Northern Ireland Assembly Monday 21 April 2008 Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Private Members’ Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Burnside: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order that you, on the eighty-second birthday of Her Majesty The Queen, on behalf of the House, pass to her the best wishes of the Assembly and of her loyal subjects in the Province, as well as our thanks for another year of service to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth? Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Speaker: The Member’s point has been well made, and I will discuss it with my colleagues. Public Health (Amendment) Bill Final Stage The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): I beg to move That the Public Health (Amendment) Bill [NIA 8/07] do now pass. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Public Health (Amendment) Bill [NIA 8/07] do now pass. Local Government (Boundaries) Bill First Stage The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I beg to introduce the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill [NIA 14/07], which is a Bill to provide for 11 local government districts in Northern Ireland, for the division of those districts into wards, for the appointment of a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to recommend the boundaries and names of those districts and wards and the number of wards in each district; and for connected purposes. Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed. Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on a list of future business until a date for its Second Stage is determined. Local Government (Boundaries) Bill Accelerated Passage The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I beg to move That the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill [NIA 14/07] proceed under the accelerated passage procedure in accordance with Standing Order 40(4). I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Assembly on the motion. The review of public administration (RPA) was launched by the Northern Ireland Executive in June 2002, which is almost six years ago. The path to agreement on the number of councils and the functions that they should initially exercise has, I accept, been long and arduous. On 13 March 2008, the Executive reached agreement on those matters. I am keen that there be no further delay in the establishment of the new local government districts and wards, or in setting up the councils to deliver services on behalf of those districts. With that in mind, I have taken every opportunity to ensure the prompt introduction of the Bill. After the Executive made their decision on 13 March, I made a statement to the Assembly at its first plenary session after the Easter recess, on 31 March. In that statement, I announced that the current configuration of 26 local government districts would be rationalised to 11 new districts and indicated my intention to implement the agreed structural reform package by 2011. I also highlighted the need for a local government boundaries Bill to be urgently introduced so that the first elections to the 11 new councils could be held in 2011, as well as the need for the Bill to be progressed by accelerated passage. On 3 April, I attended a meeting of the Environment Committee to explain — as required by Standing Order 40(3) — why it is necessary for the Bill to proceed by accelerated passage and the consequences should it not be granted. I also promised to ensure that any future request for accelerated passage would only be made if absolutely necessary. I thank the Committee for recognising the need to expedite the process and for its support for the accelerated passage motion. Under Standing Order 40(4), where it is thought that a Bill requires accelerated passage, the Member in charge of that Bill shall explain to the Assembly when moving the motion for accelerated passage: “(a) the reason or reasons for accelerated passage; (b) the consequences of accelerated passage not being granted; and, if appropriate, (c) any steps he/she has taken to minimise the future use of the accelerated passage procedure.” With regard to Standing Order 40(4)(a) and 40(4)(b), we aim to hold the first elections to the 11 new councils at the same time as the next elections to the Assembly in May 2011. That timetable is challenging and contains a number of steps that are in the gift of the Secretary of State, not that of this House. However, the immediate priority is the appointment of a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to review local government boundaries. That commissioner must be in place by 1 July 2008 because, without that first step, none of the other steps can fall into place. The Local Government (Boundaries) Bill contains only two substantive clauses, which provide for the appointment of a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner and change the numbers and broad boundaries of the new local government districts to 11. The procedure for a review by the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner includes periods for consultation and public hearings before final recommendations are made. The final recommendations should be submitted by the end of June 2009. I will lay a copy of the commissioner’s report, together with a draft Order giving legislative effect to the recommendations with or without modifications, before the House early in autumn 2009. Only when that Order is made can the District Electoral Areas Commissioner, who is appointed by the Secretary of State, conduct a review of the district electoral areas (DEA) prior to the first elections to the 11 new councils. If accelerated passage is not granted to the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill there will be a high risk that it will not complete its passage and obtain Royal Assent before the summer recess. In that case, the Bill would have to be carried forward to the next session, which would delay the appointment of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner by several months. That would affect all subsequent events — such as the review of the district electoral areas — and mean that it would not be possible to conduct elections to the new councils by May 2011. Standing Order 40(4)(c) requires the Member who moves the motion for accelerated passage to explain to the Assembly: “any steps he/she has taken to minimise the future use of the accelerated passage motion.” My officials are examining the legislative programme for the Department and liaising with colleagues in other Departments, where appropriate, to expedite the development of policy and promote the timely drafting of future Bills. Any future requests for the use of the accelerated passage procedure will only be made when it is unavoidable. With that in mind, I seek the support of the House for the accelerated passage of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing Members’ comments. The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Mr McGlone): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Environment Committee welcomed the Minister of the Environment to its meeting on 3 April. At that meeting, the Minister briefed Committee members on the reasoning behind her request for Committee approval for accelerated passage of the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill. The Bill sets out the broad boundaries of 11 new local government districts for Northern Ireland and sets out the remit for a review of local government boundaries. The Bill provides for 11 new local government districts in the North, compared to the current 26; for the division of those districts into wards; and for a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to be appointed in 2008. After this initial review of local government boundaries, future commissioners will be appointed within eight to 12 years of the date of the previous commissioner’s final report. At her meeting with the Committee, the Minister of the Environment emphasised the importance of a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner being appointed by July 1 2008 in order to recommend the boundaries, and the names, of districts and wards. The Committee was told that the Minister intended to hold elections for the 11 new local government districts in May 2011 — potentially at the same time as the next Assembly elections. For those reasons, the Minister subsequently sought the Committee’s support for accelerated passage of the Bill before the Executive finally decided on its content and its introduction to the Assembly. The Committee debated the Minister’s request. Some Members said that proper Committee scrutiny could lead to an improved Bill. However, the Committee decided, by a majority vote, to support the accelerated passage of the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill. On behalf of the Committee for the Environment, I welcome the introduction of the Bill. I now want to speak as an MLA, and to outline my party’s position. The fact that we now have pressure of time — and the Minister herself said that it was a long and arduous path — can be attributed mostly to Provisional Sinn Féin, which dithered between seven and 11 local government districts. The matter could have been resolved long before now, allowing us to give the Bill full and proper scrutiny instead of its being subject to accelerated passage. Our party’s position was well articulated by Minister Margaret Ritchie in earlier communication with Minister Foster. The proposed move to 11 councils — while clearly not our party’s preference or choice — represents significant progress from the original prescription of seven local government districts, although our preference was for the 15-council model. It is important that that be clarified. I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill before us today, and I assure her of the support of the Committee. Mr Speaker: Members are reminded that the subject matter for today’s debate is whether the Bill should be granted accelerated passage. I will not permit any detailed discussion about the merits of the Bill. That is a matter for the Second Stage, when the principles of the Bill will be debated. Members at various times, and especially when debating accelerated passage, feel that they want to go into the merits of the Bill, but that will not happen today. Mr Ross: I will do my best to behave myself. As others have pointed out, today and in relation to previous accelerated passage motions, this is not the preferred way for legislation to progress through the House. From time to time, however, it is essential in order to ensure that legislation is in place within a required time. I am content that the Minister has clearly explained why she is seeking accelerated passage and outlined the potential difficulties if accelerated passage is not granted. I welcome the Minister’s proposals for reinvigorated local government. This motion is necessary to ensure that everything is in place for that process to occur and for a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to be appointed as soon as possible. As has been said, the Environment Committee has already voted to support the Bill’s accelerated passage. I am grateful to the Minister for coming before the Committee to answer members’ questions about the detail of this short Bill. As the Minister has explained in this House and to the Committee, the Bill is being introduced under the accelerated passage procedure to ensure that the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner can be appointed as soon as possible to allow elections to the new councils to be held in 2011, and to enable those councils to go live at that time. I hope that the Assembly will support the accelerated passage motion so that there are no unnecessary hold-ups that might cause the process to stall. As the Speaker said, the Assembly will have the opportunity to discuss some of the content of the Bill during the Second Stage tomorrow. I look forward to that. Today, however, I am content that we should proceed under accelerated passage. 12.15 pm Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Now that you have issued that warning, Mr Speaker, I will be brief. Sinn Féin recognises the need for the Bill to be accelerated; the process must move forward, rather than be further held up. Equality and fairness must be enshrined in any future legislation for the new structures. Therefore, I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it is the first step towards delivering real change for the years to come. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Gardiner: The issue is of huge importance to the people of Northern Ireland, and it will impact on them for decades to come. Experience shows that the local government electoral boundaries that will be established under the review of public administration will be with us for decades. Local government was the bastion of democracy in the Province for almost 40 years of the Troubles, during the absence of accountable, devolved Government. Therefore, it is extremely important for the people of Northern Ireland to have the best framework for local government and maximise its potential effectiveness and accountability. Local government is at the front line of democracy in this country, and the people of Northern Ireland deserve the best from local government. Given those points, I do not believe that the Bill is suitable for accelerated passage. The matter is of such great importance that it requires the fullest possible scrutiny by the Committee for the Environment and the House. Accelerated passage should be reserved for emergencies in which swift and decisive action is called for, such as an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Standing Orders require us to consider the consequences of not granting accelerated passage and the problems that that would create. No emergency surrounds the introduction of RPA and new local government boundaries. It is vital that the necessary time is devoted to the subject in order to get it right. The DUP and Sinn Féin only recently outlined their policy that there should be 11 local authorities. The Ulster Unionist Party believes that Northern Ireland would be better served by 15 local authorities, which would reflect the current parliamentary boundaries. Proper scrutiny and accountability is required during the rest of the process of setting the boundaries for local government. Any Boundaries Commissioner must have the correct powers to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are appropriately represented and, as far as possible, decisions are taken in line with their wishes. That will increase the buy-in time for local government, and the effectiveness of local government will increase. It is of the utmost importance to get the Bill right. Accelerated passage would hinder, rather than help scrutiny. The Bill is one of the most significant to come before the Assembly because it will dictate our local government arrangements for decades to come. The Ulster Unionist Party has no desire to unduly delay the working of government or cause any type of obstruction, but parliamentary process should be respected. We are strong supporters of reform of local government, and we will ensure robust, accountable and responsible local government. It is because we are supportive of that reform that we recognise the need for proper scrutiny of the Bill. The people of Northern Ireland elect MLAs to legislate on their behalf and to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised. For too many years, there has been little accountability in Northern Ireland. We complained about the unresponsive nature and lack of scrutiny that came with direct rule, yet we now refuse to provide anything much better than that. The parliamentary process is the backbone of democracy and, by pushing the Bill and other pieces of legislation through the Assembly, we are in danger of setting a harmful precedent. We would be failing in our duty to the people of Northern Ireland if we were to permit accelerated passage of the Bill. Mr Ford: I declare an interest as a member of Antrim Borough Council, although, if the Minister has her way, that may not be the case for long — in a number of respects. I have a horrible sense of déjà vu. Yet again, we have a significant Executive Bill accompanied by a motion for accelerated passage. It is similar to the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill, discussion of which will occupy a lot of time in the House tomorrow. Mr Kennedy: It may. Mr Ford: As my friend reminds me, the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill may require a lot of time; whether that is inside or outside the Chamber depends on the attitudes of the two dominant parties in the Executive. That example has demonstrated the wrongs of accelerated passage. I am grateful that the Minister of the Environment came to the Committee immediately after the Easter recess to outline her plans, and to explain why accelerated passage might be required. Indeed, some of her officials attended a special meeting during the Easter recess. However, I am afraid that she failed to convince me of the merits of that case, just as she failed to convince Mr Gardiner. I have a number of concerns about the Bill, which are made worse by the motion for accelerated passage. As a member of the Committee for the Environment, I have seen the Bill. However, it is bizarre that none of my party colleagues have seen the Bill, given that they will shortly be required to vote on whether or not it should have accelerated passage. I am not in the habit of giving blank cheques to anyone, I do not encourage my friends to give blank cheques to anyone, and I certainly would not give a blank cheque to any member of the Executive — not even the Minister of the Environment. Clearly, there are issues that merit — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Mr Ford: The proposed numbers and boundaries merit more detailed consideration and taking of evidence by the Committee. Some mathematical genius in Sinn Féin or the DUP has discovered that seven plus 15 divided by two equals 11. There is little evidence to convince us that there is anything more meaningful to the number 11 than that sum. Similarly, can Members who represent Newry and Armagh, such as Mr Kennedy, tell me whether the people of Newtownhamilton really believe that they live in the same local community as the people of Saintfield or Killyleagh? Those issues cannot be easily dealt with in the Committee Stage of a Bill. They require detailed examination and evidence-taking by a Committee. The process does not need to be extended. However, if we are to be convinced that what is being done is right, there should be an opportunity for the Committee to discuss and take evidence over two or three meetings. As Mr Gardiner said, the Bill will set the pattern of local government for a generation. To do that in a rushed, ham-fisted fashion is almost as bad as the direct rule procedures that Members of the House would have complained bitterly about a few years ago. Because the Bill is being rushed, we are maintaining the procedures — dating from 1962 and revised in 1973 — for drawing up single-member wards. However, we all know that there will not be single-member wards of any practical electoral value. That creates difficulty, and also takes an extraordinary length of time. If there had been discussion with the Secretary of State — about joining the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner process with the district electoral areas process — more coherent boundaries could have been established, significantly quicker. The gains of accelerated passage would have been more than made up for by shortening the process. I accept that there is a timescale in which to meet current procedures. Indeed, I questioned the Minister about that when she came to the Committee. The expectation is that the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner will complete his, or her, work in a year. That is a totally unreasonable length of time in which to draw up a new set of appropriate and coherent boundaries, with proper time for local consideration and hearings. It would have been far better to have had a detailed Committee Stage — in order to get the Bill right — and shorten the subsequent process. I accept that there are reasons why, after a lengthy delay, we need to move on with the local government process. However, granting accelerated passage — as opposed to taking time to getting the Bill right and then taking the procedures through more quickly — will not benefit our society. Visitors to Parliament Buildings — such as the school groups that we all speak to — are constantly told of the importance of Committees. Sometimes, they are even told that there is no opposition in the Assembly, although some of us are attempting to correct that. Those visitors are told that a Committee in the Assembly is the equivalent of both a Standing Committee and a Select Committee in Westminster. They are told that Committees get the opportunity to examine topics in detail and build up expertise, so that they can make useful comments and help to get Bills passed more effectively, and that they can deal with other matters. However, on this occasion, a Committee is being sidelined completely. The same thing happened to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the Victims and Survivors Bill was granted accelerated passage. There is no logic to that. Mr Campbell: The Member referred to the Committee being “sidelined”. Does he not accept that the Committee voluntarily and democratically voted on the matter? The fact that he was in the minority does not mean that the Committee was sidelined. Mr Ford: I accept the Member’s point, and I have no difficulty being in a minority. Members are aware of what happens when the Executive Whip is applied in Committees — and that is another problem that is unique to this place. When Ministers are sure that their party colleagues and Members from the other side of the House will support them in Committee, it amounts to the voluntary sidelining of the minority by the majority. Given the political system here, that is not a healthy situation. I agree with the Minister that there is a tight timetable. However, if Members were to take a few weeks now to get the procedures right, it would result in a better Bill. Accelerated passage will create difficulties, because there has been no opportunity to carry out a consultation exercise, and the Committee has not had the required detailed discussion. Therefore, at Consideration Stage, it is simply not possible to deal properly with the amendments that the Alliance Party deems necessary. I say that as one of the few Members to succeed in getting an amendment through the House at Further Consideration Stage and against the wishes of a Minister. Assembly procedures make it impossible to do that easily or properly. Therefore, accelerated passage is wrong, and my colleagues and I will oppose it. Mr S Wilson: As my party colleague Alastair Ross emphasised, it is better for Committees to deal with legislation. However, the Minister outlined why accelerated passage is required in this case. I listened to Members from the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party, both of which are intent on opposing accelerated passage. Their arguments are thin, and their opposition again smacks of the determination of those two parties to oppose what comes before the House. It does not matter to them what the subject is or what arguments are made. The Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party regard their role as being to oppose everything, so that they can say that they are the opposition. However, their arguments against the motion do not stand up to scrutiny. Mr Gardiner said that this is a matter of: “huge importance to the people of Northern Ireland.” He said that it is “of such great importance” that we must get the boundaries right, because everyone will have to live with them for many years to come. It is not the Bill’s job to get the boundaries right. After holding discussions with local people, the commissioner will make recommendations. Dr Farry: Does the Member agree that the question of whether there should be 11 or 15 councils is also significant? Members can discuss how to arrange the deckchairs in respect of 11 councils, but it is surely important to debate what happened to the option of 15. At the last election, the DUP stated its preference for 15 councils, but it now supports the move to 11. The people of Northern Ireland would be interested to know why the DUP has changed its position. Mr S Wilson: At the risk of being struck down by the Speaker and losing points for deviation — [Interruption.] (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) Mr S Wilson: I am no deviant. [Laughter.] I would be happy to engage in a discussion about whether there should be 11 or 15 councils, but the Speaker made it clear that that is not the Assembly’s job on this occasion. Members will have the opportunity to do that tomorrow, and I look forward to that. Mr Gardiner outlined that we will have to live with the boundaries for the next 40 years or more, and, therefore, it is important to ensure that they are correct. The commissioner will draft those boundaries and, whether we like it or not, we must work to the 2011 deadline. Every day that the Bill spends in the Assembly will be one day less for the commissioner to consult local groups, parties and individuals to reach decisions on this important matter. 