Northern Ireland Assembly Tuesday 29 April 2008 Executive Committee Business: Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 10.30 (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Local Government (Boundaries) Bill Consideration Stage Mr Deputy Speaker: Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments, detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the Speaker’s provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we shall debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on the 13 amendments that are listed in group 1. Those amendments relate to the number of local government districts and the determination of their boundaries. The second debate will be on the five amendments that are listed in group 2. Those amendments concern the rules that the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner will have regard to in making recommendations. I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the two groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Members must address the subject matter of the debate in question. Once the initial debate on each group is completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we debate the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on clauses to stand part of the Bill will be put at the appropriate points. If that is clear, we will proceed. We now come to the first group of amendments for debate: amendment No 1, with which it will be convenient to debate amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 18. Mr Ford: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 3, leave out “11” and insert “15”. The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List: No 2: In clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out “11” and insert “at least 11 and not more than 15 new”. — [Mr Gallagher, Mr McGlone.] No 3: In clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert “(2) The 15 local government districts shall incorporate, respectively, the whole or the major part of the following former local government districts — 1. Ards. 2. Armagh. 3. Ballymena. 4. Belfast. 5. Coleraine. 6. Cookstown. 7. Craigavon. 8. Derry. 9. Down. 10. Fermanagh. 11. Lisburn. 12. Newry and Mourne. 13. Newtownabbey. 14. North Down. 15. Omagh.” — [Mr Ford, Dr Farry.] No 4: In clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert “(2) The 11 local government districts shall incorporate, respectively, the whole or the major part of the following former local government districts — 1. Ballymena. 2. Belfast. 3. Coleraine. 4. Cookstown. 5. Craigavon. 6. Derry. 7. Fermanagh. 8. Lisburn. 9. Newry and Mourne. 10. Newtownabbey. 11. North Down.” — [Mr Ford, Dr Farry.] No 5: In clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert “(2) The new local government districts shall incorporate the former local government districts.” — [Mr Gallagher, Mr McGlone.] No 6: In clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “the major”. — [Mr Kennedy, Mr Beggs, Mr Gardiner, Mr Armstrong.] No 7: In clause 2, page 2, line 16, leave out “11” and insert “15”. — [Mr Ford, Dr Farry.] No 8: In clause 2, page 2, line 16, leave out “11 districts mentioned” and insert “new local government districts as referred to”. — [Mr Gallagher, Mr McGlone.] No 9: In clause 2, page 2, line 26, leave out “11” and insert “15”. — [Mr Ford, Dr Farry.] No 10: In clause 2, page 2, line 26, leave out “11 districts mentioned” and insert “new local government districts as referred to”. — [Mr Gallagher, Mr McGlone.] No 16: In clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out “40” and insert “25”. — [Mr Ford, Dr Farry.] No 17: In long title, leave out “11” and insert “15”. — [Mr Ford, Dr Farry.] No 18: In long title, leave out “11” and insert “at least 11 and not more than 15 new”. — [Mr Gallagher, Mr McGlone.] Mr Ford: The debate we are having this morning and may potentially have in one week’s time, illustrates the problem of accelerated passage. The House is faced with a number of amendments, and in many cases the intention across different amendments is consistent but the precise wording is in conflict. It would have been beneficial to refer the Bill to Committee Stage, which need not have been particularly long. That would have given the Environment Committee the opportunity to examine the phrasing of the amendments and perhaps seek consensus within that Committee on the way forward. When the Minister was speaking during the Final Stage of the Taxis Bill, she referred to the benefits of the Committee and the Minister working together on 50 agreed amendments. It is sad that she turned down her irony indicator that day, as I said. We are left in the difficult position of dealing with a batch of amendments that do not fit together. I shall do my best to address them all. The first amendment is simply to change the number of councils proposed from 11 to 15. The Minister previously argued, in her usual eloquent way, that the power that will be given to district councils will increase their expenditure by around 25%. The problem is that 25% of a very small figure, around 5%, is barely 1%. If we look back to what happened in the 1970s, approximately 70% of the spending power of district and county councils was removed and given to Departments. We are now faced with the fact that, having reduced spending power from 100% to 30%, we are increasing it to somewhere between 35% and 37%. It is pretty small beer to make such a fuss about, as though this was going to be a major change in the role and function of councils. The idea that we will be examining powers further one year from now does not suggest that the Executive, in agreeing this pattern and these powers, has actually got a detailed, considered view of the way ahead. It looks much more like a short-term fudge. A number of models were floated in previous consultations — nine models, concerning three configurations each of seven, 11 and 15 councils. It is now quite clear that the possibility of having seven councils has been ruled out, even by the one party whose Members previously supported it. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Ford: There has been no specific consultation following general consultation as to whether we should be considering model 11b, or whether the views previously expressed by most parties and councillors that there should be 15 councils described a better way forward. There has been a very modest increase in powers created. My colleague Brian Wilson previously suggested that if this is all councils are getting, we might as well keep the current 26. I am not advancing that case this morning. The House decided when Second Stage was passed that there will be reforms. There are real issues as to why the number of councils needs to be explored in greater detail. If I were trying a modest grovel in the direction of the Minister, I would suggest there are issues like the Fermanagh factor. Having as few as 11 councils would make it impossible for a county with a separate identity, but a population of just under 60,000, to have its own council. People in that county, at least, will argue strongly that 11 is an inadequate number. On that basis, we have put forward an amendment that there should be 15 councils, since that was the preferred option of most Members at the time the consultation took place. The opinion of the House should be tested on that matter. Amendments 3 and 4 are in a different area. They deal with the definition of how the new boundaries will be created. In the early 1970s, when the Parliament of Northern Ireland was working out the new arrangements under the Macrory Review, the Bill presented in that House, and passed unamended in that arena, did not specify a complete list of places that would be included within each district council. Rather, it gave a single defining point for each of the 26 councils. What is now Antrim Borough Council was defined by reference to saying that it would include all, or the major part, of Antrim urban district electoral division of Antrim rural district council. The other part of my constituency was defined on the basis that it would include all, or the major part, of Newtownabbey urban district. It did not list Newtownabbey urban district, Ballyclare urban district and part of Antrim rural district. The Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 did not state that your area, Mr Deputy Speaker, would include Coleraine borough, Coleraine rural district, Portstewart urban district and Portrush urban district. It merely specified Coleraine as the central area of that configuration. There will be problems if we proceed to list a number of councils and say that all, or a major part, of them will be included. We will continue with the problem of what is now known as the little “bent banana” — the skittering round the southern suburbs of Belfast from Dundrod to Drumbeg to Dundonald. That does not give logic. It would be more logical to provide a defining point of Lisburn and allow the appropriate area of Castlereagh to be included with other parts, perhaps, of Belfast and parts of greater North Down — as Mr Weir calls it — or greater Ards — as his colleague Mr Shannon calls it. It may be argued that the definition of “the major part” is 50% — or more — of the land area; and that may be adequate. However, a reference to “the major part” implies that at least a significant part of that borough will be included, but there are other cases where it might not fit. A parochial example relates to what might be called the East Antrim question, which was introduced by Roy Beggs when the Bill received its Second Stage. The projected models 15b and 15c show a configuration of Newtownabbey, Larne and Carrickfergus councils in one group and Antrim and Ballymena in another. However, model 11b groups those councils in configurations of Newtownabbey and Antrim together, and Ballymena, Larne and Carrickfergus in another group. I have worked as a social worker for the Northern Health and Social Services Board in Larne, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey districts as well as in Antrim and Ballymena districts. Many people think that it would be logical to make two councils from those five, and to do so from a mid Antrim/east Antrim variation rather than in the manner that is proposed in the Bill — and which is derived from model 11b. If, as has been said by the Minister and her supporters, the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner — and not the House — defines boundaries, it is logical that we should leave it as open as possible to the Boundaries Commissioner to decide the easiest and best way of doing it; to consider how local social and economic needs can be met; and to examine what model will fit the pattern that people are used to. In that context, our amendment to define Newtownabbey and Ballymena as two points — one in each council — and to leave it to the Boundaries Commissioner to decide the best way to fit the boundaries, is more logical than the method the Minister has decided on by opting for model 11b. There has been no suggestion as to why model 11b is better than models 15b or 15c in the mid Antrim/east Antrim area. I accept that there may be a slight procedural issue, and it may take longer to implement. Furthermore, there may be a need for a preliminary view on the external boundaries of each council published in advance of the provisional recommendations. If Members feel that there is merit in such an approach, it could be addressed at the Bill’s Further Consideration Stage, and it would be an informal issue. If we proceed with the Bill as it stands — and assuming that the House rejects the 15-council model, which has, implicit in it, the point of defining a single place, as was the pattern in 1972 — we will run into major difficulties, and the Boundaries Commissioner will be left to produce a set of recommendations that will have significant and long lasting debate around the external boundary of the district, and not merely about the internal ward arrangements. That will create difficulties, which will mean that the timescale, which is supposed to be set, will become less meaningful. 