Are those red onions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Printed by W & G Baird.

Printed by W & G Baird.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 5 of the First Minister's statement reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are pathetic.

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

Don't be so cheap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are not going to vote them out of existence.

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

The Member will not be representing anybody after the election.

It is obvious that I have hit a nerve.

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

TOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>