SUBGROUP ON THE REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINSTRATION (RPA) AND RURAL PLANNING
Wednesday 13 December 2006
Members present:
The Chairman, Mr Patsy McGlone
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Philip McGuigan
Mr Alex Maskey
Mr Edwin Poots
Mr Mervyn Storey
Mr Jim Wilson
Witnesses:
| Dr Andrew McCormick | Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety |
| Dr Denis McMahon | Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety |
| Mr Dick Mackenzie | Local Government Boundaries Commissioner for Northern Ireland |
| Ms Amanda Morrison | Secretary to the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner for Northern Ireland |
| Mr Stephen Peover | Department of the Environment |
| Dr Eddie Rooney | Department of Education |
The evidence session started at 10.32 am.
(The Chairman (Mr McGlone) in the Chair.)
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): We shall now hear evidence from representatives of the relevant Departments. That will be followed by a question-and-answer session. Mr Peover, have you agreed a speaking order?
Mr Stephen Peover (Department of the Environment): As members received a presentation on local government on Friday, I did not intend to make a presentation today. However, I am happy to do so, if members prefer. I understood that the subgroup wanted to use this morning for questions. Andrew McCormick has brought some papers that he wishes to make available to the subgroup, but it is the subgroup’s decision as to how it wishes to use the time.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): We shall begin with Andrew’s submission on health and social care, and members may ask questions on any issue arising from that. We shall then turn to health and education.
Dr Andrew McCormick (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) has the privilege of being first in line in the review of public administration (RPA), so its process is further advanced than that of other Departments, as I will explain. That sequence affects the nature of our present work.
I shall begin by setting the context in which changes are being driven and in which the factors leading to the current model have emerged.
Health and social care can be organised in several ways. The DHSSPS is characterised by several unique features whereby social care is integrated with healthcare. The nature of the organisation is such that there are increasing demands on the service, as members will know from their constituency business. There is no more pressing issue than the day-to-day demand for better health and social care. There are rising costs, rising opportunities to provide new forms of care and demographic changes. Northern Ireland has a higher level of ill health than other regions, so all of those issues must be addressed. The major expansion and expenditure that has taken place over the past few years will tail off, owing to the nature of the comprehensive spending review.
Those issues make up the context in which the DHSSPS is organised to achieve the best outcomes.
The objective of the structural change is to secure those best outcomes. Northern Ireland has had too many small health and social care organisations, and that is an issue with regard to providing safe and high-quality hospital care. Securing the best outcomes is difficult to do when the trend in medicine is to increase specialisation, etc. There are also serious issues to consider in providing the best possible care for rural areas.
The service needs to secure better performance and to deal with efficiency and productivity. Those issues, along with a range of other challenges were highlighted in the independent review of health and social care in Northern Ireland that Prof John Appleby produced last year.
The strategy that was carried through into devolution is essentially public-health led. The only way to improve health and social care is to make more people take responsibility for looking after themselves and to have a system that makes prevention and early intervention high priorities. However, the present structures do not serve those aims very well, so some of the structural changes are designed to make that better.
Although we plan to enact some elements of the reform programme first — that is a matter of fact — those elements are part of the wider RPA process. Therefore, we must consider how we can improve coterminosity and have the same principles that are applied in the rest of the RPA, in which accountability, efficiency and getting services closer to the public are the underlying principles. Those are the reasons for change.
The overarching diagram of the model is complicated, so I have created a simpler version. If the subgroup wants to talk at greater length about the Patient and Client Council (PCC) and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), we can do so later. However, the simplified diagram of the model draws out the main points.
The Secretary of State last November decided to create a regional health and social services authority that would take responsibility for the management and operation of the service and to reduce the number of trusts from 18 to five. The ambulance trust stands unchanged. However, the idea is to have five health and social care provider organisations that will provide the full range of care from acute secondary care, through to community care. The health and social services authority will oversee the planning process and will work with the new local commissioner groups to plan and prioritise services. The trusts will then provide that service. That is a continuation of the separation that has existed since the early 1990s, with the process of planning and prioritisation on the one hand, and provision on the other.
There is an increasing emphasis on primary and community-based care through the planning process, which provides a proposed strong link with local authorities. Those are the fundamental points of the model, and that is the point of coterminosity in planning and commissioning.
One major strength of the model is that the regional authority will be accountable for delivery and can say to the trusts that it is up to them, as a team, to deliver a better performance for the public. The regional authority will have a strong performance management role in the trusts, and they will require them to deliver part of the improved services. They will also hold them to account. Therefore a challenge is going out and ensuring that that accountability is coming back. That is a major part of how we drive through change.
Present structures have not served that aim of clear accountability very well; it has been more complicated than accountability in the proposed model would suggest. The roles of the Department, the boards and the existing trusts are not resolved and they do not provide clear lines of accountability.
We put together some thoughts on the rationale for the changes, to explain why we use this particular model and why we do things a certain way. If planning decisions are in the hands of the provider organisations, there is a strong risk that the community would not be as well served as possible. Therefore, the Minister decided to separate the planning aspects from provision, and to link them as closely as possible to a community base.
That is the reason for the alignment between community planning in the local government sector, and health and social care planning by the commissioning groups. That is the reason for the proposal to have commissioning groups aligned with local councils. That is the Minister’s position on how things should be organised, and it should better serve the strategy for improving health and well-being. If commissioning were led by public health and by the desire to have better prevention and earlier intervention, the effect would be to change the balance of roles and to secure a better strategic direction. It should result in less dependency on hospital care and more on self-care and support in the community. Patients should be able to stay closer to home.
A further intention is to maximise the benefit of the integration of hospital and community care, so the five trusts will be unique in that sense. They will carry the full range of responsibilities and that provides opportunities for improving service delivery.