10.45 am Amendments Nos 7, 9 and 17 are all consequential to amendment No 1, which is the proposal for 15 councils. Amendment No 16 is effectively consequential to amendment No 1. That amendment would change the number of councillors in each local authority from 40, plus or minus five, to 25, plus or minus five. It is designed to maintain the same number of councillors whether there are 11 or 15 councils. That amendment is proposed only on the basis of there being 15 councils; therefore, if amendment No 1 is not passed we will not move amendment No 16. The SDLP and the Ulster Unionist amendments are largely seeking to achieve the same objectives as those in our amendments. Both parties recognise the Executive’s failure to win support for the proposed 11b model. The Alliance Party believes that there is merit in testing the waters by having 15 councils. I accept that, in amendment No 2, the SDLP is suggesting having a range of between 11 and 15 councils. Certainly, if amendment No 1 is not passed, the Alliance Party will be supporting amendment No 2. We believe that, given the time constraints, that amendment is slightly too loose, but it nonetheless has significantly more merit than ramming through a proposal for 11 — and only 11 — councils. The vagueness of amendment No 2 is unfortunate, but allowing the issue to be tested by the Boundaries Commissioner rather than having a model rammed through is an option that should be considered. Amendment No 6 appears to meet very similar concerns to those that are dealt with by the Alliance Party amendments Nos 3 and 4, as they all concern the way that individual authorities are defined. We see considerable merit in amendment No 6 but it is not quite as good as our own. Mr Ross: Although this is the first opportunity to debate amendments to the Bill, many of the arguments that we will hear today have been rehearsed during the Second Stage debate. I welcome the fact that the Members who are inclined to change the Bill have the opportunity to do so today. Indeed, allowing amendments to be tabled may produce an improved Bill, and that is the purpose of that process. However, I do not believe that any of the tabled amendments will improve the Bill; rather, they will complicate and confuse the process. As I argued during the Second Stage debate, the real choice that we had was not between having either 11 or 15 councils, but between having either seven or 11 councils. Certainly, I believe that having 11 councils is preferable to the model that was originally supported by direct rule Ministers as well as by the party opposite. We can all agree that local government needed to be modernised, and the Executive have agreed on the 11-council model. The grouped amendments that we are debating during this section of the Consideration Stage do not aim to amend that Bill so much as to radically change it. The Assembly must have the ability to determine the future of local government. Although an independent Boundaries Commissioner can have a say on what the boundaries of various councils should be, the Assembly should be able to determine the number of councils that should exist, and I believe that we have now been able to do that. The review of public administration debate has gone on long enough and finally we are getting somewhere with it. To argue that, after six years, there has not been enough consultation on the matter seems quite bizarre to me. It would be virtually impossible to come up with a model that all Members would approve of. Even if we could agree on the number of councils, I am sure that there would not be agreement on what the boundaries of those should be, whether because of self-preservation concerns or for other interests. Indeed, during his opening remarks, Mr Ford referred to the East Antrim question about the grouping of Larne, Carrick and Ballymena. However, many of the services for people living in Larne — such as Planning Service or Roads Service — are already provided in Ballymena, so a linkage between those areas already exists. Neither should the Assembly decide what area should become the administrative headquarters for the proposed new councils, as seems to be proposed in amendment No 4. The new councils will be given new powers and should also be given the opportunity to decide such matters for themselves, and I am quite sure that there will be some interesting debate about where councils should be centred. I do not believe that any of the amendments in this grouping improve the Bill, and I consider many of them to be impractical. I urge the House to vote against the amendments. Mr A Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I oppose the amendments, which show that other parties cannot abide the fact that an agreement has been reached in the interests of delivering — in a timely fashion and after proper and appropriate consideration by a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner with the local communities — fair, effective and efficient local government by 2011. In many ways, the amendments are contradictory. David Ford talked about the Alliance Party’s preferred option being 15 councils. However, he then proposed amendments that deal with everything including the number of councillors, and that are aimed at redefining the wards in advance of the commissioner’s doing his work. He went on to say that if his amendments are not accepted he will support the SDLP’s amendments, which call for anything between 11 and 15 councils. Members can take from that what they want. It is unfortunate that the parties that have proposed the amendments are showing, yet again, that they are not serious about the substantive changes that are required at local government level. Accelerated passage has already been granted by the Assembly, and Consideration Stage provides an opportunity for amendments to be proposed and even agreed. However, what we have heard this morning has been a rehearsal of the same arguments that have been rejected so far. I presume that that is what we will continue to hear for the rest of the morning. The amendments expose the lack of substance in the thinking of the other parties. Many of the amendments are about the numbers of councils and the number of councillors. They have nothing to do with the way in which local government will function. Furthermore, they have nothing to do with striking a balance with the communities across the new council boundaries. They expose the fact that the other parties do not have credible arguments or even any cohesion to their arguments. One of the arguments that we have heard in recent years, and even in recent weeks, has been that reducing the number of councils will create a distance between the councillors and the local community. However, one of the amendments is aimed at reducing the number of councillors from 40 to 25. Is that not a contradiction? Mr Ford: It might have helped the Member had he listened to what I said earlier. I made the specific point that the amendment aimed at reducing the number of members of each council from 40 to 25 is in the context of increasing the number of councils, so the number of councillors remains the same. Had the Member listened to that point, I do not think that he would have made the argument that he just did. Mr A Maskey: I did listen to the point, and I have done so repeatedly. I have listened to the Alliance Party speaking about that matter for years. The Member will be aware that we have been diligent in this matter for some years; we have listened attentively to what he and his colleagues have said, not only here, but also in the meetings of the strategic leadership board and in the original task force. Therefore, Sinn Féin is well versed in the Alliance Party’s position. I was simply rehearsing the point that we have been advised by the Alliance Party and by others that we should not make changes to boundaries that create a further, unacceptable distance between councillors and local communities. However, one of the amendments is seeking to do just that by reducing the number of councillors. As the Minister of the Environment has said, the changes to the boundaries are part of a process. A lot of work is required in the years ahead, not only in changing the nature of local government, but also in addressing the issue of the number of quangos. To accept that amendment would leave us in a position in which we would still have a ridiculous number of people who were publicly appointed, but a reduced number of local councillors. That would simply create a further electoral deficit. In future, addressing the number of quangos and the number of public appointees who are unaccountable — they are certainly unelected — will provide a greater opportunity to consider the number of councillors. Sinn Féin believes that the agreements that have been reached thus far provide a solid foundation upon which local government can be rebuilt in a fair, effective and balanced manner. None of the amendments would help us in the work that we have to do. Many of the provisions that the amendments call for are included in one way or another in the current commissioner’s mandate. Therefore, the amendments add nothing; they simply expose the fact that other parties do not agree with the model for 11 councils. They want 15 — or, if they cannot get 15, they will accept 12, 13 or 14. That is no way for parties that are opposed to the Bill to show any integrity in respect of being credible, thoughtful and considerate, or having desired outcomes in mind. Sinn Féin opposes the amendments. Mr Kennedy: I support amendment No 6. The Bill provides the legislative foundation for the complete reform of local government in Northern Ireland. When the number and the basic scope of the new local government units are established, the Bill will potentially shape the way in which people interact with their local authorities for decades. Ultimately, the Bill will shape how people interact with one another — either reconfirming local identities or forging new ones, as the Bill demands. Therefore, it is of crucial importance that we get this right. The Ulster Unionist Party has consistently supported a 15-council model, because that best reflects the identities and communities that currently exist in Northern Ireland. Identities and affinities are extremely important in creating good local government and ensuring that communities are adequately equipped and enthusiastic. Mr Weir: I appreciate that the Ulster Unionist position on the 15-council model has been made fairly clear in the House. However, unlike the Alliance Party and the SDLP, why has the Ulster Unionist Party not tabled any amendments that argue for a 15-council model? Mr Kennedy: The Ulster Unionist Party has consistently supported the concept of a 15-council model. It is for others to decide whether they also support that concept. By mirroring the parliamentary boundaries, the 15-council model would lead to the least confusion. It would increase the level of local community buy-in to the democratic process. For those reasons — and others that my colleagues will expand on — the Ulster Unionist Party is minded to support the Alliance Party amendments that seek to change the number of local government districts to 15. However, although the Ulster Unionists are supportive of the Alliance Party’s efforts to change the number of districts to 15, we are also realistic. As Mr Alex Maskey confirmed to the House during his contribution, the deal has already been done between Sinn Féin and the DUP. By tabling amendment No 6, the Ulster Unionist Party is simply trying to make the best possible legislation out of the Bill in the short time that has been allowed. This Bill has two major clauses. The first establishes that there should be 11 new council areas. It then identifies those council areas, precisely based on an amalgamation of the existing 26 council districts. Clause 1(1) of the Bill is quite precise in stating: “The 11 local government districts shall incorporate, respectively, the whole or the major part of” — — the suggested local government areas. The second major clause of the Bill outlines the powers and the role of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, who will decide the exact boundaries of the local government units and wards. However, the powers that the commissioner has been given are much more limited than they should be. They are much more limited than the powers of the commissioner’s counterparts in England. In Northern Ireland, he or she will not be able to explicitly take into account peoples’ local identities and affinities. That will influence the efficiency of local government. I will return to that issue later. The Bill details the boundaries of the local government areas in clause 1, but does not explicitly give the commissioner reasonable powers and flexibility to make reasoned changes to those boundaries in clause 2. The Ulster Unionist Party has tabled amendment No 6, which requests that the words “the major” are left out when the scope of the 11 new units is considered. If the amendment is carried, the legislation will read: “The 11 local government districts shall incorporate, respectively, the whole or part of the following former local government districts”. 11.00 am The amendment gives the commissioner the power and room to make significant and meaningful changes to better serve the people of Northern Ireland. In recent debates, we have heard that many Members in the Chamber have reservations about the make-up of the suggested new local government units. By providing the commissioner with the power to be able to make meaningful changes, we can allow those reservations to be heard — and acted on, if the commissioner deems it necessary and in the interests of the local communities of Northern Ireland. That, we contend, is a common-sense amendment that will give the commissioner the flexibility to meaningfully carry out his or her job for the local communities of Northern Ireland, and not exclusively for the two major parties in the Assembly. In the debate last week, the Minister stated that the words “whole” and “major” are open to interpretation and may be defined differently by the new commissioner. The Minister is right to suggest that the commissioner will, and should, be given the flexibility to do his or her job. That being so, amendment No 6 should have broad support from across the House. The removal of “major”, thereby making the role of the commissioner reasonably and flexibly independent, reflects the views expressed by many Members of the House during the debate on the Bill’s Second Stage. Last week, the Member for East Antrim Mr S Wilson said: “The Local Government Boundaries Commissioner can make small or larger changes to boundaries.” — [Official Report, Vol 29, No 8, p351, col 1]. If we retain the Bill in its present form, I am not entirely convinced that Mr Wilson’s statement is correct. Indeed, if we retain the original wording of the Bill, we will almost certainly have an outcome that merely confirms amalgamated boundaries suggested in the listing of the 11 council areas. Amendment No 6 provides the commissioner with the flexibility that many Members of the House have said is desirable and necessary. In her statement announcing decisions on the future shape of local government, the Minister stated: “our