Dodos.

Mr Savage told him about the good old days when there were no double mandates such as his leader has today. Mr Close gave him a lesson in wheeling political wheelbarrows and ensuring that one makes no decisions by pushing things in a review ahead of oneself. I am not too sure what Mr Molloy said. On one hand, he was saying that he wanted to have fewer boards; on the other, he did not want them all centralised. On one hand he was saying that he wanted powers given to councils so that they could exercise cross-border responsibilities; on the other, he did not want the councils to have those.

It is a pity that the First Minister is not here, because what we are debating today is yet another example of the broken promises that he made to his party, to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland. When the Administration was first set up, the DUP criticised the creation of 10 Departments for purely political reasons. He came under some criticism from his own party.

He wrote to all his party members saying that the costs would be neutral over the four-year period because there would be a review of administration.

That, incidentally, was echoed in an answer that I was given during the first Budget debate by the now Deputy First Minister when I raised the fact that the public administration review had not taken place. We were told that we would have to wait and look at it in the context of the full four years of the Administration, that it would be cost-neutral over the four years. Perhaps that is the answer to Mr Close's earlier question about when that period was meant to start. I do not know when it was meant to start, but it is clear from what the First Minister has said, and from what the Deputy First Minister said in his previous post some time ago, that it was meant to be in place and delivering savings by the end of this session of the Assembly. They have failed to deliver on that promise.

It is not a new promise. In his 24 October 2000 statement on the Programme for Government, the First Minister said:

Now, a year and a half after that promise was made, he is just getting round to publishing the terms of reference of the review, let alone getting the review under way. Ironically, at the same time as he made that promise, he also promised to progress work on the implementation bodies and areas of North/South co-operation. He got ahead with that one. He made sure that there was progress on that. That says something about the priorities of this Administration. Many Unionists are now turning against the Ulster Unionist Party because of those priorities. That party makes promises about saving money on public administration, but it does not keep them. However, when it comes to North/South bodies, it seems to jump through all kinds of hoops to make sure that it keeps its coalition partners happy.

It is also significant that in October 2000 the then Minister of the Environment made a promise in the heat of the moment, probably to deflect some criticism. He said that the Ulster Unionist Party would deliver when it came to saving on administration. At his party conference in October 2000, he said:

He also said that he would have a team to draw up proposals and make recommendations before the local government elections last May. Almost a year later, that promise has not been delivered. It may have been a useful promise to make at a fairly contentious party conference, but the promise has not been fulfilled.

It could be argued that that is because the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is overworked. However, it has ensured that it has plenty of resources to carry out the work. We discussed the Budget proposals a couple of weeks ago; there was a line in the Budget for almost £16 million for

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister now spends nearly £40 million every year, yet we have no flow of legislation to the Assembly. We have had promises of reviews that have not taken place. A year and a half late, the review of public administration has finally come before the Assembly. All parties have generally welcomed it, although listening carefully to what has been said, it is clear that the road ahead is not going to be an easy one.

Do not forget that attempts were made under direct rule to reform public administration. I recall that one of the first debates in the Forum for Political Dialogue was on the reform of education and on reducing the number of education and library boards. That was five years ago. Have we got rid of them? No, we still have them. I do not know whether there is much contact among Ministers in the Executive, but the Minister of Education is currently trying to sell a proposal that not only should we have five education and library boards, but 20 collegiates as well, which will form yet another layer of education administration.

Let us not pretend that this will be easy. Mr Savage and Mr A Doherty both talked about the value of local councils. Mr Savage said that, under the Belfast Agreement, the people ratified the structures that have been agreed to date. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have made it clear in the document that we have received today that the number of Departments is not up for review.