12.30 pm Therefore, accelerated passage and the appointment of a commissioner by 1 July 2008 will allow Mr Gardiner’s wishes to be realised and allow the commissioner maximum time to get the boundaries right. For that reason, I cannot understand why the Ulster Unionists will not support accelerated passage. The second argument involves the delay in introducing the Bill. Like the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance Party and the SDLP — and at least the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment had the decency to admit it — the DUP was unhappy with the system that was imposed during direct rule; the seven-council model was not the answer. Given that the Assembly must reach agreement to make changes — Mr Kennedy: You wanted 15 councils. Mr S Wilson: Mr Kennedy chitters, from a sedentary position, about the 15 council areas. The House will discuss the issue of 11 or 15 council areas tomorrow. The Ulster Unionist Party needs to learn that, in an Assembly where agreement is essential, working with other parties is sometimes necessary. Although the UUP may not always get its own way, sometimes the solution will be better than what was imposed in the first place. If the Assembly did not reach agreement, it would be stuck with the seven-council model. I will be careful now because a new Deputy Speaker has taken the Chair, and he might have a go at me. [Laughter.] Mr Kennedy: He is an Ulster Unionist. Mr S Wilson: He is an Ulster Unionist and, therefore, is likely to strike me down. One of the reasons for the delay is that the Assembly and the Minister were working towards a better solution than the seven-council model that was imposed by direct rule Ministers. We had the option either to accept the seven-council model or to debate the model in the Assembly and reach agreement among the parties. The delay was partly due to the fact that the Minister was reflecting the wishes of the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance Party and the SDLP. Mr Kennedy: The Member misses the point; the new deadline — and it is rather artificial — of 2011 was agreed between his party and Sinn Féin in order to maximise electoral support by, allegedly, holding dual elections for the Assembly and local government. That is not a reason to rush legislation through. Mr S Wilson: Given that the point was raised in an intervention, I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me latitude to respond. Mr Kennedy comes from a party with a history of plotting, so perhaps he sees plots in every decision. Although it makes economic sense to hold elections on the same day, the 2011 deadline has nothing to do with a DUP or Sinn Féin Machiavellian motive. Those of us in local government know that a deadline is necessary to put an end to the uncertainty; we cannot continue to extend the deadline. Mr Weir: Does not the Member agree that it is rich for the Ulster Unionist Party to complain about the possibility of Assembly and council elections being held on the same day, when, in 2001, that party pushed to ensure that council elections — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed some latitude in the debate for fear of being accused of acting from party-political motives. I remind Members that the motion concerns accelerated passage and that they should stick to that. Mr S Wilson: My remarks were pertinent to the issue of accelerated passage. I made the point that since we are working towards the 2011 deadline, a local government boundary commissioner must be in place to see that the boundaries are sorted out in time for the 2011 election. The introduction of the Bill was necessarily delayed to try to achieve some measure of agreement among political parties, and to address the concerns of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party. As ever, those parties are totally ungrateful for the efforts of my colleague the Minister of the Environment, who worked tirelessly to undo the injustice cited by the two parties that are now complaining. I turn to the Alliance Party, which has a number of concerns. Its representatives say that they have not seen the Bill, and, therefore, they refuse to give the Minister a blank cheque. Given that party’s reputation, people might not accept cheques from it in any case — only cash in hand. On the one hand, it makes a promise; on the other, it breaks it. We are told that we should not permit accelerated passage and that we should instead consider and take evidence as to whether the appropriate number of councils is seven, 11 or 15. That was Mr Ford’s first objection. He said that we now enter a scenario whereby there will be 11 councils, the boundaries of which are to be set, yet we do not know that that is the best option. However, there has been extensive consultation on the number of local government units — Mr Ford should know, because his party responded to that consultation. My party, Mr Ford’s party, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP disliked the outcome of that consultation and the decision that was made by the then Secretary of State. Nevertheless, we know the consequences. To say that we must return to first principles on this issue — Mr Ford: The Member fails to distinguish between the original wide-ranging consultation process, carried out under direct rule, and a Committee’s taking evidence for a limited period on a Bill during the Committee Stage. They are very different. Mr S Wilson: From what I can remember — I do not have the documents before me — the “wide-ranging” consultation nevertheless set out the implications of the models for seven, 11 and 15 councils, and it banded councils together. Tweaks were then made by the local government boundaries commissioner. Mr Ford: Will the Member give way? Mr S Wilson: I will not give way — the Deputy Speaker will accuse me of straying from the terms of the debate. However, there will be ample opportunity to raise those issues tomorrow, and on other occasions. My next point about accelerated passage is that, somehow or other, the leader of the Alliance Party gives the impression that, because a Bill proceeds by accelerated passage, there is no chance to give it any consideration. Over the next three weeks, there will be opportunities for the Bill to be discussed by the whole House. Some might argue that accelerated passage gives a better opportunity for all Members, not just for members of the Environment Committee, to consider the Bill. This matter affects all our constituencies. Bearing in mind that coterminosity of council and constituency boundaries — or the lack of it — will affect the work of all Members, one can argue that a wider debate, on the Floor of the Assembly, is better than a restricted debate among the anoraks of the Environment Committee. I am not going to say who the anoraks are, but there are anoraks on that Committee. Not only will there be discussion of the Bill, there will be an opportunity for amendments to be proposed. Mr Ford quoted the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill as an example of accelerated passage. However, that is a very bad example for Mr Ford to cite, because the Consideration Stage of that Bill — which was still due to be held, even under accelerated passage — was postponed last week due to an indication that some of the fundamental amendments proposed by his party were going to get support. Sinn Féin requested that the Consideration Stage be postponed for that reason. Therefore, Mr Ford should not run away with the idea that accelerated passage means that Members do not get a chance to change, discuss or improve a Bill. Over the next three weeks, accelerated passage will provide opportunities to do that. The Local Government (Boundaries) Bill is fairly short, and I suspect that the amendments that will be proposed are fairly predictable and will not require a great deal of evidence to be given to any Committee. Therefore, there should be an opportunity to make whatever amendments are necessary. The last point that Mr Ford made was that the Committee for the Environment had been sidelined. I sympathise with Mr Ford’s point that Committee members should be allowed a wider degree of expression, rather than being whipped on decisions. The Committee for Education, which I chair, has not yet scrutinised any legislation, but I am aware that Committee members usually have quite wide-ranging views on different issues. On one occasion when the Minister of Education accused me of whipping the whole Committee against her, I pointed out that I sometimes find it difficult to whip members even of my own party. Therefore, I believe that Committee members often express their own views. However, Mr Ford cannot claim that, just because a Committee makes a decision that is contrary to what he believes, that Committee has been sidelined. He may not have won the argument in the Committee, but he cannot claim that the Committee has been sidelined. I do not believe that anyone would accuse the current Minister of the Environment of failing to keep the Committee informed, explain issues to its members, and attend when requested. Therefore, I believe it is unfair to say that that Committee has been sidelined. The Minister has given good reasons for supporting accelerated passage of the Bill. The arguments that have been made by the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party as to why they oppose accelerated passage — most of which I have tried to address — are fairly thin and transparent, and are another case of opposition for opposition’s sake. Their arguments do not stand up to much scrutiny, and I hope that the sensible Members of the House will support the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr Wilson, and thank you for your deep and heartfelt consideration for the sensitivities of this Deputy Speaker. Mr A Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Earlier, the Speaker enjoined Members to be brief when speaking, and my colleague Cathal Boylan was very disciplined and spoke for only about 30 seconds, to acknowledge Sinn Féin’s support for the proposed accelerated passage of the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill. However, I want to make several points. Any accusation that has been levelled during the debate that Sinn Féin and the DUP are rushing to reach some kind of a deal with any other intention than getting the RPA right is obviously false. Having listened to them, I am not sure whether the Members from the parties objecting to accelerated passage are actually objecting to it or are simply trying to put down markers. That indicates to me that a certain degree of confusion exists within those parties. 12.45 pm Members will be aware of the strategic leadership board, which is chaired by the Minister of the Environment. All parties are represented on that board, either as party representatives or through membership of Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). David Ford’s party colleague Councillor Tony Hill is a member of the board, and I have never heard him articulate any of the arguments that David Ford made during the debate. When Patsy McGlone — who has left the Chamber, momentarily I presume — Mr McGlone: I am here. Mr A Maskey: Fair play to you, Patsy. It is good that the Member is still here, because I want him, in particular, to hear what I have to say. He talked about provisional Sinn Féin — whatever that may be — but I assure him and other members of his party that Sinn Féin has not been remotely interested in how many councillors it will retain on those bodies, and certainly not in how many councillors that Sinn Féin may have. Sinn Féin had more important matters to deal with, including the nature of the functions to be transferred and the way in which various checks and balances will work in local government in the future. Patsy should refer to the Hansard report of the previous debate on this issue, during which his party colleagues Alban Maginness and Tommy Gallagher talked about nine, 10 or 12 councils — anything beyond seven. The SDLP and other parties are still in a bit of a tizzy, because they are not sure what they want out of local government. Their first priority is more of their members’ bums on seats — that is for sure. Perhaps that is understandable in that they are looking up the road at their electoral fortunes, but that is a separate debate entirely. Patsy McGlone mentioned Margaret Ritchie, so it is appropriate that I respond. At one point during the deliberations, Margaret Ritchie was not prepared to transfer any functions to local government. My understanding is that it took some discussions, bilaterally and at Executive subcommittee meetings, before she was prepared to transfer certain functions. Therefore, Patsy may want to talk to his party colleague, who may have been part of the delay because she, as a Minster — rightly or wrongly — was unsure about what functions it would be appropriate to devolve to local government. Patsy made accusations about parties making private deals, and so on. All my remarks today, and all the discussions that we had with the DUP — bilaterally and at the Executive subcommittee — were about ensuring that future local government is based on solid foundations of fairness and equality and that the appropriate level of functions are transferred. All that is a work in progress. All those issues will come before the House, the relevant Committee and, ultimately, the Executive before coming back to the House. I am confident, and Sinn Féin is confident, that we can get to the point of local government being fair and more reflective of the communities. I really laugh when I hear Sam Gardiner talking about local government being a bastion of democracy. He should waken up. Craigavon Borough Council, on which he serves, leaves a lot to be desired. I repeatedly made that point at meetings of the strategic leadership board and at the previous local government task force. I listen to some of those parties, and to people representing other parties, particularly Sam’s party colleagues, who almost give lectures about local government being fair, and so on. They say that they want a gentleman’s agreement, which is why the deliberations have taken time; there is no such thing as a gentleman’s agreement. Sinn Féin made strenuous efforts in discussions with other Ministers to ensure that proposals on the reform of local government are progressed. Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member, at least for giving way. The Member heavily criticised Craigavon Borough Council. He chose not to highlight the less than impressive record of bigotry and discrimination on Newry and Mourne District Council. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. That point is not relevant to the subject matter of the motion. Mr A Maskey: Go raibh maith agat. For the record — and I have repeated this on numerous occasions at all those meetings — Sinn Féin wants to ensure that the checks and balances that will be built into future local government structures apply across the board. Regardless of how the North of Ireland is cut up through councils or any other structures, there will always be minority communities that believe that they are trapped in another majority. That will happen no matter how the cake is cut. These proposals will ensure that, in the future, no community in any part of the Six Counties will feel discriminated against. If any council is guilty of discrimination, that is disgraceful and scandalous. Sinn Féin is determined to ensure that discrimination does not, and cannot, occur and that there are sufficient checks and balances in the proposals to counter discrimination. I am pleased that the Minister made absolute commitments, and that should be welcomed by all Members. Some parties made bogus arguments and claimed to be against accelerated passage. What they are really opposed to is the situation in which the DUP and Sinn Féin have been able to formulate a set of proposals that make sense for the majority of people here. Those proposals will be implemented before the 2011 elections. If Members opposing the motion are honest, they will admit that a number of their colleagues who serve on councils panicked when they thought that local government elections would be held next year or that they might have to serve beyond 2011. Many councillors want to get out early, with a few quid in their pockets. That is fair enough, because some councillors have served for many years. Some parties made bogus arguments about being opposed to accelerated passage, when, actually, they just wanted to say something. Not one of the parties in opposition was consistent about how many councils they wanted or even why they wanted those councils in the way in which they argued. Mr Weir: I declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council and also as vice-president of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association. I support accelerated passage because I want strong, modern local government as soon as possible. As the Minister indicated, if changes are to be implemented by 2011, the motion must be agreed. Opponents of accelerated passage offered a range of arguments about why the motion should not be agreed today. They talked about the danger of rushed measures, yet the Minister mentioned that the Executive discussed a review of public administration in 2002. If memory serves me right, initial proposals about the RPA were made even before the 2001 election. It was announced by the then Minister of the Environment, Sam Foster, at the Ulster Unionist Party conference. I vividly remember a number of councillors — Mr McNarry: Was the Member there? Mr Weir: No; that was probably during one of my periods of suspension from the party. [Laughter.] I was unable to hear the Minister in question, but I understood, from press reports, that an announcement was made. That happened before the 2001 election, because I vividly remember there being rumours among local government councillors in the Building about the 2001 election perhaps being postponed. If the timetable outlined today is met, the process will have lasted approximately 11 years. To put that in context: children who were born on the same day that Sam Foster made that announcement will be preparing for secondary school in 2011. Mr Kennedy: Will that be a grammar school? Mr Weir: Fortunately, if those children are academically able, they will be able to avail of the grammar school system for which the DUP has fought and has preserved. I must leave that discussion, because I appreciate that the Deputy Speaker does not want me to deviate too far from the subject of the motion. This has been an 11-year process, so the idea of measures being rushed smacks of nonsense. If that is the Ulster Unionist Party and Alliance Party definition of “rushed”, one hopes that they have no role in selecting our athletes for the Olympic Games. The process has dragged on for far too long. We want the development of strong, modern local government. Rather than that happening in 2012 or 2013 — or, if some of the parties here have their way, some stage before the next ice age — we need to get on with the task of delivering such government. Indeed, as I said, a wide range of issues must be tackled besides the matter of the new councils’ boundaries. The lack of opportunity to put forward amendments was also raised. Again, that issue has been exercising most parties in the Assembly for the guts of a decade. We will have opportunities at Consideration Stage — and even at the Bill’s Second Stage, tomorrow — to discuss fully the Bill’s general merits. There will be an opportunity at Consideration Stage to propose a plethora of amendments. Proposing a long list of amendments will be well within the leader of the Alliance Party’s capabilities. Whether they will make any sense will be another issue, but he will not be denied that opportunity. As debate on points of legislation is unlimited, that debate might last one or two hours, or it could go on all day. There really will be plenty of opportunity for all 108 Members to give their views on the Bill. We have also been told that there has been a lack of consultation. However, I presume that the old Executive consulted on the issue. The late, unlamented Lord Rooker carried out consultation before he made his announcement, and there was consultation after that. The current Executive’s consultation led to the emerging findings report, and there was consultation after that was published. The issues of numbers and boundaries were up for discussion during all those consultations. This debate is not being driven by a lack of evidence or a lack of consultation. Mr Ford: Will the Member tell me at what point any Executive issued for consultation option 11b as the preferred model? Mr Weir: The Member will find that, when the emerging findings were discussed, restrictions were put on the three models of seven, 11 and 15 councils. There was specific consultation on the number of councils. Mr A Maskey: Does the Member recall that, during the initial consultation, the direct rule Administration put nine options on the table, including 11b? Mr Weir: That is correct. As I said, the Executive’s most recent consultation restricted the choice to those nine models. Therefore, the idea that there has been no proper consultation does not hold up to scrutiny. We have also been told that there should be discussion with local people and that that important discussion will be endangered in some way by the Bill’s receiving accelerated passage. However, as Mr Sammy Wilson said, the purpose of having a Boundary Commission is to ensure that such proper consultation occurs. One Member mentioned that Saintfield and Newtownhamilton might be linked, and that those two places might not gel together well. I have some sympathy for that argument, but that is the purpose of a Boundary Commission. For example, Saintfield might have much more in common with Ards and north Down. However, that will be a matter for the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, and the Bill will establish that structure. I would have some sympathy for the arguments against accelerated passage if the Bill were novel legislation that had not been considered in any way by the Assembly or by previous Administrations. However, as the leader of the Alliance Party said, the legislation is a variation on a theme that has been ongoing since 1962. We have had a range of Boundary Commissioners. I have news for the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party: the wheel has already been invented, and there is no need to reinvent it. The Bill is a concise piece of legislation. The areas that it deals with have been outlined time and again, and there will be opportunity for a degree of scrutiny. Finally, although it is important that legislation be scrutinised properly, we must remember that the downside of that is that constituents become frustrated when much-needed legislation is held up by the slow process through which it must go. The Department of the Environment has a wide range of legislation in the pipeline, some of which cannot proceed until this blockage is removed. For instance, the proposed Northern Ireland contracts Bill will be vital to local government. Indeed, some members of the strategic leadership board — even those who are connected to the parties that have been complaining about accelerated passage — have expressed disappointment that that Bill will not have accelerated passage. The contracts Bill will give power to local government fairly quickly. Legislation will also be required to allow the modernisation of local government. Again, if we delay such legislation unduly by refusing to allow accelerated passage for this Bill, we will delay that much-needed modernisation. Among other things, there is the clean neighbourhood agenda, and the longer that we delay, the more difficult that it will be to introduce legislation for that in the Assembly. That agenda contains a wide range of issues, which, as Sammy Wilson said, makes for a certain degree of anorak debate. However, it relates to issues such as graffiti, high hedges and dog fouling, which are of genuine concern to local people and are simply being delayed. 1.00 pm The Bill is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation; instead of the point scoring and grandstanding that has come from the Ulster Unionists and the Alliance Party, let us get on with the business of giving it accelerated passage. There will be an opportunity for full scrutiny on the Floor of the Assembly. Let us develop that strong, modern local government that I assume that all of us want, and ensure that it meets the target date of 2011 rather than be postponed indefinitely. Mr Kennedy: At the outset, I want to declare my membership of Newry and Mourne District Council in case that is relevant. Reform of local government has been a priority for all of Northern Ireland’s political parties for a considerable time. Recognition of the compelling case for reform led the first Executive to initiate the reform of public administration. When we were overtaken by direct rule, and Westminster took control of the RPA process, many, if not all, of us in the House quite rightly criticised the lack of accountability and scrutiny. It is therefore deeply ironic, to say the least, that the first piece of legislation regarding local government reform brought before the House since the restoration of devolution, is to be in the form of accelerated passage. Although mindful of the time pressures that the Minister has previously indicated and others have referred to, I find it frankly staggering that instead of ensuring that the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill — which is of vital importance for the reform of local government — is carefully scrutinised by the Assembly and by the Committee for the Environment, we are being requested to short-circuit that scrutiny process. The Bill is a key building block in the entire process of creating stronger and more effective local government for Northern Ireland — it has the potential to provide the structure of local government for decades to come. In the light of its importance and significance, full and proper legislative scrutiny is essential. The Ulster Unionist Party believes in strong local government, which means that the Assembly has a responsibility to ensure that it gets the legislation right. The Bill is not a mere technicality that is irrelevant to the wider process of local government reform; it is central to that process. The Bill determines the number of local government units and sets out the remit of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. Therefore, the Bill is the legislative foundation for the entire reform of local government in Northern Ireland. Accelerated passage is not always an indication that a piece of legislation will proceed smoothly and without difficulty. We have only to think of the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill to realise that short-circuiting the scrutiny process can undermine the passage of legislation. Careful legislative scrutiny goes alongside the intention of producing good, robust legislation rather than flawed legislation. Local government reform is of such significance to Northern Ireland that we should not risk the possibility of producing a flawed Bill. Nor should accelerated passage be employed when the House is not fully convinced of the case for only 11 local government units. That a majority in the Assembly support having 11 councils is not at issue. What is at issue is that a not insignificant number of Members believe that 11 councils — although better than seven — falls short of 15 units, a number that is based on the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies and on coterminosity. In their submissions to the fifth periodical review of parliamentary constituencies, which was published recently by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, every party represented in the House recognised that the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies reflected the ties and identities of local communities, as they should. Parliamentary boundaries, therefore, provide an effective template for local government boundaries, which ensure that local government reflects the ties and identities of local communities. Dr Farry: Does the Member recognise that there is a difficulty because parliamentary boundaries are changed approximately every 10 years, while local government boundaries are expected to be fixed for 30 or 40 years to allow the two types of boundary to diverge over time? Mr Kennedy: My experience of the review of parliamentary boundaries shows that there has been tweaking at the edges, but there has not been significant change, and the boundaries can be coterminous. The House should, and must, have this debate. Accelerated passage fails to do justice to that aspect of the Bill’s significance. I was interested to hear Sammy Wilson’s view that accelerated passage allows plenty of room for scrutiny and amendment. There is, therefore, an argument in favour of using it for all legislation and giving the 108 Members the opportunity to air their views in the House, as Mr Wilson suggested. Mr S Wilson: Will the Member give way? Mr Kennedy: I will give way when I have made my point. That is not a proper basis for reviewing and scrutinising legislation. It does not happen and is not advocated in any other place. Mr S Wilson: I did not say that accelerated passage was the best way of dealing with legislation. The record of my speech will show that. I said that all of the ills that have been attributed to accelerated passage are not true and that there is a case for holding a debate in the House in which everyone has an opportunity to discuss amendments. Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his comments, although I am not sure whether I agree with him. Under Standing Order 40(3), accelerated passage is supposed to be used in exceptional circumstances; it is not meant to be the custom and practice of the House. I recall the saying, “legislate in haste and repent at leisure”. The same can be said about the remit of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. The Bill seeks to amend, in part, the remit given to the commissioner by the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. Members will be aware of the local interest and debates that will be stirred by the issue of local government boundaries. Recognising the importance of that issue and the need to determine the commissioner’s remit, and mindful of the passage of time since 1972, full and proper legislative scrutiny is required for those provisions of the Bill. The Ulster Unionist Party is committed to getting the reform of local government right, so it is opposing accelerated passage for the Bill. Mr Maskey accused political parties of being inconsistent in their approach. His party can hardly claim to be lily-white, given that it has abandoned its commitment to seven local government districts, in favour of 11. Mr A Maskey: Was he talking about me? Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr A Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Was I referred to by the Member who last spoke? Will you advise me how I was referred to? Mr Deputy Speaker: It is normally the practice for Members who are present in the House to listen to the debate. [Laughter.] Mr A Maskey: A LeasCheann Comhairle, further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was listening to the debate, but I am trying to be diplomatic, and I am seeking clarification on that basis. I want to know how I was referred to by the Member. Mr Deputy Speaker: You can check Hansard tomorrow, Mr Maskey. Mr Kennedy: For the benefit of Mr Maskey — and, as far as I can recall, I referred to him as Mr Maskey — he complained that certain parties were being inconsistent. No more so than his own party, which has apparently abandoned its commitment to seven councils in favour of 11 — that is consistency for you. Full and proper legislative scrutiny is necessary if we are to provide a sure foundation for the reform and renewal of local government in Northern Ireland. The use of accelerated passage is the wrong way to achieve that. We will therefore oppose the motion. Mr Gallagher: It is unfortunate that this morning’s Bill, which is the first step on an important issue, has been rushed through in the way that it has. That fuels and further heightens concerns among the public that the Executive — dominated by Sinn Féin and the DUP — seek to suppress debate on difficult decisions. Instead, difficult issues are allowed to hang around until those two parties work out a deal. The Assembly then goes into fast-forward to try to rush that through. The Minister knows — from what I said when she met the Committee and from what my colleague Patsy McGlone said this morning — that the SDLP has serious concerns about accelerated passage for this Bill and, of course, about the proposed number of councils. As we have consistently said, we would prefer 15 councils. Will the Minister give an assurance that this will be the only occasion on which she will come back to the House in relation to the RPA to seek accelerated passage? There are some serious considerations for future Stages of the Bill, not least those to do with governance arrangements, protections and safeguards, the rights of minorities and the need to ensure that, in future, there will be no trapped minorities in the set-up. As far as the SDLP is concerned, there is a great deal of work to be done on that. We do not want trapped minorities anywhere. However, it has already emerged that under an 11-council model there will be serious difficulties for minorities in council areas such as that proposed for the north-east, where Moyle, Ballymena and Coleraine are to come together. Mr A Maskey: Of the nine options that were originally on the table — or indeed any other options — will the Member highlight any one that would have ensured that no minorities were trapped within a majority council? Can you give one example — that uses five, 15, 20, 26 or 40 councils — where that would not happen? Mr Gallagher: Mr Maskey, may I first take the opportunity to dispel the myth — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Please refer your remarks through the Chair and not directly to another Member. Mr Gallagher: Mr Deputy Speaker, first, may I dispel the myth — spread by Mr Maskey and peddled by many of his party colleagues for some time — that Sinn Féin had all that tied down under a seven-council model where there would never again be any need for equality legislation or the protection of minorities? I am looking forward to hearing an assurance that we will have a full opportunity to discuss the issue, because it will put paid to the myth, claimed by Sinn Féin in an effort to bolster the argument, that a seven-council model was best for everyone. 1.15 pm Mr A Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask for your advice on this point, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It cannot be in order for a Member to basically tell lies about what another Member has said. The Member’s party colleagues were members of the strategic leadership board of the original task force, and they are fully aware that my party colleagues and I have consistently argued for the need for stringent checks and balances. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Member that it is unparliamentary to refer to another Member as telling lies. I ask the Member to withdraw that remark. Mr A Maskey: I am happy to accept that the Member has made remarks in the Chamber today that are not attributable to me or my party colleagues. I am happy to withdraw the use of the word “lies”, but an untruth is being told in the Chamber today. Mr Deputy Speaker: I remind Members to be careful about what they say. Mr Gallagher: I made some points about the future consideration of the Bill and the importance that we attach to that. It looks as though the Bill will be pushed through regardless, but will the Minister outline where we go from here? What is the next step? Will we find out tomorrow that a new commissioner has been appointed — and if that is the case, will it be just one commissioner? The comments from the Minister’s party colleague Sammy Wilson were very interesting. He was quick to express his party’s view that everything should be in place so that we could have local government elections and Assembly elections on the same day in 2011. Is that the Minister’s view? Are we opting for the scenario that was outlined by the DUP? Clearly that is the DUP’s view of the way forward. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. At the beginning of the debate, the Speaker said that Members should stick to the motion, which is on the accelerated passage of the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill. Mr Gallagher, you are now straying into areas that are for another time. Please stick to the motion. Mr Gallagher: I am merely picking up on the different strands of the debate highlighted by other Members today, and I am not the first person to raise them. In conclusion, correspondence is on the record between the SDLP Minister and Minister Foster regarding what the Department for Social Development (DSD) is prepared to put out to councils under the new arrangements. We know about urban regeneration and community development, but the Minister for Social Development has gone further and identified some aspects of housing for which local government should be responsible. Will the Member — Mr T Clarke: On a point of order; has your party changed its mind about accelerated passage? Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to remember that when he wants to raise a point of order, he should attract my attention and I will call him to speak. Points of order should be raised through the Chair and not directly to individual Members. Mr Gallagher: In conclusion, the point was raised by Mr Maskey — Mr Weir: Will the Member give way? Mr Gallagher: No, I will not give way. I am finishing on this point. There is a list of functions that DSD is prepared to roll out. I ask Mr Maskey and Sinn Féin to compare that list with those on offer from the Department for Regional Development (DRD) and the Department of Education (DE). Mr Armstrong: The reform of local government is a crucial issue that will affect all the people of Northern Ireland for many years. For years, local government in Northern Ireland has been the only form of local democratic accountability. We all know about the need for Government to be reformed in order to increase effectiveness, accountability and sensitivity to local needs. The DUP’s first choice was for 15 local authorities based on the current parliamentary boundaries. We all know that. I wonder what happened to that proposal. That would better serve the people in Northern Ireland. We all know what happens when you accelerate very fast. There is an old saying, “speed kills”; I hope this will not kill anything. It is extremely important that we get the best form of local government from the current proposals. The Bill is far too important to be subject to accelerated passage. The fact that it will exert influence on the people of Northern Ireland for such a long time means that it must be given the fullest possible scrutiny, both in the Assembly and in the Committee for the Environment. It is my understanding that accelerated passage should be reserved for emergencies only, when any delay would have substantial consequences. This is not an emergency. If this Bill were to be given the scrutiny it deserves, there should be no serious consequences. Mr S Wilson: The Member is right. If accelerated passage is going to have dire consequences, then of course it should be opposed. Will the Member outline some of the dire consequences that he believes would arise through accelerated passage? Mr Armstrong: Let us take a step back in time. Which party opposed devolution, saying that it would get it right, while at the same time saying that it would ensure that its members came on board? Where did its proposal for 15 councils go? Could it not persuade its partners in Government in other ways? For decades, direct rule robbed the people of Northern Ireland of the best democratic accountability and a transparent decision-making process that people could associate with and respect. We have achieved devolution, yet we are in danger of allowing this Executive to bypass the people’s elected representatives. We must take time and get it right. The Ulster Unionist Party supports local government and devolution. We have no desire to obstruct the workings of Government, and we understand the importance of elections in May 2011. However, the Assembly, the Committee and the Minister could have worked together to ensure proper scrutiny of the legislation within the deadline of this session. I believe that both could have been met. I am disappointed with the Minister’s decision, but the UUP will be doing its best to improve this Bill in the limited window available to us. Dr Farry: I declare an interest, as a member of North Down Borough Council. I thank the