vision is of a strong, dynamic local government that creates vibrant, healthy, prosperous, safe and sustainable communities that have the needs of all citizens at their core.” — [Official Report, Vol 29, No 1, p2, col 1]. There is no problem there, then. The Minister also stated that she recognised: “that it is important that local government should be closer to citizens and that a balance of responsibility between the Assembly and local government is necessary.” — [Official Report, Vol 29, No 1, p1, col 2]. I urge the Minister and the Assembly to get that balance between the Assembly and local government right from the start. What better way to create strong and vibrant local government than by giving local communities, through the commissioner, meaningful power to influence the make-up of their own local government units? If we do not allow for the commissioner to make meaningful changes in light of the consultations that he or she will have with local communities, we will be sending out the message that all our pronounced commitments to creating vibrant and strong local government that is for the people and close to the people of Northern Ireland were merely words. I urge the Assembly to support amendment No 6. Mr Gallagher: The SDLP continues to support the review of public administration in the interests of delivering a better service to the public and improvements in accountability, value for money and accessibility. The SDLP’s key concern in relation to local government is to ensure that the new councils are representative of the community and operate on the basis of legislative power-sharing concerns. From the outset, our party said no to the proposed super-councils, and since 2002, we have stated our concerns consistently that the reduction of council numbers on the scale that was proposed would have Balkanised the North. We welcome the scrapping of the seven-council proposal, which, as we said at the time, was British Government policy. It was wholly inappropriate for Northern Ireland, and it was supported only by Sinn Féin. Indeed, it was an issue that divided Sinn Féin and led to the muzzling of Francie Molloy, who is one of that party’s most experienced local government representatives. I notice that Mr Molloy has been in the Chamber today, and, no doubt at this stage, he is having the last laugh on some of his colleagues who sought to suppress his views. The SDLP amendments in group 1 are aimed at giving flexibility to the commissioner as to the number of boundaries and councils. It is clear from our amendment No 14 in group 2 that such flexibility will ensure that the new councils are based on population profile, demographic needs and geography, rather than on an arbitrary and rigid decision that has been born of political negotiation. The SDLP amendments also propose to delete from the Bill the proposed mergers, leaving increased flexibility for the commissioner to consider appropriate linkages under the set criteria. The Minister’s proposal fails to allow any flexibility. It is much too early to decide that a council such as Fermanagh District Council, for example, which is the only council the boundary of which coincides with the county boundary, should have no future. Similarly, the Bill proposes to split the two councils that largely make up the constituency of West Tyrone — Omagh District Council and Strabane District Council. Given the close links that exist between those two district councils, it is much too early to decide that they should have no future under the proposed arrangements. Opportunities should be given to the people who count most — the ratepayers — to put their views to the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. At that stage, several options would remain open. Is there anybody who, in setting out to build a house, would show an architect a piece of ground and ask him to build a house with 11 rooms? Mr Weir: If the honourable Member were to approach an architect or builder and ask them to build several houses, would it be good to advise them to build houses with perhaps 11 or 15 rooms or any number of rooms between? Mr Gallagher: That matter would best be referred to the Committee for the Environment. To return to what I was saying, we all know that the architect will build the 11 rooms, but they may not all be equal — the job cannot be done in the way that has been asked. For example, one room will have no windows, or another will be difficult to access because the corridor needs to be narrow. When embarking on a major task such as this, it therefore makes sense to leave some elbow room. Amendment No 2, which provides for the number of councils to be between 11 and 15, leaves that kind of flexibility. Mr F McCann: Does the Member not agree that amendment No 2 is aimed not at giving the commissioner flexibility, but reflects the SDLP’s inability to set a firm figure for the number of councils and that it also has more to do with protecting the council electoral base of the Member’s party than with anything else? Mr Gallagher: I made the point clearly, and I assure everyone that the SDLP is united in its support for the amendment. I regret — Mr A Maskey: Will the Member give way? Mr Gallagher: I will not give way again. I am disappointed that dithering by the DUP and Sinn Féin has resulted in the Bill’s accelerated passage. That forces the Assembly to address matters in a rushed manner, and the mounting pressure is largely of the Minister’s making. The SDLP acknowledges that swift progress is required, but I stress that my party will not support accelerated passage for future legislation on related matters. Ministers must not be allowed to proceed on that basis because it is unhelpful to the democratic process, particularly the scrutiny mechanisms of the Assembly. It is remarkable that the equality impact assessment — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to the debate, Mr Gallagher. Please stick to speaking about the amendments, not about accelerated passage or equality impact assessments. Mr Gallagher: To put the debate in context, the SDLP’s amendments are designed to provide an opportunity to improve one aspect of an unsatisfactory process. The Assembly is rushing through important legislation without resolving other fundamental issues such as power sharing or reaching an agreement to hand over significant powers. I urge Members to support the SDLP’s amendments Nos 2 and 5 and their consequential amendments. Mr Weir: The amendments fall into several categories. The Alliance Party’s amendment No 1, and amendment Nos 7, 9 and 17 to which it gives rise, deal with whether there should be 11,15 or, in theory, seven councils, a matter that was previously discussed in the Chamber. The amendments are wrong because the parties struck the correct balance by proposing an 11-council model. A similar balance must now be struck between the need for local accountability and identity — and the DUP considered the seven-council model to be inappropriate for Northern Ireland because it fails to satisfy that requirement — and ensuring the appropriate economy of scale, balanced rates and councils of similar size. Councils must be of a sufficient size to be able to cope successfully with their new functions and absorb their new powers. I hope that, as the Minister said, there will be a rolling process rather than a one-off transfer of powers. Councils must be of the correct economy of scale to handle the future transfer of additional powers — and the 11-council model caters for that. It was remiss of me not to declare an interest at the outset: I am a member of North Down Borough Council and the vice-president of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). The Alliance Party’s attempt to push for a 15-council model does not reflect the new situation in Northern Ireland: the Assembly is up and running, and a degree of consensus must be achieved. Dr Farry: The number of powers that were originally to be transferred to local government, in lieu of regional accountability in Northern Ireland, was revised, and significantly reduced, in the light of the fact that there is now an Assembly in place. Does the Member accept, therefore, that there is a reduced need to transfer powers to local government and a stronger argument for retaining more of the existing structures rather than for the more radical reforms being suggested? Mr Weir: I am not sure whether the Member is joining his erstwhile colleague, Brian Wilson, in arguing for the retention of 26 councils. 11.15 am I agree with the Member that the situation is new; we have an Assembly that is up and running and we have regional accountability. Consequently, the context has changed considerably, and the rationale that was used to justify the seven-council model — with a range of powers that would, effectively, operate in the absence of regional accountability — no longer applies. Therefore, it is important that all parties try to ensure that the level of functions match the number of councils. What we have put in place will provide that degree of balance. The Alliance Party’s 15-council model, which was debated last week, is out of step. The 11-council model creates a balance between having economies of scale and councils that are not too remote. The Alliance Party amendments, Nos 3 and 4, list particular councils and propose to give maximum flexibility to the commissioner. However, those amendments would throw a number of councils, including those named on the lists, into a high level of uncertainty. For example, if a council is not on the lists, how can it plan for the future? Will Strabane District Council, for instance, be looking to the north and Londonderry, or east to Omagh, or will it be joining up with councils in a different direction? Actually, looking from Strabane, it is southeast to Omagh: one feels that the political compasses that the Members from South Antrim and I would be following might be slightly different. Under such circumstances, how can councils make plans? There would be a least a year’s delay, because a lot of the work would have to be put on ice. How, for example, could there be any examination of transitional committees if, in one case, your council is to be part of 11 councils, or, in the other case, it is to be part of 15 councils? In which direction would your council be going? The same applies, to some extent, to amendment No 6 from the Ulster Unionist Party. The other Alliance Party amendment, I believe, refers to a reduction in the number of councillors. The proposer of the motion, when speaking to Mr Alex Maskey earlier, referred to councillor numbers. Perhaps the maths had not been done particularly well. The current proposals cater for 460 councillors, although the commissioner can make adjustments in individual cases. The Alliance Party proposal caters for 410 councillors, which is a reduction of 50. I am sure that the proposer might be keen to go to some of his colleagues and indicate which of them are to be culled — some of my colleagues seem to be suggesting names already. If we are to have proper local representation, and be responsive to local needs, we need to have the correct number of councillors. The Alliance Party’s proposal for a more than 10% reduction in the number of councillors provided for by the Bill has not been thought through. Regardless of my criticisms of the Alliance Party amendments, most of them give us some degree of certainty. The SDLP’s position of having anywhere between 11 and 15 councils throws us into a quagmire of chaos, confusion and delay. Mr Gallagher: Does the Member agree that when reviews of constituency boundaries are carried out at Westminster, in Northern Ireland’s case, a Bill is usually worded so that there is a band — for example, that there will be between 17 and 19 constituencies? It does not say that there shall be 18 constituencies. Mr Weir: I appreciate the Member’s point. However, that does not compare like with like. The Assembly must deal with the current 26 councils and modernise local government. Let us remember that constituencies’ boundaries can change. One of the weaknesses of the Ulster Unionist’s position is its reliance on that. To change a constituency’s boundaries may affect its electorate and Member of Parliament. However, it does not affect the institutions, services or people’s jobs. If one were to say to a council’s employees that because there could be any number of councils, its boundaries could be anywhere and it could be grouped with other areas, quite frankly, one of their complaints would be — indeed, the concern has, rightly, been raised by many local government employees — that they have not been given a high level of certainty. Provision must be made for that. The roulette wheel of choice, which could land anywhere between 11 and 15 councils as a number pops into the head of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, abrogates the House’s responsibilities. The DUP has proposed that there should be 11 councils; other parties have proposed different numbers. However, the position of four parties is to provide some certainty about the number of councils that are put in place. At least, that will bring about a situation in which the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner is not simply given carte blanche to produce any number of councils off the top of his or her head. A situation in which there could be any number of councils between 11 and 15 would fall down because no consultation has been carried out at any stage on any number of councils other than seven, 11 and 15. It would also be a clear abrogation of the House’s responsibilities. Clearly, some of the SDLP’s other amendments are essentially consequential; amendment No 5, amendment