Everyone has criticised quangos today, but once we start to identify which quangos are going, I suspect that even the Alliance Party will not be jumping up and down to get rid of them all. As my Colleague Dr Paisley has pointed out, nobody has benefited more. In fact, it is well known that the Alliance Party has its own version of the quiz game 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?' It is called "Who Wants To Be A Quango Chair?" It has had some big winners in the past: Bob Cooper won a seat; Oliver Napier won a seat; John Cushnahan won a seat; Will Glendinning won a seat. They have all had them. They were failed politicians, but they were well rewarded for their service. When it comes to looking at quangos, I suspect that there will not be the same unanimity as has been displayed here today.

I am disappointed that the number of Departments is not going to be looked at, because that is an indefensible situation. That point has already been made. I have another disappointment that the Deputy First Minister may be able to clarify. In the First Minister's speech, he said that we need to lead the review and that the Executive will lead the process. Yet in the same breath, almost in the same sentence, he talked about the process having independence. Will the First Minister and the Executive lead the review, or will it be independent? How does one reconcile those two contradictory statements? There will be some concern if the review is led either by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or by the Executive. If it has taken this long to establish the terms of reference of the review and get them into the public domain, how long will it be before the review is completed?

I will not go over all the points that other Members have covered in the terms of reference document. Some that have not been mentioned are important. First, we will consider whether the public service is the best way to deliver service. That is important. I know that, as politicians, we sometimes believe that if is not done through the public service, it is no good. The Deputy First Minister will be aware of that, having been the Minister of Finance and Personnel. If we are to move towards a situation in which we raise money through bonds, the delivery of public services may have to change - they may have to be delivered in another way.

Taking into consideration what has been said about quangos, we have to find ways genuinely to harness the expertise that exists in civil society. I am glad that reference has been made to that. To use the terms employed in the review document, what is the future role of non-elected people who can bring expertise and experience to the delivery of particular services? In many walks of life that degree of expertise has been useful in public bodies. Another principle is to avoid duplication and enable managerial and bureaucratic expenditure to be minimised. I wonder, however, whether the Executive are listening to that when I see the Department of Education pushing the proposals of the Burns Report.

The debate is crucial. As other Members have said, we cannot allow this to drag on. It must not be an exercise in getting the Executive over the next election. Given that a promise has been made, do they put it in a wheelbarrow and push it in front of them? We need political decisions not political barrow boys, so I hope that we see the real delivery of firm proposals this side of Assembly elections.

It is a great pity that Dr Paisley is not in the Chamber because I was going to - possibly for the first time in this place - welcome the commitment that he gave to Alliance principles when he soundly annunciated the need for openness, accountability and inclusiveness. Mr S Wilson also followed up that point to some extent. Unfortunately, Dr Paisley went on to spoil it by casting aspersions, as did Mr Wilson, about jobs on quangos, suggesting that they were a particular feature of the Alliance Party. He may have gone back in history to the 1970s with some accuracy, although I am not aware what quango John Cushnahan was on. Members should be careful before they make such allegations.

In the last figures that I read more DUP Members came through the appointments procedure than Alliance Members. There were about 12 Ulster Unionists, 10 SDLP Members, one DUP Member and no Alliance Members. Mr Wilson may be just ahead of us, but he should be a little more careful.

If my interest should be declared, I admit to membership of four quangos as a nominee of Antrim Borough Council, three advisory groups and the Lower Bann LEADER. If my fellow councillors are prepared to put their confidence in me, perhaps the DUP should be less critical. There is no doubt that Northern Ireland is somewhat overgoverned and significantly overadministered. In that respect the review is long overdue. We must balance efficiency and effectiveness on the one hand with democratic accountability on the other. There is a trade-off between the two. Traditional partnerships must also be examined. Members are focusing on councils, but they account for only a small proportion of public expenditure. However, the question of whether fewer and larger councils with more functions are appropriate or whether we keep the present pattern with its local representation is not primarily what the review should focus on. Fundamentally, the issue is that of the major elements of administration - Government Departments and the quangos that are accountable to them.

