipped back in again? It should be a guaranteed factor in this legislation that the Minister can draw on to protect buildings.

I will draw my remarks to a close, as other Members want to speak. I turn finally to the principles of planning policy and the need to consult the local community and bring it on board. Play areas in large housing developments should be guaranteed. The Irish legislation guarantees that every hundredth house is converted into a crèche or something similar that recognises the value of children’s play. We have estates such as Poleglass and Kilcooley with hundreds of families, and not one slide or one swing between them. That is a disgrace, and it must not happen again. Children’s play areas must come high up on the agenda of any planning application for a large housing development.

There are examples of townscape character in the South. When you drive into a village you smile because of the colours and signage. Work has been done to make those villages aesthetically appealing to tourists, and that is important. We should remove the idea of town cramming and unsympathetic development. All that must be part and parcel of the culture of planning. In this devolved institution we have the ability to listen and react to the local community, and that is what it wants.

I put all my confidence in the Committee to ensure that the Minister, who is sympathetically disposed, will take those issues on board.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The overwhelming majority of complaints to the Northern Ireland Ombudsman have related to planning. I therefore welcome this legislative attempt — belated as it is — to deal with some of the anomalies and ghastly gaps in planning law that have been the source of many of those complaints.

The Assembly is fortunate to have had such a thoughtful, practical and comprehensive contribution by Mr McGrady, who has a sense of reality about what can be done. I will develop some of the matters that he adumbrated.

Regardless of the difficulties, procedural or otherwise, that the introduction of third-party appeals may entail, most people affected by planning decisions have an overwhelming desire for that provision. Planning laws, like every other law, should be enacted for the benefit of those whom they affect; therefore, strong, clear and pressing considerations must be present before such a desire could be ignored in the legislation.

Suggestions have been made as to why third-party appeals should not form part of the legislation. The Minister’s mind seems to be set against them, although we are to be treated to a consultation process before a final decision is made. It is surprising that detailed amendments by the Minister, or the suggestion of a consultation process, should take place now. Why were those matters not considered in detail long before the Second Stage? If changes were to be made, one would hope that every aspect would be considered in detail.

I will deal with the arguments against, and the merits of, third-party appeals. It is suggested that third-party appeals would interfere with the principles of existing legislation on such appeals and the planning process generally. Any reform or legislation to make improvements or to introduce benefits is bound to affect existing legislation; therefore, the argument that a necessary and much-sought-after reform should be objected to because it would change a system lacks merit.

The second question is that of delay. I do not suppose that third-party appeals will be made against the vast majority of planning approvals. They will be made in respect of decisions that affect a large section of the community and to which there is popular objection. Ms Morrice made the positive point that we have impact assessments about the birds and the bees, and flora and fauna. In the context of planning, the most important fauna are human.

I have often attended and been professionally involved in planning appeals where planners have produced a set of logical guidelines and principles to support their statement that they can do nothing about a development, despite the massive objection of the humans who will be most intimately affected by the decision. The present law does not require planning approval for demolition, so a developer can move into a zoned or residential area and demolish an Edwardian or a Victorian building, which may not be listed or of specific architectural or historical merit, but which is part of the fabric, atmosphere and age of the area. The building’s demolition leaves a piece of open ground in an area where a developer is bound to get permission for a residential development.

The planners’ only control over that is a collection of nebulous guidelines that the proportions of the new building must be roughly similar to those of surrounding developments. Permission for some apartments is then granted to the developer. However — and this is the nub of the matter — the builder builds the development but adds an extra floor comprising an additional six flats costing £250,000 or £300,000 apiece. That has happened in north Down; developers are making a killing. When local people object on the basis that there has been a breach of contract, there is a marked reluctance by the Planning Service to instruct that the building be demolished. There is then much toing and froing, which the builder ignores, and, in 10 cases out of 10 — not nine out of 10 — he is given retrospective permission. At that stage the developer has made a killing, and a coach and four have been driven through the planning laws. The Assembly must think carefully before ignoring third-party appeals or adhering strictly to planning decisions.

Third-party appeals would be relatively few, and it would be easy to legislate that, in order to gain a right to such an appeal, a person must present a prima facie case. Under those terms, only where a prima facie case is demonstrated would a third-party appeal be allowed. That litmus test would eliminate many of the fears that envious or vindictive neighbours would, willy-nilly, make third-party appeals.

It might also be legislated that costs may be awarded where a third-party appeal is lost and an inspector decides that the case never had merit. Those are not the only methods, but such provisions might remove many of the Minister’s fears about third-party appeals.

Some Members who have spoken have heavily canvassed the issue of fines. I endorse the frequent suggestion that the fines are inadequate, even at their present limit. Developers can get £250,000 or £300,000 for an apartment, and if they can get a further four apartments by adding an extra storey, that is very big money. The fines are relatively innocuous in proportion to that and would not deter anyone.

The other point I want to make is about the relationship between developers and planners. Developers are there every day. In some cases in which I have been involved, there has been such a multiplicity of plans that the average person going to inspect them cannot understand them unless he brings an architect who has half a day to spend on them. Members must be careful about dismissing the introduction of third-party appeals, because there is a suggestion that developers have a big "in": they are professionals; they know what is required; they have existing relationships with planners; and they often get away with things that an ordinary individual would not.

There is a presumption in the planning culture that if developers are providing employment, putting money into the economy and doing something that has a veneer of public benefit to it, such as additional housing, they should get planning permission. That sort of culture must end.

I endorse what Mr McGrady said about what is not in the Bill. There is nothing in it about masts. Planning should be for people who live in communities. It is not good enough not to pay strict attention to what a significant number of ordinary people feel about the possible dangers of radiation from masts. That should be provided for in the Bill. Am I being cynical in saying that once again this is a question of big business? Vodafone, Orange or whoever puts up the masts have a subliminal clout that the rest of us do not have. While I support the Second Stage of the Bill in principle, there are worrying omissions and failures to address various matters.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I apologise to the Assembly and the Minister for being unable to be here at the beginning of the debate, but the Minister for Social Development was in my constituency this morning. As I was unable to hear the Minister’s opening comments, I will keep my remarks brief. However, I will read, with great care, what he and other Members said in that part of in the debate. It is important for the Committee to consider carefully the views of Members who are not members of the Committee and cannot make their views known there. I will ensure that the Committee receives a copy of the record and that it gives due recognition to what is said.

No one would say that all is well and that we have effective planning laws that reflect the demands of our society. Many matters need to be brought to the attention of the House, and the Planning (Amendment) Bill ought to consider other matters that the Minister and the Department have not taken into consideration. I will confine my remarks to three areas. Ms Morrice and Mr McCartney touched on them, as did others.

I want to make it clear that the Minister cannot duck the question of third-party appeals, nor will the Assembly allow him a way to do that. The Committee for the Environment fundamentally supports the necessity for third-party appeals, and we have been strong in our representation to the Department, as the previous Minister and the current Minister both know. The issue cannot be put on the long finger. Developers have priority over the community under current planning legislation, and that cannot be permitted to continue.

Mr McCartney said that when developers are mentioned we hear about how they provide employment and invest in the economy — and rightly so. No one in my Committee wants to stop developers doing anything that will benefit the community. However, they are not the only ones putting something into the local economy and providing employment; the people in the community are also putting a lot into it. Let us never forget their value and commitment to their areas. It is vitally important to ensure that the rights of the ordinary citizen in a community are taken into consideration. If an applicant is refused, he has the right to appeal. However, if a community feels that its rights are being trampled over, it has no right of appeal.

I gather that the Minister said that he is not taking forward third-party appeals at this time. Several Members have drawn that to my attention. The rights of individuals can be violated, and they ought to have the right to appeal. This issue, whether pursued by my Committee or by individuals, will not go away. It will be on the agenda, and the Assembly will have the opportunity to give its opinion.

If the Minister had listened to the will of the House in past debates, then he would have introduced the right of appeal in this Bill. Even at this late stage, the Minister should accede to that will. If he does not accept that it is the will of the House, then we should put it to the test in a democratic fashion through a vote. This is a live issue, and it will be dealt with in the Assembly, whether through the Minister’s intervention or through the intervention of others. I hope that that gives some assurance to Members that the matter is being taken seriously.

I want to deal with the level of fines being suggested in the Bill. Those fines are as nothing when measured against the high profits that developers can make by breaching planning law. The answer will come that cases can be taken to the Crown Court, where there is no limit on the fines that can be imposed. If that is so, and if the Department believes that it is a serious issue, then local courts should also have the right to impose fines relevant to the huge profits being made.

What is £20,000 to a developer who is probably making £1 million from his development? It is absolutely nothing. He laughs all the way to the court and out of it, and he laughs at the community, which feels aggrieved by what has been done. Serious consideration must be given to this. The Minister and his officials have told the Committee that the Secretary of State would have to agree to a large increase in fines. If that is so, the Committee requests that the Secretary of State be approached. Northern Ireland has particular needs, so if fines cannot be increased without the Secretary of State’s intervention, he should listen to the will and desire of the House and do something about it.

There must be proper enforcement. I am told that the Minister said that more staff would be employed in the Department’s enforcement section, which has an abysmal record. There must be real enforcement, because many people in Northern Ireland think that they can breach planning law and that nothing will be done about it.

Mr McCartney said that there was hesitation in forcing people to demolish buildings. I have not found that to be the case with regard to ordinary people, who seem to be faced with greater threats than those who have financial clout. I want to see building development in the Province, and I want to see planning permissions being granted. However, the Planning Service must be sensitive to particular areas and to older buildings that are being pulled down, with new buildings being erected in their place. New buildings are often out of place and are more of an eyesore than the original good-quality buildings. That has been the scenario in Belfast recently.

The Committee will listen carefully to what the Department has to say. However, the Minister is aware that the Committee has a mind of its own and will challenge the Department. If the Department is not willing to yield on matters on which the Committee has strong feelings, the Committee will not be behind the door in telling the Minister and the Department what it thinks. If it must bring the matter before the House, it will be happy to do so.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am trying to ensure that when I move the Dispatch Box I do not cowp or demolish my glass.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Do you have planning permission to put the glass there?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I have placed my glass where others have placed theirs, so we are in accord with one another. It is good to note that the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment and the Minister of the Environment are acting in harmony and accord.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

There may be a third-party appeal.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Someone may wish to lodge a third-party appeal on where the glass is situated. However, that is a serious matter with regard to the Planning (Amendment) Bill. Eight or nine Members have spoken, and much concern has been expressed about inadequacies in the planning system in Northern Ireland.

I am mindful of economist John Simpson’s words in the business section of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ some weeks ago that everyone has something to say about the Planning Service, just as everyone has something to say about the weather — but at least, on some days, the weather is good. That gave food for thought, and I referred to it at the start of my address. The Planning Service has been under pressure and needs more resources. There are difficulties that must be addressed, and I am not ducking them, as I said in my opening remarks.

I thank Mr McGrady for his comments about the empathy that I have shown. I reiterate, in the presence of the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, who was not present earlier, that I empathise with many of the comments that the Committee has made to my officials and to me.

Mr McGrady mentioned the House of Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs inquiry into planning in 1995, and that many issues dealt with then are being discussed again. I am conscious of that. It is mentioned in the paper that was sent to the Environment Committee today.

Mr McGrady also mentioned urgency and immediacy. He said that he was unsure about the scope of enhanced provisions to prevent demolition because the Department will have to quickly identify important buildings that might be demolished. He talked about the listing of buildings. He said that it is fine to have a new rule preventing demolition, but that such orders must be enforced, because once a building has been demolished, nothing can undo it.

Contrary to Ms Morrice’s belief, spot-listing is contained in the Bill. I am not sure where the Member heard that it had somehow been taken out. It is not out. Spot-listing is clearly provided for in the Bill.

Mr McGrady stressed that it is fine to have the Bill, and fine to have these provisions — as long as one uses them and knows when they must be used. Surveys have been carried out. The first, conducted in 1970, was on a wing and a prayer. It ended up comprising just one photograph of a building because resources were not available.

The problem with listed buildings is threefold. First, we do not know the status of some of those buildings. Secondly, we do not have the resources to deal with them. Thirdly, we do not have the enforcement measures to deal with them. More resources are needed, and we must be clear about those buildings that can or cannot be listed.

I mentioned that point in an article that I wrote in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, in which I invited people in Northern Ireland who feel that there is a building that could, or should, be listed to notify the Department. I was responding to and empathising — if I may use that word again — with that paper’s editorial, which commented that we must work together as a community to make sure that our built heritage is protected. [Interruption].

My time is limited. I am not being disrespectful to Mr McGrady. [Interruption].

If I have as long as I like, I will give way to Mr McGrady, but I will not give way ad nauseam to all and sundry.

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

It has been so long since I spoke that I can hardly remember what it was about.

The Minister said that it will be possible to list buildings to prevent their demolition. Is he conscious that listed buildings are being demolished and virtually no action is being taken?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

That may be the case. I cannot comment on specific examples. However, I have stressed that part of the Bill is to ensure greater rigour of enforcement. Penalties will be made very clear. The Department and I are serious in our intentions; not only about built heritage, but also that the planning regime is clear and transparent, and that those who abide by the law will have a speedy decision while those who breach the law will be swiftly penalised. I abide by my opening comments to that effect and will ensure that they are reflected throughout this Bill.

Mr McGrady mentioned third-party appeals. That issue came up quite often. He also hoped that the three documents that have been issued to the Environment Committee would be made available to the Assembly. That is a reasonable request. It has taken some time for officials and myself to deliberate those issues. Indeed, we worked on them over the weekend to ensure that we got to grips with their nuances in preparation for this debate. The papers were sent to the Committee today, and other Members should also have them.

Mr McGrady said that I have set my mind against third-party appeals. I am less sympathetic to, and not completely persuaded by, third-party appeals. However, I want more consultation. He said that all political parties and most district councils want them. I wish that Mr McCartney were here, because he said that there was a desire for third-party appeals, regardless of their difficulties.

This is not an exact analogy, but many people have a desire for speed and cars that can travel at 160 miles an hour. However, the fact that people have a desire for something does not mean that the law permits them to realise that desire.

I am sorry that Mr McCartney is not present. His criterion of desire is not —

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The desire to speed is irrelevant; that is an illegal desire. Mr McCartney referred to the will of elected representatives and the public. The Department must get on with reform, because the desire is not illegal, and it should have the backing of the Department.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am dealing with the choice of words, which are important to lawyers, and, therefore, to Mr McCartney. He used the term "desire"; I said that desire alone does not justify an action. All aspects must be assessed. However, I said that I wished to discuss the matter further with the Committee and others.

Mr McCartney said that the phrase "no legal imperative" was an odd one. The legal imperative to which I referred was European Convention law, whereby a body outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom could dictate how something must be done, as with European Directives, which when passed through certain procedures, automatically become Northern Ireland law. That legal imperative has been tested in the courts, and we have not contravened it.

Mr McCartney said that it was strange that mobile phone masts were not included in the Bill, and he spoke of their dangers. Some Members must have a mental block; that matter was dealt with. Some Members said that we had an obligation to bring forward the matter; it was brought forward. The Planning (General Development) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 came into force on 21 June 2002, and copies are available in the Library. Full planning permission for mobile phone masts is required. We followed the Stewart principles on precautionary measures, and Policy Planning Statement No.11 made clear our modus operandi in respect of telecommunication masts. Why do Members say that we have omitted to deal with mobile phone masts, when the reverse is true?

I thank Mick Murphy, a member of the Committee for the Environment, for his comments on our progressive approach to trees and other matters. There is much good in what has been said, as well as some bad. Trees should be replaced like for like. Another Member mentioned the protection of the undergrowth, the habitat of birds and wildlife, but we can protect only trees. Mr ONeill, who is not present, asked whether a tree preservation order would continue to apply if the ownership of the land changed. If trees are removed from an area protected by a tree preservation order, the trees must be replaced, and the order still applies. The trees cannot be removed to create space for development.

Mr Mick Murphy and Mr McGrady stated that, given that third-party appeals are provided for in the Republic of Ireland, they should be included in this Bill. I am not against implementing measures because they are law in the Republic of Ireland. In fact, research issued to the Committee for the Environment about practice in the South and in Northern Ireland projects that, contrary to Mr McCartney’s belief, there could be between 500 and 700 more cases a year in Northern Ireland, costing £1 million. In the South, cases are subject to an 11-month delay because of third-party appeals.

The research found that, by involving district councils, the North has a more consultative-deliberative planning process than does the South. We are therefore not comparing like with like, and we must deal carefully with the issue of third-party appeals.

I thank Mr McCarthy for remaining in the Chamber.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr McCarthy has manners, unlike some Members.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I did not catch what the leader of the Alliance Party said. However, having made a comment, does he now resile from repeating it? That is most unusual.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

If it was a compliment, I accept it, but only because a Colleague of mine on my left says so — in case it was not a compliment.

I agree with Mr McCarthy that the Committee has much work to do. We all do. I empathise with many of the Environment Committee’s recommendations, and my officials and I want to work with it.

I note the extension to 17 October 2002 that Rev Dr William McCrea seeks for the deliberation of the Bill. I say yes; we have weeks in which to work together to achieve a resolution based on evidence, not emotion.

Mr McCarthy also said that the absence of third-party appeals, and the fact that objectors have no right to appeal, is unacceptable. I concur that there must be balance and that we must avoid vexatious claims from people on neighbouring properties. It is a complicated process, and that is why I wish to issue a consultative document to determine the best way forward. Mr McCarthy stated that listing powers are useless if adequate resources are not available. Again, I agree with him, and for that reason I will target enforcement for resources.

Mr Watson referred to a planning system that is biased in favour of developers. I want a system that is biased in favour of law-keepers, not lawbreakers, regardless of whether they are developers or Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs in the country. I want the planning system to be efficient and effective for law-keepers; and, for lawbreakers, I want a service that will ensure that penalties are imposed speedily. Therefore if the planning system is biased in favour of developers, I trust that it will not be in the future. It is a simple matter of right and wrong. It is a question of having a law that reflects the Assembly’s wishes and of ensuring that they are enforced rigorously.

Mr Watson stated that fines of £20,000 are not a significant or adequate deterrent and that he has seen no evidence that the new measures will work. To determine whether the new measures will work, we must implement them. It is therefore illogical for Mr Watson to claim that there is no evidence that they will work.

He said in his conclusion that the Committee would be diligent. I concur that the Committee has been diligent, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so.

Ms Jane Morrice said that Members would themselves propose amendments providing for third-party appeals if others did not. My advice is not to do that. Those points have been covered. She suggests that fines should return to the voluntary sector — that the money raised should be repackaged and passed on to that sector. That request is interesting, and the Minister of Finance and Personnel would also find it interesting.

I have already covered Ms Morrice’s point where she alleged that someone had removed the line on spot-listing. I wrote "No, definitely not" in my notes. It was not taken out. I agree with Ms Morrice when she said that cramming in towns, and other such issues, must be dealt with. We do need a new culture; we need change, and we also need to know people’s views. However, I was concerned when she said that she would put her trust in the Committee, because I hope that she also has some trust in me and in what I am doing. Working with the Committee, we will deal with the issue.