It is important to have a strong voice providing feedback from service users, patients and clients. A stronger patient and client council will replace the existing four health and social services councils. That provides a balance between a strong voice at regional level and a strong local voice. Both regional and local dimensions are catered for. There is a need for strong regulation, and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority will provide standards. That is its function.
I return to my fundamental point that the Department will step back from the operational management of the service, which has been its preoccupation, because the Department has been the only regional organisation up to this point. Having a strong regional tier of management can provide a different way of doing things.
Trusts came into being as legal entities on 1 August last, and we are making appointments to them. Chairpersons and chief executives were appointed over the summer. Those appointees are now appointing directors. Those organisations are coming into being, and the transfer of staff will occur under secondary legislation. That is all firmly on track; it can and will be completed by 1 April.
The chief executive designate of the Health and Social Services Authority was appointed in August. The decision was taken to proceed with aspects of that appointment without prejudice to future legislation. All of the changes in the organisation of the authority require primary legislation. The trust mergers did not require that, as that could be achieved under existing powers. That is how it has been possible for those mergers to proceed. The powers are in place already. The plan is to complete the mergers and to have the trusts working as fully fledged service providers by April.
The question is how best to manage the transition to the new structure. A joint committee of the existing boards will be established to provide a step towards the new structures — again, that is subject to legislation. The seven commissioning groups will, on present plans, reflect the configuration of seven councils. We intend to have members of those groups appointed, in place and able to begin work by March because planning of services for 2008-09 and onwards will then be possible. The timetable, as set by the ministerial team, is to have that full process completed by April 2008, although that depends on legislation.
The final diagram illustrates that the idea behind these reforms and changes is that health and social care can be a black hole.
10.45 am
Previously, on that issue, Ministers sensed that it was hard to see what was going on in the system and to have drivers for change. If we have in place a system of planning and commissioning, strong performance management and a new system of financial management, the intention behind all of that is to secure a better outcome for the public. If, for example, those who commission services can say, “That is not a good enough service, and, as commissioners, we have the right to exercise financial control”, and, “No longer will we buy from this provider; we will buy from that provider instead”, then that is a powerful lever for change, and often it is sufficient to have the possibility of that in people’s minds as a way of improving services. That is what we have found in dealing with the waiting list issue over the past 18 months. It is the possibility of change.
Dr Eddie Rooney (Department of Education): As Dr McCormick said, health is a little in front of education in this area. We are working towards the same deadline, but we are behind on some of the elements of the process. I will give you a quick overview of where we are.
The RPA decisions made in November 2005 resulted in fundamental changes in every aspect of education administration. None of the existing groups escaped fundamental change, not least the Department itself. Our decisions were clear: like health, we are much more focused on the policy and strategy, transferring operational functions from the Department to an operational body, and on occupying a strategic leadership role within education.
The bulk of functions and decisions centre around the establishment of a single, large education and skills authority to take all the functions of the current education and library boards, and the support functions of a range of other bodies that currently exist in education, to provide a single home that supports front-line education. That body will also act as a single employing body for all teaching and non-teaching staff in the education sector. These changes are part of bringing cohesion to what has been a fragmented system. The changes will also impact on other educational support organisations, with the support functions that they provide moving to the new education and skills authority.
There is recognition that the Department and the Minister must have a much stronger direct relationship with the widest range of education stakeholders. That means not just the owners of schools and those with an interest in the sector, but, crucially, directly with teachers, staff in schools, boards of governors, parents and young people. Traditionally, those links have been weak, and we acknowledge that information must be communicated directly between those stakeholders and the Department to help it in its strategic role.
Those bodies and interested parties will have a statutory education and advisory forum that will report directly to the Minister to reflect their views, offer advice, and act as a sounding board on how the system is actually working.
From the outset, we have recognised that schools are changing — and changing dramatically. Policies have been in place since 1989 regarding community use of schools, but that was a limited development. In recent years, in particular, we have seen a significant shift in the link between schools and their communities that has been driven by educational needs.
Teachers and those at the front line recognise that the ability to teach and deliver education would be increasingly difficult without those community links. That is very much in the context of the extended school, or full-service school, with health services coming into schools. It is a model of schooling that is very different from what it has been in the past, and an acknowledgement that, within the context of community planning in particular, those linkages are vital in the planning of education.
Yesterday we named the chief executive designate of the new Education and Skills Authority (ESA), which is the first concrete appointment to the new body. We have been concentrating on fleshing out the decisions taken on 22 November and getting under the detail of the policy. We have issued policy papers to all stakeholders, including political parties, and we want feedback by 19 January 2007 to help us refine the next stage. That is the basis of the legislation. The policy papers are there to help us write the legislation and to ensure that it is in place by April 2008.
Mr Peover: Members are probably as familiar with the local government position as I am. The RPA timetable is diverse, and ours is the furthest back of the three and currently scheduled for implementation in April 2009. Our process has been open. The structure in place to date consisted of a political panel, supported by a working group and underpinned by nine subgroups.
The real rationale for local government reform is to give local government a fuller role in the governance of Northern Ireland overall. That will be done by increasing the size of the authorities and their budgets and functions on the one hand, and giving them a role in community planning on the other, which would allow them to engage, as of right, with other public bodies in the determination of the services provided for local populations.
The concept is fairly straightforward, but the policy is tricky. The subgroups reported on time at around the end of June or early July, and some further work had to be done after that. We are now in the process of replacing the structures that were used for the purpose of policy development with a new structure for the next phase of implementation, consisting primarily of a strategic leadership board chaired by the Minister, with a vice chairman from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) and 10 political party representatives supported by various officials. Underneath that, there will be five work streams, again led by politicians and supported by officials. The work streams will spin off subgroups — research and task groups, etc — and we see that structure being in place from now right through to the implementation phase of the process.
