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.

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.

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.

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 -

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

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.

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.

I do not think that the figures are correct.

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.

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?

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.

Not a word. [Interruption].

Order.

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.

Madam Deputy Speaker - [Interruption].

Order.

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.

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

and

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.

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.

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.

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.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>