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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the Minister give way?

No thanks.

Is the Minister scared to give way?

I am not afraid to give way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee - 
Disqualification Legislation

TOP

The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee (Dr Birnie):

I beg to move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission

TOP

I beg to move

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

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

My apologies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>