Our documentation, including policy papers and minutes, is all on our website and is freely available to anyone who wants to read it. It is a challenging process. Dick Mackenzie, the Boundaries Commissioner, will be joining us and giving evidence later. The legislation in place on our side is The Local Government (Boundaries) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. Mr Mackenzie has been working to the remit given by the Government to the Boundaries Commissioner to devise boundaries based on the seven areas defined in the RPA provision.
That legislation is in place, but the rest is not. Our intention was to publish proposals for a draft Order in Council in the spring, and that will depend on political developments. We will have to wait and see what happens with the Assembly. The work involved in drafting the legislation is going on. We have had inputs from the subgroups under the political panel and the working group, and that informed the process of legislative development. However, how that will be managed from here is not a matter for officials. We will have to wait and see how it shapes up.
So far, it has been going well. The issue that we have in common is how the other public services, and not just education and health, fit into their own government structure through the community planning process. That is key to the whole arrangement and the chosen route, which gives local government the purchase on the wide range of services.
We in the DOE, and certainly our Minister, see local government as the point for looking at the needs of a defined population in a geographical area. It has a clear geographical focus, and it is a broadly-based one, not a functional focus on any of the specific public service delivery areas. The aim is to try to ensure that there are arrangements in place that allow the other services, whether housing, health, education, the police or anybody else, to integrate with Government and to allow the various services to develop a creative synergy, and build up a more unified delivery of service to local populations. That will be the challenge for all of us. Most of you are as familiar with this as I am. We have had the general inquiry where we had to take questions on it, but you know what the arrangements are for it.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Go raibh maith agat. Before we move on to the questions, may I advise people in the room to switch off mobile phones, which may cause some interference with the audio recording system.
The members will be called in party order as follows: DUP, Sinn Féin, SDLP, UUP.
Mr Poots: I wish to ask Dr McCormick a question about the health trust model that has been set up. Previously, we had a situation in which the patients had the primary care, the general practitioners, the providers, health trusts and the health boards. Now we have a situation in which we have the trusts, the commissioning groups and the health and social services authority. So, there is another group there, when this exercise is about achieving efficiencies. I am sure that you have an explanation for that.
Dr McCormick: The commissioning groups are not separate specific organisations. They are subcommittees — the proposal is that they are subcommittees of the health and social services authority — so all the rationalisation of employment is possible in that context. The difference is that, previously, there were 15 local health and social care groups, so they are being, in a way, replaced by seven local commissioning groups. The intention is that they will play a significant part with the new local commissioning groups.
At every level, there is a smaller number of organisations. The clear requirement of Ministers is to deliver substantial efficiency savings within the new structure.
A lot of things are coming together on a regional level because of the commissioning groups and a better relationship with primary care. This exercise is about finding a way to have simplification, as well as a strong engagement with communities. The desire is to achieve both.
Mr Poots: Can you demonstrate how efficiencies will be achieved? Huge amounts of money go to paper trails and to the exercises that take place currently in commissioning. We want work to be carried out so that patients can benefit from the new builds that are coming along and the extra care packages that are needed as a result of the reductions in the waiting lists for operations. That is what public representatives are being asked to deliver.
We support any aspect of the RPA that achieves efficiencies, so it can deliver more services on the ground, and reduce the amount of paperwork involved. I am sure that you can demonstrate to us how there will be a reduction in the paperwork work that needs to be done.
Dr McCormick: Yes; the process that you are describing is related to the relationship between the current Department and the four boards. There is an extensive amount of process among the boards, 18 trust organisations and 15 local health and social care groups. That is a very large number of networks to deal with. This model will be simpler, with fewer senior posts. A very substantial amount of work is already happening in the trust context, with the number of senior executives going down from around 150 to around 50. That is a very significant change in leadership and personnel.
11.00 am
The second stage will be when those groups merge into the new authority in April 2008. There will be some cost in providing for the commissioning groups, but that is a means to promoting the relationship between the community planning side in the wider sector to secure links with other services, and to promote a public health agenda. That is regarded as a worthwhile investment to improve health and social care. I can provide more detail if that would be helpful.
Mr Poots: What we have heard thus far is helpful; if there is any further detail we would be interested in seeing it.
Mr Maskey: There are a few points that I would like to raise with Dr McCormick and Mr Peover. Dr McCormick, you dealt with the question of the impact on management staff. Can you give us any indication of what, if any, greater role the medical side will have in the placement of resources to health provision? I am interested, as coterminosity is one of the drivers of all this, to know why we have five trusts and seven commissioning groups. Can there not be the same number?
Dr McCormick: A role is intended for doctors as well as other health and social care professionals in designing and commissioning services. The commissioning groups will include GPs, other independent contractors such as dentists and pharmacists, and other professional staff from the boards. They will make up the new authority. As colleagues have said, the commissioning groups will have lay representation as well. There will be a balance of a strong professional lead and accountability and openness to wider community interests. That is an essential feature of the model.
I am sorry; I have forgotten your second point.
Mr Maskey: It was about coterminosity.
Dr McCormick: Coterminosity is essential at the planning stage; hence the alignment of planning and the prioritisation of services. That is the idea. The trusts are providers; it does not matter so much if they are not coterminous, because they are there to do what the commissioners ask them to do. We should think of the trusts as groups of people, assets and equipment. They are there to serve whomever plans the service.
Of course, a lot of business is done by the Belfast hospitals on behalf of other major hospitals. There are lots of services that cross boundaries anyway. It is up to us to ensure that we promote equal and fair delivery of services. The money and the planning power should be in the hands of the seven coterminous commissioning groups. They should have the leverage to require the service-provider organisations to answer to them. [Inaudible.]
Mr Maskey: Is there any direct link between the current level of the health budget and the proposed changes: in other words, is there any tangible link between reducing management, or other structures, by a certain amount and freeing up X amount of the budget for front-line services?