No 10 and amendment No 18 flow from amendment No 2. The reasons for rejecting them all are the same. I appreciate the argument that has been made by the proposers of the Ulster Unionists’ amendment No 6. That party has not put down a separate proposal for the number of councils, despite the fact that, at times, it seemed to be a point of high principle that the number should not simply be 15, but that it should be 15 on the basis of parliamentary constituencies. I accept that the Ulster Unionist Party has not put down an amendment to that effect because it will potentially support other parties’ amendments on the matter. With regard to the issue of 15 parliamentary constituencies, as was illustrated by the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mr Gallagher, I should reiterate that the number of parliamentary constituencies, by nature, can be completely free flowing. During the past 30 years, the number has gone from 12, to 17, to 18. There cannot be certainty about the number of councils. Although adjustments can be made to councils’ boundaries, there cannot be a situation in which the number of councils changes constantly, perhaps every 10 years. No one believes that the current process will be pain-free for councils. However, the high disruption that would be caused by constant change to the number of councils does not bear thinking about. Although the Ulster Unionist’s amendment No 6 is intended to create the highest level of flexibility, to leave out the words “the major” means that councils would constantly be cast into a situation in which they did not know what direction they would go. Mr Kennedy: Will the Member give way? Mr Weir: I will give way in a moment. For example, will the majority of Strabane District Council’s area go to Omagh or Londonderry? That has important implications for planning because delays would be caused while local arrangements are being made. That would create uncertainty for staff, as, in a sense, it is not an institution that is being transferred. Indeed, if there were a situation in which it was not known whether 45%, 55%, or 60% of a council would be transferred in one direction or the other, how, for example, would debts and financial arrangements between councils be handled when the merger takes place? The high level of flexibility that is currently provided by the Bill creates a situation where although a large proportion of an area is moved from the council to which it had been designated in order to accommodate local need, the institution is left intact. That does, at least, create a proper level of engagement for staff and, from an institutional point of view, a pathway to go forward. Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he accept that coterminosity in terms of public representation would be useful for ratepayers, like taxpayers, to be able to clearly identify their Member of Parliament, their Members of the Assembly, the boundaries of their local government area and their local councillors? There is another point in favour of having a higher number of councils. In my constituency there is the prospect of the people of Crossmaglen and Crossgar being served by the same local government. In reality, the two areas bear little correlation — how can we call that successful local government? Mr Weir: Of the two points that the Member raised, I will first deal with the idea of coterminosity of elected representatives. Delivery of services is more important to people. At the moment, in most cases, we do not have coterminosity between parliamentary constituencies and council areas. I have not noticed a great deal of confusion about that; if someone has a problem, he can approach his Assembly Member or local councillor to help address that. That issue is, therefore, slightly overplayed. If we were proposing something that was out of step with every boundary in Northern Ireland, and the Members sitting opposite were proposing that everything be put in line with coterminosity, then there would be more merit in looking at it. However, the parliamentary constituencies which the Member is so in favour of are not coterminous with health authorities, education boards or police districts. Indeed, there is no coterminosity with parliamentary boundaries on any subject. In relation to the issue about Crossmaglen and Crossgar, clearly there will be a range of places that do not harmonise together, which is an issue that will come in at a later stage. It is possible to pinpoint areas that sit 500 yards apart but which have little in common. Dr Farry: Will the Member give way? Mr Weir: I want to first finish my point. I will be happy to give way after that. Under the proposed new boundaries, which will be a matter for the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, Crossgar would be at the northern end of the Newry, Mourne and Down district council area. That is a clear case in which there could be a strong argument that the people of Crossgar may or may not see themselves as more linked with Ards. That is a poor example. My colleague beside me Simon Hamilton, who is from the Strangford area, is unsure as to how keen the people of Ards would be about embracing the people of Crossgar — that is another question. The point is that the diverse areas at the ends of any model of local government are exactly those that must be looked at to ensure that boundaries reflect local need. There is plenty of scope within the Bill to do that already. Dr Farry: I thank the Member for giving way. This is on the point that Mr Kennedy made — in our usual efforts to help the Ulster Unionist Party. Surely the issue about combining Down District Council with Newry and Mourne District Council is broader than simply whether towns and villages at either tail end are appropriately grouped. A map of that area shows that the Mourne Mountains are in the middle of the presumed grouping. Bearing in mind that these new councils are supposed to be more efficient in service delivery, does the Member think that it is sensible to have an elongated council area with a major mountain range in the middle? Mr Weir: I am not quite sure what the Member thinks that we should do with the Mourne Mountains. I am aware that the party prides itself on its environmental credentials. However, I am not altogether sure that many people in the Mourne area would be keen on flattening the mountains so that we could create a more homogeneous unit. The reality is that there are going to be different geographical features. People have found themselves on different sides of the Mourne Mountains in the past, and I point out to the Member that roads have been invented and that people can drive over mountains. He must live in the real world. 11.30 pm Sadly, the adoption of amendment No 6 would create a high level of confusion. The Bill provides scope to be able to cope with those sorts of local issues. For example, people in Castlederg might see themselves as being closely linked to Omagh, and people in Strabane might feel attached to Londonderry. Consideration must be given to where the Clogher Valley and Fivemiletown belong, and where Crossgar, Killyleagh and Saintfield see themselves. One could highlight a range of areas to be debated, including the Cregagh Road, Twinbrook and Poleglass, and Rathcoole. Ultimately, an independent person will listen to the public and make judgements on those issues, and there is scope for that. The amendments do not add to the Bill; they simply reinforce the desire of certain parties for a particular outcome. We have the right balance for making improvements to the working of the Bill, and the amendments that are listed in group 1 should be rejected. Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I sometimes wonder whether the debate is about the indulgences of councillors and bums on seats, rather than achieving effective government. Perhaps today’s debate on the aggregates mapping programme will deal with the point that Mr Farry raised about the Mountains of Mourne, now that the Minister of the Environment is here. I have studied the Marshalled List of Amendments from Members who like to consider themselves to be the official opposition, and I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the general public to support them. A few debates have taken place on the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill, and I reiterate what I said during those debates. Although there are concerns in the nationalist end of my own area about the council area to which it will move, a model of 11 council areas has been agreed, which should create a balance in local government and deliver effective government. Perhaps parties that want 15 councils — or some other number on which they cannot agree — would do well to accept that. Rather than debating amendments to the Bill, we should be moving on to ensure that the next level can be implemented so that the future of local government can be radically changed for the benefit of its people. The amendments are an attempt to do the work of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner in advance of his or her appointment. Not only do the amendments try to change the terms of reference but they narrow the council areas to such an extent that it would not be possible to work outside the parameters that would be drawn. That is not acceptable, so neither my party nor I can accept the amendments. I call on Members to move the Bill forward and to let us get on with the work that the public wish to be carried out. That work is about creating local, proper, fair and effective local government. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Beggs: I declare an interest as a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council. My fellow Member for East Antrim Alastair Ross said that the choice was between seven and 11 council areas. However, he did not say why a choice had to be made between those numbers. I fail to understand why the option of having 15 council areas has been excluded from that consideration. Mr Ross: If the Member does not realise why the choice was between seven and 11 council areas, perhaps he is not as politically astute as he would let on. Mr Beggs: I understand that the Assembly has the ability to determine the make-up of local government and its boundaries. If we are willing, we can determine any number of boundaries that we wish. Some Members might not be willing to consider alternative numbers, and wish to work within the straitjacket of seven councils that was proposed by the Northern Ireland Office, but there is no reason why the Assembly should not be free to decide to adopt a different model, and I am disappointed by the Member’s response. Mr A Maskey: Will the Member give way? Mr Beggs: Before giving way, I wish to develop my speech. I will give way later, but I want to make some other points first. Although some people consider coterminosity irrelevant, it is important. Some Members argue against linking any boundaries — why not break all natural boundaries? Normally, there are good reasons for fixing boundaries. In my constituency of East Antrim, the Antrim plateau consists of hills that create a natural physical boundary. In addition, there is a large upland area that is sparsely occupied and, consequently, services are patchy and there are significant distances between centres of population, such as Larne, Carrickfergus and, potentially, Ballymena. Therefore, coterminosity is important. Everyone accepts the Westminster boundary for East Antrim, and the reasons for determining that boundary are clear — the Antrim hills form a natural physical barrier. Nevertheless, some Members wish to ignore the reality. Owing to hills, such as the Antrim plateau, community interaction corresponds to valleys and historical links to market towns. The 15-council model consists of one council area, comprising the four Belfast constituencies, in addition to 14 council areas outside Belfast. People who live, work, shop and socialise in Belfast, bearing in mind their postcodes, consider themselves to be in Belfast, and there is great merit in uniting them in one area in which council services and additional services that are proposed to be devolved to local government would be provided. The proposal to link — as some Members have suggested — sizable portions of Belfast to areas that are some distance away, such as Lisburn, does not appear to be logical. Therefore, I fully support amendment No 6, whereby it is proposed to remove the words “the major”. The Local Government Boundaries Commissioner must be given some degree of flexibility, and there are advantages in that, rather than operating in the proposed straitjacket. The fact that the proposed Bill has been granted accelerated passage is disappointing. Nevertheless, the Assembly made that determination. However, although many worthwhile and reasoned amendments have been tabled, the DUP and Sinn Féin appear not to be open or willing to consider any of them. A back-door deal seems to have been done between those parties, and, afraid of the deal unravelling, they seem unwilling to consider any alternatives, whether or not they have merit. Worthwhile amendments have been tabled and, hopefully, at least some members of those parties are open to considering sensible proposals. As I said, the 15-council model would utilise the accepted and agreed existing boundaries, and, indeed, everyone in the Chamber was elected on the basis of those boundaries. We all accept that, as time goes by, boundaries change slightly and are moved. However, let us attempt to ensure that the vast majority of services are delivered consistently. My East Antrim colleague Alastair Ross appears to be content with the proposed link between Larne and