Minister for going through the Standing Orders and explaining how, in her view, her request for accelerated passage today complied with those terms. That was a welcome change from the last time a Minister came to this Chamber seeking to pass legislation through accelerated passage. Having said that, I think that there are major concerns with what is happening today, and it is important to focus on those concerns. During the last debate on accelerated passage, my colleague Naomi Long set out the precedents for accelerated passage in this Assembly and the danger that we could be diverging from those precedents into new territory, and setting dangerous new precedents. Accelerated passage has been used primarily for Budget legislation in the past, and that type of legislation is referred to specifically in Standing Orders. All Members understand that that has to be done to ensure that Departments have money to spend, because otherwise services simply cannot be delivered. The other area where accelerated passage is used is in parity legislation. In that type of legislation there is not a fundamental policy issue at stake, in the sense that, for 60 years, there has been an understanding that Northern Ireland will mirror what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to social-security issues. Anyone who wishes to diverge from that does so at his or her peril. There are no real major policy debates to be had over that type of legislation, and it is appropriate that it is rubber-stamped in order to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the same degree of protection as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. With this proposed Bill, we are entering into a major policy issue. The issues to be discussed at Second Stage are not trivial matters; they are matters of major consequence that will go to the heart of what is meant by local government over, potentially, 30 or 40 years. It is crucial that we get those issues right at the outset, rather than rush the legislation through without allowing Members a proper opportunity to air their views and consider matters fully. In particular, the matter of the number of councils is hugely important. Mr Weir said that we want a form of strong, modern local government, as if this Bill is the only means by which that can be delivered. In fact, some would argue that the Bill undermines efforts to create strong local government. Mr Weir: I said that we all want to see strong local government, but my point was that if we unduly delay progress on this matter, we will postpone the day that such government can be in place. Without accelerated passage, we will not be ready for the 2011 target date. Dr Farry: I thank the Member for clarifying that point. I certainly agree that we are working towards that goal, but there are a range of different views in the Chamber as to how that can be achieved. From my perspective, the current proposals may undermine attempts to create strong, modern local government — the powers may not be commensurate with the number of councils being proposed. I would certainly like to engage in a proper discussion on that matter, and I would like the Committee to do so, too. The reason that we are in this rush to get arrangements in place for 2011 is that there have been major delays in the Executive. I fully appreciate that there is a desire among the people of Northern Ireland to move on and to reach closure on this long-running saga. However, it is important that, in its eagerness to reach that closure, the Assembly does not sell itself short. It is appropriate that the Assembly fulfils its role, which is to scrutinise legislation. We must not fall into the habit of simply acting as a rubber stamp for the Executive’s decisions. The pattern seems to be that the Executive stalls on an issue on which it cannot agree, finally cobbles together a compromise, and then brings it — late — to the Chamber. The Assembly then feels obliged to rush the legislation through its stages. That is not really an appropriate process for the people of Northern Ireland. We must have a balanced form of government that has proper checks and balances. I was disappointed that the Committee did not resist accelerated passage more vocally. The Committees are supposed to play an important role in challenging Ministers. I have been disappointed when Back-Bench Members from parties that are represented on the Executive act as a rubber stamp for the decisions of their Ministers, rather than seek to challenge them. Even the Committees at Westminster, which have far less power than our Committees, stand up more freely to decisions of Ministers. Mr Weir: Mention was made before of Members from one party supporting their own Minister’s decisions. Could the Member possibly conceive that those Members have supported the decision simply because they support the policy and that they are not the thoughtless automatons that he presents them as? It is a little insulting to portray Back-Bench Members as people who will follow whatever is thrown in their direction, rather than allow for the possibility that they might genuinely believe in the merits of a proposal. Dr Farry: I will certainly concede that, on occasions, Back-Bench Members may agree with their Ministers. However, if a pattern is established whereby Back-Bench Members support their Ministers on every occasion, I would be worried that they are incapable of exercising free thought and challenging their Minister’s decisions in the interests of democracy. Mrs Long: Back-Bench Members on a Committee may well agree with the particular policy direction that is taken by a Minister. However, does the Member agree that the concern stems from the fact that the policy has to be pushed through so rapidly that other people’s views and opinions cannot be debated? There seems to be some fear that a full and frank discussion would lead to Members being more open-minded about some of the alternative proposals. We have seen that happen before, most recently with issues such as the Victims’ Commission. Dr Farry: I could not agree more with my colleague’s remarks. [Laughter.] Mr S Wilson: Will the Member give way? Dr Farry: I will give way to Sammy in just a moment. Any Member who thinks that the Member for East Belfast Mrs Long and I always agree is welcome to eavesdrop on our team meetings on a Monday morning, when we often hammer matters out behind closed doors. Mr S Wilson: Did I detect the Member’s party leader pulling his coat and telling him that he had to agree with Mrs Long a Member for East Belfast? Mrs Long made a point about listening to the views of others, so does Dr Farry agree that even with accelerated passage — and, indeed, Mrs Long mentioned the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill — there would be an opportunity for amendments to be tabled in order that others can express their views in any subsequent discussion? There is no limit in the House on how long a Bill’s passage can take once it has been introduced. 1.30 pm Dr Farry: I thank the Member for that point; it brings me on to an important issue that needs to be clarified. There is a misperception in the House that a Bill is either granted accelerated passage with a Consideration Stage during which all 108 Members can, in theory, participate, or a Bill has a Committee Stage. In fact, in the normal legislative process, both Stages apply. The expected norm is that the Committee first takes evidence from any interested parties, it formulates its own view and discusses whether, as a Committee, it wishes to table its own amendments. At that stage, Committees have the advantage of having their own Committee staff and access to the views that have been presented to them. Often, the views of Committees are taken with an appropriate degree of weight, given the role they play. Following the Committee Stage are Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. At those Stages, amendments tabled by the relevant Committee, and those from Members who do not have the luxury of sitting on that Committee, can be debated. Therefore, I suggest that we should have those Stages on a matter that is as important as the review of local government boundaries. Standing Orders provide that a Committee Stage should take no longer than six weeks and that if a Committee wishes, it can seek to extend that period. However, if a Committee Stage is not of an inordinate length, that should not be a major difficulty. The Executive should have expressed their opinion on the number of councils and on the proposed groupings of councils when the emerging findings paper was published in October 2007. Had that happened, we could have had a much more in-depth discussion. However, it seems compromise was found much more readily on the issue of the powers for the councils than on the matter of numbers. As a result, people have been penalised. In effect, we have had a four-month delay. In order that it could make its views known, NILGA seemed to be organising a conference every other fortnight in anticipation of the Minister of the Environment’s decision on the number of new councils. There seems to have been quite a lot of disappointed councillors going to those meetings who missed out on the process. No doubt the House will discuss tomorrow the many issues that relate to the principles of the Bill. At this stage, suffice it to say that critical policy issues are at stake that need be scrutinised properly in a Committee Stage. The Assembly is rushing the Bill through at its peril: if we get this wrong now, we are locking the people of Northern Ireland into something that will be with them for 30 or 40 years. It is important that we get this right, rather than rush ahead with it arbitrarily. I would like to raise with the Minister the issue of having two separate processes for the creation of boundary commissions. The first deals with the creation of wards and overall boundaries of the councils, and the second deals with district electoral areas. Those two processes will add a considerable amount of time to the process of preparing for new council elections. I appreciate fully that one process is determined by the House and the other by the Secretary of State. However, I am interested to know whether any attempt was made to approach the Secretary of State to ascertain whether those two processes could be streamlined into one. As someone who has sat through a Local Government Boundary Commission hearing on ward issues, I know that the way in which wards will eventually form DEAs is relevant. There is real merit in merging the two processes to avoid making mistakes and to ensure that we actually have joined-up Government. If we explored that possibility, the rush that we currently face could be avoided. Mrs Foster: I have listened carefully to all the contributions that Members have made. I will, therefore, go through briefly some of the issues that were raised. The Chairman of the Environment Committee, Mr McGlone, expressed his Committee’s support for the Bill. He then went on to discuss the position of his party, the SDLP. As Mr Ross said, and I am sure that every Member agrees, accelerated passage is not the preferred way to deal with a piece of legislation. However, he accepted my explanation of why it is necessary. I took considerable time to give that explanation. The Deputy Chairman of the Committee, Mr Boylan, also recognised the need for accelerated passage. Mr Gardiner, who is a member of the Environment Committee and who attended the Committee meeting at which I was present on 3 April, reflected on the huge importance of the Bill to the people of Northern Ireland. He claimed that I did not explain adequately the consequences of the Bill’s not being granted accelerated passage. I disagree: I have explained the consequences fully to the Committee and, indeed, to the Assembly. I have explained the reasons that accelerated passage must get the go-ahead. The fact is that if it does not — Mr Gardiner: Will the Minister give way for a point of information? Perhaps the Minister should make it abundantly clear that the same Mr Gardiner voted against accelerated passage in the Committee. Mrs Foster: Yes, Mr Gardiner was in attendance at that meeting; I made that abundantly clear. He and Mr Ford voted against accelerated passage, and I have no difficulty in putting that on record. I welcome the clarity that Mr Gardiner has brought to the Ulster Unionist Party’s position on 15 councils. I must say, however, that it is somewhat at odds with what some of his party’s members on the ground have said to me. Indeed, it is most certainly at odds with comments that have been made by Mr Gardiner’s friend and colleague in County Fermanagh Mr Bertie Kerr, who said that if there were to be 15 councils, his party would rather keep the current 26 councils. It is, therefore, good to get clarity from the Ulster Unionist Party as to how many councils it believes are necessary. Instructions on the Bill were sent to legislative draftsmen on the same day that the Executive made their decision on the RPA. I fail to see how I could have acted more quickly. Mr Ford reflected that the Bill would have significant consequences for the people of Northern Ireland. Although he acknowledged that I went to the Committee immediately after the Easter recess, he claimed that I have completely sidelined it. Again, I do not accept that charge. I