Northern Ireland Assembly Monday 12 May 2008 Executive Committee Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Committee Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill First Stage The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I beg to introduce the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [NIA 15/07], which is a Bill to provide for the licensing of operators of certain goods vehicles. Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of future business until a date for its Second Stage is determined. Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill Further Consideration Stage Mr Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, under Standing Order 35(2), the Further Consideration Stage of a Bill is restricted to debating any further amendments tabled to the Bill. Two amendments have been tabled. Members will have received a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments, which provides details of the amendments. Amendment No 1 deals with arrangements for directing employees of the commission, and amendment No 2 deals with the appointment of a member as a chief commissioner. The amendments will be debated together. I remind Members who intend to speak that they should address both the amendments. After the debate, I will put the Question on amendment No 1 and then ask that amendment No 2 be moved formally. The Question on amendment No 2 will be put without further debate. Members are aware that certain matters relating to the appointment of the commissioners designate are before the High Court and are therefore sub judice. I encourage Members to bear in mind Standing Order 68. If that is clear, we shall proceed. Schedule 1 (The Schedule to the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, as substituted) Mr Ford: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 4, line 2, at end insert “6A. All employees of the Commission shall be subject to the direction of the Chief Commissioner, or if there is no Chief Commissioner, of a member nominated by the Commission.” The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List: No 2: In page 5, line 21, at end insert “(6A) As from 1 August 2012 sub-paragraph (6) shall have effect with the substitution for head (b) of— ‘(b) shall designate a member as Chief Commissioner;’” — [Mr Ford.] Members at this end of the Chamber are simply attempting to address some of the deficiencies that we perceive to be in the Bill as it stands after amendments were made to it at Consideration Stage. The two amendments are tabled for different reasons. Amendment No 1 was not selected at Consideration Stage because of the technical order in which the amendments were presented, so we are presenting it again. Amendment No 2 is necessary to improve on, and tidy up, the pantechnicon amendment No 8 tabled last week by the junior Minister Mr Donaldson. During Consideration Stage, we made it clear that greater coherence and central direction is required in the workings of the victims’ commission than that currently provided by the effective appointment of four commissioners. Each commissioner will have a veto over key aspects of the commission’s work, which sends out the wrong message: that there is a divisive and apartheid system rather than a single, united and coherent one. A key aspect in obtaining greater coherence and central direction is ensuring that the commission’s staff work as a whole instead of being divided and relating to one commissioner or to one group of victims. That is the approach that seemed to be suggested from the Sinn Féin Benches, particularly by Mr Molloy, in the debate last week, and we fundamentally oppose it. We want to ensure that the commission operates as a whole, recognises the common interests of all victims and seeks to meet their needs. Victims’ groups should not be carved up among the commissioners and perhaps treated in different ways. An example of the approach that we advocate can be seen in the work of Bertha McDougall when she was the Interim Victims’ Commissioner. Undoubtedly, Mrs McDougall’s appointment by Mr Hain was tainted — in fact, it was illegal. However, that did not affect her ability to relate to victims and victims’ groups across society and from all backgrounds. Her background did not prevent her from relating to people from different sections of society. That is an example of how the commission can work as a whole. My party has said on record that any of the four commissioners designate could do the job, which is an opinion that has not changed. The Alliance Party remains opposed to a commission of four, but the House has stated its opinion on that issue. However, a commission of four must be a single commission that happens to have four members, instead of four individuals who are expected to work in different directions, relate to the public differently, take a different approach and say different things in public interviews, which are all inherent dangers in the current structures. Most damaging would be the suggestion that staff members should have responsibility for dealing with one particular sector or group of victims. That must be avoided, which is why there is simple direction set out in amendment No 1: “6A. All employees of the Commission shall be subject to the direction of the Chief Commissioner, or if there is no Chief Commissioner, of a member nominated by the Commission.” That is the only way to ensure a coherent and single approach. It is unfortunate that, due to the technicalities of the ordering process, amendment No 1 was not selected last week. However, it merits thorough discussion and inclusion at this stage of the Bill’s progress. Amendment No 2 follows up some of the points that were made last week by Mr Donaldson — who, unfortunately, is not in the Chamber — when he tabled amendment No 8. Amendment No 2 seeks to