Carrickfergus, and Ballymena. The co-ordination of those local services will involve the consideration of considerable distances. I fail to understand why the shorter distance between Antrim and Ballymena, which is about 12 miles — as opposed to the 20 miles between Larne and Ballymena, or the longer distance between Carrickfergus and Ballymena — has not been observed. I mentioned natural geographical boundaries, which have also dictated the major roads and transport links in constituencies. The major roads in the East Antrim coastal area do not run from Carrickfergus or Larne to Ballymena, but follow the coastal strip, such as the A8 or the A2. There is also a railway track and other natural good lines of communication along the coastal strip. Where those natural geographical transport links are not followed, it will be more difficult to deliver effective services. The practical outworkings of the proposals of the Bill reinforce my view that 15 councils represent a much better model. I ask Members to envisage monthly local-council planning meetings during which a member of the public wants to lobby his or her local councillors to reject an application for apartments or windows that overlook his or her house. That planning meeting will either take place in one area — meaning that councillors will have to travel an unnecessarily long distance — or planning meetings will be rotated among Larne, Carrickfergus and Ballymena. Either way, constituents will have to travel a considerable distance to make their points. The argument for 15 councils is focused on the creation of accountable and accessible local government. The effect that the proposed 11-council model will have on East Antrim is particularly unfortunate — it will not work well and will not provide a good service for the ratepayers and constituents of Larne, Carrickfergus and parts of Newtownabbey. Therefore, I urge Members to not be drawn into the back-door deal that the DUP and Sinn Féin have made. Mr Neeson: Does the Member agree that there is already close co-operation between Larne Borough Council, Carrickfergus Borough Council and Newtownabbey Borough Council? The relationship among those councils should form the basis of the boundaries for the new council. Mr Beggs: Most local people will agree that there is much co-operation among those councils on various issues, such as the attempts to improve the rail service in East Antrim. Most people in East Antrim shop in their neighbouring towns and boroughs, if not in their own borough. Naturally, people travel along the transport links in East Antrim to shop, and they have connections to the surrounding areas. I urge Members to think carefully about the constructive proposals in many of the amendments so that the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner can have sufficient flexibility to apply a degree of common sense to the outworkings of the proposals, and not be restricted by the straitjacket that the DUP and Sinn Féin have imposed in a Stalinist fashion. Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I note that my party has received criticism from Members to my right — they are right in many senses — Mr Gallagher: And wrong in others. Mr McGlone: Yes. We have received criticism for being consistent in our views. Our consistency has been shared at grassroots level by some members of Sinn Féin — I will talk more about that later. The criticism has come from a party that changed its view at the drop of a DUP hat — it was the only party in Northern Ireland to rubber-stamp the view of the British Government on this matter. Those observations must be put on the record, acutely made, and shared with other Members. Essentially, the SDLP wishes to provide local government, equality, accountability, engagement and a sense of belonging for our local communities, as well as responsiveness — through local government — to those communities. 11.45 pm The SDLP amendments are designed to ensure that the new councils are based on population profile, democratic needs and geography rather than on an arbitrary and rigid decision born of political negotiation. That approach is not novel; it mirrors the logic of the Bill because it applies a similar logic to the creation of ward boundaries as it does to that of council boundaries. If flexibility is appropriate at ward level, why should it not be granted at council level? If ward boundaries take account of communities, and rural and urban representation, why is that logic not applied at council level rather than being denied? Some of the other proposed amendments aim to achieve a similar end by alternative means. In particular, amendment No 6, in the name of Mr Kennedy and his party, makes infinite common sense. It makes particular sense to those living in communities that will be arbitrarily divided by a line on a map. That division could equally be aligned at council or ward level, so flexibility must be built in to allow the realistic needs of local communities to be accommodated. The UUP amendment is pragmatic, and I believe that anyone with common sense will see it as such. For that reason, the SDLP fully supports that amendment. Mr Weir commented earlier that the SDLP amendments would create uncertainty. However, the uncertainty that has been in place for several years is the result of a lack of decision-making. My party’s proposal will allow flexibility to move from the general to the particular when the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner has all the relevant details. It will also allow the commissioner to respond to local needs realistically and pragmatically. The 11- to 15-council model allows the commissioner to do that, based on how the consultation process goes. Previously, when the seven-council model was imposed on us, there was no consultation. In my own area, that proposal saw a local government boundary straddle three counties from south Derry across to Belleek in County Fermanagh. All the SDLP asks is that pragmatism and realism are allowed to prevail in the commissioner’s deliberations. The party wants elbow room to be built in to take account of real local needs in the wider community. Mr B McCrea: When I arrived in the Chamber, I was given a briefing by my party colleagues. It was suggested that the UUP should adopt a reasoned approach on the issue and that it should attempt to persuade rather than cause a fracas. I am a man who is easily guided in these matters, so that will be my position. It is helpful to have party colleagues because they have reminded me to declare an interest as a councillor on Lisburn City Council. Therefore, rather than grandstanding, I ask Members of the DUP and Sinn Féin to consider the real and genuine concerns of the UUP. I also ask the parties to consider that the adoption of the UUP amendment — which simply removes the words “the major” — would afford the necessary flexibility to come up with a satisfactory solution for all. Earlier, I heard a Member argue — I believe it was a Sinn Féin Member — that, by tabling this amendment, the UUP is trying to do the commissioner’s work in advance. That is not the case. The party’s aim is to give the commissioner sufficient flexibility to allow him or her to come up with a set of boundaries that fully reflect the natural boundaries with which people identify. When we last discussed the issue with the Minister, she assured me that we could raise that matter with the commissioner. I listened to Peter Weir’s long alliterative list of town names, which included Crossgar, Crossmaglen, and so on. We must see whether we can resolve the matters that have arisen in a much more benign manner. I have mentioned Castlereagh before, but I can see no real reason why it should be included as part of the city of Lisburn. Were I not in a benign mood, I might be tempted to say that the emperor has no clothes. Mr Elliott: I do not want to steal the Member’s thunder, and I have no personal interest in this matter, but perhaps the city of Lisburn will be included in the borough of Castlereagh. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr B McCrea: That, of course, is a danger that we all face — an alternative option would be that the city of Belfast might be included in the borough of Castlereagh. It is almost a case of the borough with no mates. My point is that there are natural contours. My friend Roy Beggs explained the situation from his point of view. We in Lagan Valley understand that the River Lagan runs through the area and that there is a natural hinterland, so it would make sense for us to have locally devolved powers for that area. I daresay that there are folks from Poleglass and Colin Glen who consider themselves to be part of West Belfast. Certainly, when I go there to have a chat with them, they tell me that it is very nice to see me, but that they do not really travel to Lisburn, rather they travel to Belfast. Therefore, that is another issue. Our amendment seeks to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to allow the commissioner to take those points on board. It flies in the face of common sense to say that Castlereagh is part of Lisburn — it is part of Belfast. Mr A Maskey: The Member is talking about the need to ensure greater flexibility, but will he advise us how taking away an option — by removing the words “the major” from the clause — would offer greater flexibility? Logic dictates that by doing so, it would narrow the commissioner’s scope. Mr B McCrea: Of course, that is another issue that we would have had a chance to discuss had the Bill not been given accelerated passage. Amendment No 6 seeks to remove the words “the major” from clause 1(2) so that it will read “or the part”. It would be appropriate to place areas of Castlereagh in the Lagan Valley council area. Mr Spratt: Will the Member give way? Mr B McCrea: There seems to be a bit of queue. Mr Spratt: When the Member last spoke on this matter, he did not know which areas were part of Castlereagh Borough Council and which were part of Belfast City Council — he said that the Rosetta area was in the Castlereagh Borough Council area. Will he accept that many areas in the Castlereagh Borough Council area lie very close to Lisburn — Carryduff, Moneyreagh and other areas. Does he further accept that the people of Castlereagh do not consider themselves to be part of Belfast, in the same way as people from Lisburn probably do not consider themselves to be part of the city of Belfast? Part of Lisburn lies close to Belfast, too. Perhaps the Member has not recognised that fact, or perhaps he does not want to recognise it. Mr B McCrea: Once again, it appears that a sophisticated argument is lost on Mr Spratt. My point regarding the Rosetta area was that decisions about which places belonged in which council areas were being made arbitrarily, particularly when it came to parts of Castlereagh. I thank the Member for making my argument for me. There are parts of Castlereagh that have a natural affinity with, and should be included in, Lagan Valley. However, there are other parts of Castlereagh from which one could throw a stone into Belfast. Perhaps I should not say that, because we do not throw stones any more. The point is that we would have to ask people whether they regard themselves to be citizens of Belfast. Members are in danger of standing in their little ivory towers in the Assembly and inserting pins in maps. Ask people on the ground in which part of the city they live. I do not know whether Mr Spratt has recently spoken to anyone in Castlereagh, but I would be pretty sure that a referendum that asks people whether they live in Belfast or in Lisburn would discover that a fair majority consider that they live in Belfast. I am not trying to predetermine an outcome. I am not saying that I know better or that I have got a particular plan. All that I am saying is that we would like to give the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner the powers and the ability to take those points on board and to examine the issues. There is a substantial case to be investigated. Our approach to the first block of amendments has been supported by Mr McGlone and other Members, including, as usual, the Alliance Party. It is tremendous to have that support. Members know that they are in big trouble whenever Dr Farry stands up to support them. When the Bill was granted accelerated passage, there was at least a suggestion that people would bend over backwards to try to accommodate reasoned and reasonable amendments. We were told that there was not enough time for a Committee Stage, so we are tabling genuine amendments, which we urge Members to take on board. That would make the Bill more acceptable to the electorate. The question is whether, in a reasonable and responsible manner, the Assembly can agree amendments that benefit everyone in Northern Ireland. I hope that Members accept my argument in the spirit in which it has been made, and support our amendments. We will consider the other group of amendments separately. Dr Farry: I declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council. Essentially, two broad issues are being debated. The first is how many councils Northern Ireland should have — 11, 15, or perhaps somewhere in between. The amendment represents the last opportunity to avoid taking a retrograde step by allowing the Bill to set in stone the figure of 11 councils. The second issue is the approach to delivering new councils and taking forward the process of redrawing boundaries, irrespective of whether there are 11 or 15 councils. Some consequential amendments arise from both issues. There is a trade-off between the number and size of councils, and the powers that they are granted. The wider community, and some Members, share the Alliance Party’s view that the proposed level of powers to be granted to the new councils simply does not warrant moving to 11 councils instead of the current 26. The establishment of 15 councils is much more appropriate. Of course, we are all in favour of efficiency and economies of scale in local government. That is important across the whole ambit of governance in Northern Ireland. However, some of the approaches that we are taking towards boundaries will inhibit efficiencies and economies of scale. 