First, there are more quangos than district councils. Secondly, they have more members than district councils. Thirdly, they have bigger budgets than councils. Apart from quangos that operate as advisory bodies and bring in the kind of expertise that some have mentioned, the review should focus on those Executive functions that are wielded by non-elected bodies, given that we now have an elected democratic body. That is the only way in which we can address public expenditure and more effective service seriously.

There have been references today to private finance and to how we deal with such matters. I have no ideological hang-ups about that; however, the small capital market in Northern Ireland, the bureaucracy for relatively small-scale projects and the question of whether the public-service ethos that has developed here is amenable to bringing in such private expertise from outside Northern Ireland mean that there will be no easy answers. We must look for some more novel ways of funding.

Effectiveness is a major challenge to this region because we have many features that are different from other regions in the UK and, to an extent, different from the Republic. We have not really addressed how we will meet the additional costs of providing public services across rural areas. A relatively sparse population over most of the south and west of Northern Ireland will create significant additional costs. We must work out how to address that so that we can provide local, quality services, such as health, for those who currently cannot get access to them.

Fundamentally more important than that are the hidden extra costs. We choose to maintain separate facilities that do not need to be maintained, but they are promoted because they recognise the divisions in this society. Within Greater Belfast, we already have many sports and leisure facilities that are seen as either Catholic or Protestant-used. The duplication of leisure facilities sitting short distances apart is something that we should not tolerate if we are serious about cutting the costs of public administration.

The position is similar with health centres, but the worst example is schools. In many cases we divide children on the grounds of gender, in almost all cases on the grounds of ability and in virtually every case on the grounds of religious background. There is no doubt that that adds to the cost of schools and to their administration and public transport costs. There are two examples of this in my constituency of South Antrim. When they reach 11 years of age, nearly all Catholics in the growing population of Crumlin leave every morning to go to school elsewhere. Randalstown, which has a similarly growing population, sees all of the Protestants leaving it, and, of course, every child who passes the 11-plus leaves both those villages. If these concerns are to be dealt with - and they are matched by education administration - we need to start to tackle the issues of such divided facilities seriously.

Similarly, there is duplication in further and higher education. The most obvious examples are Stranmillis and St Mary's teacher training facilities, which sit two or three miles apart. They teach students to run a common curriculum, and they even manage to have a core curriculum for religious education. However, for some bizarre reason, we segregate our teachers.

Sammy Wilson quoted the First Minister as saying:

It appears that the "we" refers to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and then the Executive will lead the process. He missed another "we" at the end of the statement.

Apparently "we" again refers to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I find the concept of the royal 'we' coming from Ministers difficult to take. However, I ask Ministers to reassess how the review can be accepted across the community if it is seen to be in the pockets of two Ministers, or even in the pockets of twelve Ministers.

As Séamus Close said, we believe - "we" meaning the Alliance Party - that the review must be fully independent and radical so that it can bring in external objectivity rather than purely the thinking from within the public administration and so that it can choose a variety of expertise. However, we do not wish to burden OFMDFM with any more work, having heard the Deputy First Minister, on Friday night, outline his difficulties with the amount of work that comes through that Department. I am aware that he is only recently in the position, and that he has long carried the burden of the Department of Finance and Personnel. We do not wish to overburden his civil servants.

However, when the First Minister talked about innovation when conducting the review, it was a disappointment to hear that that meant a web site - that is not an innovation. We need to bring in outside expertise to make the review fully effective, to retain openness and yet to keep in touch with the Executive, the Assembly and the wider public.

That would be proper innovation - not just talking about a web site.

We need to see a formal link between the review, the Assembly and the Executive, whether that be through the Committee of the Centre or the establishment of an independent Ad Hoc Committee.