have engaged with the Committee on all the relevant matters, and I went to it as quickly as I possibly could after the Executive made their decision. I will continue to discuss the RPA with the Committee, given that the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill is not the only RPA Bill that will be introduced in the Assembly. My friend Mr Weir mentioned the local contracts Bill, and we will also have the local government modernisation Bill. Indeed, I am sure that during the coming weeks and months, the House will take a long time to discuss the issues of governance that Mr Gallagher raised. Mr Ford discussed communities, and he mentioned that those of Newtownhamilton and Newtownards do not have much in common. With regard to the current 26 councils, does he seriously suggest that people who live in the council area of Strabane, for example, belong to the same community as the people of Castlederg? If so, that is simply nonsense. Mr Ford: I appreciate the Minister’s giving way. The issue of geography, as it relates to the establishment of the existing pattern of 26 district councils, is such that a simplistic process of merely amalgamating them will throw up a considerable number of anomalies. Of course, one can always debate exactly where boundaries should fall. However, it is difficult to suggest that Castlederg does not relate to Strabane as a district town, in the way that it would be difficult to suggest that Killinchy, which is the place to which I referred, or Saintfield relate to Newry, which is likely to be the centre of that council area. Mrs Foster: I must point out to the Member that many people in Castelderg have told me that they view Omagh as their local focal point. Therefore, that case is not well made at all. With regard to copies of the Bill not being available to Members today, the Member knows that a Bill cannot be published until it has passed its First Stage, which occurred this morning. Hopefully, Members will have copies of the Bill tomorrow morning. Essentially, the Bill has two substantive clauses, which I have explained already. Those can be considered in detail tomorrow and, I hope, next week. Ultimately, it is ironic that Mr Ford, the self-confessed back end of a horse under a previous Administration — Mr Ford: A pantomime horse. Mrs Foster: Yes, a pantomime horse. It is surprising that Mr Ford is concentrating on accelerated passage, when, some time ago, he bent over backwards to facilitate the most illogical and bizarre re-designation rule-change to keep David Trimble in post as the First Minister. However, everyone has to stick up for their own position. Mr Wilson — Mr Ford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that the Minister’s point is all good knock-about stuff and it has recently reappeared on DUP briefing notes. However, are references to a pantomime horse in order or relevant to the debate? Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Speaker has made no ruling on that matter, and I accept the Minister’s point that it was the Member himself who first said “pantomime horse”. [Interruption.] Order. Mr Ford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister raised the issue of the designation vote and described me as the back-end of a horse. I may have corrected her on the precise details of the horse, but it was the Minister who strayed from the subject of the debate. [Laughter.] Mrs Foster: Moving on to Mr Wilson, who is nowhere near the back-end of a pantomime horse or otherwise —[Laughter.] Mr Wilson referred to the “abominable no men” in the Alliance Party and in the Ulster Unionist Party and made the point that the boundaries are set by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland and not by individuals in this House. I want to allow the commissioner the maximum time possible to examine the boundaries. Indeed, Mr Ford made the point to me at the Environment Committee that he believed, even then, that the task would not be completed in time. I am trying to give the incoming commissioner as long as possible, which is why the issue must be dealt with today. We are trying to resolve the ongoing and lengthy review of public administration and to give a strong lead to local government, which Members acknowledge as the only democratic avenue in Northern Ireland over the past 35 to 40 years. Councils deserve reform, and that is what we are trying to give them. It is important that a deadline has been set so that local government is provided with clarity. That deadline is challenging, but if the Bill does not pass its first hurdle, one thing is certain — the elections in 2011 will not be for 11 new local government districts. There has been extensive consultation on the proposed number of councils. One reason that I feel able to move ahead in July 2011 is because we said that we would consider seven, 11 or 15 council areas. Therefore, the models, as other Members have said, have been clearly set out and everyone involved knows that the decision will be limited to one of those models. I totally disassociate myself from Mr Wilson’s “anorak” remarks. The Environment Committee does its job very well — environmentally friendly anoraks, and all the rest of it. Mr Maskey spoke about the work of the strategic leadership board, the input of which I have often recognised. Five parties come together in the board and work effectively for the benefit of local government. Mr Maskey said that some parties have not clarified what they want from local government, even though it has taken a long time to get to the current position. I believe that there now exists a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform and modernise local government. Assembly Members will debate in coming days the many and complex issues with which they are wrestling, particularly around governance. Mr Maskey said that there was no such thing as a gentleman’s agreement — not that I am suggesting that he would attempt to say that I would enter into a gentleman’s agreement — but it is right that the issues will be debated in a statutory context on the Floor of this House. There has been a lot of toing and froing over governance issues, but I repeat that the future cannot be planned by looking to the past. We should be setting out future governance arrangements for Northern Ireland that threaten no-one and protect everyone — from Unionists in the west to Nationalists in the east. Mr Weir dealt with some arguments made by the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party. He again referred to seven, 11 and 15 local government districts. He also spoke about the previous Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, and the fact that legislation had been in place in relation to that post for some time. Indeed, the previous Local Government Boundaries Commissioner was appointed in 2006. There is no need to reinvent the wheel; this is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation. 1.45 pm Mr Kennedy talked about the lack of accountability to the House of the accelerated passage process. He is right to say that the Bill is a key building block for local government reform. He mentioned coterminosity, and I look forward to discussing that issue tomorrow during the debate on the Bill’s Second Stage. That debate will not solely concern parliamentary boundaries, however. Issues of health, education, policing, housing and roads must all be addressed. I hope that Members will take the opportunity to do that tomorrow. Mr Kennedy also mentioned the review of council boundaries. It is intended that, in future, council boundaries will be reviewed every eight to 12 years, especially to detail and to take into account boundary defacement, which happens from time to time as a result, for example, of the building of large housing estates. Tommy Gallagher expressed serious concerns about accelerated passage for the Bill, and said that he wanted my assurance that other elements of the RPA would come before the House. I am happy to give him that assurance today. There will be a full opportunity to discuss other matters such as governance. Mr Gallagher said that he hoped that the appointment of a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner would not be announced tomorrow. I assure him that the advertisement appeared only last week, and the appointment process has just begun. I am glad that the Member for Mid Ulster Billy Armstrong was here today to take part in the debate and give us his thoughts on the accelerated passage of the Bill, because he did not attend the meeting of the Environment Committee on 3 April to discuss the issue and provide the scrutiny that he is now seeking. Mr Kennedy: Will the Minister graciously welcome Mr Armstrong back to the House after a period during which he has not been in the best of health? Mrs Foster: I said that I was very glad that Mr Armstrong appeared today to attend the debate and to give us his thoughts on local government. Stephen Farry gave his reasons for why the House should not approve accelerated passage for the Bill. I say to Dr Farry and to other Members that this issue is a legacy of direct rule. The Executive decided in July 2007 that we would hold a fast and focused review that would deliver sound and strong local government. We decided on a fast and focused review because many people seemed to believe that the RPA was never going to go ahead. We should be letting the wider community, including local government staff, know that the RPA is going to happen and that we have a timetable for its completion. I do not accept that strong local government is being undermined. This is the beginning of a process, and I have said from the beginning that functions are being transferred now, and that we hope that more functions will be transferred in future. However, that is a matter for tomorrow’s debate. Dr Farry also asked whether we could have streamlined the process of reform of the district electoral area boundaries and the local government boundaries. It is important to ensure that the maximum amount of time is given to the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner so that the most appropriate decision can be made, based on the available evidence. That is one of the reasons that I have asked for accelerated passage for the Bill. I also wish to thank Dr Farry for acknowledging that I had guided Members through the requirements for accelerated passage, both at the Environment Committee and in the House today. I will be bringing more legislation before the House in relation to the reform of local government. That will deal with complex issues such as governance and the modernisation of local government capital finance. Rightly, the Assembly will want a full process of scrutiny to be brought to bear on that legislation. For now, however, I hope that Members, despite some of their misgivings, will support the motion and set in train the process that will lead to the beginning of a major and much overdue reform of local government in Northern Ireland. Mr Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 52; Noes 21. AYES NATIONALIST: Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Boylan, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Ms Gildernew, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Ms J McCann, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O’Neill. UNIONIST: Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McGimpsey, Miss McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson. Tellers for the Ayes: Mr T Clarke and Mr I McCrea. NOES UNIONIST: Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Burnside, Mr Cobain, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Cree, Mr Elliott, Mr Gardiner, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McNarry, Mr Savage. OTHER: Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr McCarthy, Mr Neeson, Mr B Wilson. Tellers for the Noes: Mr Armstrong and Mrs Long. Total votes 73 Total Ayes 52 [71.2%] Nationalist Votes 20 Nationalist Ayes 20[100.0%] Unionist Votes 46 Unionist Ayes 32[69.6%] Other Votes 7 Other Ayes 0 [0.0%] Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support): That the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure, in accordance with Standing Order 40(4). 