12.00 noon The other aspect of local governance relates to a sense of local identity, civic focus and access for constituents to the people who are making decisions on issues that affect their daily lives, such as planning, local roads or the emptying of bins. That is very important. Local representation is an important issue in our society, and we are trying to encourage that across the board, on a range of issues, including policing, for example. It would be a mistake to move away from that. It has been argued that the 15-council model would make for a more difficult process than the proposed 11-council model. One could not group the existing 26 councils together as readily, as we would end up with parts of some existing council areas being thrown in with others. That would result in problems involving the division of assets and liabilities and other issues regarding resources, among other things. In any event, that process will come with a move towards the 11-council model. As has been said, it appears that the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner will be able to tinker with the boundaries of the proposed new 11 council areas. That will inevitably lead to bits of council areas being transferred, with the result that we will have to address the issue of resourcing and how that is split up between different councils. Therefore, that argument is a bit of a red herring, to put it bluntly. My other concern relates to the issue of identity and focus for councils. In the seven-council model, seven meaningless names were proposed — Belfast, East, Inner East, South, North West, North East and West. I do not see how, under that model, people would have felt any real sense of identity with the areas from which their local services were being provided. I am not sure that the process will be much better under an 11-council system. The process of creating names for councils is inherently difficult and flawed, and I am sceptical about whether it will be successful. I wish to focus primarily on the second aspect of the first group of amendments, which is the approach to drawing the boundaries. I accept that there may be a political deal on having 11 councils rather than 15, and, if the DUP and Sinn Féin have made that deal and are sticking to it, fair play to them. Indeed, it may well be a harbinger of things to come. I do not agree with what those parties have done, but it is their democratic right to ram their deal through the House if they so choose. However, there are some amendments that would improve the process of devising boundaries for the new councils, irrespective of whether there are 11 or 15. It is important that those amendments be properly considered. I am disappointed that there seems to be no flexibility regarding the response to our proposed agenda, which is very constructive in trying to improve the Bill. Nevertheless, we accept that the Bill will go through the House. The proposed process is essentially one of grouping existing councils together in twos, threes or fours. As other Members have said, that is an inflexible way of moving forward. The point has been made that there is a certain logic regarding the administrative process, as the transition from one set of councils to another will give officers and councillors a sense of direction regarding the preparations that they will have to make. However, there may be some changes to boundaries anyway, so that idea does not entirely hold water. In the longer term, this is not about making things easier for administrators or councillors over the next two or three years — this is about putting in place boundaries that will be with us for 30 or 40 years. It is about creating service units, focuses of local identity that respond to the needs of the people of Northern Ireland — the people who actually put us here. It is for their consideration that we must have a proper analysis of what is happening, rather than simply doing something quickly to not inconvenience people in the short term. Frankly, if we had dealt with the issue earlier, there would be less haste from Members on some Benches who are trying to rush the Bill through at the eleventh hour. The Local Government Boundaries Commissioner has a mandate to modify the district boundaries, provided that is done within certain parameters — that is, retaining the major part, which we interpret as the major geographic part. However, that has not been tested by law and may not be interpreted as such by a new Boundaries Commissioner. The Alliance Party fears that the flexibility that exists on paper will not materialise in practice. The provisional recommendations made during the process in 2006 and 2007 resulted in little change. Except for an acknowledgement of some minor defacements, no changes were made to the council districts transferred to the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner by the direct rule Administration. There were no proposed changes to the East, Inner East, North East, North West, South or West district areas with one small exception — the Magilligan Strand in the North West district. Belfast’s boundaries were changed but, again, that process was flawed and, ultimately, unsatisfactory. The revised recommendations submitted by the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner made only two further changes to district boundaries: Mussenden Temple was moved from the North West district to the North East, and Glencregagh Road — a street that will now have its 20 seconds of fame — switched from the proposed East district into the Belfast district. I do not take much confidence from the previous process that was executed by the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, which, essentially, was based on the same procedures that the Minister of the Environment wants the House to support. Belfast will pose a particular problem for the future commissioner. The boundaries of Belfast are tightly drawn; they do not reflect the people of Northern Ireland’s sense of the natural setting of Belfast. In my experience, most people who live in what is formally known as the Castlereagh Borough Council area consider themselves part of Belfast, and, therefore, frankly, I am at a loss to understand Mr Spratt’s earlier remarks. The south-eastern boundary of Belfast, which is carried forward through this legislation, dates back to 1898. Given the changes to Belfast over the past 110 years, we are starting on a flawed basis. The Belfast district area needs to expand and become a natural unit. Members have talked about recognising Belfast as our capital city and recognising the important role that it plays in driving the wider regional economy. We have discussed giving the councils community-planning powers to capture that as far as possible. Belfast’s productivity levels are well above the Northern Ireland average, and it is doing very well when compared with standards in the rest of the UK. We need to focus on making Belfast an effective unit of local government. In 2006, the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner changed the west and south-east boundaries of Belfast. However, a number of anomalies remained. For example, three wards, namely Four Winds, Beechill and Newtownbreda, were effectively left hanging outside the boundaries of Belfast and were to be served by the proposed East district. In essence, those wards were left to hang in the wind without consideration of logical service delivery, and many people found that disconcerting and illogical. There is logic in the south-east boundary of Belfast being defined as the ring road or, more logically, the build line around Belfast that continues to the Castlereagh hills. Identity and service delivery are important considerations too. The notion that sections of south Belfast would be serviced by a council area based on a Castlereagh and Lisburn configuration is barking mad. Logic dictates that Belfast is better placed to provide services to people who live in those communities. We must ensure that the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner has sufficient flexibility to ensure that such issues will be addressed. There are several other anomalies in the current arrangement of boundaries. As for the proposed hook-up between Down District Council and Newry and Mourne District Council, I have already pointed out that the issue is not simply that towns and villages at either end of the proposed new council will not fit in. The problem is that the new council area will have an elongated shape, divided by the Mournes. Although we can get around mountains, they inhibit, to a certain extent, the efficient delivery of services. That argument applies elsewhere, and Mr Beggs used it in relation to the Antrim plateau. That brings me to the proposed combination of Ballymena, Larne and Carrickfergus councils. Many people on the ground believe that a hook-up between the Ballymena and Antrim councils would be, by far, a more efficient and logical solution. Even the railway line that runs from Newtownabbey, through Carrickfergus, to Larne creates a sense of identity and ties people together in those communities. We are trying to encourage more people to use public transport. That combination would be straightforward, and I am at a loss to understand how the proposed boundaries were arrived at. In the west, there is a proposed merger of Fermanagh and Omagh councils. Although that topic is close to Minister Foster’s heart, it is causing concern on the ground, because it is no secret that there is little love lost between Omagh and Fermanagh. We may talk about communities trying to make new arrangements in the short term, but there will be major problems in implementing the process in that region. Although there is a certain logic in linking Fermanagh with Omagh, one could make a similarly strong argument that Fermanagh could be linked as readily with the Clogher Valley, perhaps even as far as Dungannon. The Local Government Boundaries Commissioner should have the flexibility to determine which of those solutions is the more accommodating. Mr Neeson: Will the Member give way? Mr Weir: Will the Member give way? Dr Farry: I will give way first to Mr Neeson, then to Mr Weir. Mr Neeson: Does the Member agree that the Fermanagh case is a classic example of why not all the councils in Northern Ireland must be the same size or have the same size of population? Dr Farry: Yes, I agree with my colleague Mr Neeson. As far as I am concerned, if there were to be 15 councils, Fermanagh District Council could remain in place. Councils across the globe vary in area and population size. At times, one must draw a boundary around a coherent local community with a small population in order to preserve the community’s sense of coherence and identity. Fermanagh is a classic case in that regard. Mr Weir: I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned Clogher Valley, and whether it should be part of the Fermanagh/Omagh amalgamation. Clogher Valley is currently one district electoral area, which is equivalent to about one quarter of Dungannon. Will the Member accept that the current proposals could place part — or all — of the Clogher Valley into Fermanagh or Omagh? That would be permissible under the proposed regulations, not precluded by them. Although I do not wish to anger the Minister by being in any way derogatory about Fermanagh, surely one of the drawbacks of establishing a separate Fermanagh council — and affording it some degree of special status — would be that people in Fermanagh would be much more heavily represented than people in North Down or Ards. Surely we should strive for a greater level of equality of representation to ensure that there would be a roughly similar number of people for each councillor? For example, people in North Down and Ards do not live in a rural area, and they should not be treated, therefore, as second-class citizens. 