I congratulate the Deputy First Minister on his stamina. He has clearly not lost his ability to sit through, and take account of, long debates in the Chamber. It is unrealistic to expect a full response to these concerns today. It is to be hoped, however, that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will reconsider the issues raised, not just by those on the Opposition Benches at this end of the Chamber, but by the Back Benchers in the two governing parties at the other end, and bring back a slightly different set of proposals for us to consider.

TOP

I am pleased at the level of interest that Members have shown in the review, as evidenced by the way in which they have contributed to today's debate. As was indicated in the correspondence earlier with the Committee Chairpersons and the Speaker, the active involvement of the Assembly will be important to the success of the review. The purpose of the debate is to start the process whereby the Assembly can offer views on the terms of reference. Some Members did do that, although others did not and went on excursions on other matters ranging far beyond the issue of public administration.

I appreciate Members' comments on the issues that they wish to see addressed, amplified or underlined in the terms of reference. Individual Committees have also begun to offer their views. That is helpful, and the Executive will take those into account. When we say "we" or "us", we mean the Executive. We propose to seek formal Assembly endorsement of the terms of reference once the pre-consultation exercise has been concluded. That is one part of demonstrating that the review is not in the pockets of Ministers or civil servants. The Executive have furnished the Assembly and the Committees with draft terms of reference, and those will not be finalised without our consideration of the feedback and the suggestions made. That principle will extend throughout the life of the review, because the review will change a range of issues, and it will touch many aspects, not just of public administration but of everyday social, economic, cultural and environmental life in the region. The review will have an effect that will go well beyond the lifetime of this first Assembly - and even well beyond the lifetime of the second Assembly. If we consider the life cycle of the structures involved, these are arrangements that could last for a generation. In the review, therefore, it is right that we fully engage with the full range of public interests. It is also right to bring forward the review as an undertaking of government by the Government.

In the House, I am used to hearing Members criticising, and alleging, remote-controlled Government. They say that too much of devolution has so far involved establishing reviews rather than people getting on with the job of government itself. Members have said that when reviews have been established, those reviews have been at arm's length to ensure that they are "politically disownable" and that, when the outcomes of the reviews have emerged, they, in turn, have been the subject of yet more reviews and more consultation.

People have criticised reviews that were carried out by that type of remote-control method. Now there is criticism of the type of review that touches issues right across the Government. We want to ensure that the centre of gravity for the review, and the responsibility for driving and implementing it, rests with the Government. However, we want to provide not only for full consultation but for real, independent input and insight. People seem to be criticising that as well, and we are only at the start of the pre-consultation period.

Some Members, including Dr Paisley, seem to have assumed that we knew all the answers before we heard the views of Members or Committees. One criticism that we have had to date is that we have not given a complete account of what the outcome will be or the full details, structure and methodology of the review. We are in a genuine pre-consultation exercise, and I think it is a bit rich for people to throw that criticism at us.

We have not yet launched the review, although we are still on target to launch it in the spring of this year. When we seek the Assembly's endorsement of the terms of reference we will be clear about it, and I hope that many Members will have a clearer understanding of many of the issues that have been raised than the understanding they have displayed today.

The timescale, which will include milestones, and the budget for the review will be set out alongside the fuller role that we envisage for independent experts. We must underline that those issues all require the Executive's approval. They will not be decided at the whim of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It would not be right for me to pre-empt that process, despite being pressed by many Members and personally tempted to do so. That process will involve the Executive's giving full consideration to the feedback that they receive from Committees and the views they have heard from Members.

I listened to all the views that were expressed. The First Minister and I, together with the other Ministers in the Executive, will consider them carefully. I wonder whether some Members listened carefully to some of the things they said today, because there seemed to be contradictions in some of the contributions.

We will consult other groups, including unions, representatives of local government and the wider public sector, and we will take their views into account. Consultation must, and will, be a major feature of the review once it gets under way.

It is clear from the debate that Members have grasped the scale of the task ahead and the complexity of the issues to be addressed. With a rigorous examination of all the issues and options, and through a highly consultative and participative approach, we will try to build a consensus - yes, a consensus - for the type of change that is required, and we will arrive at well-informed decisions that will bring real benefits to all.