I have noted carefully what Mr McCartney said. Indeed, I note what all Members say, but Mr McCartney is judicious and correct in his use of words, I trust. He referred to third-party appeals, and he said that it is quite clear that, regardless of the difficulties, there is an overwhelming desire for such third-party appeals. That is a criterion alone. I have already referred to the use of the word "desire" in my answer.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Third-party appeal is interesting, because the Minister compared our legislation with that in the South, referring to the delays, and so forth. He said that there is more consultation in Northern Ireland than in the South. He cited the role of local government in that consultation process. Is it not true that even if an entire council opposed a development, it could still proceed? What value is the consultation process if it serves no end?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

That is the position to a certain extent, but I am the Minister who is accountable for decisions. The council is consulted. De jure, I make all the 24,000 decisions that must be made in the year; de facto, I may make some decisions on significant or contentious issues.

Ms Morrice may recall that I mentioned the review of public administration. On other occasions the House has recommended that we wait for the outcome of the review of public administration, as it did in the case of the Local Government (Best Value) Bill. As a result of the review of public administration, it may be that the authority for deciding on these matters would reside with a district council or its replacement. That could be the elected body to make the decision, and, therefore, a third party might take that decision out of its hands to a planning appeals commission. That highlights the difficult issues that we must address, assess and assimilate. As I said, we base our decisions on evidence, not emotion.

Mr McCartney also said that I said that third-party appeals would interfere with legislation. He then said that the argument that third-party appeals may interfere with legislation lacks any merit. Let me make it clear — and the record will show, as I repeat it — that when I referred to legislation, I said that the impact of legislation would be in the planning process and the operational efficiency of planning. That is the outcome of changing legislation. Of course we can change legislation, and we have the authority to do that. However, we must weigh the impact and the merit of changing the legislation. I simply point out that changing the legislation will have a significant impact on the planning process and its operational efficiency.

Rather than my argument lacking merit, it has merit. A judgement must be made. The Assembly is about balancing judgements against competing demands. Mr McCartney stated that

" in 10 cases out of 10"

the developer is given retrospective planning permission and thus builds bigger. Mr McCartney also stated that

"The Assembly must be careful in ignoring third-party appeals".

I do not want to see that happening; the Assembly must ensure that the law is adhered to.

Mr McCartney also spoke about mobile phone masts. I cannot understand his statement that there is nothing in the Bill about masts. We have already dealt with it.

I accept Mr McCrea’s apology for his absence at the start of the debate. When I stand to speak, I check that the august Chairman of the Committee for the Environment is present, as his presence always makes the debate more interesting. I said to myself, "William is not here today", but I am glad that he appeared later for the final analysis.

Mr McCrea said that I cannot duck the question of third-party appeals — I am not ducking the issue. I have referred to significant matters that must be addressed. I am not putting them on the long finger. Mr McCartney and Mr McCrea also said that developers seem to have priority status. I do not want that to be the case. Mr McCrea also said that the value of the ordinary citizen should not be forgotten. I agree entirely. The matter is a question of right and wrong, and of ensuring that the law is implemented — it has nothing to do with the size of the development; whether it be a small bungalow or a multifaceted development.

Mr McCrea asked whether I should meet the Secretary of State. I have had initial discussions with him. We are progressing the matter positively through the Committee’s deliberations and through my meetings with my officials. Those meetings will run parallel to discussions with the Secretary of State.

The final three words that I noted down are those of William McCrea. He said that we "need real enforcement" — I agree entirely.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Planning (Amendment) Bill (NIA 12/01) be agreed.

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

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for the Environment.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: Consideration Stage

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

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, which details their order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate. There are two groups of amendments, and we shall debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendments No 1, No 2, No 3, No 4 and No 10, which deal with extending the Bill to include the costs relating to personal care. The second debate will be on amendments No 5, No 6, No 7, No 8 and No 9, which propose to allow the chief executive of the proposed Northern Ireland practice and education council for nursing and midwifery to sit as an ex officio member of the council. Once the initial debate on each group is completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the question will be put without further debate. The questions on stand part will be taken at appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1 it will be convenient to debate amendments No 2, No 3, No 4 and No 10.

Clause 1 (Charges for nursing care)

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 10, at end insert

‘( ) where the payments made in respect of him under paragraph (3) include any amount in respect of personal care, the amount of such payments lessany amount paid in respect of such personal care;’

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 20, after "registered." insert

‘(4B) In paragraph (4) ‘personal care’ means any services listed in Schedule 5A of the 1972 Order.’ — [Mr McCarthy.]’

No 3: In page 1, line 20, at end insert

"( ) After Schedule 5 of the 1972 Order there shall be inserted —

‘SCHEDULE 5A …

PERSONAL CARE NOT ORDINARILY CHARGED FOR

1. As regards the personal hygiene of the person cared for —

(a) shaving;

(b) cleaning teeth (whether or not they are artificial) by means of a brush or dental floss and (in the case of artificial teeth) by means of soaking;

(c) providing assistance in rinsing the mouth;

(d) keeping finger nails and toe nails trimmed;

(e) assisting the person with going to the toilet or with using a bedpan or other receptacle;

(f) where the person is fitted with a catheter or stoma, providing such assistance as is requisite to ensure cleanliness and that the skin is kept in a favourable hygienic condition;

(g) where the person is incontinent —

(i) the consequential making of the person's bed and consequential changing and laundering of the person's bedding and clothing; and

(ii) caring for the person's skin to ensure that it is not adversely affected.

2. As regards the person's eating requirements —

(a) assisting with the preparation of food;

(b) assisting in the fulfilment of special dietary needs.

3. If the person is immobile or substantially immobile, dealing with the problems of that immobility.

4. If the person requires medical treatment, assisting with medication, as for example by —

(a) applying creams or lotions;

(b) administering eye drops;

(c) applying dressings in cases where this can be done without the physical involvement of a registered nurse or of a medical practitioner;

(d) assisting with the administration of oxygen as part of a course of therapy.

5. With regard to the person's general well-being —

(a) assisting with getting dressed;

(b) assisting with surgical appliances, prosthesis and mechanical and manual equipment;

(c) assisting with getting up and with going to bed;

(d) the provision of devices to help memory and of safety devices;

(e) behaviour management and psychological support.’" — [Mr McCarthy.]

No 4: In page 2, line 3, after "36(4A))" insert

"or personal care (within the meaning given by Article 36(4B))" — [Mr McCarthy.]

No 10: In the long title, after "nursing" insert "and personal". — [Mr McCarthy.]

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I begin by declaring an interest in the group of amendments as chairperson of the Assembly cross-party group on ageing and older people.

The amendments in my name will extend the Bill’s provision to include free personal care as well as free nursing care. I welcome the introduction of free nursing care, but in the absence of free personal care, the Bill would be seriously flawed and would not resolve the issues at stake. My amendments seek to rectify that unsatisfactory situation and to benefit many elderly people.

I ask Members to support my amendments for various reasons. First, they enable us to right a wrong. The amendments would assist in the elimination of age discrimination throughout Northern Ireland, ensuring that one of the most vulnerable groups in society no longer suffers in that regard. Is there anyone in the Chamber who has not spent his or her political life condemning discrimination in all its forms? If the amendments are not passed today, we will permit the injustice of age discrimination to continue, to our eternal shame.

Secondly, other devolved Administrations are addressing personal care. The Scottish Parliament will be implementing free personal care from 1 July 2002. The National Assembly for Wales expressed an aspiration to make similar provision.

Thirdly, on the 27 February 2001, the Assembly passed the following motion:

"That this Assembly notes the decision of the Scottish Parliament to provide the elderly with free nursing and personal care and calls on the Executive Committee to make similar provision for the elderly in Northern Ireland".

The Assembly unanimously passed that motion. Would the conscience of anyone who voted for free personal care last February allow him to vote against it today? I hope not. What justification could there be for such action? Members could hardly plead ignorance of the consequences. People are not easily fooled; they would recognise the shameful political opportunism of voting for such a motion, thinking it would get no further, and then opposing the proposed legislation. Now is the time for us all to put our money where our mouths are. The present Bill, which excludes free personal care, is a result of the Executive’s selective response to the motion agreed by the Assembly last year. This is not the first time that the Executive have shamefully ignored the will of the Assembly.

The origin of the debate on residential care is the report of the Royal Commission, presented to the Westminster Parliament in March 1999. Is it not disgraceful that those proposals are being only partially addressed now, more than three years later? The dual meaning of the report’s title, ‘With Respect to Old Age’, acknowledges that the care system did not respect people who had become too ill to retain their independence.

Many considered the Royal Commission’s report as the most accessible and well researched of its kind. The single-volume report is supported by three volumes of research, which I have in front of me. They are so heavy that I cannot lift them to show Members, which demonstrates the volume of work that went into the Royal Commission’s research. One of the report’s key recommendations was:

"In our judgement it is right for the state to exempt personal care from means testing altogether."

What is the rationale for that? It is based on the grounds of equity and efficiency. However, it is important to note that neither the Royal Commission nor my amendments envisage that the state will pay for living and housing costs. Those costs would still be met by people whose assets are above the threshold. Nevertheless, older people incur personal care costs when they can no longer be looked after at home or cannot be sent home after hospital treatment.

The need for personal care is unpredictable and no fault of those who require it. The Royal Commission argued that personal care costs should be met by the state, because they reflect what it called "the true risk and catastrophic nature of needing long-term care." Paragraphs 6.33 and 6.34 of its report state:

"The justification for our view is based on considerations of both equity and efficiency. Whereas the state through the NHS pays for all the care needs of sufferers from, for example cancer and heart disease, people who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease may get little or no help with the cost of comparable care needs. All these conditions are debilitating, but Alzheimer’s disease cannot yet be cured by medical intervention. However, a mixture of all types of care, including personal care will be needed. This is directly analagous to the kind of care provided for cancer sufferers. The latter get their care free. The former have to pay.

For this reason, the distinction between the way care is offered for different diseases has no justification. The situation must be put right. The proposal to exempt personal care costs from means-testing would do that."

One consultee said that many of his contempories had had much NHS money spent on them over the years — on dealing with aneurysms, on heart operations, orthopaedic treatment, and so on — and have not been charged at all. Is it fair that the mentally ill are charged when someone who is physically ill is not, whatever his income?

Prof Robert Stout of Queen’s University, himself a member of the Royal Commission, reminded the Health Committee that including free nursing care alone would introduce a new perverse incentive: nursing homes would be subsidised while residential homes, which do not have registered nurses on their staff, would have to charge full costs. There would be an incentive, both for individuals and trusts, to admit patients to nursing homes, even if they did not require that level of care. This is contrary to best practice, which is to provide only the level of care needed by an individual.

The Royal Commission also believes that making personal care free would enhance the dignity and security of old people and go a long way towards making the services provided for long-term care as valued and jealously guarded as those provided by the NHS. The principle of equal care for equal needs would be properly recognised for the first time. If we really meant what we said when we agreed the concept of equality enshrined in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we can do no less than support these amendments.

Remember, too, that today’s older generation entered into a contract with the Government and built the NHS in partnership with successive Administrations. They met their responsibilities over the years — paid tax and National Insurance contributions — and, in return, were assured that when they needed it, the NHS would be there. We have often heard it said that they would be looked after from the cradle to the grave, yet they have found, when they are at their most vulnerable, that it is simply not there. Small wonder that older people’s organisations and advice lines have encountered such anger and bitterness over this.

These amendments detail what personal care is, and I suspect that many Members may not realise what is excluded from nursing care. These amendments show that drawing a line between the two is artificial and unworkable and will cause further confusion, anxiety and bitterness. We need look no further than England to see what the effect has been there.

In March 2002, Paul Burstow MP, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for older people, published evidence depicting the Government’s free nursing care as a shambles. He revealed that three out of five health authorities in England had evidence that nursing homes were failing to pass on payments in the form of reductions in fees for residents, that one in five people eligible for free nursing care were still waiting for a reduction in their fees and that 5,636 people were banded without having been seen by a nurse. Furthermore, problems in administering the scheme meant that payments of up to £11·9 million were outstanding. I doubt that Members would want us to get into a similar situation in Northern Ireland.

The current method of assessing those in need of care is under review. The Department has issued a report for public consultation. I am sure that the members of the working group have worked hard to produce the assessment tool, but how satisfactory is it? Assessors have indicated that an assessment would take one to one and a half hours. There are 21 domains to be assessed. I can give an example of what some of those entail.

Category 2 measures the

"Ability to adjust emotionally, and awareness of moods and stimuli that elicit emotions. Capability of expressing desire for emotional support."

Category 3 covers

"Knowledge of abilities and constraints and ability to act accordingly in fulfilling personal goals."

Category 21 is described as the

"Care needs of relatives and carers arising from their relationship with the older person or their role as carer. Needs that are important to the maintenance of an established relationship or the transition to a new role."

Allowing an hour and a half for an assessment gives less than four minutes on average for each of the 21 domains. Two hours gives an average of five minutes for each. That does not allow for time to make three final overall assessments or to check the completed 12-page document. Surely this can only be a snapshot. I doubt that anyone here would be happy if an elderly relative had his or her needs assessed in the same way. How many would argue that its use is preferable to the introduction of free personal care that would render it obsolete?

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has also been influenced by cost. The Executive have established an interdepartmental group to examine cost. The Health Committee’s report states that

"estimates of providing free personal care are likely to be well in excess of £25 million per annum."

That was an approximate estimate by the Right to Care campaign. However, no actual figures or explanation for that statement are given.

There is no evidence that any member of the interdepartmental group gave evidence to the Health Committee. The interdepartmental group has not taken evidence from any other groups, not even from organisations such as Age Concern, Help the Aged and others working with the elderly. Although a report from the Health Committee was due this month, it has not appeared in time for debate on this Bill. That is rather strange and, perhaps, irregular. Other people and organisations have a long list of services that they want to see improved, several of which, they argue, discriminate actively against older people. They accept that delivering these improved services will take time. However, they have made the issue of personal care a priority.

I am tabling these amendments on behalf of the older members of our community. I believe passionately in the justice of this proposal, and it has been an honour for me to speak on their behalf. I commend these amendments, and I hope and ask for Members’ support.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Mr McCarthy referred to the report of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly. I am familiar with that report. Our Committee, like others, spoke to many groups. Mr McCarthy mentioned Prof Robert Stout, a professor of geriatric medicine who was also a member of the Royal Commission. Our Committee spoke to him recently, and I have had several discussions with him.

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety took evidence from a range of organisations on the Health and Personal Social Services Bill. As the Minister will no doubt explain later, clause 1 provides for financial help for nursing care for about 2,000 people resident in nursing homes, and clause 2 establishes a new council to promote and monitor the professional development of nurses and midwives.

I thank everyone who gave evidence to the Committee. The submissions received and the opportunity to question those who appeared before the Committee gave Members a valuable insight into the views and concerns of people affected by the Bill. I have nothing but respect for the opinions of Age Concern, Help the Aged, Prof Stout and all the others concerned.

I thank the members of my Committee who worked hard on this subject. Although I am speaking as Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I have been involved in primary care in west Belfast for over 35 years. I have spent a long time with the elderly and have been involved in their treatment and care. I feel as passionate as Mr McCarthy about the issues, and I congratulate him for speaking today. I respect his integrity in those matters. However, I do not support his amendments.

I am concentrating on clause 1. People who gave evidence to the Committee expressed many views on financial assistance for nursing care. They called for self-funding for residents of nursing homes and asked for the approach on personal care taken in Scotland to be adopted here. Mr McCarthy knows that the matter was debated on 27 February 2001, when the Assembly called on the Minister to fully implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission through motions tabled by himself and Mr Dodds.

This Bill has come in advance of the Assembly’s and my Committee’s being in a position to comment on the outcome of the interdepartmental working group on personal care — Mr McCarthy referred to it — that is to report at the end of the month. If resources were available now, the Committee would want to see free care covering the nursing and personal care needs of residents. Every Member of the Assembly — including those who are not here today — and every member of the Committee would like to see free personal care as well as free nursing care.

The interdepartmental working group has not yet reported to the Executive, and I have not been talking to the group, so I cannot speak with any authority. However, I look forward to its findings. A decision is not due until later this month, and we do not know what position the Executive will take. However, it is estimated that the cost of free personal care will be in excess of £25 million a year. That is in addition to the £9 million annual help with nursing care costs.

I have looked at the amendments proposed by Mr McCarthy. The introduction of free personal care is a commendable aspiration. The Committee and I feel as strongly about it as he does. However, Committee members wrestled long and hard with the problem of separating nursing care from personal care, and how the introduction of personal care could be taken forward. We concluded that this is not the right time to introduce free personal care. In doing so, we obtained commitments from the Department on how financial assistance for nursing care would be implemented to help avoid the potential problems identified.

If the Committee had recommended free personal care now, the money would have had to be found from the block grant allocation: the Treasury would not have given us extra money. The Department would have had to find a time when the pressure on funding for key health priorities was not preventing many desperately needed projects from being properly funded.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

My experience of primary care extends to only about half the period of Dr Hendron’s, and is in social services rather than in general practice. Can he give us any information that the Committee has on the cost of administering the difference between nursing care and personal care? From my limited experience of primary care, the time spent on assessments, and on these nugatory points, is likely to be potentially the same as that spent administering the service if it were provided in full.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I accept what Mr Ford says, up to a point. The difference between personal care and nursing care is a major debate in itself, and much has been written about it. I assure Mr Ford that the Committee gave detailed consideration to the matter.

Only last week, the Committee heard about the difficult position faced by social workers coping with severe inadequacies in childcare services: Mr Close will appreciate that point. It is due in no small part to the lack of funding available. The absence of money to provide adequate services is causing untold damage to the children and families affected, as well as imposing immense stress on the social workers responsible for their care and protection.

Clause 1 is essentially about equity, and correcting an anomaly faced by some 2,000 self-funding residents of nursing homes. The Minister will, no doubt, refer to that problem. Those people have been put at a distinct disadvantage in comparison with the nursing care that is supplied free as a health service to people in their own homes. Mr McCarthy referred to the fact that people in residential care homes also get free care if it is supplied externally by a trust via the community nursing service.

The Committee decided that the adoption of clause 1 should be seen as a first, necessary step towards meeting basic equity of provision. That will ensure that we will be able to provide benefits similar to those already provided in England and Wales. Although it is limited in its intent, the Committee welcomed the aim of the clause.

At this point I urge a word of caution. The claims of free nursing care being held out in the Bill and the explanatory material provided by the Department must be taken with a pinch of salt. We have been told that £85 a week might be available. If that is the correct amount, it is unlikely to provide for free nursing care, and the public is in danger of being misled. That amount will only help to cover the cost of nursing care. Unless the Minister is able to provide money, the public should be told clearly in the publicity material that the money will help pay for nursing costs but will not meet all of the costs.

It is important to note that the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will reconsider free personal care and the conclusions of the Royal Commission, a subject that we have considered many times. We will be able to learn from the Executive’s examination of personal care, and the experiences in Scotland, and we will be better able to gauge the benefits and costs of introducing free personal care.

Two thousand people are facing inequity in nursing care. Mr McCarthy’s integrity and the aspirations of his amendments are beyond question. However, the Minister will explain that if the amendments are passed, they will pose great difficulty for the 2,000 people in nursing homes who are not getting free nursing care. That is a subject that the Committee will return to in detail in the autumn.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I support clause 1. However, I fully appreciate the position that Mr McCarthy has adopted. I support the aims of the Bill, because we all recognise that the 2,000 residents of nursing homes that the Chairperson mentioned are currently paying the full cost, or part of the cost, of nursing home care. They should not be disadvantaged any longer: they should be treated in the same way as others who are being cared for. If that argument is looked at, then we will be able to fully support the sentiments of the clause.