12.15 pm Dr Farry: I thank the Member for his intervention. I made the point that the Fermanagh/Omagh corridor could be extended to include Dungannon. That would be as logical as linking the respective district councils of Fermanagh and Omagh. It would also, by and large, reflect Westminster’s system of boundaries. However, as I said last week, it would not be wise to follow the Westminster boundaries, given that they can change under the periodic boundary commissions. We should consider only minor defacements of the new council boundaries within the next 30 or 40 years. I disagree with the Member’s second point. I speak from the perspective of North Down, an area which is largely urban and suburban, rather than rural. It is fundamentally important that Members represent areas of similar geographical and electoral size in the Assembly. However, each local council can be considered separately; some councils will have large populations and some will have small populations. A process that attempts to ensure that each councillor has an equal number of electors is flawed; the UK, and other countries, demonstrate that. Mr Weir: I appreciate the Member’s point. However, in the UK, a number of decisions are made on the basis of shared services, or by drawing representation from the councils. It has been indicated that the libraries authority will have 11 councillors, one drawn from each council. Now, there will inevitably be some variation in the size of council electorates. However, Fermanagh has a smaller population than Bangor, for example. A single council for North Down and Ards — or however it is drawn — could have three, four, or five times the population of Fermanagh, but would have the same level of representation on Northern Ireland-wide bodies. Surely, such a system ultimately discriminates against people in certain areas. Dr Farry: That is inherent in any local government system, and cannot be avoided. There are major discrepancies in the populations of the 11 proposed council areas. Belfast will inevitably have more councillors — potentially 60, as opposed to 40 elsewhere. It is a mistake to compare regional bodies with a body such as the Assembly, which is established on firm and clear democratic principles. They are different bodies performing different tasks. It is inherent in local government systems — in the UK and in other countries — that councillors from different authorities, representing varying electoral populations, will come together. We cannot have uniformity in our approach — local councils are not administrative units merely designed to dole out services. Local councils provide an important focal point for local identity, local representation and civic pride; they must not lose those functions. There is a strong case for preserving the coherent unit of administration in County Fermanagh. I have family with deep roots in Fermanagh, so I am not talking through my hat completely. There are two broad issues here. The first is whether there should be 11 or 15 councils. The Alliance Party believes that the 15-council model is by far the wiser and more balanced option. The second issue is the approach that will be taken to determine the boundaries. From the Alliance Party’s perspective, it makes much more sense to identify a list of councils around which new boundaries may be devised, rather than try to pair off council areas. The danger in taking the latter approach is that one can easily end up with a doughnut effect — where the centre of the proposed council area lacks population and where the population is concentrated on the fringes, creating difficulties both in the formation of identity and in service delivery. Alternatively, one can end up with a council area that is dumbbell shaped, where the major population centres are located at opposite ends of the council area and are separated by a sparsely populated area: that, too, creates problems for service delivery. If one considers the current model, one can see that across Northern Ireland each local government district has a major town as its focus, and comprises that town’s hinterland. That makes great sense as regards service delivery. I appreciate that the present model is for councils with different powers than those proposed for the new councils, but I fear that what is before us is going too far in the wrong direction. Mr Elliott: I am pleased to be following Mr Farry. I also feel privileged that two Members from North Down are taking such a keen interest in County Fermanagh. Long may they keep up that interest: not just in relation to boundaries, but in the other aspects of life that we debate. I look forward to their support in other issues. I declare my interest as a member of Fermanagh District Council. If either of the North Down Members wishes to contest a seat on the new council, they are welcome to do so. We have heard much debate on the proposed 11-council model and how it will affect individual areas. We have heard much about Counties Antrim and Down and about some aspects of the greater Belfast area. I am surprised that the greater Belfast area has not been debated more fully: it is the key to the entire proposals. However, the west of the Province takes precedence; and I am surprised that it took contributions from two North Down Members to pose a significant debate on it. I want to consider the relationships between the existing council areas of Fermanagh, Omagh, Strabane and Dungannon. The majority of members of Omagh District Council want their district to be joined with the Strabane District Council area: the majority of Strabane councillors want to join with Omagh District Council. Neither will get what they want. Fermanagh councillors would prefer amalgamation with the Dungannon council area — as Mr Farry has indicated — as opposed to joining with Omagh District Council. In answer to an oral question a few weeks ago, the Minister suggested that the proposed new council might be called the “greater Fermanagh” council. I assume that she has the support of her West Tyrone colleagues for that suggestion, though we have not heard from them. I wonder how the people in Strabane council area will react to being swallowed up by Londonderry: that is effectively what will happen. I also wonder how the people in Omagh council area will react to being swallowed up by Fermanagh. Last week, we debated the proposals for St Lucia and Lisanelly army barracks. Omagh District Council is proposing to have a sub-office of the new council in that location. I would be happy with that, so long as the main council office remains in Fermanagh. I notice that Mr Molloy is sitting on the Benches opposite, looking quite satisfied that his party has undergone a Damascene conversion from a seven-council model to an 11-council model. I do not know whether there is truth in the rumour that he now wants the rest of the Sinn Féin Members to be suspended, since they have changed stance. However, a Damascene conversion has been undergone by both main parties; the DUP and Sinn Féin. Those parties now appear to be coming up with an allegiance — or perhaps it is just an agreement on the matter. Mr Ross: We have heard a lot about the DUP’s change of position. Will the Member tell us what page of the DUP 2007 manifesto contains any commitment to 15 councils? Mr Elliott: Of course, the DUP says much more than it publishes in its manifesto, and it does not stick to that anyway. I do not want to dwell on that point, because it may highlight how that party has changed its position again. The issue in the west of the Province concerns the dominance of one council over another and about areas that do not have a general allegiance to one another. Strabane District Council and Omagh District Council, for example, were probably quite happy to work together and would have had an easier working relationship than Omagh District Council and Fermanagh District Council. Indeed, the councils of Fermanagh and Dungannon may have a better working relationship than some of the other suggestions. My other query concerns debt management in those local council areas. That is not covered by this provision, but it will have to be examined in the future. Coterminosity is also a big issue, and I heard — Mr Weir: Will the Member give way? Mr Elliott: I heard the Member’s earlier comments, but I would be happy to listen to them again. Mr Weir: The Member has highlighted a serious issue — the potential debts and asset bases of different councils. Does he accept that working those out will be a lot more difficult if there is complete fluidity in that it may not be known whether a major part of an existing council area is to be included in any new council area? If a major area is to be included, as opposed to small adjustments being made, will that situation not make those calculations more difficult? Mr Elliott: I do not believe that the inclusion of the major or minor part of a council area would make any difference; indeed, I do not see how such a difference would be made. Mr Weir spoke earlier about other bodies in the Province, such as the health and education bodies, that do not have a coterminosity project. We have to start somewhere, and one easy area would be with the elected bodies in the Province. If the council, Westminster and Assembly constituency areas covered the same general area, matters would be simplified. Mr Beggs: Will the Member agree with an earlier point that the policing districts did not follow the new proposed boundaries? That point made the argument about why coterminosity is not necessary. Under the policing legislation, a policing district will naturally be created for each of the new council areas. In my own constituency, the policing district will stretch from Ballymena through Carrickfergus to Larne. That is a large, sparsely populated rural area with a natural geographic boundary within which common difficulties can be dealt with. Will he therefore agree that some of the earlier arguments were shallow? Mr Elliott: I agree. That point brings me back to the west of the Province and policing — I think that the police have gone ahead with the new F district on the basis of the seven-council model, having already started the process of amalgamating the Cookstown, Omagh, Dungannon and Fermanagh areas in policing structures and running them as one. That will need to be thought out again. There is talk that there may be only one commander for what will be two new council areas that will cover not only those — Lord Morrow: Does the Member accept that an error was made by the police in moving ahead before the RPA had been determined? We now have the amalgamation of the four districts that he talks about — Cookstown, Dungannon, Fermanagh and Omagh, which is the nerve centre of the area —under the one command, so does he accept that that decision was wrong, or that it appears to be wrong now? We did not need to wait until now to discover that it was wrong because some of us said at the time — and perhaps he was among us — that that was a premature decision that should have been postponed until the outcome of the RPA could be realised. 12.30 pm Mr Elliott: I thank the Member for his comments, and I agree with him. Many of us, especially in the west of the Province, urged the police not to go down that road at that time. The F district in the west of the Province was more advanced than any of the other police units across the Province that were merged. It is imperative that we achieve some degree of coterminosity in such areas. If the health and social care trusts, the education and library boards, the Planning Service and the district policing partnerships are working in different areas, we will not make progress, because co-operation is required. I support the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendments. I do not support amendment No 4, which stands in the names of Mr Ford and Dr Farry, but I understand why some Members may be tempted to support it. However, I notice that it does not mention areas such as Armagh, Omagh and Dungannon. I will not be supporting that amendment. Mr Ford: Will the Member give way? Mr Elliott: I am finished, so I am happy to hear the Member’s comment. Mr Ford: I thank the Member for giving way as he sat down, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think that Mr Elliott was in the Chamber earlier to hear my comments about the flexibility of boundaries — something that he spoke about. That is why it is appropriate to specify only one place — rather than a number of places — in each district. In Fermanagh, for instance, flexibility would be permitted so long as Omagh and Dungannon were to co-operate. Mr Elliott: I appreciate the Member’s comments, which I heard earlier. Mr Deputy Speaker: Members will be aware that the Tuesday sitting usually suspends at 12.30 pm to allow the Business Committee to meet. However, we intend to continue today’s sitting until 1.00 pm. The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendments. First, I will speak to amendment Nos 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 18, which seek to change the number of districts. Mr Ford moved amendment No 1, and spoke on other amendments. Before I address the amendments, I acknowledge Mr Ford’s comments about the work of the Environment Committee on the Taxis Bill. On many occasions in the House, I have lauded the Committee for its work on the Taxis Bill, and, yesterday, I was pleased to receive a copy of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 — as I am sure were all Members. Accelerated passage is not the norm, and it was used for the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill as a necessity; I have said that many times in the House. That is not the way in which I want to introduce legislation to the House. I have also given a commitment to the Committee for the Environment that we will continue with the rest of the review of public administration structure — including the local contracts Bill and the local government modernisation Bill — through the proper Committee procedures. It was strange to hear Mr Gallagher’s comments about accelerated passage, because he voted in favour of accelerated passage in the Environment Committee and in the House. I understand why Mr Ford made his comments, but I do not understand why Mr Gallagher felt the need to make his. The Executive considered the council models that were available, and we settled on 11 councils. Contrary to Mr Beggs’s assertion that my party was being Stalinist and that this was a back-door deal, the matter was on the Executive agenda, where it was discussed openly, and it was brought to the House at the earliest opportunity. Rather than be treated as a back-door deal, the issue has been discussed in the Committee, in the Executive and the House, and we have tried to be as open as possible. Some Members acknowledged that the Assembly was up and running, and the Executive believe that, by opting for 11 councils, we have a stuck a measured and reasonable balance between reducing the range of variants that exist between councils — including