ensure that the common direction that I have referred to applies across the commission through the existence of a chief commissioner. For the benefit of Members who did not hear the debate last week, the appointment of a chief commissioner would not create a hierarchy of victims — it does not, it is not intended to and it would not. Amendment No 2 takes account of the points that Mr Donaldson made when he spoke of the possibility of a chief commissioner and a group of part-time commissioners, which would be sensible. It makes the simple statement that, for the commission to function properly, there must be a chief commissioner for future commissions appointed after 1 August 2012. The current process largely follows on from the flawed way in which the First Minister and deputy first Minister at first failed to appoint a commissioner and then announced the appointment of four commissioners when there was no legal basis for doing so. If that problem is resolved at this stage, it would be a clear statement that there is no reason why the requirement for a chief commissioner should not be put into place for a second and subsequent commissions following this commission’s four-year term. I am not entirely convinced of the bona fides of the two parties that are leading this Executive in this matter. That is why it is essential that the legislation contains a specific requirement — not a vague aspiration, as expressed by Mr Donaldson last week — for a chief commissioner for second and subsequent commissions. There must be serious forward movement in bringing together a single, coherent view in the commission. If, at this stage, there is a danger that the four commissioners could proceed in different ways, it is important that that danger be avoided and that such problems should not exist in any future commission. The difficulty is that during Consideration Stage, amendment No 8 was a pantechnicon that covered every possibility and made it difficult to debate the internal details of the amendment. The Alliance Party and the SDLP believe that amendment No 1 today, which amends a small part of the provisions of amendment No 8 as it was put last week, would create a more workable Bill. I doubt whether any amendment, however modest, will be passed, and I suspect that by the end of today we may well be congratulating Ms Ní Chuilín for the way in which she has enforced her Whip on DUP Members as well as on those of her own party. However, Members on these Benches believe that there are issues that need to be tested. Mr Spratt: It is with a feeling of déjà vu that I oppose the amendments tabled by SDLP and Alliance Members. I feel a bit like Bill Murray in the film ‘Groundhog Day’— I have been through all his before. However, it is the democratic right of Members to table amendments. The arguments put forward last week in relation to the provision of a chief commissioner still stand. The DUP will be opposing both amendments because we believe that the commission for victims and survivors as it stands provides the necessary flexibility to deal with the issue of having a chief commissioner in the future. That flexibility should exist, and the amendment tabled at Consideration Stage by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) provided for that. I reiterate my desire to see an effective commission, and believe that a mechanism already exists by which a chief commissioner can be appointed in the future. The commissioner for victims and survivors as it stands is an effective model by which the needs of victims can be met. If it were not so, the DUP would not be supporting its formation. We have a duty to the victims of our country to deliver where they have previously been ignored. I urge Members to unite behind the Bill, to recognise its potential for good and to give it the support it deserves. I oppose the amendments. Mr Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I oppose amendment Nos 1 and 2. We have reached an important stage of the Bill, through accelerated passage, and its provisions now need to be put into place. Today’s amendments do not add anything to the Bill because they are an attempt to pre-empt what might happen in the future. That is not necessary. I have not found in Mr Ford’s explanation, or in anyone else’s, any real reason why a chief commissioner is necessary; why someone should direct the other commissioners, and why there must be someone to tell employees of the commission what to do in particular circumstances. We are employing people who are very capable of doing the job. We also want to involve as much as possible the families of victims and survivors when determining how to move this matter forward. It is very important that, at this stage, the process is victim-led rather than resulting from a diktat or from legislation that leaves the victims out. The legislation must allow some flexibility and give the commission the legislative footing that it needs to deal with the issues faced by victims and their families. That is the main issue. I ask Members to oppose amendment Nos 1 and 2 and to let the commission get on with its work. I hope that a flexible approach can be adopted and that victims and survivors and their families can play a role in designing the future strategy for victims. Go raibh maith agat. 12.15 pm Mr Kennedy: On behalf of my party, I support the amendments. I do so in the full expectation that — yet again — OFMDFM will pay no heed whatsoever to the views expressed in the House. One assumed that the Department would have taken care to listen to the House and to respond positively to at least a few of the many proposed amendments to the Bill. However, sadly, we witnessed the glib and arrogant dismissal of every single amendment that Members brought forward. It is helpful to reflect briefly on some of the very reasonable amendments that