All Members will want people who have served the community all their lives and who have paid National Insurance, et cetera, to be looked after fully when they need care. As Mr McCarthy said, the Royal Commission on Long Term Care recommended that personal care be provided free of charge on the basis of assessment of need. I have a difficulty with that. It is demeaning for an old person who has given his life in the service of the community to be assessed. They should be taken care of, if for no other reason than to relieve their anxiety and that of their families.

However, now is not the time to be looking for free personal care, especially since the Executive have established an interdepartmental group to examine the costs and implications of introducing free personal care here. The needs of the Health Service also suggest that now is not the proper time to look for free personal care. It would be wrong to siphon funds from services such as cancer treatment, cardiac operations and those that are aimed at reducing the waiting lists. The Assembly must await the report from the interdepartmental group on the funding of the scheme. Members will then find out where the funds will come from, if there will be extra funding, or if the funding will be taken out of the health budget.

I have a query about free nursing care, as the Chairperson of the Health Committee did. The term "free nursing care" is misleading. Is £85 a week sufficient to meet personal care needs when in other places they are talking about amounts of £100 a week for the same purpose? Anyone who has spoken to the Health Committee or to its members individually thinks that £85 a week will not be sufficient, so it will not be free nursing care.

I appreciate the sentiment of Mr McCarthy’s amendments, but this is not the time to be asking for the full costs of personal care to be met. Let us take the first step and begin the process. Let us support the Minister and the Bill, and, when we get the report from the interdepartmental group, take another step on the basis of what it says towards what we all want.

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

Before I call Mrs Courtney, I remind the House that we will break at 2.30 pm for Question Time.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I commend the Bill to the Assembly. The Health Committee considered the wishes of those representing approximately 2,000 nursing home residents who pay for most of the cost of their care, and those who need care in their own homes, which involves only a small fee. This Bill will remove the anomaly whereby care is provided in nursing homes at a charge but is almost free in all other settings. It addresses financial assistance towards nursing care, but the Health Committee accepts the Bill as only a partial response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care report.

The Royal Commission thought that personal care should be provided free from central taxation on the basis of assessment of need. The Scottish model was recommended, but the Committee took the view that that would lead to a reallocation of the block grant that would, as Mr Coulter said, have a detrimental effect on other areas such as transport, education, regional infrastructure and the health budget. The fact that the Executive have established an interdepartmental group to examine the costs and implications of introducing free personal care here, and that the group is to report its findings later this month, is very important to the Committee. In addition to that, the understanding that free personal care could cost in excess of £25 million a year meant that its introduction would be detrimental to current overall care.

The Committee was also advised that there had been widespread consultation on the nursing care assessment tool that had been piloted in seven areas across Northern Ireland and across the four health and social services boards. The pilot scheme also involved the independent sector, and the Committee agreed with the Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust that the nursing care assessment tool should be open, transparent and set against clear criteria.

The Committee also sought assurances that the assessment tool would cover those with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia. That was an important consideration because evidence from Arthritis Care and the Alzheimer’s Society suggested — and I agree — that it is often difficult, with people who require long-term care, to distinguish between personal care and nursing care, that is, care that has to be given by a registered nurse or carer. The Committee thought it positive that the chief nursing officer was awaiting the consultation and outcome of the assessment of free nursing care before passing final comment.

The appeal process was examined in great detail, and the Committee approved the fact that three weeks was the maximum time for an appeal to be determined. It was also assured that sufficient resources would be available for a smooth transition to the new nursing care arrangements and appeal review system. The Department must also monitor the entire system carefully. The Committee welcomed the establishment of the Northern Ireland Practice and Education Council for Nursing and Midwifery, which will be funded by a transfer in the Budget from the local national board to the new body.

The Bill should have been effective from April 2002, and when it did not come into effect there was grave disquiet in the entire community, including the elderly and those in need of care. The fact that up to £85 will be provided for each individual from October 2002 should go some way to alleviating anguish, but I agree with the Committee Chairperson that if the finance had been forthcoming, the Committee would have given unanimous support to nursing and personal care being provided free. However, in the event that the assurance could not be given, I support the introduction of clause 1 of the Bill, but, like others, I support Mr McCarthy’s sentiments.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I too support clause 1. I agree with the Chairperson and with Rev Robert Coulter. I would like to thank the Committee staff and the groups that submitted written and oral evidence. Mr McCarthy’s amendment is visionary, and the Committee supports it. All parties support the need for free nursing care and personal care, but the finance is not available from the Executive for the Minister to introduce it. The Committee is trying to be realistic, as well as sympathetic to Mr McCarthy’s amendment.

The working group on personal care has not yet reported to the Executive, and the Committee is waiting for it to come forward with its recommendations. The report of today’s debate should be forwarded to that group so that it is aware of the Assembly’s feelings. The Committee is aware of concerns, and it is asking for an extension to the Committee Stage of the Bill to listen, to debate and to take on board people’s concerns. Although there was genuine concern that voting against the clause or supporting the amendment would affect over 2,500 people, the Committee thinks that the Bill should proceed. The Committee will continue to lobby the Executive for the money required to introduce personal care.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We are coming up to Question Time. I propose, therefore, that we suspend the debate on the amendments and resume at 4.00 pm — or earlier, should Question Time finish before 4.00 pm.

The debate stood suspended.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Members are concerned that nursing care and personal care were not dealt with together. The Alliance Party is not represented on the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Therefore, it is understandable that Mr McCarthy has tabled amendments to include personal care in the Bill. If he had been a member of the Committee, he might have found the evidence sessions as difficult to follow as I did.

More people who live in residential homes in Northern Ireland need personal care than nursing care. Approximately 2,000 people require nursing care, while many more thousands require personal care. I am committed to the Bill on the understanding that it is the first phase of a development process in nursing care and, eventually, personal care.

During the Committee Stage of the Bill, I was concerned that the Committee received the assessment tool rather late in the day. Organisations such as the Alzheimer’s Association asked many questions about what constituted nursing care and how one would make the distinction between nursing care and personal care. Mr McCarthy’s amendments suggest that the administration of oxygen or assistance with a catheter should come under the remit of nursing.

All Committee members were concerned that the Committee received the assessment tool so late. I ask Departments to make consultation documents and research findings available to Committees when legislation is first being introduced. Departments, including the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, know that Committees scrutinise the legislation and that it is important for them to have the relevant information so that they can decide whether amendments are necessary. If researchers are commissioned, they should know the deadlines by which reports must be with the Committees.

I remember being critical about the fact that the nursing care issue was not brought to the Assembly last spring. It will probably be autumn before the Bill finally goes through. Anyone working in this field would have known that the finance was withdrawn at that stage. I assumed that because the legislation was not ready, work was ongoing in parallel, in the knowledge that the Bill would come before the Assembly. Therefore, I was critical at Committee meetings, and I will repeat my criticism here, that although work was commissioned, it was not passed to the Committee. At this late stage, as the Assembly is finalising the legislation, Members still have only the draft assessment tool, not the final assessment tool.

At Further Consideration Stage, I will table a further amendment, because I disagree with the title of the Bill. I have been very critical of that. Indeed, in the Committee, I asked that the Department should stop sending us Bill after Bill with generic titles. Those titles do not suggest for a moment that we are taking action on important matters such as introducing payments for nursing care. Indeed, this Bill is about payments and not free nursing care. It establishes a council, and it would be easy to get that across in a short title. I remain concerned that, at this late stage, we still have such a generic title.

Having said that, I want to talk about clause 1, which deals with free nursing care. I mentioned payments because that care is not free; it involves payments. The title of the Bill should reflect that, and the clause should also say it. Although we have adopted the Welsh system, I am concerned that it is still under review. There has been an enormous outcry from residential-home owners in the independent sector — who I have always said were a great example of the partnership between the public and private sectors — saying that they have insufficient funds to cover their current level of nursing care provision. We all remain concerned that we should not go down the road that was taken in England, with our nursing care fund being swallowed up by the residential homes themselves, ultimately making little difference.

On nursing care, we were pleased that the right of appeal was accepted in this part of the Bill, and that we did not go down the normal "complaints" road associated with health and personal social services. It is good that departmental officials and the Minister have accepted that it is important to have a speedier complaints procedure, and that that will be in the Regulations.

Those were our major concerns, and, although I sympathise with Mr McCarthy’s amendments, had he sat on the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, he would undoubtedly have taken the view of other Committee members that this is phase one and that there will be a phase two. In that case, his amendments may not be needed, and I will scrutinise matters to ensure that they are not needed in the longer term.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I concur with Ms Monica McWilliams. I realise where Mr Kieran McCarthy is coming from in seeking provision for free personal care for our elderly population in clause 1 of the Bill. I am confident that there is not a single party represented in the Assembly today that would not like to have that element included in the clause.

However, it would be unforgivable if we did not proceed to deal with financial assistance for nursing care provision, as it would mean that up to 2,000 people who pay their nursing care element in full would continue to be disadvantaged. The Committee reluctantly understands that financial restraints on the health budget dictate that the Bill, and clause 1 in particular, does not include provision of personal care for the elderly. That does not for one minute suggest that that particular goal is dead in the water; rather, it means that pragmatism must win the day for the time being.

We must then turn our attention to securing the additional moneys to provide personal care for the elderly. The interdepartmental group that was established to examine the costs involved in, and the implications of, introducing free personal care here will report at the end of the month. I look forward to seeing that report.

We should think back to the unfair anomaly that existed in relation to nursing care provision in Northern Ireland. Members are undoubtedly aware that the cost of nursing care is included in the overall cost of a nursing home placement and may be borne by the residents whose means are such that they fund, or partly fund, their own care. The anomaly comes in relation to nursing care, in that it is supplied free as a health service to a person in their own home, or indeed, to a resident in a residential care home if supplied externally by a trust through the community nursing service.

Under current means-testing, if you need care in a nursing home and have more than £16,000, you have to pay for everything. If the figure is between £10,000 and £16,000, a person has to fork out everything except a miserly £15·45 each week for personal expenses. Only if a person has less than £10,000 will the state cover all expenses.

In so many cases I have found that elderly people who have worked for years and have paid their taxes to ensure a satisfactory standard of life in their later years find their savings disappear and often have to sell their home in order to meet the financial demands of living in a nursing home. Nationally, it is thought that over 40,000 homes are sold every year because of these circumstances. It is amazing that the National Health Service provides free care for everyone except those who deservedly need it most — the elderly, who must pay out of their own pocket.

The Health and Social Care Act 2001 splits care into two parts — nursing care and personal care. In England, residents do not receive funding for personal care but receive up to £35, £70 or £110 a week — three bands — for nursing care, depending on individual circumstances. In Wales, all residents qualify for £90 a week in a single band — similar to nursing care proposals for Northern Ireland — and do not receive assistance for personal care. In Scotland, residents receive up to £65 a week for nursing care and up to £90 a week for personal care, while all personal care for those living at home is free.

At this stage it is important to point out that the use of language in the Bill, such as "free nursing", is slightly misleading. Elderly people should not think that their nursing care will automatically be paid in full. That might turn out to be the case; we believe that £85 is the amount to be set. At least the Bill provides for a contribution towards their nursing care, and money may still need to be paid by the individual. It is estimated that around 2,000 elderly people in Northern Ireland will benefit from that provision, and it is hoped that they will be treated in a similar manner to those who receive care at home.

I support the aims of the Bill and appreciate the hard work and long hours that the Committee and its staff have devoted to it in order to meet the deadline for the Consideration Stage. The Committee has spent a great deal of time seeking assurances from the Department and others on important issues such as the right of speedy appeal against decisions; the assessment tool to be used on the elderly person and whether it includes or excludes diseases such as Alzheimer’s or dementia; and making all nursing home residents fully aware of their rights under the legislation.

We have had our concerns addressed by the Department, and assurances were given on these important issues. Many will feel that the Bill is only half a step in the right direction. Personal care must be provided free. This at least is movement.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag cur i gcoinne an leasaithe seo. Rinneadh díospóireacht ar dhá rún ar 27 Feabhra; ba é an tUasal Kieran McCarthy a chuir an chéad cheann síos ar chlár, agus chuir an tUasal Nigel Dodds agus an tUasal Ian Paisley Jnr an dara ceann síos ar chlár. Bhain an dá rún le cúram fadtréimhseach do dhaoine scothaosta. Ritheadh an dá rún.

Tharraing mé aird an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin ar rún an Tionóil ar 3 Bealtaine 2001, agus, i ndiaidh díospóireacht a dhéanamh, d’aontaigh an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin i bprionsabal cúram altranais saor in aisce a thabhairt isteach agus d’iarr an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin orm moltaí sonracha a chur faoina mbráid. D’aontaigh an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin fosta go mbunófaí grúpa idir-rannach le scrúdú a dhéanamh ar na himpleachtaí agus ar na costais a bhainfeadh le cúram pearsanta saor in aisce do chónaitheoirí tí altranais agus tí chónaithigh a thabhairt isteach; agus tuairisc ar na torthaí a thabhairt don Choiste Feidhmiúcháin.

Táthar ag súil le tuairisc an ghrúpa idir-rannaigh ag deireadh na míosa seo agus leagfar amach inti na himpleachtaí agus na costais go mion lena mbreithniú ag an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin. Ar an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin a bheidh sé ansin a chinneadh an gcuirfear an maoiniú breise ar fáil i gcomhthéacs tosaíochtaí eile sláinte agus tosaíochtaí i Ranna eile sula gcinnfear arbh fhéidir cúram pearsanta saor in aisce a thabhairt isteach do chónaitheoirí tí altranais.

I oppose the amendments. Two motions relating to long-term care for the elderly, the first in the name of Mr McCarthy and the second in the name of Mr Dodds and Mr Paisley Jnr, were debated in the Assembly on Tuesday 27 February 2001. Both motions were passed. I brought the Assembly’s resolution to the attention of the Executive on 3 May 2001, and, following discussion, the Executive agreed in principle to the introduction of free nursing care and asked that I bring forward detailed proposals.

The Executive also agreed that an interdepartmental group should be established to examine the implications and costs of introducing free personal care for residential and nursing home residents and to report its findings to the Executive. The terms of reference agreed for the group were: to research and define the current policy and position with regard to charging for and provision of personal and nursing care in domiciliary and residential settings; to examine the implications — including equality and new TSN implications — and the costs of introducing free personal care; and to draw on the findings of the Scottish Executive’s care development group and report them to the Executive.

In the debate last year, I pointed out that any decision to extend free care for the elderly would bring with it major budgetary considerations for the Executive. My Department estimated that to provide free personal care could add at least £25 million to the health and social services boards’ annual costs. The report of the interdepartmental group is due at the end of this month, and the implications and costs of free care will be set out in detail in that report for consideration by the Executive. It will then be for the Executive to decide whether, in the light of other priorities in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and other Departments, the additional funding can be made available, before deciding whether to provide free personal care for residential and nursing home residents.

In the meantime, I recognise that the cost of care is a concern, particularly for those whose care requirements are met in nursing homes. They are the only group of people that is currently required to contribute to the cost of a provision that, for all others, is a health service free of charge at the point of delivery. To remove this inequitable system and to prevent people here from being disadvantaged in comparison to those in England and Wales, I have developed this legislation to introduce free nursing care here.

Nursing care is only one element of the total cost of providing care in nursing homes. People being cared for in care home settings will still be subject to an assessment of their ability to contribute to the cost of their personal care and accommodation. The proposed legislation will remove the cost of the nursing care element from that means assessment. A decision on the amount paid at individual level has not yet been made. Some Members spoke about suggested costs this morning, but that decision has yet to be taken.

I am aware of the concerns expressed today that the benefits may not be passed on to those receiving care. Some organisations have said that that situation already exists in England. However, the policy is clearly intended to reduce the cost of care for people in nursing homes. Although the total cost of care for those who fund their own care will be a private matter between the home owner and the resident, officials are currently examining the means available to prevent that problem from arising here.

With regard to the flat-rate payment, one of the aims of the working group chaired by the chief nursing officer was to introduce proposals for a system that will be easily understood by the Health Service and the public, and that will add the least bureaucracy to an already complex care assessment process. It is also important that the additional money go directly to reducing the cost of care to the individual, and not to support and administration. Service professionals and several representative organisations favour the flat-rate approach, which is similar to the approaches taken in Wales and Scotland. I took account of those views in deciding to adopt the flat-rate approach. The working group that was commissioned to develop the assessment tool for the implementation of free nursing care was also required to keep the process as simple as possible.

Stage two of the community care review will look at putting a single assessment process in place to cover all aspects of the care process. The assessment tool has been thoroughly piloted by nursing professionals, and the timing of each assessment has been found to be adequate to take account of all the documentary and physical evidence available. The tool is now out for consultation, and further adjustments, as necessary, will be made following that consultation.

I appreciate the concerns raised about people selling their homes to pay for care in nursing homes. From 22 April 2002 I have introduced a disregard of the value of a resident’s former home during the first three months of a permanent admission to residential or nursing home care. Also, I increased the capital limits used in the means test for residential care from £11,500 and £18,500, respectively, to £11,750 and £19,000 from 22 April 2002. That has brought more people into care management earlier and enabled them to retain more capital than before.

It was asked if this provision would extend to patients in hospices. Hospices may qualify for registered nursing home status. Where that is the case, and patients are paying for their care, the nursing care element of the charges will be met by health and personal social services. Where palliative care is provided in a person’s own home, the nursing and health care services are provided free, as they are for all other groups of people. Where a hospice is registered, residents may be charged for the care received there, and the nursing care element will be met by health and personal social services from October 2002.

We have instituted mechanisms for people who do not agree with their assessment of nursing care. An individual who does not agree with the assessment of nursing care needs will have the right to seek a review of that assessment, and for the review assessment to be carried out by a different nurse. My Department will require an assessment to be reviewed within one week of the request, and if the individual still does not agree, a panel will be constituted and a further review completed within two weeks. The review process will take no more than three weeks. Statutory direction under article 17(1) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which will incorporate the guidance and review process, will be issued to boards and trusts.

In rejecting the amendments, I would like to emphasise that I am not rejecting free personal care. I am simply stating that the Executive have approved the introduction of free nursing care in nursing homes. The Executive have also agreed that an interdepartmental group should be established to examine the implications and costs of introducing free personal care for residential and nursing home residents and to report its findings to the Executive. I must, therefore, reject these amendments at this time, in advance of any future decision by the Executive when the report of the interdepartmental group has been received and studied.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I am extremely disappointed by what I have heard during the debate, and certainly by the Minister’s reply. The Assembly and the Executive took a decision to make health the number one priority for our people, and we all welcomed that decision at the time.

The resolution on 27 February 2002 was clear and unequivocal — it was not aspirational. It was clear about what it asked the Executive to do, which was to introduce free nursing and personal care. The motions put forward by Nigel Dodds and myself were passed unanimously. We all supported it then. Why are Members speaking in aspirational tones today? What justification is there for adopting such a stance today?