Some Members asked about issues that ought to be included in the review. Some people seemed to suggest that the review should be able to question some of the principles or structures in the Good Friday Agreement. If we are to conduct the review with a view to maximising consensus, we must recognise first that public administration, the issues that we are dealing with and the 30-year-old structures that we have inherited are different from the matters that were addressed by the principles and structures of the Good Friday Agreement.

We must recognise also that to try to include the issues from the Good Friday Agreement would probably place more hurdles on the road to consensus than would trying to concentrate on the actual review of public administration.

The Executive might also consider what Members are saying about fundamentally questioning the number of existing Departments. Would it really offer the Assembly the opportunity to have a telling and cogent impact on the review of public administration if Committees felt that they were spending more time defending the existence of the relevant Departments and trying to deal with that type of "turf" consideration and positioning rather than examining the issues of public administration beyond the Assembly and the Departments?

The decisions that emerge from the review will have implications for the functions of Departments. There are provisions in the legislation that allow Departments to be changed and functions to be transferred, and for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals for a different dispensation regarding departmental structures. That provision will always exist. The Assembly does not necessarily have to fix Departments for a generation in the same way as it might fix overall structures of public administration for a generation. Members must be careful that they do not confuse matters.

Many Members seem to be expressing more concern about the conclusion of the review than they did about its start. There have been complaints about the delay in getting the review started, about what is or is not going to happen during the review, and questions about what will happen at the end of it. People seem to be fearful that the review will be carried out in camera, with surprises coming at the end. There should be no surprises lurking in any conclusions that emerge. The Executive want to ensure widespread public debate of the issues, which includes ongoing debate in the House and in Committees. We are encouraged by the level of interest shown by the public in the limited consultation on the terms of reference. We hope that public interest and involvement develop as the review starts to examine the substantive issues that need to be addressed. Many Members mentioned many of those issues today.

A key message to take away from the debate is that the review will be an open and transparent process. That is not just a standard of the Alliance Party. It has to be an open and transparent process, which will require the Assembly and the Executive to work in partnership to the benefit of everyone. Whatever the outcome of the review, it must have the support of the Assembly to see it through to a successful and durable implementation. That is why it is so important that the Assembly be involved at every stage.

It is also important that there is a responsible and consistent approach to the review by elected representatives and political parties. It is easy for representatives of the same party to lobby for two or three conflicting outcomes. There were examples of that in the debate, depending on which hat a Member happened to be wearing at the time. If a Member supports the rationalisation of councils, while at the same time members of his party call for the maintenance of the councils of which they are a part, clearly there are problems with credibility and consistency.

Any Member can play games with such a complex review. However, to do so - consciously or otherwise - is to undermine the capacity for consensus and change. It will add to the confusion and will contribute to a delay in achieving success in a review to which all Members say they attach great urgency and importance.

Together, the Executive and the Assembly have a responsibility to provide clear leadership and good government. In an exercise of this scale we shall be unable to please everyone - we shall not even be able to please everyone in the Chamber. There will be difficult decisions ahead, but they must be made.

The Executive cannot shirk their responsibility. People want to know that they have a Government in the Executive and the Assembly and not a Government- in-waiting. That is why we must proceed with the review in a timely and honest manner. Had we opted for the more hands-off review that some suggested, we would have been attacked for not providing leadership and for not offering clear Executive ownership of an important exercise that will affect government for some time.

The Assembly's interests must also be balanced with the expectations of the wider community. For that reason, we are developing a process that will allow feedback from a broad range of stakeholders on issues as they emerge and develop. It must be remembered that the nature of the review means that issues will emerge and develop. It is wrong for Members to think that everything in the review has been precast in an inflexible and unresponsive way. The review must be structured so that it can absorb and reflect all the issues and tensions that will arise.