Dr McCormick: The obligation to produce savings has already been taken into account in the financial decisions taken by Ministers over the last year or more. Those decisions have produced savings and have made some service developments possible. Looking ahead, service developments will only be made possible by the efficiency gains secured.
Mr Maskey: The public is fairly well aware of current developments. As regards the structure of the task force, there is a bit of work to be completed on policy planning. Drafts are being worked on in order to put into practice some of the deliberations that have taken place thus far, or to prepare for legislation. What portion of the work done by the subgroups and the RPA political panel has the Minister taken on board?
Mr Peover: The DOE has not had any great difficulty with any of the subgroups’ recommendations, although the subgroup that discussed local governance left some issues unresolved. In general, the draft legislation closely reflects what came out of the subgroups, and I cannot think of any major disagreement that we have had with their work.
The issue for us is how much should be put into primary and subordinate legislation. As regards Dr McCormick’s point about commissioning groups, one community-planning issue is how to define those who are mandated to be at the table and who will have a duty to engage with local authorities when decisions are being made about community planning. That issue could be dealt with in primary legislation, but the Department will probably not choose to do that, because it would be too awkward to amend the legislation in the future.
I cannot think of any major issue that arose from the subgroups’ reports that the Department could not live with. The Minister is still considering some of the issues. Although not all issues have been resolved, we are getting close to that point, and I do not foresee any major difficulties. There may be some negotiations in some of the policy development panels on specific issues, but there are no major problems with broader policy.
Mr Gallagher: I have a couple of questions for Dr McCormick on coterminosity and on the apparent sense of confusion that persists, even when people look at the new arrangements. He talked about how the Department can handle coterminosity and how groups of hospitals within the new trusts are already working well together.
From my experience, that is not the case. For example, patients with fractures cannot be transferred for treatment — and that occurs in hospitals that will be grouped together under the new trusts. Patients who require dialysis, some of whom are seriously ill, will have to be transferred between hospitals that will be grouped together under the new trusts. I am concerned whether that arrangement will deliver an efficient service.
I want to ask you about the legislation. The commissioning groups have the important role of ensuring that the needs of service users are met. Is the legislation specific about the wider groups to which you referred? I am sure that other subgroup members have had the same experience in dealing with people with physical and learning disabilities and with those in need of respite care. Those people say constantly that they are never asked about the kind of service that is delivered to them. Will the legislation be specific about who exactly will be consulted so that we can better target the resources at those who need them?
My second question is about jobs. How many people does the Department employ centrally now and how many will it employ when this exercise is over?
My third question is about the very short consultation exercise on the new boundaries, a question that I also intend asking of the Boundaries Commissioner. That is compounded by the Christmas holidays. We will end up with a shorter consultation period than usual on this important issue.
Dr McCormick: I take your point about the difficulties in the present system. Part of our intention is to drive through performance improvement to help to set the minimum standards of service that people can expect. We will enforce those standards and require their delivery. Our challenge is to do that, as much more needs to be done to improve networking between the various agencies.
Dr McMahon will speak about the specifics of the legislation later. At this stage, the plan is to try to get the legislation into the public domain for consultation before 23 January 2007. We are nearly ready to do that. We want to ensure that the public has an input into the process.
Dr Denis McMahon (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): There are two important elements in the primary legislation that were not included before. One is the structure and role of the patient/client council, which will be a statutorily separate organisation. At present, there are four health and social services councils, and the people who work for them are employees of the boards. The complaint has been that something more independent with teeth is needed, so there will be statutory provision in the proposed legislation to allow for that.
The second important element is that, for the first time, we are proposing a duty of engagement, which will involve much more than the consultation requirements under section 75. It will mean engaging with people in communities about their health and well-being and about the design, management and prioritisation of services. Under the new arrangements, that statutory duty will be placed on all the new health and social services organisations. Those are proposals at this stage.
Dr McCormick: The new arrangements will deal with what are often thought of as the Cinderella services, but those services are critical to people in the long term. I am thinking of carers and those with a learning disability. We also have to deal with the Bamford review. There is a range of issues to be addressed.
11.15 am
On your third point, indicative figures show that the number of departmental staff will be reduced from around 1,000 to around 500 as some of the main functions move to the regional authority or to other organisations, leaving the Department to support the Minister on policy, legislation, the highest level of performance management and planning. A lot would be delegated.
Mr Peover: As regards timescales — let them blame me for this. The timescale is set by working back from the end date, 1 April 2009. It is like the old Irish saying: if we had wanted to get to where we are going, we would not have started from where we did. In our case we would have started about two years earlier.
All of us could have done with more time. There are several key stages for the DOE. First, there is the establishment of councils in shadow form in the summer of 2008, and the political panel has discussed how long the shadow period should be. The longer the period, the better. However, given the timescales we are working to, we do not think that it is possible to make it longer than the period from June 2008 to April 2009.
If you work back from 1 April 2009 as regards the legislation, the work of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, the decisions needed on the basis of his work, followed by the decisions needed on the district electoral areas, the Commissioner had to be given a very tight timescale in which to complete his work. He did a very good job. He produced the proposals on time and is still working to the timetable.
I take the point that the formal consultation period is relatively short. However, there will be public hearings, and a submission went to the Minister yesterday about the appointment of assistant boundaries commissioners to chair those hearings. I hope that that submission will be cleared in the next few days. The process will kick off in January 2007, and I know that Mr Mackenzie wants to make arrangements so that he and the assistant boundaries commissioners can engage with the politicians and other interest groups in the run up to the hearings.
The timetable is tight in every respect. It will be difficult for any of us to meet the deadline of 1 April 2009; the only way we can possibly do it is by keeping every element in the process as tight as possible. All I can do is offer my apologies. The process is dictated by the timetable.