It really surprises me that a Member of the all-party group on ageing and older people such as Rev Robert Coulter cannot support the amendment. He referred to the siphoning of funds. I am disappointed by those words. We will not siphon off funds to provide for the needs of the elderly; we will demand that funds are there as a right for elderly people. That statement came from a man who wrote to one of his constituents in December 2001:

"I intend to take part again in the Budget debate in support of finance for the treatment of older people."

I also have a copy of a letter from none other than junior Minister James Leslie. He wrote that

"[the Ulster Unionist Party] will continue to support any attempt to further help those of our senior citizens who are in need of care."

That was a response from a junior Minister, who is now not even in the Chamber. This is an opportunity to give further help to those of our senior citizens who are in need of care, and to those who are ill and infirm. They need Members’ support today. Support the amendments.

I am also amazed that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will not support my amendments, given that they comply with her party’s policy. I have another letter, written on 17 November 2001 by Mary Nelis in support of the Right to Care campaign. Unfortunately, she is not in the Chamber. The letter says:

"As you may be aware the Assembly and the Executive have made provision for free nursing care for the elderly from October 2002.

While we welcome this announcement, we also believe that it should have included free personal care."

I am delighted that Mary Nelis said that, but where is she today to defend it? My amendments are also asking for personal care. Sinn Féin now has the chance to back up that commitment. Mary Nelis continues:

"We will continue to work to ensure that the Executive effectively addresses the issue of free personal care."

— now is her chance —

"Sinn Féin’s position in relation to this issue is that full and equal access to health and social care services are a right and that any financial barriers to accessing these services should be removed."

By supporting my amendments, Sinn Féin will have honoured that commitment given in Mary Nelis’s letter. By voting against the amendments or by abstaining, Sinn Féin will be shown up to all for its waffle and bluster, like others in the Assembly, and going back on its word as evidenced in the Assembly on 27 February 2001.

I would also like to remind Members of a statement made on 27 February 2001 by Mr Dodds:

"Today’s debate is, essentially, about principles … If we were to adopt a different course from that followed by the Scottish Parliament, our senior citizens would have every right to ask why they were being treated differently from their Scottish counterparts. They are entitled to receive the same, not as a handout but as a birthright." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 9, p318].

I agree with that.

On the same day the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Dr Hendron, said:

"My Committee hopes that the Minister…will fully implement the findings of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care. If we cannot look after our own folk then we should not be here." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 9, p318].

Hear, hear to that. He continued:

"With its unique integrated health and social services, Northern Ireland has an ideal opportunity to ensure that nursing and social care should be regarded as a seamless continuum, all free at the point of delivery." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 9, p318-9].

On that same day, when we were all delighted and supportive, Mr Dodds also said:

"The Scottish Executive, having come under considerable pressure not least from within its own coalition where the Liberal Democrats exerted considerable pressure on the Labour Party, was forced into a position where it had to recognise that simply allowing free nursing care without free personal care would be running away from the recommendations of the Sutherland Report and the obligations that society has to our old people in need of care." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 9, p317].

I entirely agree with Mr Dodds’s sentiments on that occasion.

We are not saying that we should set down timetables and deadlines today. However, we are saying to the Minister that she should accept that this is the will of the Assembly. We, on behalf of the people whom we represent, believe that people are entitled to free nursing and personal care if they are elderly and in need of it. We recognise that treating people who have cancer, heart disease or other health problems costs money. Is anyone seriously suggesting that we should look at this in terms of people’s wealth or the cost involved? Mr Dodds went on to say:

"No Member would ever argue that, because cancer treatment was becoming more and more expensive, we ought not to treat people."

The Human Rights Commission made many recommendations in a recent report and suggested implementing the Royal Commission’s views on enhancing the rights of older people.

I reiterate the points that I made earlier. There is no evidence that any member of the interdepartmental group gave evidence to the Health Committee, and it has not taken evidence from any other groups, especially highly respected organisations such as Age Concern or Help the Aged and other organisations working with the elderly. A report from the Health Committee was due this month, but it has not appeared in time for the debate. That is rather strange. Who are the members of that group; are any MLAs on it; and from whom has it taken evidence?

We are told that we should not act on these amendments because the working group has not reported in time for this debate. That is contrary to open government and consultation, and it is not what a devolved Administration should be doing. People talk about secret societies — we need to get all the information into the public domain.

Nearly every Member who spoke said that he agreed with the amendments in principle but that the time was not right. Dr Hendron, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr John Kelly, Mrs Iris Robinson and Mrs Courtney all said that. Forgive me if I have left anyone out. When will Members say that the time is right? The Bill deals with introducing free care in a way that makes it perfectly appropriate to pass these amendments today. Members may not have read clause 4 subsection (1) closely. It clearly says that

"Sections 1 and 3 (with the Schedule) come into operation on such day or days as the Department may by order appoint."

In other words, if we pass these amendments in my name today, we establish the principle of free personal care as well as free nursing care and follow Scotland and Wales. We acknowledge that free personal care cannot be introduced immediately but say that it is very important.

Passing the amendments would show that we care about this and are taking it seriously. It would also show that Members are not content to sit back and accept bland assurances but are taking a clear stance for the principle of free personal care and calling on the Executive to provide the funds as soon as possible. I urge all Members to vote with their consciences and keep up the pressure that will assist the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to get the resources needed from the Executive to meet the needs of vulnerable and elderly people.

This twenty-first century Assembly has a wonderful opportunity to give our community a lead and to provide for the needs of our elderly people. We must start somewhere, so let us do it now. Sympathy is simply not enough. I plead for — indeed, I beg — Members to support the amendment.

Question put

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 5; Noes 53

Ayes

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

Noes

Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Boyd Douglas, Mark Durkan, Reg Empey, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, Patricia Lewsley, Alex Maskey, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Monica McWilliams, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, John Tierney, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Members should be aware that amendments No 2, No 3, No 4 and No 10 are consequential to, and dependent on, amendment No 1. Therefore, as amendment No 1 was not made, those amendments will not be called.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 2 to 5. Therefore I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group these clauses.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. It will be convenient to debate amendment No 5 with amendments No 6, No 7, No 8 and No 9.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Molaim leasú 5. Tagraíonn leasuithe 5 go dtí 8 do mhíreanna 4, 5(a) agus 6(1) Sceideal an Bhille agus is é is aidhm dóibh pointe dréachtaithe a cheartú. Ní cheadaíonn na focail sa dréacht-Bhille do phríomhfheidhmeannach chomhairle cleachtais agus oideachais TÉ bheith ina chomhalta den Chomhairle. Tá sé i gceist go mbeadh an príomhfheidhmeannach ina chomhalta fheidhmitheach ar an Chomhairle mar atá amhlaidh ar bhoird comhlachtaí eile de chuid na Seirbhíse Sláinte, mar bhoird agus iontaobhais sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta. Déanann na leasuithe seo foráil dó sin agus léiríonn siad go mbeidh an Chomhairle comhdhéanta de Chathaoirleach, comhaltaí neamhfheidhmitheacha eile agus an príomhfheidhmeannach.

I beg to move amendment No 5: In page 3, line 21, leave out from "a chairman" to end of line 22 and insert

"(a) a chairman appointed by the Department in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5;

(b) the person for the time being appointed under paragraph 7 to be the chief executive of the Council; and

(c) other members appointed by the Department in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5.

(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule the members appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (c) are referred to as the non-executive members of the Council."

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 6: In page 3, line 25, leave out "chairman and other" and insert "non-executive". — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún).]

No 7: In page 3, line 28, leave out "chairman and other" and insert "non-executive". — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún).]

No 8: In page 4, line 2, leave out

"its chairman, to any other member"

and insert

"the non-executive members". — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún).]

No 9 : In page 4, line 14, leave out

"a member of the staff of the Council and shall be" — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún).]

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Amendments No 5 to No 8 refer to paragraphs 4, 5(a), 5(b) and 6(1) of the schedule to the Bill, and their purpose is to correct a drafting point. The wording in the draft Bill does not provide for the chief executive of the Northern Ireland practice and education council for nursing and midwifery to be a member of that council. It is the intention that the chief executive should be an executive member on the council, as is the case on the boards of other HPSS bodies, such as health and social services boards and trusts. The amendments will provide for that and will clarify that the council will comprise a chairperson, other non-executive members, and a chief executive.

Amendment 9 corrects a drafting point in paragraph 7(1) with regard to a chief executive being stated as a member of staff of the council. That is already implicit from the remaining details within the paragraph.

(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

The Committee welcomes the proposed creation of the new council. It will help to ensure consistently high standards and best practice, education and performance in nursing and midwifery in Northern Ireland.

The Committee considered it important to have a local body working in partnership with nurses and midwives to ensure that clinical training and development meet the highest standards in Northern Ireland. Members were satisfied that it would not involve additional costs. Transferring the existing budget for the old national board to the new body will cover the expenditure involved. However, the council should be subject to rigorous audit to ensure that it spends its money wisely. The Committee advocates that the proposals be considered in conjunction with those published for consultation in the document ‘Best Practice — Best Care’.

The new council can be expected to play an important role in working closely with the new local health and social care groups to examine the role of nurses and explore ways in which to develop their specialist skills. Spreading good practice across the nursing profession will ultimately benefit all service users by developing consistently high standards of health care.

The Committee supports clause 2, the schedule and the amendments tabled by the Minister. The Minister has explained that the amendments are needed to bring the Bill into line with standard practice for all health and social services bodies.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Amendments 5 to 8, tabled by the Minister and her Department, came to us very recently; therefore, we have not had an opportunity to look at them in detail. My concern is that the schedule, as amended, no longer makes sense. For example, amendment 5 asks us to leave out from "a chairman" at page 3, line 21, and insert

"(a) a chairman appointed by the Department in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5;"

Amendment 6, which deletes part of paragraph 5, means that there will no longer be any reference to a chairman. Whose job will it be to appoint a chairman? Paragraph 5, as amended, will refer only to non-executive members. The Minister has explained that the amendments are required to keep the practice and education council in line with other bodies, and make the chief executive a member of the council.

As the Minister has explained, I can understand why — in line with other bodies — the chief executive will now be a member of the council. However, the amendments leave no provision for a chairperson, or "chairman", as is referred to in the legislation. Therefore, I want some explanation as to whose job it is to appoint the chairman.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank those Members who participated in the discussion. Indeed, I recently announced new arrangements to improve the quality of service, which are based on ‘Best Practice — Best Care’.

The Northern Ireland practice and education council for nursing and midwifery (NIPEC) will have an important role in contributing to those arrangements by supporting organisations, delivering services and enhancing the quality of nursing and midwifery care provided to service users. For example, it will provide advice and guidance, on a co-ordinated regional basis, on best practice, and by supporting the professional development of nurses and midwives in quality-assuring their education and training.

The amendments to the legislation that will establish NIPEC are required to enable the chief executive to be an executive member of the council. Although that was always the intention, it was identified only at a late stage that the wording of the draft Bill would not allow that. The required amendments were made available to the Committee as soon as was practicable. Amendment No 5 to paragraph 4 states that the schedule will refer to the chairperson and other members as non-executive members of the council. Paragraph 5 will be amended to refer to non-executive members, which includes the chairperson and others. The Department will, therefore, appoint the chairperson.

Amendment No 5 agreed to.

Amendment No 6 made

Amendment No 7 made

Amendment No 8 made

"its chairman, to any other member"

and insert

"the non-executive members". — [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún).]

Amendment No 9 made

"a member of the staff of the Council and shall be". — [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún).]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Railway Safety Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I remind Members that the Assembly agreed in April to amend Standing Order 35, which now allows debate and votes at Further Consideration Stage only when amendments have been tabled. There will no longer be votes on clauses or schedules stand part at Further Consideration Stage.

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The Further Consideration Stage of the Railway Safety Bill is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Budget (No.2) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The Further Consideration Stage of the Budget (No.2) Bill is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Review of Public Administration

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the terms of reference for the Review of Public Administration.

In February, the First Minister and I outlined the challenges presented by this review and initiated a pre-consultation exercise on the draft terms of reference. I will explain the steps that have been taken since February and the changes made to the terms of reference as a result. As well as considering the terms of reference, we should also begin to look ahead to the review itself.

Endorsement of the terms of reference by the Assembly today will signal the start of the review. There is a great desire to move ahead quickly and to start to tackle the many difficult issues that fall within the review’s remit. Before doing so, I will explain the steps taken over the past four months.

The extensive debate on 25 February 2002 was a helpful start to the consultation on the terms of reference. Since then, we have also received comments from several Committees. The First Minister and I met the Committee of the Centre on 8 May 2002 in a lengthy and constructive meeting that went into some detail on several of the issues.

What I found most notable in that meeting was the desire to get on with the review itself, rather than to continue to pick over the specific text of the terms of reference. That reinforced the need to move on. The Committee of the Centre will have an important role in overseeing the review. I welcome that and look forward to further engagements.

In addition to considering the views expressed by the Assembly and its Committees, we consulted a range of umbrella organisations. We sought views on the terms of reference from groups which can effectively represent key sectors. Among the groups consulted were those representing local government, the trade unions, business and the community and voluntary sectors. We received a range of comments and suggestions for changes to the terms of reference. A significant number of those have been taken on board and are reflected in the revised text.

In our debate in February, several Members asked whether the review would be sufficiently independent. The Executive want a strong, independent element to this review. We have appointed a panel of experts to fulfil this role, and the calibre and experience of the individuals appointed are testament to our determination to ensure that strong, independent element. The appointment of Tom Frawley, the Northern Ireland Ombudsman, to chair the panel specifically recognises the need to ensure that the experts have a strong voice.

The panel, which will have a direct line to Ministers, consists of six people with a broad range of skills, experience and backgrounds. They will bring a robust, inquiring, quality input to the review. Working with a team of officials, the panel will be engaged in all its key elements. It will be able to suggest ideas, challenge the way things are done now and quality-assure the results.

I am pleased to say that the panel of experts and the review team had an informal first meeting with the Committee of the Centre this afternoon to make introductions and begin building a relationship. There will be many formal meetings in the future, but this was a helpful start.

It was always the intention to seek the views of independent experts on the draft before seeking the endorsement of the Executive and the Assembly for its terms of reference. The revised draft takes account of suggestions made by the experts. Specifically, they proposed keeping the terms relatively short and putting the commentary on the characteristics and parameters, or questions that might inform the review, into an annex. Their view, which the Executive endorsed, was that too much material in the terms of reference would be unwieldy and potentially confusing when explaining the starting point for the review at public meetings and other forms of consultation that the team will undertake. It is sensible to keep them brief and to the point.

We listened to views from the Assembly, from its Committees, from wider civic society and from the independent experts, and the terms of reference have been significantly amended to reflect that. One change is the preface, which is intended to answer many of the questions posed in February.

We have set the review panel a challenging timetable. We hope that it will produce a report by the end of 2003, and we have asked for an interim report by March 2003. The panel of experts has said that the timetable is challenging, particularly in view of the level of consultation believed to be necessary if the review is to be conducted successfully. The interim report next March will set out the progress made on the consultation exercise and the conduct of the review. It is a stepping stone to developing the key propositions and recommendations for the review. It will not, however, outline a draft report or emerging findings. We must be realistic about what can be achieved.

In only a few areas, we have not accepted the suggested changes. Primarily, they relate to the review’s ability to examine the 11 Departments and to calls from a few quarters to draw in the North/South bodies and other institutions of the agreement. The review is not a means by which to renegotiate the agreement by the back door. It is considering a system of public administration that was established 30 years ago, to decide what changes are needed, not least because of the creation of the Assembly and the devolution of powers to it. We considered carefully whether to review the distribution of functions between the 11 Departments and concluded that that would detract from the main focus of the review. Energy would be channelled into turf wars rather than better services. The remit of Departments is not, of course, set in stone, but that is not the task of the review.

There are no illusions about the difficulty and scale of the task that is to be faced. An undertaking of that nature challenges us to think radically, to examine the problems and to decide better ways to do things. The Executive are determined to lead that exercise, which reflects our determination to take responsibility for the task. To assist in that process, we have established an Executive subcommittee to lead the review. That subcommittee met the panel of experts, and the senior official who is the review’s chief operating officer, for the first time this morning. The subcommittee will advise the review team and develop its approach and thinking. The Executive will take the final decisions.

However, the success of the review depends on what the review team can learn from those who experience the services and structures of public administration. To listen to those who receive the services, to those who deliver them and to those who can tell us about good practice further afield is an essential part of the review.

The listening and learning process will highlight the proposals and recommendations to be tested. The review team made it clear to Ministers that the process will be highly consultative. Everyone will have the chance to have their say. We want a system of public administration that meets the needs and expectations of all the people of Northern Ireland. To achieve that, people must contribute their views. Some people feel over-consulted and others doubt whether their views are taken into account.

For such a consultation to succeed, two things must happen: the review team must imaginatively provide people with opportunities to contribute; and those with views must make them known. The review is a major exercise for the Executive, the Assembly and all the citizens of Northern Ireland. I hope that we have shown that we have listened to Members’ comments on the terms of reference. We have a sound basis on which to initiate the review.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Committee of the Centre welcomes the publication of the terms of reference and the opportunity for today’s debate. It is leading the scrutiny of the review and is keen that the review should begin without any further delay. In undertaking that scrutiny, the Committee will co-ordinate responses from all Committees, and it will take that role seriously. I assure the Assembly that the Committee’s scrutiny will be thorough and robust.

Since the first debate on the terms of reference on 25 February 2002, the Committee has undertaken some preliminary work to identify the main issues that must be considered. As part of that, the Committee heard evidence from three leading academics. It also heard proposals from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Several main points came out of those sessions.

First, the need for a review is not in doubt. There is widespread agreement that we are over-governed. It was put to the Committee by Prof Knox of the University of Ulster that

"the prevailing argument in Northern Ireland is that we have moved from a position of democratic deficit to a surfeit, with 18 MPs, 108 MLAs, 582 councillors and three MEPs, all for a population of 1·6 million."

That is not to mention the numerous quangos.

The attempt to set out principles — or characteristics, as they are referred to in the revised terms of reference — to inform the process of the review was welcomed, but it was recognised that a difficulty arose in that there was no attempt to rank or prioritise those principles. The principles are laudable, and few could disagree with them. However, they are potentially conflicting, and trade-offs in how they are applied will be necessary. As Prof Knox put it:

"the often conflicting imperatives of efficiency, which point to larger units, often at the pan-Northern Ireland level, could conflict with democratic issues, which might suggest smaller units, conceivably at the town or district level."

The validity of excluding the 11 Departments from the review’s remit has been raised with the Committee, and will doubtless be raised again during the debate. There were calls for greater clarity in setting the review’s parameters, and while the Committee welcomes the indicative list of bodies that will fall within its remit, the inclusion of the 11 Departments would have made it a more encompassing exercise.

In the first debate, I pointed out that the review must address the need for joined-up government and examine the scope for the electronic delivery of services and for one-stop shops to improve the delivery of services to the public. Prof Skelcher of the University of Birmingham reinforced that point in his evidence to the Committee:

"The impact of e-government and new technology enables us to think in different ways about how we organise public administration systems."