have been dismissed thus far. The number of commissioners will not be capped at four. There is to be no chief commissioner; nor will there be prohibition on commissioners or staff members who have conflict-related criminal convictions. Each of the amendments sought to improve the working of the commission, and each was dismissed by OFMDFM. Of course, last week, we witnessed the spectacle of members of junior Minister Donaldson’s party — and I am sorry that he is not here today — taking some time to lecture the House on the need to avoid the terminology of conflict-related convictions. Mr Spratt, who is present today, said that that matter refers: “only to people who have been convicted of crimes that are related to the Troubles, and not to paedophiles” — [Official Report, Vol 30, No 3, p163, col 1]. The junior Minister then went on to support Mr Spratt’s contention. Yet, that pressing need to prevent paedophiles from being employed by the commission seems to have been entirely absent from the junior Minister’s mind when the legislation was drafted. It seems that it took a four-week delay in the introduction of accelerated passage before the need to address the issue of criminal convictions entered the junior Minister’s mind. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member must address the two amendments that are before the House today. Mr Spratt: The Member mentioned my contribution to last week’s debate. Does it not mean that everyone with any criminal conviction — [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Now that the debate is back on the rails, let us keep it there. Mr Spratt: I simply wanted clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Kennedy: We should be at least partly grateful for the fact that junior Minister Donaldson and his colleagues have a unique interpretation of the meaning of accelerated passage. Given what has happened in previous debates, most of us expect OFMDFM to dismiss automatically the two current amendments, not following consideration of their merits, but simply because the present incumbents of OFMDFM appear to dislike scrutiny. The word “flexibility” was used often last week by the two major parties, the DUP/Sinn Féin coalition — the Axis — when talking about the Bill. Amendment No 1 provides flexibility, and provides OFMDFM with the flexibility to appoint a chief commissioner, if required. Indeed, during last week’s debate on the Bill, junior Minister Donaldson said of one of OFMDFM’s amendments: “we have made provision for the future appointment of a chief commissioner.” — [Official Report, Vol 30, No 3, p125, col 1]. That being so, amendment No 1 merely ensures that, regardless of whether a chief commissioner is in place, the commission will function effectively with one of the commissioners fulfilling the functions of a chief commissioner where employees are concerned. In the absence of such a provision, employees of the commission could — and would — be left in limbo. What is worse is that it is not difficult to envisage circumstances in which the potential and temptation would exist for employees to appear to be subject to the direction of particular commissioners, rather than to the commission as a corporate body. Therefore, in addition to respecting the principle of flexibility, amendment No 1 also ensures, as much as is possible within the constraints of the Bill, that the commission functions as a corporate body rather than as a mere clearing house for four separate commissioners, which remains a considerable concern. Amendment No 2 reflects the concerns of many in the House that the present DUP/Sinn Féin impasse over the need for a chief commissioner will have to be resolved at some stage. Obviously, the four-week delay in accelerated passage was not enough time to allow that resolution. Hopefully, therefore, amendment No 2’s provision allowing four years might assist the present OFMDFM incumbents to resolve their dilemmas. During last week’s debate, junior Minister Donaldson indicated on several occasions that the OFMDFM amendment, which has since been incorporated into the Bill, provides that, at any time: “The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly…may designate a member as chief commissioner.” It appears that only one party in the House, Sinn Féin, which is the party of junior Minister Kelly, is opposed to the concept of a chief commissioner. I assume that I am right in saying that every other party in the House supports that concept. That being so, why does junior Minister Kelly not accept this amendment? Let him tell the House, now that he has the opportunity, the reasons that he and his party are opposed to the appointment of a chief commissioner. Mr Donaldson has already stated that the OFMDFM amendments to the Bill: “represent a consensus in OFMDFM, and there is agreement on how those issues should be addressed.” — [Official Report, Vol 30, No 3, p139, col 2]. Surely it is not too much to ask that the junior Ministers, over the next few weeks, can ensure the early appointment of a chief commissioner. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 seek to improve the Bill, and as is the normal course of parliamentary procedure, I commend them both to the House. Indeed, more in hope than in expectation, I trust that they will be considered on their merits. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Shannon: It was only last week that we sat in the Chamber and discussed the details of the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill, and here we are doing the same thing again. Some Members are, perhaps, changing and posturing as much as possible, but my party and I will not do that. The DUP has changed neither its mind nor its position since last week. We have, then as now, the victims’ best interests at heart. The Bill provides the framework for good and proper delivery of the help and support to victims and survivors that has been withheld for so long. Therefore, we will reject the amendments, allowing the Bill to stand as it is. I was misquoted last week as saying that this was not the place to discuss this issue. I did not say that, and I checked the Hansard report to make sure. I said: “Some Members wish to use this issue as a point-scoring exercise. I urge those Members to make their points elsewhere.” — [Official Report, Vol 30, No 3, p121, col 2]. I was not saying, as was suggested, that arguments should be made elsewhere; I was saying that those who were on a soapbox to make points should realise that the Victims and Survivors Bill was not the forum for getting one up on a political opponent. During the many hours of debate on the matter, I have listened carefully to Members’ contributions, and I remained unconvinced that many of the amendments would make a positive difference to the lives of those who I am seeking to help. Mr McNarry: Mr Deputy Speaker, as you properly took the time to remind Mr Kennedy of the importance of sticking to the motion, could I perhaps ask that consistency be applied in the debate? Mr Shannon: I will bear that in mind, but I had to clarify last week’s misconception. If the amendments had added to the Bill’s protections or enhanced it, the DUP would have supported them. Instead, we were subjected to a great deal of posturing and pointless arguing. Nothing would have induced me to believe that any real point was being made, other than the fact that some Members believe that the DUP is simply out to flex its muscles. Let us make it clear — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members to keep to the subject under discussion. Mr Shannon: I thought that I was keeping to the subject; that is, the debate on the Bill. Some £36 million has been allocated to victims. That is more than double the budgetary allocation awarded to victims under previous devolved Governments. I, too, want to ensure that as much money as possible is directed to front-line services. Therefore, I want to prevent the future expense of further changes to the legislation to allow for part-time commissioners. Dr Farry: The Member cites the importance of directing as much money as possible to front-line services. Surely that is an argument for having one commissioner rather than four or potentially more. Mr Shannon: The matter has been debated well today, and we have made our point clear. There is no sensible need to restrict the number of commissioners, when common sense will show that there will never be as many as 10 full-time commissioners, as some Members have suggested. Amendment No 1 was not, and is not, necessary, nor is there any need for the compulsory addition of a chief commissioner at this stage. Therefore, the DUP also rejects amendment No 2. It is clear that some people have an axe to grind and are determined to do so. Mr Ford: The Member told us why he rejects both amendments, but will he explain why, five weeks ago, members of his party told not only us but the media that they agreed with the substance of the amendments? Mr Shannon: I cannot speak for the party, but I can say that the Member misquotes us. Our stance on the matter last week was clear, and our stance today is clear. Members of the Alliance Party should consult Hansard to find out what was said. Some people clearly have an axe to grind, and they are determined to do so, regardless of the issue. I have no point to prove and no axe to grind. It is simply my duty as an elected representative, and as a concerned individual, to secure the best deal possible, as soon as possible. That is also my party’s duty. That is what we have done, and will continue to do, for the people of the Province. I reject the amendments. Ms J McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, oppose the amendments. Neither amendment adds anything to the Bill, which is about implementing legislation that will put a victims’ commission in place, so that the issue of victims and survivors of the conflict can become the central focus. Nothing that I have heard in today’s debate or in previous weeks’ debates has changed my mind. The commission will ensure that the structure needed to address victims’ various needs is established. We must focus on the needs of victims and survivors, and allow the commission to get on with its all-important work, rather than raising barriers to prevent it from doing so. Nothing will happen with the £36 million of funding and if we continue to stall the Bill by tabling amendments to it. The funding will not be released directly to victims and survivors. Therefore, it is very important for Members — [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. One matter on which we can all agree is the fact that Members should address their remarks through the Chair. Mr McNarry: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Member take this opportunity to qualify her remarks and to introduce her opinion on democracy in debates? Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr Ford: The Member talks about delay. Will she remind the House who twice failed to move the Bill’s Consideration Stage? As I recall, it was no one from the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party or the Alliance Party. If there has been any delay, it appears to have come entirely from her party and from her colleagues opposite. 