Several Members, including William McCrea and Duncan Shipley Dalton, made two distinct points. First, they asked that we move ahead quickly with the review and that the outcomes are produced and implemented speedily. Secondly, they asked us to look more fundamentally at how the functions of the 11 Departments are to be allocated. In many ways, those two points contradict each other.

Other Members argued that more matters must be brought into the review. It was also argued that several other issues, which are already under review, should be included to make a composite or omnibus review. If we include everything in the review of public administration, it will take longer to conduct.

Not for the first time, Seamus Close referred to putting things into the wheelbarrow and wheeling them in front of you. However, lo and behold, he wanted the review of rating policy, the review of office accommodation and the various other reviews to go into that wheelbarrow. He also denounced those reviews for having already been started. Those reviews are commitments in the Programme for Government and are taking place on time in keeping with the programme. At the same time, Mr Close attacked the supposed delay in the review of public administration. A little consistency would perhaps take us further and could mean that there might be less in the wheelbarrow.

I shall turn to the scope of the review and how Government Departments will be dealt with. The basis of the present system of public administration was laid down in the early 1970s. The departmental structure of the Assembly was agreed in 1998, although devolution only came into effect at the end of 1999. Devolution has existed for only two years - not even two full years, due to suspensions and other disruptions, such as having only an acting First Minister and an acting Deputy First Minister for four months last year.

The Assembly's departmental structure was agreed without reflecting at all on the structure of public administration outside the Assembly. What we are talking about now is a review of arrangements that are 30 years old. Many Members reflected on today's different circumstances and conditions and gave their own perceptions and experiences of those earlier structures. The departmental structure is not set in stone; it can be changed and adapted, and not just from Assembly to Assembly. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister can propose changes to the structure.

I was particularly intrigued to hear the valiant plea by some DUP Members for reorganisation of Departments and transfer of functions. I daresay that if the First Minister and I came forward with such proposals, those who are now demanding them would be the first to cry "Foul" and say that they were politically rigged and that we were somehow engaged in drive-by political sanctions against some Departments.

The Patten Report and the criminal justice review derived from the agreement, and both envisaged devolution of justice functions. Given that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the agreement specify that there cannot be more than 10 Departments, those parameters would require an adjustment to be made in any case. That can be taken in our stride. In Westminster, in Dublin and everywhere else, Government Departments can be changed and restructured relatively easily, without the consequent reduction and the need for phasing and dealing with other issues as clearly applies in the review of public administration. I see no need to weigh the review down with any task not germane to its purpose.

I take the point from Seamus Close and other Members that the review should focus on the citizen; the more we in the Chamber focus on Departments, the less sure I am that that will happen. We must make sure that we address people's rightful interests and demands regarding service, rather than structures.

There are no predetermined outcomes. The objective must be to create the best possible system of public administration. It is not about cutting jobs. It is about the delivery of public services and the legacy we want to leave to future generations.

In the context of devolution and our newly established institutions, it is necessary to make changes to the current system to reflect the new dispensation. On the evidence of today's debate, there is no dispute about that. We must move forward with a modern system that lives up to our expectations and meets all our requirements.

That may mean new ways of working and new ways of thinking about how services are delivered. Tommy Gallagher referred to partnership. A key theme of this Administration is partnership between the customer and the service provider, between local and regional levels of government and between the Government and the community.

In examining the ways in which services are administered, we will be keen to consider new methods of working, including the development of partnerships at local levels as well as those between different levels of government. One dimension of that is the fairly recent establishment in many localities of partnership boards or local strategic partnerships. Those relate to local government, the public sector and the community in a variety of ways. It may have been some of these that Sammy Wilson referred to in his remarks.