Although the terms of reference make passing references to the need to address opportunities for new technologies, I am concerned that those could be missed. Advances in electronic government have enormous potential to revolutionise how services are organised and delivered. There are many examples of how services can now be built around and delivered to meet life events, rather than remaining in the silo mentality of the past. It is insufficient to consider how e-government can be used to deliver services after new structures have been agreed. It is not an add-on; it can fundamentally influence how the structures are developed. In Northern Ireland we have a unique opportunity to re-engineer our processes and to exploit that potential. Perhaps the First and the Deputy First Ministers could tell the House whether someone on the panel of experts has significant expertise in e-government, and how that potential will be explored and maximised.

It is recognised that the review must take account of developments and best practice elsewhere. The Committee welcomes that, as it does the appointment of the eminent experts who will bring an international perspective to the review.

I said earlier that the Committee had already heard evidence about developments in other parts of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. For example, the Committee heard from Prof Skelcher about the international move away from the public management model towards a system that questions how public administration can operate effectively as part of a democratic society. We learnt that there is still a highly centralised approach to public management in England, whereas in Wales and Scotland, as Prof Skelcher put it:

"there is more consensual discussion between different tiers of Government and between politicians in those tiers."

Mr John Stapleton of the University of Limerick gave evidence to the Committee about how the structure of public administration has evolved in the Republic of Ireland. The Committee heard about the dramatic rise and subsequent decline in the number of state-sponsored bodies, para-governmental organisations and quangos, and the reasons for that effect. The Committee also learned of the emergence of a regional administrative dimension in the Irish Republic, but that it did not amount to regional government as it has in the United Kingdom.

The Committee also visited Washington DC and Boston, and while there we had several opportunities to explore some issues relating to the review. The Committee had a meeting with the directors of the National Academy of Public Administration in Washington. That organisation is dedicated to improving the performance of government systems to make them work for everyone. In Boston, we heard about the system of public administration in the state of Massachusetts and had valuable discussions with the director of the Shamie Centre in Boston, a think tank on state and local government issues, and leading academics from Boston College.

In the previous debate on the subject, I mentioned the lack of information on the structure and methodology of the review. The Committee would welcome the inclusion of the terms of reference in the preamble, because that would give a clearer picture of how the review will be carried out. I also questioned the validity of restricting the examination of Northern Ireland’s needs to those that are forecast to exist in five or 10 years’ time. The revised terms of reference still give that timescale. Surely a system that results from such a comprehensive and strategic review must be capable of lasting for a generation, while retaining the scope to adapt to change.

I recently attended a seminar in Belfast to discuss the review of public administration. There was unanimous agreement on the need for the review, and for it to be carried out quickly. The need to improve the delivery of services to the public was made clear. People care whether they receive good services efficiently and at the right time.

We must always remember that as public representatives we serve the public. It is our duty to ensure that the administration exists to serve the public, rather than us in the guise of political masters. We need to focus on what is best for the public. The review provides a unique opportunity to do that, and we must ensure that its outcome is a better, more efficient system that saves money on administration and delivers better core services. That needs to be carried out soon.

I wish the review team well and look forward to working with them. The review must be fundamental and must bring about real change; otherwise we will have wasted more public money.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The review is a welcome part of the process of creating new governance for Northern Ireland, meeting the needs of the new century and delivering the benefits of devolution to all. The last thoroughgoing review of public administration, led by Patrick Macrory, was carried out 30 years ago, so it is high time that a subsequent investigation took place. Today’s announcement of the revised terms of reference is an especially welcome indicator of the review’s progress, as they will be crucial in shaping it.

The 10 characteristics to govern the review, such as democratic accountability, community responsiveness, and efficiency, seem to be almost comprehensive. Crucial questions can be posed about those characteristics. First, should the characteristics have been ranked? The case could be made for doing that, but it would be best not to do so, because, as Mr Poots said, trade-offs could be made between the characteristics. In addition, democratic accountability might be seen to conflict with effectiveness and efficiency.

Perhaps most notably, this may be the case when considering, for example, if local government units such as district councils should be made smaller, perhaps to create a greater sense of identification with citizens, or bigger to achieve economies of scale in the delivery of services. It is right for the review body to consider this wide range of objectives or characteristics and then, because the decision, ultimately, is a political one, to deliver the options to the Assembly, which will carry out the difficult task of weighing up such trade-offs between, for example, accountability and cost-effectiveness.

Secondly, the rule that "form follows function" should be observed in the review. For example, evidence should be collected on what powers should be allocated to each layer of administration, such as district councils. Subsequently, a decision can be made rationally on the size of the population areas that district councils should serve.

Thirdly, I am pleased that financial issues are to be considered. It would be crazy if the review of rating, which has been discussed in the House, were to be conducted in isolation from this review of the layers of administration that those rates will be paying for in part.

Fourthly, I am pleased that accountability is given prominence in the document that the First and Deputy First Ministers have put before us today. The Assembly must set a good example, especially as it may be expecting members of non-departmental public bodies, or quangos, and district councillors to make sacrifices as a result of the review. I trust that MLAs who are also councillors will not use their positions here to attempt to skew the outcome of the review towards narrow sectional interests.

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

The aim of this review is to bring about a more effective delivery of services and better government. We must move away from the traditional bureaucracy to a more manageable system of public administration which is more open, accountable and transparent. We have the opportunity to develop a modern, effective system, tailored to deliver public services to the community in a more efficient way. I welcome the announcement by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about the appointment of the panel of experts to support the review. The Deputy First Minister said that members of the Committee of the Centre were able to meet that panel this afternoon. I met the panel and was impressed by the high level of international skills and experience that it is bringing to the group. I wish its members well on the journey that they are about to begin and look forward to the partnerships that they will build.

Delivering high-quality public services as a means of supporting economic and social development is essential. This should go beyond the conviction that every citizen is entitled to a warm home, a good education and quality healthcare. Resources deployed to public services will play a vital role in generating economic stability and success. If they are properly managed, those services will be seen as an investment in the future. The co-ordination and integration of services are important for promoting accessibility. As matters stand, people already have difficulty establishing which agency is responsible for what service.

Many people have an affinity with councils, which are often perceived as responsive to local needs. It is important that this be preserved. We must consider how accessible, efficient and accountable the delivery of those services will be.

We must also ensure that equality is built into the system and that we target those most in need to reflect the TSN principles. Many inequalities have been addressed without our tackling the underlying structures that facilitate inequality of access to public services. We must deal with service provision, particularly in rural areas. The new obligations in Government require significant attention to be given to section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on equality, duty and human rights and our TSN commitments. If the current structures were proposed now, they would not meet these standards.

Less than 5% of our public budget is spent by elected representatives on district councils, while 65% is spent by those appointed to non-elected bodies. The public often views quangos with suspicion because they are frequently made up of non-elected people who are not totally accountable. People should have a sense of ownership and participation in public administration. The groundswell of opinion is that a system should be built on democratically elected public authorities, which are accountable to, and identified with, local communities. There is a strong argument for redefining, reforming and renaming these public bodies to ensure that there is democratic control, legitimacy and monitoring to create full accountability.

We must consider providing adequate resources and a best value regime to enable each district council to justify its bid for funding. There are also questions about duplication and inefficiencies resulting from inadequate co-ordination and the costs of administration itself. There should be appropriate training for all members, including elected representatives.

The partnership principles, which are the heart of the Good Friday Agreement, must apply at all levels in the public sector. The context that created a need for protection in this House also creates a need for mechanisms to ensure confidence in decision-making at other levels. I would also like to see attention paid to sectoral issues in matters of public administration, such as education, health, quangos, and so on.

In conclusion, to some degree the principles outlined are competing concerns and will have to be balanced against one another carefully to deliver a system that meets each adequately. If we succeed, we will have laid the foundation for better government and enhanced public confidence. I welcome this review and the breadth of its terms of reference. I support the motion.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am on record on a number of occasions, with questions in the House, at the Committee of the Centre and in earlier debates, expressing concern about the overly long delay in starting this, so I welcome our getting round at last to debating the review’s terms of reference.

The terms are broadly acceptable. They are vague enough to encompass everything that should be there, and there are some key phrases and words there that will ensure a proper fundamental review of public services. I also welcome the appointment of the panel of experts, although labelling them as that probably burdens them with our expectation of what they might deliver. I welcome their appointment and wish them well in their work, as it is a daunting task.

Integration and cohesion are key to this, and we need an approach that best facilitates the essential interconnections between public services such as social services, housing, and education. The review must be as wide-ranging and fundamental as possible. Even from reading the terms of reference, it is still not clear how they will dovetail with the review of local government, one of the major parts of the review. Those issues must be teased out.

I do not expect the review of the Civil Service to be addressed in the terms of reference, but it is not fully clear how it is intended to address some of these issues. I hope that as the review goes on, we will be updated on the work that the panel of experts is doing. I look forward to regular statements from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to update us on progress.

The effective delivery of services underpinned by equality, accountability, proportionality and democratisation are rightly central to the terms of reference. That should also be central to the ultimate recommendations that are advanced by the panel. Against the backdrop of relatively poor attempts to promote joined-up government in the past, not necessarily just by the devolved Administration but also during direct rule, there are some key phrases about the essential interconnections between public services and how those can be best facilitated. That will be fundamentally important.

I am pleased that the review will take into consideration the all-Ireland element of government to see what means can be devised to examine how administration works in the South and how we can link up and co-operate with that properly. By taking examples of best practice from the South and also from the east-west connection, the review can consider how things might be streamlined. As someone who lives in the border area, I know that there are many issues in which we could dovetail quite properly with the South to ensure more effective delivery of services in border areas and right across the island. Those are important factors.

This is probably a point for much later in the debate, but there should be some early consideration of implementing the review’s recommendations. We have all been dogged by implementation in another matter that we have been dealing with. There may well be an argument for the consideration of a model with some additional powers to oversee the implementation. Even at this early stage in debating the terms of reference, perhaps some thought could be given to that. As we all know, the devil is in the detail of the implementation of these reviews. The production of the final report and the recommendations may be good, but often when we try to deliver we get bogged down and run into difficulties.

I have voiced my concern in the past that we are up and running, albeit with all the hiccups and slow and unsure starts, but are only now, in 2002, getting round to debating the review’s terms of reference. I hope that there will be a much more speedy approach from here on. I note the timetables that have been set for it by the Deputy First Minister, and I hope that we can meet those timetables and get this under way and concluded quickly. I look forward to that happening. Go raibh maith agat.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

We hear much talk of transparency in Government. Language, and the obfuscation that arises from it, is often employed by politicians and public representatives not to make things transparent but to disguise them.

As anyone who has any interest in the governance of Northern Ireland, I welcome a review of administrative practices, which most people would consider to be, in some cases, archaic and in most cases totally and outrageously overpriced. One could forgive administrators charging Rolls-Royce prices if Rolls-Royce services were being delivered. However, when the cost of governance is Rolls-Royce and the product is more like a banger than anything that Rolls and Royce would have produced, then serious questions must be asked.

There is a fundamental distinction between this review and that carried out by Macrory. Macrory was a totally, independent review. It was intended to review not only local government but also the practices at Stormont, which then represented the devolved Government. It is a matter of fundamental regret that this review does not include the Executive, the various Committees and the 11 Departments that are now being utilised to run Northern Ireland.

Edwin Poots said that we moved from a democratic deficit under direct rule to a surfeit of democracy. That statement is utterly fallacious. We have moved from having a democratic deficit to a form of government and structures that are not democratic at all. They do not meet the fundamental requirement of any democracy, which is that when a Government no longer enjoys the confidence of the people, it may be turned out of office and replaced.

Under the d’Hondt principles, we can have elections until the cows come home, but, broadly speaking, the same parties will be returned in the same numbers. Since the choice of Ministers will lie wholly in the gift of the parties, we will have, by and large, the same Ministers, regardless of how incompetent or negligent they were, and regardless of their failures in the delivery of services.

I hope that the review of administrative services will involve a re-examination of their costs. Services in Northern Ireland fall broadly into three categories: those provided by the Executive and their 11 Departments, those provided by the so-called quangos and those provided by local government agencies.

Prof Colin Knox of Queen’s University Belfast, an expert on administrative practices, believed that the expenditure of local government agencies amounted to some £250 million, give or take £10 million. That is about 5% of the costs of government, as opposed to the 65% spent on quangos, as quoted by Ms Lewsley. Prof Knox warned that to concentrate any so-called reforms or review of administration on the 26 local government bodies was a red herring and would obstruct the review of the fundamental aspects.

Everyone accepts that quangos — or many of them — must go and that they should have gone long ago. They represented the veneer or cosmetic surface that several British Governments utilised to give a semblance of democracy to direct rule. They comprised, for the most part, the great and the good: people who were said to have safe hands. Some might say that they had soft minds. They delivered mainly what the Government wanted. They were not elected or accountable, but from time to time a sprinkling of elected representatives was added to the mix to give a semblance of democratic accountability.

Everyone agrees that there must be a great pruning back. However, that disguises the fact that superimposed on top of the layer of undemocratic, unaccountable agencies was a layer that, in some respects, was little better — devolved government. Devolved government presented us with 11 Department instead of six, and a bureaucratic bill of upwards of £1 billion. It also presented us with a form —

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Yes.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. Mr McCartney says that the cost of the 11 Departments is upwards of £1 billion. My understanding is that total departmental running costs are just under £700 million. Perhaps he will tell me where the figure of £1,000 million comes from.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The sum required in the spring Estimates was — and I speak off the cuff — about £540 million.

The accompanying explanatory papers suggested that that represented — again, I speak off the cuff — about 41% to 46%. It is 40-something-or-other per cent. By simple mathematics, which, as an economist, even the Member could carry out, it totalled about £1 billion. In fact, it was rather more than that if those figures were correct. We can go into that at another time; however, that is the source of the figure, whether it pleases the Member or not.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I do not think that the figures are correct.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

We can look at the debate, look at the figures and, ultimately, at the explanatory material that went with them. We can then get out our abacus, if that is necessary, and do the counting. In any event, it is a very large sum.

That sum is the product of those 11 Departments not being the result of any analysed conclusion as to the number that was required to be efficient and economical in its administrative result. The 11, or rather the 10, Departments were determined upon solely for political reasons. I recall vividly attending a consultation given by the then shadow First Minister and the shadow Deputy First Minister on the number of Departments that there would be. I told them that I would stay for 30 minutes or 30 seconds, depending on the answer to my first question. I asked them whether the number of Departments would be determined on the basis of administrative efficiency and cost or on the basis of political considerations. If it was to be the latter, I told them that I would detain them no longer. Of course, it was the latter.

The result is, that when we talk about joined-up government, we have three Departments that are concerned with planning matters — the Department of the Environment, the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The review of public administration should start with the Assembly — the biggest spender of all — and with the 11 Departments that are supposed to be delivering some of the most important and fundamental services, such as health, education, the environment and housing. We should be looking at those areas.

The review, however, excludes any examination of the administrative practices and the requirements of the 11 Departments. Why? Under the d’Hondt system, the four major parties that provide the 10 Ministers have a vested interest in continuing as before. Under Mr Poots’s surfeit of democracy, there is no effective opposition. There is no joined-up government and no Cabinet responsibility and accountability. There are 10 independent warlordships.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the Member says that, in his opinion, the Departments are outside the ambit of the review of public administration, is he in order to continue talking about them?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Nonsense presented with a grave and erudite manner remains nonsense. That is what we have been treated to. I have never heard such illogical gobbledygook since I arrived in this place, and I have heard much. Let us continue — [Interruption].

Mr Dallat has something to say.

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

Not a word. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

If there is to be this much-vaunted and, as is generally acknowledged, necessary review, it should review all the major organs of administration, and the major organ is the Assembly. The Assembly has 108 MLAs for a population of 1·6 million. The Scottish Parliament, with greater powers, has 129 MSPs for a population of slightly more than 5 million, and Wales, with a population of 3 million, has 60 AMs in its National Assembly. Were the National Assembly for Wales to follow Northern Ireland’s example it would have almost 200 AMs; were the Scottish Parliament to do so it would have 260 or more MSPs.

However, such a top-heavy body as the Assembly is not the subject of any review. There were originally 10 Statutory Departments, but that was not enough. The Executive had to invent a "Department of the Centre". The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister became necessary because, with 10 independent Departments all rumbling about, one Department was required that could act in some manner to give the whole edifice some cohesion and to exercise what has proved to be the mildest of supervisory roles.

I think it was Maurice Hayes who not so long ago said that the Assembly had a multiplicity of Departments at its early stage for political reasons, but that the time had come for more mature government. He said that the number of Departments should be reduced and that the number of MLAs should be reduced to about three for each Westminster constituency — 56 or thereabouts. It is amazing that there should be a review of administrative practices for the delivery of services, yet the Assembly — the central body that will be delivering services — is not to be examined.

The Deputy First Minister is conscious that the review will be a matter of public criticism. Therefore he encourages Members to believe that there will be a robust element of independence introduced by the review body’s allegedly independent members. However, Members know that in-house officials and the Executive’s subcommittee will drive the review. The Executive will get advice and direction on some issues from the independent persons who, of course, will not attend full-time. However, the officials will have a vested interest in keeping their own administrative empires going, because who has ever heard of a civil servant who was anxious to reduce the number beneath him in the pyramid? That attitude will continue to be driven.

Meanwhile, attention will be diverted to making cutbacks, which are quite proper in the case of quangos. However, cutbacks will be made to the 26 councils and to their role. Therefore Northern Ireland may finish up with nine councils instead of 26, but it will continue to have 108 Members, 11 Departments and the huge burden of administration costs.

Northern Ireland, with a population of 1·6 million, which is roughly equivalent to that of Greater Birmingham, has three MEPs, 18 MPs, 108 MLAs, 26 district councils with approximately 540 councillors, 120 quangos with almost 2,000 members, and a multiplicity of health and education boards. It is evident that public administration requires cruel pruning.

I am far from convinced that when one excludes 50% of the Assembly rose garden, the pruning will not be done properly, because there is an old fable among gardeners that if one wants one’s roses to grow well, one should get an enemy to cut them back. There is no question of anyone who is involved in the review being an enemy of the Executive in that sense. Therefore I have the gravest reservations about how far it will succeed.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

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

The reform of local administration is a serious business, and it demands a maturity that goes well beyond politicking as that term is commonly understood. It is not about sound bites but about assessing the best way to deliver services to the people. It is about saving money, but it is also about many other issues.

Many changes have taken place since the last reform in 1973. At that time, local councils were responsible for emptying the bins, burying the dead and precious little else. However, councils have now evolved a plethora of new services that were unheard of 30 years ago. Among those are community services, economic development and tourism, to mention but a few. Most councils have a positive approach to their work, and they have coped well with the vast number of changes that have been imposed on them. However, there are exceptions, and a minority of councils have made Northern Ireland the laughing stock of the world.

As has been said time and time again, councils spend a small proportion of the public purse, and non-elected bodies control the lion’s share. Careful thought must be given as to how those bodies are replaced. That is essential because the new institutions must have members who have not only the qualifications but the expertise and experience necessary to run the services to an acceptable standard if the public is to get proper service and value for money. In a new era in which it is assumed that there will be a reduction in the number of councils — if one is to believe the claims that are circulating — it is critical that the new councils exercise community leadership. They have to be well placed to influence directly the building of a peaceful society that is capable of creating genuine wealth based on justice and reflecting a cohesive, healthy and pluralist society.