To pick up the point about numbers, I will answer your question before it is asked. The DOE will change dramatically for several reasons. A large part of the Planning Service will move out of the Department because of the RPA, and we expect that the outcome of the review of environment governance will, more than likely, result in the creation of an independent body, although that decision has yet to be made. There is also the merging of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (DVTA) and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI) and the efficiencies resulting from that.
The DOE has 3,030 staff, but we expect that number to halve as a result of the RPA, the review of environmental governance and the merger of DVTA and DVLNI.
Mr J Wilson: Following on from that, you will all be aware that there is only some support — from one particular party — for the seven-council model. Indeed, the Assembly voted against having seven councils. Should a future Assembly decide to increase significantly the number of councils, how would such a decision be factored into your proposals with respect to the target date?
As regards health, during the consultation period many folk took the view that a separate hospitals authority would be a good proposal. It did not turn out that way. As time has passed, is that over and done with, or is there still some support for that?
Looking at the models that you have presented to us, I see that community care is not mentioned. Having read material in support of the models, it seems to me that community care is deemed to be taken care of under primary care. However, those are two separate issues. I am wondering why community care is not mentioned; it is an important matter. I would like to hear your comments on that.
Dr Rooney, you mentioned sharing of services. You suggested that better partnerships would be formed with the new local authorities, whatever number is decided upon. Some of us remember the bad old days when most schools closed at 3.30 pm or 4.00 pm and services — school halls, playing fields — were locked up. That attitude still exists in many education circles. I hope that you are suggesting that partnerships will be formed with local government — local government being a provider of sporting and leisure facilities. I would like you to comment on that.
I would like to ask Mr Peover how he is factoring in an Assembly decision to change from a seven-council model.
Mr Peover: All that we can do at present is to have in place a contingency plan. As the Chairman said at the outset, we are working to the decisions made by the Secretary of State earlier this year. Therefore, our planning has been based on the structural model decided upon by the Ministers. In the local government sphere, there is not a huge amount that is contingent on the number of councils. Community planning, the new roles of local government, the modernisation process and the governance arrangements are, largely, independent of numbers. They are affected by, but not dependent on, the number of councils.
One issue that is slightly dependent on numbers — or more than slightly, I suppose — is the transfer of functions. In the case of my Department, it is envisaged that the bulk of Planning Service staff will move from the centre to the local authorities. That amounts to between 600 and 700 members of staff — probably 700. If there are seven local authorities, that means a pretty substantial planning department in each authority. If there are 11 authorities, the planning departments will be smaller. If there are 15, they will be smaller still. If there are 26, they will be very small.
If there were to be a different number at the end of a process of decision by the Assembly, a lot of thought would need to be given to the operational arrangements for the Planning Service, the Roads Service, the transfer of functions, and so on. That is the major issue with regard to changes to structures.
If the legislation does not proceed on the basis of a seven-council model, we will have to find a boundaries commissioner and give that person a remit to look at a different number. The process can be curtailed slightly because of the work that Dick Mackenzie has done. There is a framework of factual information in place that can be drawn upon. We would have to go through the basic process again of considering that information and mapping it onto a different structure, looking at the consultative arrangements — hopefully, a longer period of consultation than the one that Mr Gallagher referred to — and holding public hearings.
It would not be possible to have a neat and tidy timescale that takes us to 1 April 2009. It would be possible only if there were no shadow period for the councils. Otherwise, it would be unmanageable. There is huge jeopardy for our planning in all of this, and we are conscious of that. However, as we said earlier, we are working to the remit given to us by the Secretary of State; we have no other remit at the moment. We shall see how matters pan out over the next three months.
Dr McCormick: As far as we are concerned, the plan is to go ahead with the recruitment and appointment of members to the seven local commissioning groups by the end of March. It would be possible to reassign those individuals, even after they have been appointed, to a different configuration. That is possible, and we need to make sure that it is possible.
Whether it will continue to be one commissioning group for each of the, say, 15 councils, or whether it might be better to have one commissioning group for each two councils together rather than have too many commissioning groups, will have to be decided. Coterminosity could still be preserved if the ratio were 1:2 rather than 1:1, and the action could proceed. There is no great impediment to timetable or action, as far as we are concerned. We can proceed, and we can adapt if necessary at a future stage. That is manageable and achievable.
In terms of your questions about hospitals authority and community care, the model that we are trying to promote is the one that has maximal integration, so that trusts have the full range of responsibilities from the acute side in hospitals through to, and including, community care. Community care is there in full; all five trusts will have that as part of their responsibilities. The strategy is to strengthen and promote that and to see more care being provided in a community setting, through investment in infrastructure and through changing the pattern of delivery; moving money; fewer beds in acute hospitals; more community care packages. We see a hospital as a provision of last resort. The norm should be the maximum possible care outside hospital. No one is asking for a separation of hospitals. All the trends in service delivery and in terms of the consultation are to promote integration.
Dr Eddie Rooney (Department of Education): The number of councils is probably less critical for us than for some other Departments. The unit of delivery of education is at a very local level. It is done by schools and youth services throughout the community. Some of those have fewer than 20 pupils. We have the flexibility to adapt to whatever the structures may be. Likewise, the new education and skills authority will have the flexibility to adapt to whatever way those areas are defined. It is not yet embedded.
You are right about the relationship between schools and the community. We are at the start of a very long path. There have been many difficulties for a whole host of reasons, whether structural issues, support issues or attitude issues. They have isolated schools from communities. It is changing very dramatically, faster in some areas than others. It is recognised officially. We have an extended schools policy and funding streams in place for that. This is the first year of those developments, and the take-up is very high. There is an immense amount of interest in schools. It is the way of the future.
With a different hat on, I chaired the task force on tackling childhood obesity. The policy rationale for joint working is screaming out. These are the same children in the same communities; there are only so many directions that you can hit them from in terms of separate policies. The “joined-up” concept is being firmly embedded. We all recognise that that is the way we have to go in the future.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Are there any members who have not spoken and wish to ask something, or members who want to request further detail?