Francie Molloy said that some arrangements have grown up with European programmes. The review should examine whether mechanisms from those and other arrangements could provide potential opportunities for the future here. We must look not just at how delivery of public services can be improved, but also at how we can assure appropriate local accountability for those services. Local delivery is one issue, and local accountability is another.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre raised the issue of the oversight of the review. We have made clear that it is a matter for the Assembly. That is why we called for a pre-consultation debate and wrote to the Committees and to you, Mr Speaker. We are happy to work with what the Assembly decides should be the form, strength and nature of its engagement with the process.

We want to have a positive relationship with the relevant Committee and we recognise that all Committees have a part to play. William McCrea also commented on the role of Committees. However, I thought that I was partaking in a different debate when he suggested that Committees were being relegated to the end of the line. Given that the Committees were consulted first, I am unsure as to how he came to that conclusion.

In fairness to the First Minister and me, we raised the issue of how the Assembly would oversee the review with the Speaker. We indicated that, because of the Assembly's central role, we look forward to working with its Committees. That must be reflected in the way in which the review is conducted. Several Committee Chairpersons have registered the need to involve their Committees in the work of the review at every stage, and that was reflected in the comments of several Chairpersons and others who spoke from a Committee perspective.

We want to be responsive. However, if 11 Committees hold the review team to account, it may diminish the role of the Assembly. Therefore, we must find a way to allow all Committees to express their views clearly and strongly. However, we must ensure that those views are harnessed in a sensible and structured way. Sensible approaches that provide clear accountability, without the risk of confusion or undue contention among Committees, must be found.

That is why we propose a similar approach to that which the Assembly and the Committees use to handle the Budget considerations. Each Committee is to put forward its responses and views, but one Committee will take overriding responsibility for reflecting those views to the Assembly. The indications are that the Committee of the Centre believes that it should pursue that role.

Several Members emphasised that the Committee of the Centre must have a strong hand in the review. Some Members who advocated that also said that the review should be independent and criticised the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister's having a central role in it. That is inconsistent.

Edwin Poots asked about the nature of the review. It is an overall review that must look at specific areas such as local government, the different quangos and the different sectoral footprints that are involved. However, it must do that as a coherent whole. Other reviews will dovetail with it, but we must be clear that we seek a single, coherent, initial model for public administration that is capable of looking at service delivery across the sectors.

Other reviews were mentioned. I reassure Alex Maskey, who cannot be here as he is visiting someone in hospital, and Tommy Gallagher that the review of public administration will not delay progress in other areas.

It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that the delay of the review of public administration or the way in which the process is conducted is holding up the implementation of the structural proposals in the Hayes Report and the Burns Report. In fairness, the Executive have yet to receive, let alone agree or defer, proposals for structural reform from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or the Minister of Education, following the independent Hayes and Burns reviews.

Those reviews were the subject of lengthy consultation. Many critics of those reviews and their lengthy consultation periods seem to be asking us to conduct the review of public administration in a similar manner. The Executive decided that in all reviews that are consistent with the mandate in the Programme for Government it would not be the case that nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed. Reforms can progress, as illustrated by the establishment of Invest Northern Ireland. Other reviews are progressing. Some of the points that emerge from those reviews must be taken into account, and there must be cross-referral between the themes that emerge from the review of public administration and other reviews. However, there should not be gridlock.

We must take decisions in a responsible and co-ordinated fashion. It is a two-way process in which different review teams can take account of one another's findings. Some of the reviews that the Department of Finance and Personnel has carried out were mentioned. It was implied that the senior Civil Service review, the office accommodation review and the rating policy review should all now be put on hold or incorporated into the review of public administration. To do that would be to lose sight of the fact that there are important discrete issues that must be dealt with on their own terms and merits in separate reviews. The thinking and understanding that develops as a result of those reviews will inform other aspects of the review of public administration and vice versa. However, we will not aid progress in any of those areas if we merge reviews or if other reviews were to be subsumed by the review of public administration.