None of that is possible without a strategy for social inclusion that can be tested for fairness and shown to be capable of delivering improvements that have real meaning for those who are socially excluded. Above all, the reforms must not turn into a turf war between districts or a propaganda campaign by office bearers, council officials or others who feel the need to protect their self-interests. The reforms must be based on the needs of people and the communities in which they live. Change is never easy, but we have managed to cope with many changes that often have been influenced by our membership of the European Union. Local communities are now better placed to cope with change, and I can see an important role for local strategic partnerships that are up and running and addressing the issues that I have spoken of. In many respects they are more representative of the local community than some of the district councils, which sometimes have serious failings in representation.

The review must not fail. We must balance competing concerns, but we must not be negative. We must look forward to a new era where success will cause due foundations to be laid for better government and enhanced public confidence. At the end of the process I hope that we will have new institutions that will inherit none of the weaknesses of the present bodies but will include all the features of a modern democracy that bases its decisions on the needs of people rather than on a sectarian headcount.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I wish to make my remarks in a dual capacity: first, on behalf of the Committee, and secondly, there are some other comments that I wish to make as a Member of the Assembly.

I wish to inform the House of the Committee’s views on the terms of reference for the review of public administration and the little we know of the approach, structure, timescale and consultative arrangements for it. My Committee wrote twice to the Ministers concerned about the review, emphasising the need for clarity and openness and, particularly, for the Committee to be fully consulted at all stages.

As a statutory departmental Committee with the job of scrutinising and developing policy with the Department of the Environment, it is essential that the Committee be fully consulted on all aspects of the review that affect the responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment. As the Minister is responsible for local government — and I declare an interest as a councillor — the Committee must also be fully consulted on the local government aspects of the review. That relates to full consultation on the options for change, draft proposals and recommendations that affect local government. Can the First and Deputy First Ministers assure the Committee that it will be fully consulted on that aspect of the review?

The Committee’s letter to the Ministers on 26 April 2002 specifically highlighted the fact that the review could lead to some functions being moved between the Department of the Environment and local government, for example, planning. On that basis, the terms of reference of the review should include a review of the role of Northern Ireland Departments. The response of the Ministers, dated 31 May 2002, acknowledged that

"central government is not immune from this Review"

and

"if the Review recommends significant change to the way Departments exercise their functions, we would then, in that context, consider whether it would be appropriate for us to look again at the distribution of those functions between Departments".

The Committee welcomed that, and I ask the Ministers to ensure that that important point is not lost when the review is eventually carried out. It would be prudent for other Members to note that, as the principle may prove all-important when we analyse the review’s recommendations.

However, we must carry out the review urgently, and it must be clear and open with full, ongoing consultation with the relevant departmental Committees and appropriate timely reports to the House. I trust that the First and Deputy First Ministers can assure the House of that today.

As a Member of the Assembly, I listened with care to the contributions of others, and when one bears in mind the different tiers of Government here, it becomes clear, as Mr Poots said, that we are over-governed. However, given that Sinn Féin/IRA, inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation, is in the Executive, it is equally true to say that that Government is not democratic. I believe with all my heart that there cannot be a proper and appropriate review without a review of the central body. Therefore, what is needed is a review of the major organs of administration — the Departments and the number of Members in the Assembly. The one thing that cheers me is that shortly the electorate — even though every effort may be made to try to abort its involvement — will give its decision.

Through the election, hope can be given to the people. That option will be brought forward, because through the results of the election a fundamental review of the entire agreement can be achieved, which will include looking at the number of Departments and the number of Members in the Assembly. Many in society are demanding that, because they want, in the fullest and most proper sense, a democratic Government for the people of the Province.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I agree that there is a need for a review of public administration. As Members have already said, it is important that the matter be examined and the terms of reference considered.

It is no surprise to anyone in the Chamber that public administration needs a major overhaul. That has been the theme of the debate this afternoon. Northern Ireland has been ignored and badly managed by the British Government in the past, when it was ruled directly from Westminster — badly managed in the sense that it has been left as it was when self-rule was taken away from the loyal people of Northern Ireland. Little has changed in relation to that. The neglect of consecutive Westminster Governments has been proven, and it is high time that the regional Assemblies took the unique opportunity afforded to them to set the terms of reference for the review of public administration.

The pre-eminent need in public administration is the need to maintain core traditional values while maintaining cost efficiency. Most of those who enter public service and, I believe, public administration want to serve the people of their country. At least, that should be their motivation. After all, that is why most of us sit in the Chamber today. What Members cannot understand is why there is not enough money in their budgets to help their constituents. Often, they put their own money into their advice centres and offices in order to help the community that they represent.

The restraints on money mean that many issues are not addressed sufficiently, because concentration on efficiency, specific target achievement and management by results adds to the constant pressure to spend money prudently. That is further compounded by the fact that there has been no overhaul of public administration since the creation of the welfare state in the 1940s. The Assembly must be able to reconnect public administrators with their communities by instigating citizens’ journeys and other consultative methods that enable the dual goals of traditional values and efficiency.

This is the twenty-first century, with twenty-first century technology. It is time that the Assembly brought Northern Ireland’s public administration into the century that we now live and work in. It is important to have a modern structure. By looking at other scenarios worldwide, the Assembly can learn and apply the best of them to Northern Ireland. One suggestion for improvement is the alteration of political boundaries. The Assembly must keep in mind the history of Northern Ireland and the ongoing tendency to gerrymander constituencies in order to guarantee seats on councils.

There is an inherent flaw in the idea of changing political boundaries. It is too open to manipulation by those desperate to prove their political ideologies and tactical stances. It is also open to unscrupulous businesses taking over local areas in a bid to push through planning or other policies for their own advantage. For example, Prof Skelcher suggested that councils should have seats reserved for businesses and other such interest groups. Those ideas are not acceptable. However, if they are to be considered, then there should be appropriate legislation to safeguard the interests of the Northern Irish public from unscrupulous people who could use that kind of innovative policy to their own advantage and take away the rights of the community that we represent.

A major area of administration that must be immediately reviewed is the Health Service. How many times have we voiced our constituents’ concerns and complaints about their treatment by the Health Service? Advice centres are coming down with people who have been failed by the Health Service: the teenager with cancer who must sit on a children’s ward surrounded by Teletubbies because there is not enough money for nurses for a separate ward for teenagers; the nurse who, having been attacked by a drunk, needs time off work and is reprimanded for taking a sick day; or the many pensioners who wait for up to eight hours to be seen by a doctor.

That area really needs to be overhauled. The top-heavy administration of the Health Service must be whittled down and the money put back where it matters most: into providing nurses, doctors, machines and drugs to reduce Health Service waiting lists and bring them under control. If there was ever one true indicator of how badly public administration needs to be overhauled, it is the Health Service. The review should start at the very top and filter down throughout it.

The review should go throughout all public administration bodies. By doing that, we will gain efficiency. Moreover, we will gain the service that our constituents ask for when they pay taxes and are owed, and have been owed, for nearly 30 years. I support this review.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I too welcome the finalisation of the terms of the review of public administration. This is an important development that is long overdue. I wish the panel of experts well as it advises the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Assembly as we shape the future of public administration.

This is one of the most comprehensive reviews that has ever occurred in Northern Ireland. There have been reviews with wider remits, but this will probably be the second widest review of administration, and that is significant. As has already been said, central Government, in the form of the devolved Administration, will not be immune if strong recommendations come forward. As other Members have said, some recommendations could well affect the Departments.

There is a great danger that discussions will, to a degree, become bogged down if the review tries to encompass the entire Administration. There could have been a concentration on devolved Government, the Departments and the councils alone. It would have been easy not to make the tiers of quangos and other non-departmental bodies the focal point, but we must concentrate on reforming that middle section of government, which has not seen change for 30 years. I am content with the shape of the review.

As a member of the Committee of the Centre, I welcome the mood of the first meeting between the Committee and the panel of independent experts, where I detected a spirit of partnership. If we are to make progress collectively as an Assembly, we must form effective partnerships, taking on board good ideas from wherever they come. I hope that that atmosphere will continue and that there will be an effective working partnership between the group of experts and the Committee of the Centre, and between the Executive and public administration as a whole.

I hope that, as the review progresses, some sensible small-business principles will be applied and bureaucracy avoided. In the future, we must avoid pushing bits of paper up and down between different layers of government. I also hope that we will avoid passing the buck elsewhere and that we will have clear lines of responsibility and accountability. If someone is given responsibility for making decisions, they should accept that responsibility. Sometimes that will not be easy.

We have mentioned planning, but planning, to a certain extent, may well suit local government at the moment. Planners take many of the difficult decisions, and at present local government can disagree with the planners, no matter what decision is taken. Public representatives may be faced with difficult decisions in the future.

As regards clear lines of responsibility and accountability, our health system is not one that anyone would create if they were starting with a blank sheet of paper. No one would want one Department, four health boards and 19 trusts. In addition, there are community care primary groups. No one would start with that.

An academic who advised the Committee of the Centre said that we should examine the service to be delivered at ground level, and work upwards in determining the structure required to deliver it. We should not be looking at the baggage we already have, but we should try to devise a practical, workable system and adapt it to function democratically. We must adopt a bottom-up approach and not tinker with the existing system.

As we go forward together, I hope that we can deliver a better service to all our people and, with that, provide a better Health Service, better education and better opportunities for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Members for participating in the debate and for their continuing interest in this important review. Fundamental changes to the administration of public services are now in our grasp. It is to be hoped that the changes will improve the quality of life for many people who need, and rely on, the services. This review is the means to that end.

Some Members are pleased that we are finally discussing the terms of reference. A debate in the Assembly in February examined the draft terms of reference, and there was a pre-consultation process. Therefore, this debate is not a "first" as far as the review is concerned.

I was struck by the general level of interest in the review during the pre-consultation process, and several Members reflected that interest in the debate. Many wanted an earlier launch of the review. Notwithstanding those frustrations, the time was well spent in engaging with a broad cross-section of interested parties and in ensuring a strong basis on which to proceed. Today’s debate seeks the Assembly’s endorsement of the terms of reference so as to allow work to begin immediately.

Public servants have ensured a consistently high quality of service throughout the difficulties of the last 30 years; that must be underscored, and not taken for granted. The need to modernise our public sector is now widely recognised. The sooner that process is started the sooner we will all see the benefits.

We have repeatedly said that the process will be open, transparent and inclusive. On that basis the terms of reference were drafted, revised and amended, and on that basis the review will proceed. Members have had the opportunity to influence the final shape of the terms of reference, and we have been open about the changes that were incorporated.

Members will also be able to influence the conduct, thinking and consideration of the review. We have emphasised the importance of its credibility by incorporating a strong, independent element. The additional step of having the terms of reference quality-assured by the panel of independent experts, once others had had their say, was a key part of that. The terms of reference are robust and provide a strong basis for the review. I hope that Members will give them a seal of approval.

We must make progress quickly. Having consulted on the terms, there will be raised expectations that the review will build up a head of steam. Consultation will be a major feature, and one of the team’s first actions will be to formally notify interested parties that it has started.

We anticipate formal consultation later in the year to encourage widespread public debate. We are encouraged by the level of interest that the public has shown and hope that public interest and involvement will develop as the review examines the substantive issues that must be addressed, some of which Members have referred to today. As it progresses, we will build consensus for the change that is required and make well-informed decisions that will bring benefits to us all.

The Assembly has a key role to play. The review is a project in which the Assembly and Executive can work in partnership for the benefit of everyone. Regardless of the review’s outcome, successful implementation will depend on the support of the Assembly. The Assembly must be involved at every stage, and we have responded to Assembly considerations.

Mr Poots, as Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, made several points. He is concerned that, although the terms of reference list characteristics that we want in our public administration, they are neither ranked nor weighted. We want to be honest and consistent and to conduct the review in an open and transparent manner by publishing the terms of reference for endorsement by the Assembly and for pre-consultation. If we had included weightings and rankings, people might have thought that the review was not open and transparent and that we were not going to be flexible; then the consultation would not mean much.

The purpose of the characteristics is to give guidance to everyone who contributes to the review, and not just to the review team or the independent panel. People can attach what weight they wish to them. As Mr Poots said, to get the right mix of characteristics, there will be trade-offs. Policy and programme areas have different delivery needs and systems for service management and policy development. Those who criticise the lack of weightings and rankings should specify the weightings and rankings that they would give. It is open to Committees, including the Committee of the Centre, to put forward their views.

Mr Poots also referred to e-government. Our progress on e-government has basic significance for how we configure services and how Departments structure themselves and their systems, not least because we have seen that businesses, as well as the community and voluntary sectors, among others, have altered their organisations to take account of the electronic age. That has led them to become more customer-focused and has changed many of the hand-me-down systems that had developed.

I accept that e-government is relevant here, and it will be implemented. We cannot necessarily identify the e-government hotshot on the panel of experts, but everyone on the panel has been involved in exercises connected with organisational and service change to include information technology.

We will also be able to include other experts from specific areas, be they sectoral or organisational, as we need them. Therefore, the independent input and insight available to us is not merely confined to the panel that we announced today.

Mr Poots and Mr McCartney mentioned the involvement of Government Departments in the review, and Rev Dr William McCrea also touched on that point. Let us be clear that the distribution of functions between Departments, and their policy responsibilities, are not a matter for the review. Departments have come and gone over the past 30 years, and they will come and go over the next few years. There is a means for deciding the functions of Departments. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister can develop a determination that outlines changes in Departments and in the distribution of functions between Departments and that is subject to a vote in the House.

Departments were changed a couple of years ago, and they will be changed in the future. In the South, Government Departments have changed recently: the same has happened at Westminster. As some Members said, we are talking about producing structures for public administration that could survive for a generation, just as the existing structures that were reviewed in the early 1970s have done. Therefore, in this review we are talking about structures that go beyond the functional responsibilities of Departments.

If we did include the distribution of functions between Departments in the review, then increasingly that interdepartmental swap, or contest, would become the undue focus of the review for the Assembly. Departmental Committees would be lobbying for their particular Departments’ remit as they saw it, rather than contributing on the issues Members would raise or the issues that we would be considering.

We would be distracted from such questions as how we deliver services, how we make those services accessible and responsive, and how we ensure that there are no unnecessary intermediary structures, gaps, or duplications in how they are connected and delivered. We would get distracted from the key task of the review if we were to examine the policy functions that Departments should have.

Will the review have significant implications for Departments’ work? Yes. It can have a significant impact on their remits if there are implications for the bodies that discharge and deliver Government services for Departments. Those bodies are, in turn, accountable to the Departments.

I have made the point elsewhere that I would like the review to address matters such as the good experience and good partnership practices that we have developed at several levels, and some Members have mentioned that. It does not merely take into account the more localised partnership arrangements developed under EU programmes, but it also considers the positive partnership models that have developed between people who work in local health and social services, education, housing, and community development. If we change and develop that, there are huge implications for how Government Departments deliver their services or turn to others to provide those services locally.

The Departments are not immune, but we are not analysing their respective functions in the review.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Patricia Lewsley emphasised best value and learning from best practice elsewhere. We want to learn the lessons of others who have engaged in similar reviews. Mr Edwin Poots also touched on that aspect. We will look internationally at how best to organise public administration, and the panel of experts will bring some insight on that.

Equality issues are an integral part of the review; equality and equity of access are key characteristics that are outlined in the terms of reference. The review team, the experts and, I have no doubt, the relevant Assembly Committees, will all be mindful of the equality issues throughout the review process.

In answer to Mr Conor Murphy’s question about the review’s timetable, it will be carried out in phases. We envisage recommendations emerging at the end of 2003. However, an interim report will be presented in the spring of 2003. Before that, the review team and the experts will engage with a range of specialist and sectoral interests outside the Assembly and also with the full range of internal interests. The Assembly will not be disconnected from the developing work of the review. The Executive will also stay connected with the developing work through their dedicated subcommittee.

Conor Murphy also raised issues about the review dovetailing with other reviews, and other important business that is coming forward. Work on related reviews and other developments will be carried forward by the relevant Departments, and they will obviously have to be drawn together at key decision-making points. The Executive will have a gatekeeping role in relation to many of these decisions and will want to ensure that decisions are taken in a co-ordinated manner.

Just because we can see connections between this review and other issues, we cannot put every issue on the long finger and decide to have one omnibus exercise instead of separate reviews. We know of the timetable difficulties experienced with discrete reviews to date, and also of the difficulties and concerns expressed — even about the delay in this review. It would not be credible to suspend all the reviews and subsume them into one.

We do not want to unnecessarily delay progress on other reviews. Commitments have been made; changes and developments are needed and have previously been mandated in relation to other issues, and we want to advance them. We will do so in a way that benefits from the light shed by the review of public administration. That review will also take account of the emerging changes in discrete policy areas — changes that will have been the subject of wide consultation and a fair degree of consensus. There should, therefore, be no controversy in moving ahead on some of those issues; nor should there be any compromise to the integrity of the review of public administration.

The debate on 25 February 2002 got into an "everything-must-go" vein, and we had some elements of that today, including Bob McCartney’s contribution.

It is easy to make the sweeping argument that, because we have some new arrangements, all quangos and other administrative bodies can go. At first sight, it is a tendency with which many of us would have a great deal of sympathy.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

No thanks.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Is the Minister scared to give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am not afraid to give way.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to misrepresent entirely what another Member said?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am sure that no Member would dream of misrepresenting another. I ask the Minister to continue.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

When Hansard is published, it will show what I said.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Hansard will show that Mr McCartney’s speech was in the vein of "everything and everyone but me must go".

We must recognise that although there are many unnecessary structures and systems that we must cut out, some tiers of administration provide lines of advocacy — our thinking on that matter will develop as the review progresses. To remove them simply to reduce administration would take away the lines of advocacy. We must be discerning and discriminating in the changes that we make, without losing valuable accessibility and openness to the interests of those who rely on services.

We must ensure that the structures are locality sensitive. Many Members have stressed that local government boundaries are fragile. Such sensitivities relate not only to the existence of council structures, but attach to changing arrangements that have a direct bearing on how services are delivered in an area and on how an area’s needs and initiatives are protected or considered in the delivery of Government services. We must be more thoughtful and less sweeping in our approach to that in order to achieve the necessary changes and eventual outcome.

We should not underestimate the quality of the work done by many administrative bodies. Many have done valiant work in very difficult circumstances. In setting out the case for change and a significant reduction of administrative structures, we must acknowledge the important contribution of many bodies and their staff.

The purpose of the review is to consider whether our arrangements can be improved. We all agree that there must be many ways in which that can be done. We want a form of public administration that delivers high-quality services in a way that meets the needs of the public, represents value for money, and makes sense. People should not have to understand how or why services are configured in a given way, or why certain structures exist. We want to ensure that local government structures are more comprehensible and more sensitive to people’s needs. I use the word "people" not only to describe the population of the region; we must be sufficiently locality sensitive too.

The review should test whether savings can be made while delivering improvements, and we have built that into its terms of reference.

Mr McCrea stressed the importance of the Committee for the Environment, as it has a special interest in local government. The Committee of the Centre will have the main responsibility for overseeing the review, but it will liaise with all the other Committees, from which it will try to co-ordinate input.

Obviously, the panel of experts and the review team will be open to communication from Committees. It was recognised in the earlier debate on the matter that one Committee should clearly take the lead in this, as for the Programme for Government and for the Budget. The other Committees should interact with, and relate to, the Committee of the Centre, and I therefore refer the Rev Dr William McCrea to that Committee for those purposes and points.