Mr Storey: I have a question for Dr McCormick. I appreciate the answers that we have been given and that there may be some more detail to follow. Recently, you wrote to us with regard to the estates and how that process will be managed. I noticed that the title “Permanent Secretary and Chief Executive” was at the top of your letter; I had not noticed that previously. Will you clarify why that is?
11.30 am
Dr McCormick: That title was used to emphasise the fact that those roles reflect the management responsibility in the current and future structure. They also encompass the classic policy advice role. There is a need to bring together the different aspects of the service and to provide for the overarching nature of the new authority, the existing boards, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority and the Patient and Client Council. For example, the Department of Health in England is managed by two individuals, one of whom is the Permanent Secretary and the other is the Chief Executive of the NHS. Our structure shows that you are getting two for the price of one.
Mr Storey: Certain education providers have expressed considerable opposition to change. That has been highlighted by this week’s statement from the Catholic bishops. What problems do you see in implementing a more streamlined and efficient educational service, given that there is a plethora of education providers and a reluctance to change?
Dr Rooney: Inevitably, this scale of change means that a lot of issues will emerge, some of which were expressed last week. I do not think that the nature of those views and concerns are surprising, given that we have recognised within the policy development processes that we still have to nail down a number of implementation issues. A lot of those relate to how much the legislation — when we finish that work — will reflect the balance of functions between the Education and Skills Authority and local schools. There are not only sectoral issues; there are general issues about where within the continuum of provision we have consistency and very clear, effective and efficient central support within a model that also recognises maximum autonomy for those who deliver education.
We have a fair bit of work to do to specify those issues. That was the purpose of the policy papers that stimulated the comments. They were designed to create debate and to get the issues fleshed out so that we can reflect on those views and put them into the legislation.
Therefore, we are not at the end of this road. It is not surprising that those issues will come up for comment. There will be further detailed discussion on those matters to find a resolution and a clear way forward for us.
However, that is in a context of us never having had a sense — and a lot of this came from yesterday’s stakeholder meetings — of people not recognising that fundamental change is necessary and is happening. We are on that path —everybody is on that path — but we have issues to resolve.
Mr Maskey: I would not like Eddie to go away thinking that, because I have not asked any questions, I am entirely happy with all of the Department of Education’s proposals. I am currently taking counsel on that, so I will not go into the issue now.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Do members have any other questions?
Members indicated dissent.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Thank you very much for giving your time to be with us today.
I have been advised that you may stay to listen to the rest of the meeting, if you wish.
Mr Peover: I am happy to stay if you want me to.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): This part of the meeting relates to the local government boundaries. I do not think that I have met Mr Mackenzie and Ms Morrison before. You are very welcome. As with your previous appearance before the subgroup, you will make a presentation and then field questions from members.
Mr Dick Mackenzie (Local Government Boundaries Commissioner): I am a bit blind as to what presentation I am to give.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Have you not been advised what was requested of you?
Mr Mackenzie: No.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): We will look over the previous minutes.
The Committee Clerk: The subgroup wanted Mr Mackenzie to give an overview of the work that he is carrying out, and the timescales involved. At the last meeting of the subgroup, a concern was raised that the timescales were particularly tight, and members wanted to explore that matter.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Is there a specific reference to that in the minutes?
The Committee Clerk: The subgroup’s terms of reference state that the subgroup should consider the initial proposals on the new council area boundaries that were published by the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner in November 2006.
Mr Mackenzie: If it would be helpful, Mr Chairman, I could give an overview of the work that I have been doing to date, and the timescale involved.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): I would appreciate that.
Mr Mackenzie: I started this work on 1 June this year. Mandy Morrison, who is the secretary to the Commissioner, was appointed a few weeks before me.
At the outset of my work, I did two things. On 26 June, I met representatives of the political parties represented in the Assembly. I explained the work that I was proposing to do, the timescale involved, and the various procedures that I would follow. I then met the chief executives of the current district councils in Northern Ireland and explained the procedures to them. I am enjoined by the legislation not to consult before I make my provisional recommendations, so I did not speak to anyone about what I proposed to do in making my provisional recommendations.
I started work on the provisional recommendations in the last week of June. To do that, I had the assistance of the Geographic Information System (GIS), which was provided by Ordnance Survey Northern Ireland (OSNI). Over the two summer months, I worked in the Ordnance Survey offices in Stranmillis. I finished my preliminary work on the boundaries in the first week in September. That work was sent for mapping and printing, and the proposals were published on 7 November at an event at the Ramada Hotel. Copies of my provisional recommendations were circulated to all MLAs and district councils. In addition, the provisional recommendations were displayed in 160 venues in Northern Ireland.
I allowed a period of eight weeks for responses to the proposals to be made, plus three additional days to allow for the three public holidays of Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day. In setting an eight-week consultation period, I had regard to the code of practice for the public sector, which states that a minimum of eight weeks should be allowed for responses to consultation processes. Following the minimum period, plus three days, responses to the preliminary proposals should be received by 5 January 2007. I gave the subgroup staff a copy of my programme. Has that been circulated?
The Committee Clerk: Yes.
Mr Mackenzie: I will begin a series of public hearings on 11 January, which will run through to 9 February. At an early stage, I decided that I would not hold the hearings myself; I have asked the Department to appoint seven assistant commissioners. I was concerned that people at the public hearings might be worried that, if I held the hearings, I would be seen as judge and jury in my own cause. The Department has been very helpful and is about to appoint seven assistant commissioners, whose names I expect to be announced next week.
The assistant commissioners will hold seven hearings and, under their terms of reference, I have asked them to report to me within four weeks.