I do not think that Members believe that an alternative approach would be sustainable. We must ensure that when Departments are carrying out reviews, they have regard to what emerges from the review of public administration. We cannot improve the public sector as a whole or public administration as a service if 11 different Departments are making their own decisions separately. Equally, the "big bang" approach to public sector reform, whereby everything is changed at once, is not achievable.

Equality proofing was mentioned. The duty to promote equality of opportunity will be taken into account at all stages of the review. We will consider carefully how to assess the equality impact of recommendations. We must consult before we take decisions.

Some Members drew attention to the characteristics in the terms of reference. Mr ONeill focused on the importance of TSN principles in this review and their relevance to the issue of public access to services. That issue goes beyond the structure of services by focusing on delivery. Mr Molloy and others also raised similar issues that we must consider.

Several Members mentioned the idea of appointing an independent commission to carry out the review. Some of those people are the same ones who criticised the effect of other independent reviews and viewed them as government by the long finger. I will leave Members to square their thoughts on that.

Many Members have asked who the experts will be and whom we will appoint. Some Members seem to be questioning the appointment of independent experts as advisers, while at the same time championing the idea of having an entirely independent commission to run and manage the review - and that commission will have to be appointed by somebody.

We have identified two types of experts that we would like to appoint as advisers, although we have not yet identified the individuals. There will be one group of high-level experts who will act as key mentors and monitors of the process and will help to quality assure it. Those are people who are seen to be heavy hitters in the public administration field, but we recognise that they will not be able to devote their time in a direct and hands-on way over the lifetime of this project. However, they can play an important role in mentoring and monitoring the process. The other group of experts are people with particular sectoral expertise, based on their professional experience, their academic insight or their background. We want to ensure that we can get all the necessary insights, and those insights will be made available not only to the core team that will be working full time on the review, but to others as well. That core team will comprise not only civil servants but also people drawn from a range of professions across the public sector - indeed, the team does not have to be confined to the public sector. I want to underline that point, because some people seem to be caricaturing the review as an inside job when that is not the case.

Several points were made that were not germane. Mr McCartney reprised his contribution to the debate on estimates in the hope that I would answer because he felt he did not get an answer then. I addressed most of Mr McCartney's points when I was Minister of Finance and Personnel, and I refer him to those responses.

Some Members raised issues related to local government. Mr Gallagher asked how local government units would identify with communities, and that is an issue that must be addressed. Some Committees will also address that issue, and Dr McCrea indicated that that would be one area, but not the only area, in which the Committee for the Environment would be taking an interest.

I will not be able to cover all the issues that were raised in the time remaining. However, we will correspond with Members on those matters. I hope that we will be able to take some of those issues on board in further work on the terms of reference and in future layouts for the review. I welcome the fact that, while many people mentioned the perceived delay in the review and asked questions about how it will be conducted, there seems to be reasonably widespread support for the proposed terms of reference, although other suggestions were also put forward. Member after Member has drawn attention to specific, important principles in the document. They are in there; Members identified few principles that are not covered in the paper.

We shall carefully review the specific changes that people have been canvassing, alongside the views from Committees. I recognise that some issues about process have been raised, and I indicated in my opening remarks that we shall provide more information shortly. However, notwithstanding that some Members want it all ways - or certainly more than one way - it is clear that some want the review done quickly, but at the same time want its remit extended. They want the review to be independent, but at the same time want the Executive seen to be adopting a hands-on role while doing our own job in Government. Some Members want us to maintain independence by appointing commissions, while criticising similar structured reviews in other arenas and in other veins.

I recognise that there will be an amount of political exchange and badinage in relation to this exercise, as there is in everything else. We can take that as part of the loose change of the whole exercise. However, we must remember that the important currency of the exercise must be those important principles that are laid out in the paper and that many Members rehearsed. If we stick to the agenda that many Members emphasised when setting out what they regarded to be the key principles, we as an Assembly, and not only the Executive, will be providing a good service to the region for at least a generation to come.

<< Prev