Other points were touched on relating to the whole question of the —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I draw the Deputy First Minister’s attention to the fact that he has shown extraordinary stamina and has been on his feet for some 23 minutes.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

OK. I gave way during that time. Some Members will say that I did not answer this or that point.

Reference was made to the issue of departmental running costs, and I would give the health warning again. When I was Minister of Finance and Personnel and sought to curb departmental running costs, bringing in across-the-board reductions, many Departments alerted not just myself, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, but also the respective departmental Committees, to the flaws in the departmental running cost regime. They said that what appears as departmental running costs in some Departments actually includes a large degree of direct service expenditure. Therefore, not all of the departmental running costs are purely administrative, bureaucratic expenditure. The Executive are engaged in an exercise to make sure that the departmental running costs regime is more consistent and reflects more accurately the type of expenditure that we are about. That should mean less confusion for Members and the Executive.

I think that has covered most of the key points that have been raised. If I have not answered any specific questions here, I will do so in writing. More importantly, those Members who sit on Committees will have ample opportunity to take their interest in this review further through those channels. I believe that the terms of reference give us a credible basis for the review, and we must now make progress quickly. The review of public administration, along with our work on e-government and the other important reviews that we are undertaking, means that, having changed our form of government in this region a few years ago, we can change the face of government as well in the coming years. We can ensure that we have government that is not only representative but responsive to people’s needs. There are other issues about the structure of the Assembly that are not for this review, and not for the Executive, and people can take those up elsewhere, through the channels available to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the terms of reference for the Review of Public Administration.

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee - Disqualification Legislation

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the report of the Ad hoc Committee, which considered the criteria for the disqualification of persons listed under Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, established by resolution on 13 May 2002, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I will begin by providing Members with some background on the Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee was set up following a request from the Secretary of State, Dr John Reid, to review the criteria for the inclusion of those persons and/or groups currently included in schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. The Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 applied the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to the first elections to this Assembly back in 1998.

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) to the 2003 and any subsequent elections. The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 was last reprinted in July 1982. However, it has subsequently been amended but not reprinted. Therefore, there is currently no easily accessible method for determining the offices that are disqualified from membership of the Assembly.

Section 3 of the 1975 Act provides that if at any time it is resolved by the Assembly that schedule 1 be amended, whether by way of additions, removals or alterations, Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend that schedule. The Secretary of State’s consent is required to such an Order in Council under section 36(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

The Northern Ireland Office Elections Unit provided the Ad Hoc Committee with the criteria currently applied to schedule 1. Members can see the details of those criteria at section 9 of the Committee report. The Committee agreed to review the existing criteria and to submit any amended criteria to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then seek the advice of officials in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Departments in relation to offices that are within the gift of the Northern Ireland Executive. The Secretary of State will then write to seek the Assembly’s view on the revised list.

The Committee endorsed the view that no unnecessary obstacles should be placed in the way of persons becoming Members of the Legislative Assembly. Although the general theme of the Ad Hoc Committee was the subject of disqualification from election and membership, most Committee members expressed the strong view that there is in Northern Ireland a culture that is antipathetic to elected politicians and to politics generally. Therefore, whatever we decide, we should not discourage individuals from reasonable participation in elected politics with an aim or aspiration to holding elected office.

The Northern Ireland Assembly Legal Services and Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Library Services briefed the Committee. Following debate, it agreed draft criteria for those organisations and individuals listed in schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.

I want to move on to the Committee’s deliberations and highlight key recommendations. The Committee expressed serious reservations about the quality of the criteria submitted by the Elections Unit of the Northern Ireland Office and about the non-availability of Northern Ireland Office officials to attend the Committee to provide evidence. These factors militated against the Committee and undermined its capacity to carry out effective scrutiny and consequently provide a comprehensive set of revised criteria. The Committee requested that any agreed criteria and revised schedule 1 list be referred formally to the Assembly for consideration in advance of the new legislation.

The first criterion is a conflict of interest, defined as a situation in which someone has competing professional or personal obligations, or personal or financial interests, that would make it difficult to fulfil his or her duties fairly. The Committee considered that those persons appointed by Ministers, or on the advice of Ministers, to the boards of non-departmental public bodies and other "public bodies" as may be listed in schedule 1 should be disqualified from becoming Assembly Members on the basis of conflict of interest, real or perceived.

I move on to the so-called de minimis rule. The current criteria states that schedule 1 disqualification usually only comes into play where the post in question pays at least £10,000 a year, adjusted from time to time in line with general inflation. It also appeared that there was incomplete application of the de minimis rule.

On balance, the Committee thought that the de minimis rule should be dropped, given its current incomplete and confusing application. It also thought that the crucial issue was the level of authority exercised as a chairperson or board member with regard to financial control or strategic influence on Northern Ireland society, economy or politics, rather than the salary paid to a board member per se. The Committee recommended that any new criteria should remove the de minimis rule.

To the extent that there is, or should be, a separation of constitutional powers, it was thought inappropriate that members of the judiciary who apply the law should potentially also be members of a body that makes law. The Committee raised the issue of part-time posts in the judiciary, and the report recommends that the Northern Ireland Office should consider whether it is appropriate to disqualify part-time judges and magistrates and members of industrial tribunals, as laid out in part 1 of schedule 1 of the disqualification list.

The original criteria submitted by the Northern Ireland Office cited geographical location and time commitments as relevant factors in the possible disqualification of a chairperson or board member of a non-departmental public body from becoming an MLA. It was unclear what those criteria meant, in principle and in practice, and the Committee proposes that those criteria be excluded.

The Committee considered the issue of potential MLAs being excluded from taking up their seats by nature of their inclusion in schedule 1. It considered that a reasonable period of time should be allowed after the election for those potential MLAs to resign their current positions and subsequently maintain the position of MLA, having been elected. The Committee wanted to exclude the possibility that some hapless individuals who belonged to one of the bodies listed in schedule 1 could be forced to resign their positions, and perhaps surrender their livelihoods, before they were certain that they had been successful in an election. A reasonable period of time should be given to clarify their successful election before they resign from the posts listed in schedule 1.

The Committee considered that there was a need for wide public consultation on any revised criteria. It would have welcomed more time to give fuller consideration to the review of the criteria, and to have had the opportunity to take evidence from a wider number of interested parties. However, it was not the fault of the Northern Ireland Office that the timetable was telescoped.

The Assembly will welcome the opportunity to consider any new Orders in Council that may be introduced at a later stage.

I thank the Committee members, the Committee Clerk and his staff for their support and deliberation. I urge the Assembly to support the motion.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I support the motion. This is a debate that will not excite Members to the same extent as other debates, and I suspect that the limited number of Members in the Chamber reflects that. Nevertheless, disqualification is an important issue, and it is right that the Government are considering a general review of the criteria.

We must have a system that is clear, transparent and rational. As the Chairperson said, the current list has grown up in a haphazard manner and has been adjusted from time to time. There has been a question mark over the overall level of coherence and relevance of that list.

In determining the criteria to judge disqualification, it is important that the Assembly ensures that it adheres to the highest public standards. It is also important that individual Members, potential individual Members and political parties are able to enter elections with a degree of certainty and clarity. In the run-up to nominations for the Assembly, I am sure that several Members found themselves scrambling around to ensure that potential candidates did not fall foul of one of the disqualifications on the long list of public offices that could potentially debar a Member. Rather than have that panic reaction, it is appropriate that political parties and individuals are able to approach the process with a degree of certainty, knowing which offices clearly disqualify and which do not. It is also important that the entire process is rationalised.

In using those criteria, as the Chairperson said, the Committee was hamstrung by the fact that there seemed to be little co-operation from the NIO, and it seemed that it was deliberating with one hand tied behind its back. It was difficult to judge the rationale of some of the proposals that had been put forward. It is true that only a short time was available, but the NIO was unable to provide anyone to give evidence to the Committee. That made it difficult for the Committee to judge whether the Secretary of State’s proposals have got it right.

At least two of the Committee’s recommendations reflect concern over the NIO’s lack of transparency and rationale. Although we have made provisional recommendations on a range of criteria and principles, it is undoubtedly the case that the views that the Committee advances are a holding exercise — one that is unwilling to give a final verdict on what emerges until that final picture is seen. As such, recommendation 1 asks:

"That the Committee requests that any agreed criteria and revised Schedule 1 list be formally referred to the Assembly, for consideration, in advance of new legislation."

There is a need for the House to revisit the issue at that stage. Similarly, in recommendation 7, that is appropriate, because there appears to have been relatively little public consultation. In moving the process forward, it is important that the NIO engages interested parties and the public. That is also part of the general concern at the lack of transparency on the part of the NIO.

As the Chairperson said, the Committee sees the issue of conflict of interest as the guiding principle. That should be the watchword of public standards. The report states that

"The Committee considered that those people appointed, by Ministers or on the advice of Ministers, to the boards of Non Departmental Public Bodies and other ‘public’ bodies as may be listed in Schedule 1, should be disqualified from becoming MLAs, on the basis of conflict of interest, real or perceived."

That is the report’s central recommendation, and a couple of points must be made on that. First, we are dealing with changing circumstances. When the Disqualification Act 1975 came into force, the situation predated any degree of devolution in the United Kingdom. There is a need to take account of that situation. As such, ministerial appointments by members of the Northern Ireland Executive, for example, were not envisaged at that stage. In particular, because of our unique circumstances, and the unique ramifications of the political process, we find ourselves in a situation that was probably not envisaged in 1975, which is that people can be appointed to public bodies not simply by the Minister, but, perhaps, partially by, or on the advice of, the Minister. The reason for that caveat is that we may wish to create a situation in which people are appointed not only by Ministers of the Crown in Northern Ireland, but are jointly appointed to implementation bodies that arise from the North/South Ministerial Council or, indeed, in the future, are jointly appointed to public bodies by a Northern Ireland Minister and a representative of the European Commission.

All those situations must be covered. It is perverse that a person who is jointly appointed by a Minister from Dublin and a Minister from Belfast is exempt from these regulations, but a person appointed by a Minister in Northern Ireland would be excluded from the Assembly. There must be consistency.

Members must consider the recommendation concerning conflict of interests. Conflict does not only arise in cases where there is direct conflict of interest of an obvious and real nature. The important issue is the reputation of the Assembly and the perception of public life. It is important, therefore, that one of the guiding principles of conflict of interest should be where there is a perceived conflict of interest.

The de minimis rule will have to be revisited. The Committee thought that a situation could arise with a £10,000 threshold. The money element seemed to be a somewhat illogical barrier. The fact that a member of a quango who is earning £11,000 would be disqualified, and a member earning £9,000 would not, seemed to be arbitrary. The Committee was motivated by the fact that several people are on more than one quango. Those people may earn a total of £20,000 in three public bodies, but the income from each individual quango may not bring them above the threshold. Therefore, that issue must be revisited.

In the Assembly, several Members have legal backgrounds: Alban Maginness, David Trimble, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Bob McCartney and myself. I am sure that Members might sympathise with those people who consider that the judicial office criteria could be extended to disqualify anyone connected with the law from being an MLA. However, the Committee took a more sensible route. A line should be drawn so that those who hold judicial office should be excluded. The Committee took a practical example — and this can happen in the legal profession — where people are appointed on a temporary short-term basis at a low level. They could be deputy magistrates filling in once every few months when a judge is sick. For such cases, the Committee thinks that that would not be a proper application of the judicial exclusion. It is not applied in England. The Committee agreed that this reflected the split of powers.

The Committee thought that not much logic was attached to the geographical location and time commitments. This issue would have been best illuminated by a representative from the Northern Ireland Office explaining the thinking behind it. In the absence of that, the Committee does not see any reason for maintaining it.

With regard to the exclusion of potential MLAs, it is unfair that people who run for office might have to face a difficult decision because they cannot hold one of these posts and be an MLA at the same time. If people resign their post 10 minutes before they are elected, they will be all right, but if they resign 10 minutes after being elected, they will be disqualified. Common sense must be used. The key element must be conflict of interest. If a short but reasonable time is allowed for people to divest themselves of their responsibilities, it does not act — as the Chairperson says — as an unnecessary obstacle. That should guide the Assembly.

I recommend the report. Members should look to the future and revisit this issue, because I am concerned that the Northern Ireland Office has not explained the rationale behind some matters. The Assembly must see the detailed legislation when it is introduced. I urge Members to support the Committee’s recommendations.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I agree with Mr Weir’s first comment, and I thank him for his speech of support. This subject, on the face of it, does not seem to have excited a great deal of interest. That is a bit strange because you would have thought that potential disqualification from election and membership would have been of rather intense interest. Perhaps most Members have acquired a layer of high, abstract detachment from such self-interest.

I also agree with Mr Weir’s other comments. It would be a great help if all potential MLAs and persons putting their names forward for election could enter with certainty about their eligibility to hold office.

We will await with interest the list of schedule 1 bodies that the Northern Ireland Office will draw up in consultation with the 11 Departments. Close examination of the list may attract a bit more controversy than has occurred this afternoon. I agree with Mr Weir that there are questions about what may be termed "international appointments" to bodies, and they will have to be answered in due course.

The Committee concluded that we should retain and clarify the key point about minimising actual or perceived conflicts of interest, that we should drop the de minimis rule and the emphasis on time commitments and geographical commitments. The judicial disqualification should be retained subject to some clarification about part-time judicial positions. I urge the Assembly to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly approves the report of the Ad hoc Committee, which considered the criteria for the disqualification of persons listed under Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, established by resolution on 13 May 2002, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

First Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly takes receipt of the First Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission (NIA 102/01).

I assume from the attendance in the Chamber this evening that there will be a run on Hansard tomorrow morning. I will be as brief as possible to ensure that our staff can get home at a reasonable hour tonight. I am moving the motion on behalf of the Assembly Commission and on behalf of the Members of the Commission — Rev Robert Coulter, Dr Dara O’Hagan, Mrs Eileen Bell and Mr Jim Wells.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have a sense that Members at the back are having some difficulty hearing the Member.

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

My apologies.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If there is a problem with the microphones, perhaps the Member could move to a seat beside his Colleague, Rev Robert Coulter. He may be better heard there.

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

Each of the Assembly Commissioners has had a particular area of responsibility for one of the Directorates. With your permission, Mr Speaker, during the discussion of the annual report each Assembly Commissioner will speak for a couple of moments on the area or Directorate that is within their sphere of interest.

This is the first report of the Assembly Commission. It has been a long time in the making, and it has not been for the want of planning, expertise, much hard work and an enormous amount of effort by the Secretariat staff, by the board of management, by line managers and by many people who have worked for the Assembly over the years prior to, and after, devolution and prior to, and after, suspension. The report accurately reflects some of what has been going on in recent years, and it is also the basis upon which the Assembly has to judge the efforts of the Assembly Commission and Secretariat staff.

I commend the report to the House because, despite the challenges, the problems, the political differences and the changes in personnel and the like over the past four years, if I ever have grandchildren, I will tell them that I was extraordinarily proud to be part of the Assembly Commission. It has been enormously rewarding working with all of the public servants who have worked in this place, and the achievements of the different Directorates in the Assembly are highly commendable and are demonstrable examples of good practice that we already know other legislatures are copying.

I will not rehearse every detail in the report. It is on record and, if the Assembly endorses and accepts it, it will be part of the history of Northern Ireland. However, several general decisions were made that were crucial. Some of those related to the fact that the Assembly Commission decided that open recruitment and investing in staff, whether they be secondees, contract staff or those selected by open recruitment, was essential. Therefore, we have taken action across all the Directorates to try to ensure that there are proper recruitment procedures, open recruitment, ongoing in-service training, on-the-job training and staff development and so on. That is good for a public body such as the Assembly Commission, and it is something that I commend to Members.

The outcome of what we have been doing is in paragraph 5.5 of the report. It is worth putting on record that we have had more than 3,500 applications for posts in the Secretariat of the Assembly, and more than 211 appointments have been made. Approximately half of those have come from the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the other half have come from other employment backgrounds, including the community, voluntary and private sectors.

We have also published the fair employment statistics that were available when the report was scripted. There were 86 appointments from the Catholic community, 111 appointments from the Protestant community, 14 appointments were not determined, and there were around 118 males and 93 females. I chose to begin with that section because the Assembly is a good example to the rest of Northern Ireland in how it treats people, how it attracts people from every background, how the politicians have worked and how the Assembly Commission has worked. We should not hide our light under a bushel.

We have also done many other things. Members will recall that the Assembly Commission took forward the first three Bills that the Assembly passed. Almost by accident, we acted as the guinea pigs for the legislative process.

From the accounts, Members will see that we have maintained stringent controls on our budget, and that we have gone further and appointed internal audit staff. We are also developing procurement procedures and trying as best as possible to ensure that we, and the Assembly as a whole, are entirely beyond reproach.

We are in the process of trying to design, agree, and negotiate proper terms and conditions with staff. That is an ongoing project that will take us well into the next mandate.

The Commission has referred to controversial issues in its report, such as symbols, language and so on. Again, it has not been shy about recognising that there is work to be done. That work is in progress, and the Commission will report to the Assembly on those issues.

Other Assembly Commissioners will talk about the specific Directorates that they have worked with, and on whose behalf they have advocated various services. My joy has been to work with the Director and staff of the Research and Information Directorate. I choose my words carefully. I must say that the support services, information systems and IT services that have been developed over the past four years are extraordinary.

Members will recall that four years ago, when the shadow Assembly was elected, there were around 17 members of staff, almost all of whom were brought from the Forum for Political Dialogue that existed then. To have been able to expand from 17 members of staff across the entire Secretariat into an extraordinarily diverse, highly talented, highly motivated, and well-qualified group of people is a remarkable achievement. To have brought up to speed 108 Members and all of the information and communication systems, computer services, and constituency services, and to have provided security systems that allow those information systems to be controlled, is an extraordinary achievement.

The research division is second to none in Ireland, and it challenges anything being provided by any major legislature in Europe or the United States. I do not have to elaborate on that. Members, their staff, and the Secretariat use it. The quality and impartiality of research is highly impressive. Confidentiality in that division is exemplary.

The Assembly Library was here long before any of us — well, most of us. I have already been told that I am not allowed to name people. However, the Principal Librarian has taken the Assembly Library into the twenty-first century and is providing services to challenge any parliamentary library. That should be recognised, though it is not always recognised by Members. I have been provided with a wealth of information.

I am aware that I should go around the organisation and tell staff what wonderful people they are. I can do nothing other than to say that as an Assembly Commissioner, I am deeply proud to have been involved in the past four years. That is the best that I can say to staff. I wholeheartedly commend the report to the Assembly.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I have great pleasure in supporting the motion. As Members are aware, the Commission appointed its members to shadow Assembly Directorates. I do not know why I was appointed to shadow finance: it seems to be the story of my life. I always seem to get the brief that has the words "finance" or "money" in it.

I had the pleasure of keeping an eye on finance, personnel and recruitment. I must say that it was a relatively easy task. Like Mr Fee, I want to pay tribute to the staff in the section that I was involved with. At times, they had a difficult situation to deal with as a result of suspensions, the move to Annex C, and the loss of important members of staff. Therefore, it is a tribute to those who work in that Directorate that everything has gone so smoothly. Indeed, it is a testimony to the work done that people, for the most part, did not notice what was going on in finance and personnel. It was never an issue. That is a good sign, because the department that is working effectively gets on with its work, and the only time that it is noticed is when there are problems. Those were few and far between in that particular Directorate. The stop-start situation with the Assembly, which I suppose my party was partially responsible for, placed a burden on the staff, particularly in the finance department.