population and rating income — while promoting and strengthening the links between councils and their communities. I was disappointed with the lack of imagination that has been exhibited on how to engage with local communities, particularly by Mr Beggs. It is depressing that he can be so narrow-minded in that regard. It is hoped that others in the new councils will be more able to connect with their local groups — something that Mr Beggs seems unable to countenance. I refer him to the new community planning power, which has the ability to develop into something exciting for the community. However, its success will largely depend on the new councillors’ ability to deliver it; so, it will be up to them to maximise its potential. In choosing the 11b model, we considered it to be the optimum model for integrating councils and communities so that the new structures would best meet the vision for local government. Amendment No 1 seeks to change the number of councils from 11 to 15. I have already outlined why I feel that that amendment should be rejected. The Executive have considered the issue and believe that 11b is the optimum model for 2011 and beyond. As I have said on many occasions, this is not a definitive end to the process; rather, it is the start of it. Amendment No 2 seeks to introduce an entirely new approach, involving either 11 or 15 council districts or a number in between. When the Executive commenced their review of the number of council districts, it was made very clear that consideration would be restricted to the models already consulted on — that is, seven, 11 or 15 councils. No consultation or detailed work has been carried out on the impact of changing to 12, 13 or 14 councils. I have to say to Mr Gallagher that it is a case of speculative development at its very worst. Therefore, I will be rejecting amendment No 2. In addition, agreeing to amendment No 2 would mean that the number of districts would be determined by the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner rather than the Assembly. It would be a very sad reflection on this House if, after six years of debate on the issue, we shirk the responsibility of deciding on the matter and ask the commissioner to do so for us, without having consulted on it; a point that was made by my friend Mr Ross. We have spent enough time over the past six years arguing about this issue in various forums. It is time for a decision to be made; in fact, the decision was long overdue, and, therefore, I urge Members to reject those two amendments. Not even a plea involving Fermanagh, my weak point, will move me on this occasion — Mr Gallagher and Mr Ford both attempted that. I also inform Mr Gallagher that, rather than not having a future, I believe that Fermanagh will have a very bright future in the new south-west council. Several eloquent speeches were made about parliamentary constituencies and bringing coterminosity. Mr Farry again pleaded about Fermanagh being on its own, although to be fair to him, he did not fall into the trap of equating coterminosity with parliamentary constituency, a point that was largely missed by others. The reality is that, historically, Fermanagh has shared the provision of services with Omagh, be that through health, education, housing or the old L division in policing. I listened carefully to the points that were made about policing and, indeed, when serving in another capacity on the Policing Board, I made the point that a decision on policing should not be made before a final decision on RPA was made. However, the Policing Board will have to deal with that issue by itself because, as I recall, the Patten Report makes it very clear that each district policing partnership will align with the relevant council. The location of the south-west council’s main base can be discussed by Fermanagh District Council and Omagh District Council in the transitional committees. I have every faith in my party colleagues’ ability to argue in favour of their own council areas in Fermanagh and Omagh, and I hope that Mr Elliott will join in that debate instead of grandstanding — or bandwagon-travelling, which is what he usually engages in — about Omagh,. Although amendment Nos 3 and 4 seek to introduce different numbers of districts, both are attempts to change the remit of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. I have already stated the number of councils that the Executive considered to be most appropriate. Rather than listing the grouping of councils that will form the new districts, amendment Nos 3 and 4 specify single current districts. Mr Farry stated that the last commissioner did not alter boundaries in any meaningful way. I think that he will acknowledge that that was largely due to the fact that people knew that a return to devolved Government was imminent, and it was expected that the proposal for a seven-council model would not stand; therefore, there were very few responses to the commission’s consultations and public hearings. I do not imagine that that will be the case with this commissioner. One of the advantages of an elected Assembly, and of debates on legislation, is that the new Local Government Boundaries Commissioner will be able to read the Hansard reports in order to become aware of the mischief, or intention, behind the amendments. He or she will then be able to proceed with the job. Leaving aside the rationale that may have been used to choose the districts that are mentioned in the amendments, what is supposed to happen to the districts that are not mentioned? The Local Government Boundaries Commissioner is given no indication as to what he or she should do with those districts. I suspect, and it was confirmed to me during the debate, that the amendments are an attempt to recreate a similar process to that which was used in 1971. In that instance, the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner was given 26 population centres as the basis for the proposed districts. That reorganisation of local government brought together some 70 different bodies, including county councils, urban district councils and rural district councils. The situation is totally different now. Currently, we have a structure of 26 district councils. It is more logical to refer to those in the legislation by means of an amalgamation. I suggest to Mr Ford that picking out one particular district, which is presumably to be the cornerstone of a new amalgamation, without giving the commissioner the benefit of a steer as to what to do with the districts that have not been mentioned, is illogical and would cause confusion. Amendment Nos 3 and 4 appear to give an indication of what districts are considered to be more important than others. For example, amendment No 4 mentions Fermanagh, but not Omagh, nor, indeed, Dungannon, which is also an important town in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Neither Carrickfergus nor Larne are mentioned, which I am sure will concern Mr Beggs. Many other districts have also been left out. We should not be trying to tie the hands of future councils by outlining in legislation what district should be central. It should be up to the councils to make those important decisions, especially given the discussions that took place last week about Carrickfergus and Ballymena. Dr Farry again mentioned the issue of the names of councils. He will recall that during the previous debate on this issue, I stated that it will be a matter for the new councils to change their names if they are unhappy with the names that are given to them by the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. I also note that Members said that they were concerned because they believed that the Executive have not consulted on the 11b model. That was despite nearly six years of consultation on that issue during RPA. However, the amendments also seek to fundamentally alter the remit of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. That has certainly not been consulted on. By seeking to introduce an approach that is not based on amalgamations, the amendments would cause enormous practical difficulties in the implementation of the legislation, which is an issue about which all Members should be concerned. Amalgamating groups of districts makes the transfer of assets and liabilities relatively straightforward. However, by basing new districts on the major part of a single district, and, presumably, parts of others, the process would be complex, time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, we would not meet the timetable that has been set. If I were cynical, I would say that that is the objective behind some of the amendments, but I am not a cynical person. For those reasons, I do not believe that the amendments would improve the Bill. On the contrary, they would serve to confuse and complicate the drawing of the boundaries, and would make the implementation of the new arrangements more difficult. Therefore, I urge Members to oppose amendment Nos 3 and 4. Amendment Nos 5 and 6 also seek to alter the remit of the commissioner. Amendment No 5 would do so fundamentally by removing the approach of listing districts altogether, which would presumably give the commissioner the scope to alter the number and come up with whatever amalgamations seem appropriate. Amendment No 5 states: “The new local government districts shall incorporate the former local government districts.” I wonder what else they could have incorporated. Rather than having the effect of setting the remit for the commissioner, the amendment is simply stating an observation of the facts. One of the primary purposes of the Bill is to set the context in which the commissioner is to conduct a review. Removing any reference to current districts simply expects the commissioner to pluck the new districts out of the air. There was much debate in the House last week — and, indeed, today — about coterminosity. The Executive chose the 11b model on the grounds that, although it may introduce some challenges in achieving coterminosity, it will be able to be implemented as required. It is inappropriate to ask the commissioner to consider the practical reform arrangements when his or her primary role has to be to ensure electoral equality across districts. 12.45 pm I think that it was Dr Farry who raised the issue of an equal electorate. The legislation states that the number of electors per ward in a district should be as equal as possible. However, that is not the case for district electoral areas, and that legislation does not specify that the electorate in each district must be equal. Dr Farry: I thank the Minister for giving way. It was actually Mr Weir who made the arguments that she rejected. I agreed with the Minister. The Minister of the Environment: Amendment No 6 — an Ulster Unionist amendment — seeks to make a much less radical change to the remit of the commissioner. However, the effects on the ease of implementation would be similar. The commissioner cannot possibly be asked to consider issues such as coterminosity when delineating electoral boundaries. Mr Kennedy made much of coterminosity with parliamentary boundaries, but then proposed amendment No 6, which removes the requirement for the major part of former districts to be incorporated into the new districts. That could lead to districts that are not coterminous with anything. As Minister of the Environment, my job is not about making life easy for politicians, insofar as the ability to represent the same parliamentary constituency as an MP. My job — and the remit of the review of public administration — is focused on citizen-centred service delivery. Many of the arguments about coterminosity with parliamentary constituencies are rather self-serving. Mr Kennedy also said that amendment No 6 would secure meaningful change to boundaries. I have already mentioned what happened in respect of the previous Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. As the legislation stands, I do not accept that the commissioner will not have the ability to make meaningful change. The legislation provides the commissioner with that ability — it is certainly not a straitjacket, as was alleged by Mr Beggs. Mr B McCrea: Will the Minister explain the difference between “meaningful” and “major” changes? The Ulster Unionist Party has highlighted that issue. The Minister mentioned the view of some that, when the commissioner reads the Hansard reports, he or she will believe that, if amendment No 6 is not passed, he or she will not be allowed to make major changes. The Minister seemed to indicate that that is not the correct interpretation, so will she clarify how much scope there will be for the commissioner to make substantial changes to the areas concerned? The Minister of the Environment: I made that very point during the Second Stage debate on the Bill. I raised that matter with the Member’s colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning. The legislation allows the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to consider the different areas and to decide which need to be moved to other council areas. The Member mentioned the fine borough of Castlereagh — his argument about removing the term “major” from the legislation was in fact a very good argument for keeping it in the legislation. The last commissioner regarded “major” as a spatial term. That does not mean that the new commissioner will regard it in the same way, but I am sure that he or she will take legal advice on that matter. The new commissioner will not regard “major” as a term of art — that is something on which Members need to reflect. We heard much about common sense today, and that is a common-sense term. It will be up to the new commissioner to determine what “major” |