A verbatim note will be taken of those hearings, and a full record will be published on our website. I will start to receive the commissioners’ reports in February, and we will start working on revised recommendations. As you can see from my schedule, I need to start publishing my revised recommendations by the end of March. If I make any revisions — and, at this point, it is fair to assume that I will — there will be four weeks to respond, as set out in the legislation. I will finalise my report in May, and the Minister has asked me to report by 31 May.
That is the procedure and timescale that I am following. Thus far, we have received 12 representations in response to my provisional recommendations. I have not as yet heard from the political parties or the local councils, bar one council.
When I produced my provisional recommendations, the parties asked for additional information. They wanted to know the street names in each ward in Northern Ireland, and we had to do some work on our GIS software to make that available. The street names and postcodes for all the wards have now been posted on the website. We are trying to be as helpful as we can to the parties. In the four weeks since I published my provisional recommendations, it is the parties that have engaged with us most.
Chairman, is that fair enough for an opening statement?
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Yes, thank you.
We now move to members’ queries. We will work in the following order: DUP, Sinn Féin, SDLP and UUP.
Mr Poots: Dick, it is good to see you again. Your task of producing boundaries for the seven councils flies in the face of what most people in Northern Ireland want. I recognise that you have a job to do, but none of us will be happy with the outcome because we were not happy with the terms of reference in the first instance.
However, the terms of reference allowed for up to 65 councillors in certain areas, and they also allowed for the number to fall below 60. Why did you decide to have 60 councillors in each council when there is a significant disparity between certain areas? Some have a high population concentration and others a more dispersed population. You may put forward the argument that it is harder to meet the needs of rural communities than those of urban areas, which have denser population centres, but that does not stand up. For example, councils in the south-east of the Province cover areas of high population that are also quite rural. What was the thought process behind that decision?
Mr Mackenzie: The legislation is interesting because it pushes the commissioner towards a 60-ward model. It states that, subject to two sub-paragraphs, in each district, “the number of wards shall be 60”. Thus, there is a presumption that there will be 60 wards. It goes on to say that that number can be varied between 55 and 65, having regard to the size, population and physical diversity of a district.
In my initial work, I did not see a particular case, based on those three criteria, for moving away from the presumptive figure of 60. However, the recommendations are provisional, so if people put forward persuasive arguments, I am open to moving between 55 and 65 wards. For example, I would be surprised if the proposed West Council, which runs from Belleek to Ardboe —
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Ballyronan, even — it straddles three counties.
Mr Mackenzie: Ballyronan; even better.
I suspect that there will be arguments about the proposed West Council, as it will cover a substantial area. People will point out that the area that a councillor in the West Council would have to cover would be substantially greater than the area that a councillor in Belfast Council would have to cover.
Mr Poots: That is why I drew the south-east as a comparator, particularly the area around Dromore.
Mr Mackenzie: I am open to persuasion on the matter, Chairman.
Mr Maskey: Mr Mackenzie, since my party colleagues are already engaging with you, I am happy to leave that process to one side.
Mr Mackenzie: That engagement is very helpful.
11.45 am
Mr Maskey: As you said, there is quite an amount of detail to consider. Our party's support for a particular model is based on a number of outcomes. If those are not delivered, we are not wedded to any figure whatsoever, so we are very keen that that process should continue.
For the record, Sinn Féin’s initial submission argued that, while there was no real need for the number of councillors in Belfast to be changed, for example, we are not voting the argument down. However, we could see anywhere up to 75 members in some councils, taking land mass, rural nature and other factors into consideration. We are more than happy that there should be a very critical look at, and consideration of, the number of councillors that it would be appropriate to have in some of the council areas. Depending on the nature of community planning and the range of functions that have to be transferred, there is an important issue around dealing with the democratic deficit caused by reducing the number of councillors by a couple of hundred.
Mr Mackenzie: That figure is 160.
Mr Maskey: There will still be a couple of thousand or more public appointees to the quangos, so the democratic deficit argument does not stack up. Sinn Féin is happy that that very detailed work should continue. My colleagues, along with the other parties and other stakeholders, are involved in very detailed discussions. There is a lot of work to be done.
Mr Gallagher: Earlier, I asked the permanent secretary about the length of the consultation. You have said that it is to be the minimum, rather than the maximum. If there were a spectrum of low, middle and high public interest, in my view there would be a high level of public interest in what is a pretty contentious area of work, whether on Westminster boundaries or anything else, and yet we have settled for the minimum period of consultation. I find that very odd, and I wonder if you have any views on that.
That brings me, again, to the length of the delay. You pointed out that some unforeseen enquiries arose from the maps that you published, because there was a lack of detail, particularly in the urban areas, which concerned the political parties, who then wanted clarification.
What was the length of the delay? How long did it take to produce the new maps? That is important, in terms of the case for extending the consultation period. Work in many areas could not start until that information was available again.
Finally, when you complete your part of the work, do you hand over to commissioners?
Mr Mackenzie: It goes to the assistant commissioners.
Mr Gallagher: You will be handing over information to them, I presume?
Mr Mackenzie: Yes.
Mr Gallagher: Could you give us an idea of exactly what kind of information you will be handing to them? Following that, there will be a commissioner for the district electoral areas, as I understand it.
Mr Mackenzie: Yes; that is right.
Mr Gallagher: Could you tell us what kind of information, if any, you will make available? What do you think that you will be required to hand over to the commissioner for the district electoral areas?
Mr Mackenzie: I shall start with the point about the timescale. At the meeting that I had with the parties on 26 June, I outlined the programme that I proposed, including the timescale for representation — the eight-week period — that I mandated at an early stage. One of the first things that we did was to work out a programme as to how I would deliver by 31 May 2007. In a room down the corridor from here, I mentioned that I would propose an eight-week period. No issue with that was raised at that time.
It took four days for the software to be changed in order to give the parties the street names in each ward.