2.00 pm Post Office Closures Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Mrs Hanna: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with concern the recent announcement that 96 local post offices are to close or be replaced by an “outreach” service; believes that the six-week consultation period is too short; further believes such closures and service reductions will have an adverse impact on community and social infrastructure in rural and urban areas and will adversely affect older people, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups; acknowledges that provision of post office services is a reserved matter; and resolves to establish urgently an Ad Hoc Committee to think creatively about and make proposals for partnerships that could enhance the economic case for viable local postal services based on engagement with commercial, voluntary and public-sector partners and learning from the experience in the Republic of Ireland. On 1 April 2008 — April Fool’s Day, which some Members may think is appropriate — the Post Office announced that, as part of its network change programme, its area plan proposals for Northern Ireland would lead to the closure of 42 post offices and the provision of outreach support. Outreach support is available only until 2011, and many people fear that it is a euphemism for the deferred closure of a further 54 rural post offices. That will be the second round of post office closures in Northern Ireland. A major concern has to be that there will be further rounds of closures. On 11 March 2004, the Post Office announced the closure of 21 post offices, mainly in urban areas. Therefore, in a matter of four years, the post office network in Northern Ireland has been reduced from 580 to 463 — a reduction of 20%. We all know that change is inevitable. In some areas, fewer people use the post office because services such as bill payments, television licences, car tax and passports are now available online or through banks, as a result of the growth in telecommunications. Apparently, one in five letters is now delivered by private competitors. We are told that the Post Office is losing £500,000 every working day, or about £200 million a year, and that the closures are necessary to stem those losses, to bring the post office network into profitability and to stabilise the situation. As part of its briefing, the Post Office has produced an impressive-looking document with a branch report for each of the 96 local offices that are under threat of closure, containing addresses, opening hours, average weekly customer numbers, local population profile and so on. However, those reports are incomplete: there is no information on the profitability or otherwise of individual branch offices. Indeed, it has been accepted that profitability has nothing to do with the closure of many branches, and that many local offices, especially in urban areas, are profitable and well used. The Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association has identified six of its members who run local convenience stores that have post offices in the premises: two are in Belfast and the others are in Castlereagh, Omagh, Antrim and Dungannon. Their owners say that they are extremely busy and profitable local offices, and that, if they are forced to close, it will have a severe impact on the viability of other services that are offered in-store and on neighbouring retail outlets, and will cause job losses. Post Office Ltd must explain why it is proposing to close down stores. Mr Attwood: The Member spoke of post office closures around the North, including in Belfast. Does she agree that any decisions about the future of the post office estate should take into account two values: first, whether services fulfil a shared-society outcome; and, secondly, whether post offices in areas of most deprivation should be protected? Does she agree that the decision to recommend the closure of the post office on Black’s Road, which fulfils these and many other criteria, makes no sense? Mrs Hanna: I agree with the Member. The Post Office has not given any reasonable explanation as to how it can contemplate doing such a thing. An economic appraisal should apply to every store that the Post Office is proposing to close, and must take into account not only quantifiable factors such as profitability, but non-quantifiable factors, some of which were mentioned by my colleague. Equally valid factors must be taken into account, such as the impact on the local community; the viability of other local businesses; access; the availability of public transport; socio-economic data such as age, health, deprivation; and what I would call the equivalent of biodiversity. We are all increasingly ecologically aware when it comes to the natural environment and the importance of maintaining the diversity of plants and animals. The same applies to communities, especially in rural areas, where it is the small-scale institutions — schools, churches and post offices — that bind communities together. I represent South Belfast, which is a wholly urban constituency. However, I acknowledge that rural post office closures have a particularly devastating impact. John Dallat and other Members will speak about the damage done to rural communities by those closures. Local post offices are part of the lifeblood of local communities, urban and rural — providing essential services, especially to the elderly and to those who do not have access to their own transport. At a time when the Government are talking about reducing carbon emissions, the closures will increase pollution and further deplete resources. The two rounds of closures have closed or proposed to close a number of post offices in the constituency of South Belfast. In 2004, the post offices at Balmoral, Cromac Street, Ormeau Road, Stranmillis Road and Willowfield were closed. This year, it has been announced that the post offices at 217 Lisburn Road and 160 Ormeau Road are to close. Seven urban offices have been taken out of the smallest constituency in Northern Ireland. The post office at 217 Lisburn Road is situated in the Windsor ward — it serves most of that ward and the Blackstaff ward. The post office at 160 Ormeau Road is in the Botanic ward. Although neither the Windsor ward nor the Botanic ward rank high in the list of deprived wards, the Blackstaff ward is in the top 5% of the most disadvantaged wards in Northern Ireland. The Windsor and Botanic wards are the first and third most populous wards in Northern Ireland. Since the statistics were published in the 2001 census, those wards may have become even more heavily populated. Since the 2001 census, both wards have seen a considerable influx of immigration of minority ethnic groups. The diverse population of those wards includes elderly people, students and migrants. Those are precisely the types of people who may not have access to mainstream banking services. Mr P Ramsey: Does the Member accept that the Post Office must carry out the fullest consultation process that is available to it? In my constituency of Foyle, a post office in Claudy, a rural area, and a post office in the city centre, on Carlisle Road, are to close. Those post offices are seen as economically not viable, but they are based in areas that have the highest levels of social and economic disadvantage in the city. What relevance will be given to targeting social need when representations are made, and will those arguments be accepted? Mrs Hanna: I could not have put that better. There are specific questions for the Post Office. Has it taken account of the specific requirements of public bodies to undertake section 75 equality impact assessments on closures? If the Post Office has done that, will it make those assessments available? Has it considered making full economic assessments of closure decisions, and will those be made available? Does the Post Office acknowledge that, in light of the unanimous outcry against its announcement, the six-week consultation period is far too short? It should be at least double that period — a minimum of 12 weeks. At the very least, the Post Office should acknowledge that the six-week consultation period is far too short to allow for meaningful community consultation. All of those questions must be considered by the Ad Hoc Committee that the motion proposes. That Committee should consider the situation in the Republic of Ireland, which has also been short-sighted in dealing with its postal service. A few months ago, the Government bailed out Northern Rock, a building society with two million customers. The cost of that is £100 billion, which equates to £1,700 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Post offices in the UK still have 11 million customers, and the Government has promised a subsidy of £1·7 billion for the three years to 2011, provided that the Post Office implements its closure programme. That subsidy amounts to £5 a year for every man, woman and child in the UK. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up. Mrs Hanna: To finish, we must make the case for the proposals — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Lord Morrow: The DUP supports the motion. The sentiments that are expressed in the motion adequately sum up the revulsion that we all feel about the closure decision. Throughout many years of direct rule, the infrastructure of the Post Office has been run down. That was another legacy of direct rule, and one in which elected representatives have had little say. Ironically, even though we now have an elected Assembly, we are still going to have little say on the outcome of this debate. 2.15 pm Carmel Hanna put her finger on the pulse of the matter. The Post Office must reconsider the length of the consultation period — six weeks is totally inadequate. By doing so, the Post Office could show the people of Northern Ireland — those who work in post offices and those who depend on its services — that, at least, it is listening to their elected representatives. I suspect that there is going to be unanimity in the House in favour of the motion. However, if after listening to the views of Assembly Members in this debate, the Post Office continues on its own merry way, that would send a bad message to those of us who believe in democracy. As I come from the rural constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, my concern is for rural post offices. People who live in rural communities seem to be penalised day and daily — the running down of rural post offices follows the running down of rural schools. Seemingly, people who live in rural communities are being told that they are not entitled to the same facilities as those who live in urban areas. That is a matter that the Assembly should take on board. Northern Ireland, by definition, is rural. Therefore, I suspect that this matter will resonate with more Assembly Members than one that would occur in a more urban area. It has been said that the post offices that have been earmarked for closure are not profitable, and I accept that such factors have to be considered. However, I believe emphatically that the Post Office has not properly considered the future of the rural post office network. Surely the Post Office needs to assess what it wants to see in the rural community of Northern Ireland in 20 years’ time. Mr McCarthy: Does the Member agree that senior citizens who do not have their own modes of transport will be the people to suffer most when post offices are removed from villages and hamlets? Lord Morrow: I congratulate the Member for making that point. We owe a lot to the older members of our community. The cost of everything is rising — I have just read in the local press that it is expected that the food bill for a normal household will have risen by approximately £600 over a 12-month period. Similarly, as Members will not need reminding, the price of oil is rising on a virtually daily basis. Therefore, the cost of travel is also rising at an alarming rate. Those are other factors that impact on the senior citizens mentioned by Mr McCarthy. The rural post office in Granville — my own village, which is two and a half or three miles from Dungannon — is one of those up for closure. The rural post offices in Cabragh — about five miles from Dungannon — and Carnteel are also due to close. The Post Office has selected the branches that will close, or that will have their service changed. I want to know what consideration was given to the communities that they serve. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support this timely motion, and I thank the Members who introduced it to the House. I hope that the debate will allow Members to deal pragmatically and holistically with this matter. The closure of post offices can have a devastating impact on communities, particularly, as has been mentioned, on rural communities. Key social and personal services will be lost, and Sinn Féin calls for coherent action to replace them. The general public cannot comprehend proposals that threaten some of the busiest and most successful post offices. The number of people who use those post offices demonstrates their importance to local communities. Another major concern is that the proposed cuts are likely to be a precursor to many more far-reaching cuts in 2011, when the provision of the mobile or shared option that Royal Mail has put on the table will end. I am extremely concerned about the negative impact of the closures on communities, particularly those in rural and remote areas of the North. It is widely acknowledged that the closures will increase social isolation and disadvantage. The Post Office justifies the closures on the basis that the offices are financially non-viable, but does not take into account either the accompanying business-related services, such as private shops, or the vital role that post offices play in the social infrastructure of local communities. Six stores in Castlereagh, Omagh, north Belfast, Antrim, Dungannon and west Belfast incorporate extremely busy and profitable post offices. If their owners are forced to close the post offices, it will have a severe impact on the viability of their stores and result in job losses. The Post Office must answer this question: why does it propose to close offices that are economically viable? That makes no sense. Sinn Féin requests that the six-week consultation period that has been outlined be extended to allow more time for consideration. Communities must have time to formulate their responses. In my South Down constit |