An initial annual budget of £36 million was suggested. There was no budget at all in 1998-99, although £10 million was spent. In 1999-2000, the budget was established at £36 million. The Assembly was, of course, suspended during that period, so actual expenditure was only £16 million. The following year, a budget of £37 million was established. Again, the Assembly was suspended until 30 May 2000, and only £24 million was spent. In 2001-02, the budget was set at £39 million, and the accounts are being prepared. There finally seems to be some certainty about the amount of money available, which has greatly assisted the Directorate.

The Directorate has also prided itself in being able to meet its targets for the prompt payment of invoices. That issue has been raised in the Assembly — small companies and businesses have often said that one of their major problems in difficult economic conditions is cash flow, so it would be difficult for us, as an Assembly, to lobby on that had we not put our own house in order.

For instance, I am pleased to report that in the year 2001-02, the finance office processed no fewer than 12,225 invoices, of which 95% were paid within the 30-day prompt payment timescale. Indeed, if the invoices that were queried are excluded, the actual level of prompt payment is 99%. It is a remarkable credit to those involved that those invoices were turned round so quickly. Members will also be interested to know that there were no fewer than 2,700 claims from Members for office costs allowances and 1,300 claims for travel expenses. Again, Members will appreciate that those were turned round quickly and effectively.

Some Members have raised matters over the last three or four years when they felt that the finance office had perhaps interpreted the letter of the law to their detriment. We are grateful to the officers in the Finance Directorate because we, as an Assembly, have managed to avoid the pitfalls that the Scottish Parliament so clearly encountered with the payment of expenses. As a result of the diligence of our staff, nothing untoward managed to slip through the net, and we can stand over almost all payments. That did not happen in the Scottish Parliament, and one or two political careers were destroyed as a result. Again, that is a testament to the staff here.

During the period, we not only had the suspensions but the move to Annex C, which caused some disruption to the Directorate and the loss of some important staff. Although the report pays tribute to the existing staff, whom I have found a pleasure to work with, we have lost people of the calibre of Bill Gallagher and Dennis Millar, who have moved on to higher things. I pay tribute to them. They worked hard during the formative stages of the Assembly, often in difficult circumstances, and we wish them well in their new careers in the Civil Service.

In addition to the loss of important staff, we were dependent on agency and part-time staff. Recruitment difficulties meant that temporary staff had to be brought in. That situation is beginning to sort itself out, and we are moving towards greater permanency among the staff. At times, however, it was difficult to keep track of all the faces going through the finance and personnel office. Again, there was still continuity despite all those problems.

It has been a frenetic four years for the recruitment and personnel section. There have been no fewer than 211 appointments. The Assembly Commission and the Directorate have always prided themselves on their adherence to the equality legislation. All the evidence indicates that personnel and recruitment have hit their targets exactly. Indeed, in response to a question for oral answer, it gave me considerable satisfaction to be able to refute the slightest insinuation that anything but the fairest recruitment policy exists in the Assembly. For instance, of the 211 appointments made, 86, that is 40%, were from the Roman Catholic community, 111, or 53%, were from the Protestant community, and 14 were non-determined. That is a close reflection of the travel-to-work area around Stormont, and it clearly shows that the Commission achieves effectively the equality that it pledged.

Equally, we have hit targets on such issues as disability and, as Members will recognise, there is an even gender balance. Large numbers of females have been recruited to various sections in the Assembly. Some say that the females are taking over, that every time a senior position becomes available it is filled by a lady. It is no bad thing to see females getting into the top echelons of the Assembly. It is good news for the future, and we can say, with our heads held high, that in respect of gender balance in the Assembly we have nothing to be concerned about.

All of the competitions were run fairly and openly, and all appointments were made on the basis of merit. I sat on three interview panels for senior staff in the Assembly, and I can testify that the process is gruelling and rigorously fair. In respect of one of the senior staff appointments, it was a lesson in how to appoint in 770 easy stages. It went on and on for days before we found the right candidate — the best candidate. The competitions are monitored to ensure that any imbalance in relation to gender or religion is addressed and, as the recruitment campaign continues, statistics will be closely monitored to ensure that the workforce is representative of the whole community.

Three hundred seconded staff were employed at the early stages, and additional contracted and agency staff carried out administrative, messenger and security duties. As the business needs of the Assembly Secretariat have become more standardised, a recruitment campaign has been embarked upon which will result in the appointment of an overall complement of 460 staff through fair and open competition. Members will be aware that many of the staff in the building were appointed as secondees from the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Most of them will be coming to the end of their time with us, and they must make major decisions as to whether they stay on as permanent Assembly staff or return to their parent Departments. That will, inevitably, cause further disruption and difficulties for the Directorate until those challenges have been met and overcome.

Between April 2002 and March 2003, no fewer than 45 competitions are scheduled. Sixteen of those were actioned in May and June. This fluid situation will exist for several years until the Assembly becomes a more permanent fixture. Regardless of what anyone believes about that from a political point of view, the situation will certainly be easier to manage when the full complement of permanent Assembly employees is known. We want to move away from the situation where there are staff who regard themselves as civil servants here on a temporary basis to one where there are those who regard themselves as fully fledged, permanent members of the Assembly staff. The Assembly is a totally different animal to the Civil Service, as those on secondment will testify. However, the quality of staff management in this Building is indicated by the large number of secondees who did not scurry back to their Departments but were anxious to remain as employees of the Assembly. That augurs well for the future.

As far as staff are concerned, there are several major issues ahead. One of those is the review of terms and conditions and pay and grading, which is attracting considerable interest among the staff in this Building. There is much more interest in that document than in the Assembly Commission’s report, but I suppose that that is natural.

The other great iceberg ahead is Ormiston House. That will dominate the work of the Commission for many months, even years, ahead.

We require permanent accommodation for many of our administrative staff, and the Commission decided that Ormiston House was the ideal location. There are planning difficulties associated with transforming the building into office accommodation while retaining its architectural quality, and further difficulties must be ironed out with local residents. Major expenditure is required to bring the building up to standard. The staff charged with implementing that scheme face great challenges, but I have no doubt that they have the talent and ability to deliver the major undertaking.

I pay tribute to Tom Evans, the former Clerk to the Commission. He has moved on to higher things; perhaps the Commission is a finishing school for those who wish to earn larger salaries and take more responsible positions in the Assembly. If that is the case, so be it. It is no bad thing. I have enjoyed immensely my time as a member of the Commission.

That there are more Commission staff than Members in the Chamber suggests that the Commission’s report may not be the hottest ticket in town. That is an unfortunate reflection of Members’ lack of interest. My party Colleagues — I can say this because they are not here to hear me — think that the Commission’s work comprises of a cosy chat with the Speaker about the price of a cup of tea in the basement restaurant and a casual dander around the Building to ensure that all staff are well and happy.

Those who have served on the Commission realise that there is much more to it than meets the eye. Last week, a meeting of the Commission began at 3.00 pm and finished at 7.30 pm, and it met informally several times during the week to discuss important issues. The Commission handles a tremendous amount of work, and Tom Evans and his staff, especially in the early days, had to carry that burden. It is the busiest Committee with the heaviest workload. I do not say that because I am a member, but because I have discussed it with members of other Committees.

Many achievements have been realised, and the lack of interest in the report suggests that Members are satisfied with what the Commission has achieved, as was shown in the satisfaction survey that was conducted eight months ago. If there were major deficiencies in the work of the Commission and its staff, Members would be queuing up to complain and to criticise. The silence speaks volumes about what has been achieved and agreed since the Commission’s establishment almost four years ago.

There are many challenges ahead, and we do not know whether the same Commission will be in place after the elections in May 2003. However, the foundation has been laid for good future provision in the Building and for our staff. It is, therefore, to be hoped that the report shows a firm basis for progress and growth. The Commission has sufficient resources — and very few bodies can make that claim — to deliver what is expected for the finance, personnel and recruitment section and for all the Assembly Directorates, which is good news.

I commend the report to the Assembly. I urge Members to read it to discover the full breadth of the work that has been done. Mistakes have been made, but the Commission has been a useful sounding board for Members’ concerns and has been swift to react. The only downside is that, if the Commission dares to accept any more tickets to pop concerts, it may regret it. That is a mistake — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I was about to draw Mr Wells’s attention to the fact that, although few Members have requested to speak, some have done, and there is a time limit on the debate.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Perhaps the Speaker is wise to interrupt me, because I was about to vent my spleen about the press coverage about tickets for a certain pop concert, but I will raise the matter at another opportunity. I commend the report to the House, which I hope will support it.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I support the motion, and I wish to speak about the Clerk Assistant’s Directorate. Members will be familiar with the individual offices that comprise the Directorate: the Business Office, the Bill Office and the Committee Office. They form the procedural section of the Secretariat, and their priorities during the period of the report have been to ensure that the Assembly operated effectively and that Colleagues could fulfil their duties as elected Members under the Good Friday Agreement.

Members will be encouraged by the progress highlighted in the Commission’s first report for the years 1999 to 2002. I would like to draw attention to some of the key achievements and outline some of the challenges that the Clerk Assistant’s Directorate will face in the coming year.

To date, 34 Bills have been introduced, 30 of which were Executive Bills. Members will be aware of the drive to increase the volume of legislation that the Assembly processes and much progress has been made. A Bill-drafting provision is in place for Committee Bills and Private Members’ Bills, and I hope that Members and Committees will take full advantage of that provision in future.

Committee office staff have supported over 1,000 meetings and almost 100 visits. Nearly one third of those visits were outside the North and overseas. Staff have also assisted Assembly Committees to produce 71 reports and to consider and report on 25 Bills and almost 300 Statutory Rules.

There has been a high level of activity in the Business Office, and staff there have been busy. The Business Office has supported 125 plenary meetings, processed over 3,000 oral questions and approximately 8,500 written questions. It has supported 83 Business Committee meetings, and 48 meetings of the Committee on Procedures. Of the 125 plenary meetings, four were extraordinary and were convened to discuss urgent matters.

In the coming year, staff in the Directorate face many challenges, not least from the increased pressure of the legislative timetable and the forthcoming Assembly election. At this stage, nobody knows when that will take place. The Directorate is working with the Commission and the rest of the Secretariat to ensure that appropriate staffing and resources are in place to provide quality service. The ever-pressing demands for accommodation bring about unique problems: Mr Wells referred to Ormiston House.

The new Clerk Assistant recently produced a business plan for the coming year that will provide a focus for all staff by setting out clearly defined values, objectives, targets and activities. It will be formally monitored, and corrective action will be taken where necessary.

I am confident that given the quality and determination of staff in the Directorate, they will meet those and many other challenges in the coming year. Members will also be aware of the volume and quality of the work. For example, in the preparation of Committee reports, staff assisted with drawing up the wording for questions and motions. The Directorate is keen to continue to facilitate Members with advice and assistance, not only in those areas, but also in the new procedures for drawing up Committee and Private Members’ legislation. Advice is available for the entire procedure, from discussion about the basic idea to the production of the final draft Bill.

I am sure that Members will join with me in thanking staff for all their hard work and in congratulating them for a job well done. We all look forward to building on our current success, and I am pleased to commend the report to the Assembly.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I commend the report to the House. We have had four momentous years, and we have dealt with many Members’ situations as well as those that arose in the Secretariat, as has already been described. The Commission can be proud of its achievements, and I hope that our achievements and progress will continue.

My area of responsibility in the Commission is Hansard. Known to all Members, it has reported every word spoken — and some shouts — since the establishment of the Assembly.

Hansard performs a vital function in the life of the Assembly. It is, perhaps, the most obvious manifestation of the Assembly’s commitment to openness, accessibility, transparency and accountability. Anyone can read Hansard; it is crucial to democracy and will provide a unique and complete history of how and why we make decisions affecting the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland.

During the period covered by the Commission’s report, Hansard has continuously met its target by publishing the first eight hours of Assembly debate by 8.30 am the following day. It has reported more than 700 hours of debate in more than 125 sittings, produced reports for 715 Committee sessions and prepared six bound volumes of reports.

Hansard’s most difficult challenge has been to establish itself from scratch. The dedication and experience of the Assembly’s first Editor of Debates, Alex Elder, was largely responsible for Hansard’s initial success. His professionalism and commitment have been built on by his successor, Simon Burrowes, and have been taken forward by the team of parliamentary reporting staff. When one walks into the Hansard office, it is obvious that the staff are confident and generally happy in their work.

Strong links with other legislatures have been established, including exchange and working trips by staff at all levels to the legislatures in England, Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland and Canada. Those have allowed Hansard to contribute to, and build on, best practice elsewhere. I know that they wish to continue to do that.

The Northern Ireland Assembly’s Hansard was instrumental in the formation of the British-Irish Parliamentary Reporting Association, which was established at Stormont last November. Our Editor of Debates is the association’s secretary.

Hansard provides the Speaker with simultaneous interpretation from Irish and Ulster Scots during all Assembly sittings. As the Official Report of the Assembly, Hansard is a hugely important source of information for Members and the public. So far this year, more than 100,000 pages have been read online. The Speaker also refers to Hansard to resolve Members’ queries and to enable him to arrive at rulings, as necessary.

Hansard efficiently provides daily records of Assembly activities, reflecting attitudes to the significant issues of the day and the changing values and views of society. That record will permit future generations to paint a picture of Assembly life today and to understand how and why we made decisions.

I conclude by thanking my Commission Colleagues, including you, Mr Speaker, the Chairperson for the Commission, for the work that we have accomplished together, which has given me great pleasure and pride. I thank the former Clerk to the Commission, Tom Evans, who ensured its efficient servicing. Thanks also go to Debbie Pritchard, acting Clerk to the Commission, and other staff.

I urge Members to support the report.

Billy Bell (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I did not intend to speak in this debate. I came to support the Assembly Commission and its report. Mr Wells brought up the subject of pop concerts, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make a remark that I hope will be helpful. I issued a statement on the matter to the media.

When it considered the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on the Northern Ireland Events Company, the Public Accounts Committee expressed its support for the company’s aims. However, it was concerned about its spending on hospitality at last year’s Eagles’ concert.

The Committee asked for information about those attending the concert in order to assess the extent to which the Northern Ireland Events Company had used hospitality to interest potential sponsors. I wish to make it clear to the House that there are no grounds for criticising public representatives who were invited to attend the concert. The guest list shows that those MLAs who were invited had a relevant interest in the event because of their responsibilities in the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Assembly Commission. Furthermore, we now know that many of the MLAs listed as having received invitations decided not to attend.

The Committee agrees with the Comptroller and Auditor General that guests invited to the function could not have been expected to enquire in advance whether the cost of meals and tickets was in line with public expenditure guidelines. It is entirely the responsibility of those who provide hospitality — not those who accept it — to ensure that costs are appropriate. The Public Accounts Committee has decided to demand an explanation from the accounting officer of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The Committee wishes to establish whether the Department can provide any justification for expenditure on that scale and what lessons can be learned from the matter. I hope that what I have said has been helpful.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need your direction. I couch my words in terms of my congratulations to you on assuming editorial control of the Official Report. Having received some direction recently, and as I was constrained in advocating the motion at the beginning, would it be an abuse of parliamentary procedures if I personally thanked Arthur, Simon, Agnes, Allan, Debbie, Cathy, Tom, Alan, David and the others? I think that you understand the point at which I am driving.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I do, and the only ruling that I make is that, in case there is any uncertainty in the wider, less-informed world about exactly who those individuals are, I rule that Hansard shall publish their names in full.

[Mr Fee was referring to Arthur Moir, Simon Burrowes, Agnes Peacocke, Allan Black, Debbie Pritchard, Cathy Foster, Tom Evans, Alan Rogers and David Hoy.]

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I am the Assembly Commissioner responsible for the work of the Office of the Keeper. One of the first tasks of the Commission after devolution in December 1999 was the preparation and allocation of accommodation in Parliament Buildings. That was no mean task, involving as it did the allocation and reconfiguration of appropriate office and meeting space to Members, parties, Committees, Ministers and Secretariat staff.

To meet all the needs of a modern legislature, further work was required to convert storage areas into offices and to provide press facilities, which included a conference suite, radio and TV studios, and a press bar. That extensive refurbishment and conversion work was carried out to the required timescales and to an appropriate standard. However, at an early stage in the preparation of accommodation, it became clear that Parliament Buildings would not be able to meet all the Assembly’s accommodation needs. For that reason, in September 2001, after detailed consideration of the options, the Commission purchased Ormiston House on a 13-acre site for £9 million. The Commission is applying for planning permission for temporary accommodation for approximately 150 staff. That is a key step towards relieving the pressure on office space in Parliament Buildings, which has become critical and which, if not addressed, could seriously affect the Commission’s ability to provide the Assembly with a staff complement necessary for it to function properly.

It is the Commission’s intention, after extensive consultation with all interested parties, and subject to a separate planning application, to establish a permanent second location for the Assembly at the Ormiston site. This will involve the refurbishment of Ormiston House and the provision of some additional office accommodation of a scale and design appropriate to the building’s grade B listing.

The Commission has been committed to ensuring that Parliament Buildings is available to all sections of the Northern Ireland community and visitors from abroad. Our provision for tours and functions for Members and the visitors whom they sponsor has been one of the success stories of the Commission’s stewardship of the Building. Indeed, if one reads the appropriate section in the report, one will see how many folk have visited here — a staggering number. With about 42,000 visitors a year and broad international interest, Parliament Buildings has become one of the top venues for visitors in Northern Ireland. The Events Co-ordination Office continues to provide a service to Members and their guests by planning and managing events and providing professional presentations covering the history, architecture and present use of the Building.

Access for people with disabilities has also been important for the Commission. Several access audits have been carried out in Parliament Buildings, and a range of facilities has been provided, including induction loops and text phones. Staff have been trained to help people with varying degrees of disability, and a key challenge over the next year will be to implement a programme of work aimed at ensuring that Parliament Buildings meets the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in a way that does not compromise its listed status. I join with the other members of the Commission in commending the staff and thanking them for their dedication and helpfulness during the period of our service.

In winding up, I feel like the bishop who arrived at a church one Sunday morning for a special service only to find that there were six people in the congregation. Tackling the clerk of session and chief officer of the congregation, he asked whether it had not been announced that he would be speaking. The chief officer said "Yes, we forgot to tell them, but the news must have leaked out anyway." Looking around the empty Benches here tonight, I can sympathise with him.

I thank Mr Billy Bell for his helpful comments. Indeed, I would like to make it clear that on the occasion of the Eagles’ concert on 29 June 2001 the Assembly did not provide anyone with corporate hospitality. An event management company arranged the corporate hospitality provided. The Assembly caterers, Mount Charles, provided the catering, and a single invoice for all catering costs was sent to Happening Creative Communications on 3 July 2001. The amount charged was consistent with the terms of the Assembly’s catering contract with Mount Charles. This contract is geared to provide a net gain from such functions, and this gain is used to defray other Assembly expenditure, for example, security, heating and lighting. I hope that clarifies that point. Having no further comments to make, I support the motion and commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly takes receipt of the First Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission (NIA 102/01).

Adjourned at 7.54 pm