Although the closing date is 5 January 2007, the first public inquiry does not open until 11 January in Derry. Therefore, an extra week is available between those dates. I will not hold parties to the deadline of 5 January as long as they provide information before the opening of the relevant public inquiry. I hope that we have been as helpful as possible to the parties. We met some party representatives to discuss what further information and help we could provide. In the end, however, I decided on a period of eight weeks, with a further three days to allow for the public holidays. I discussed that matter with the parties and with the chief executives in June. If I were to extend the deadline beyond 5 January, the consequence would be that I would have to seek dispensation from the Minister to report at a later date.
We have produced a booklet with information for the assistant commissioners. The contents are as follows: terms of reference; a code of practice; a brief on the work that I have done; legislation; the legal advice that I have received; questions and answers; a procedure guide; and suggested opening remarks. All being well, if the Minister appoints the assistant commissioners next week, I hope to provide them with a written brief then, and to take them to Ordnance Survey to give them a demonstration of the software. Perhaps the subgroup would also like to see a demonstration of that. It is the most amazing software. I drew up the boundaries, from start to finish, in nine weeks. I was able to do that simply because of the software, the aerial photography and the skilful operators in OSNI.
What was your third question, Mr Gallagher?
Mr Gallagher: I asked about the district electoral areas commissioner.
Mr Mackenzie: The district electoral areas commissioner is the person who comes after me, as it says in the good book. He or she will be given all of the data and information that I have. The Northern Ireland Office, not the Environment Minister, appoints the commissioner. In 1980 and 1990, the local government boundaries commissioner was the late Sir Frank Harrison. He also became the district electoral areas commissioner. Maurice Hayes was the boundaries commissioner in 1991. He could not be appointed until the same process that I have undertaken was finished.
Last week, legislation was presented at Westminster to enable the district electoral areas commissioner to be appointed as soon as possible. The intention is that the district electoral areas commissioner will be appointed before I finish my work. Therefore, that person will be in post, I imagine, in January or February.
Mr Gallagher: At the meeting that you mentioned, I recall pointing out concerns on behalf of the SDLP about the short timescale. I referred to the mid-winter and the roads in Tyrone and Fermanagh as being possible problems. Poor roads, combined with bad weather conditions, could cause problems.
Mr J Wilson: Over many years, I have had contact with a number of commissions, and, like yourself, Mr Chairman, I have done so wearing the hat of party official, councillor or MLA. This time, the contact between the political parties has been good, and the available information has been helpful.
However, I have concerns about the timescale. I mentioned that to you at the launch of your provisional recommendations. I think that you agreed that the timescale was very tight. There are two upcoming matters that might derail your plans. First, as Tommy Gallagher said, the appointment and work of a district electoral area commissioner will take a long time.
The second matter relates to the option seven-council model, and I mentioned that to the departmental officials who were here earlier. You are working on that option now, but that could change. How much work would be involved in changing that proposal to an option that involves more than seven district councils?
Mr Mackenzie: I will take the second question first. I am not supposed to think about that, but, of course, I have. Before a revised system can be devised, the Assembly would have to set out the context for it. The first necessary action would be to introduce new legislation on local government boundaries. Given that cross-party support would be required to pass such legislation, I do not know how long it would take the Department and the Assembly to deal with it.
The new legislation might prescribe the number of wards per council, but the current legislation does not do that. Therefore, there are a varying number of wards in each of Northern Ireland’s 26 district councils. If the legislation were to prescribe the number of wards per council, the process would be speeded up dramatically. For instance, it is easy to calculate the electoral average if there are 60 wards per district. The Chief Electoral Officer could tell me the number of electors in each of the districts. I would then divide that number by 60 to get the electoral average. Therefore, defining wards becomes almost a mathematical exercise.
Depending on the legislation, the delineation of wards could be achieved in nine weeks, which is what I did previously. It might even be possible to delineate the wards in eight weeks; a few glitches with the software in our first week prevented that from happening previously.
Interestingly, the mapping and the printing take almost as long as the delineation; therefore, another eight weeks could be added. In that case, it would take four months to delineate the boundaries and get to the stage of making provisional recommendations. Another eight or 12 weeks could be added for the public hearings. Therefore, from the point of decision, it would take an additional year to 18 months to change the system. Is that helpful, Mr Wilson?
Mr J Wilson: Yes.
Mr Mackenzie: What was your first question?
Mr J Wilson: I commented on how long it would take to complete the work of a district electoral area commissioner.
12.00 noon
Mr Mackenzie: Again, that is hypothetical. If I were in a court of law, I would probably not answer the question. However, I am trying to be as helpful as I can. Because of the hearing system, the process will take a minimum of six months.
The delineation of the district electoral areas could be achieved very quickly, once the final number of wards per district is known. The legislation provides that there will be five, six or seven wards per district. The timescale will have to allow for the public hearings, objections and so on. From what I hear, the district electoral areas could be more problematical for local politicians than the electoral wards. The process will take at least six months. If my boundaries are eventually accepted by the Assembly — which is itself another issue — by July 2007, the district electoral areas will not be finalised until the end of 2007.
Mr J Wilson: That brings me back to the timescale. I am not trying to box you into a corner, but, being realistic, even without increasing from seven districts, a timescale leading up to 2009 is impossible.
Mr Mackenzie: With respect to the Department, if the district electoral area model changes, keeping to the deadline of 1 April 2009 will not be possible.
Mr J Wilson: Even if the model is not changed, adhering to the timescale will be extremely difficult.
Mr Mackenzie: I am determined to report by 31 May 2007. It will then be up to others.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Thank you very much for your time. It has been good to meet you, Mr Mackenzie.
Mr Mackenzie: All that is left is for me to wish you a merry Christmas.
The Chairman (Mr McGlone): Thank you — we will be spending Christmas looking at the boundaries. [Laughter.]
Adjourned at 12.02 pm.