12.30 pm Ms J McCann: I have listened intently to the debate and the Alliance Party’s amendments — among others — are stalling the Bill. Groups and organisations that, for years, have dealt with victims’ needs have accumulated a wealth of skills and expertise. The Assembly must release funding to allow those groups to continue and to develop community-based initiatives, which, throughout the years, have helped many victims and survivors. Such progress is being stalled by the amendments. I urge Members to adopt a united stand, demonstrate strong leadership and direction, and support the commission’s important work for the future. Stalling the Bill is not in the interests of victims and survivors. Go raibh maith agat. Dr Farry: The Member for West Belfast Ms McCann mentioned stalling. Nothing of the sort is happening in the Chamber — we are debating legislation in accordance with Standing Orders. Although it may be news to Sinn Féin, that is how a proper legislative body operates. A Bill is subject to a First Stage and a Second Stage; then a Consideration Stage and a Further Consideration Stage are opportunities for Members to table amendments. Once those have been considered, the Bill reaches its Final Stage. No additional business days have been scheduled by the Alliance Party, the SDLP or the Ulster Unionist Party to frustrate the passage of this Bill. Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member acknowledge that, at this time last year, OFMDFM informed the House that a decision on the appointment of a commissioner would be taken before the summer recess in 2007? Dr Farry: Absolutely. The Alliance Party has tabled the two amendments because of the crisis of confidence and the cynicism in Northern Ireland about the legislation and the proposed commission. It is important to establish safeguards to ensure that the process represents properly the interests of victims. Had the First Minister and deputy First Minister last year outlined to the Chamber the benefits of a commission — compared with the appointment of a single commissioner — and, subsequently, proceeded with the consultation necessary to develop public policy in Northern Ireland, the credibility of the proposals would have been enhanced. However, the proposal for a commission was, clearly, an afterthought. It was a political fix to bypass the inability to agree on the appointment of a single commissioner, as outlined in the legislation. However, for better or for worse — and for worse, in my opinion — the House decided to take that route, and, consequently, today we must try to improve that flawed legislation. Amendments must establish safeguards to ensure that a single, co-ordinated strategy for victims is applied consistently across all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. There is fear that the proposed commission will lead to a Balkanisation of victims’ needs. As the Alliance Party, the SDLP and the UUP have on many occasions stressed, that is not a reflection on any of the individuals. It is a broader issue, concerning structures that will last beyond the tenure of the incumbents who will be appointed as commissioners in subsequent weeks. We must seize the opportunity to get this right. In all commissions, staff are responsible to a single individual. That is the logical method of operation. It is not about hierarchy; rather, it concerns ensuring consistency in public body administration. In particular, I do not need to remind Members of the crucial importance of such a system when public funds are at stake. Although the matter could be incorporated into Standing Orders, there is, frankly, no community confidence that that will happen. Therefore, it is imperative that the legislation ensures that it happens. The same circumstances apply to the appointment of a chief commissioner. The current draft of the legislation, as amended last week, provides for the possibility of the appointment of a chief commissioner. The public’s perception of the present situation is that, although four parties support the idea of a chief commissioner, that was vetoed by Sinn Féin, and a compromise was cobbled together by OFMDFM. Mr Molloy: Will the Member accept that that is also democracy? Will he repeat his stated opinion that any one of the four commissioners is capable of doing the job? Will he explain why the four commissioners need a schoolmaster to look after them? Dr Farry: I am hardly a schoolmaster. I accept that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is entitled to put such compromises before the House, although some might call them fudges. The Member’s party, however, seems to have difficulty in accepting the right of Members of other parties to table amendments in order to fix flawed compromises and fudges. Notwithstanding the integrity of the four individuals who have, unfortunately, been brought into the equation because the cart has been put before the horse, it is important that proper accountable structures be established to deal with staff matters, not least when public funds are being used. That should be clear to all Members. The importance of the proper use of public funds is the subject of regular discussion in the House. Four parties have publicly stated their support for a chief commissioner. One party used its veto, and the resulting fudge has been carried through into the legislation. A Sinn Féin veto has been written into the legislation. The appointment of a chief commissioner is no closer than it was before the OFMDFM amendment was made. All that we have done is cover up the cracks by suggesting that there might be a chief commissioner, but that that would require the agreement of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. If Sinn Féin is opposed to the appointment of a chief commissioner, it will veto such an appointment today or some time in future. It is critical that the Assembly now agrees amendment No 2 in order to ensure that a chief commissioner shall be appointed and that the issue is not fudged. It is important that the legislation be coherent. It is already a botched job; it is already flawed. Let us not make it worse. This is our last opportunity to make some final corrections and to ensure that there is some consistency and credibility. There must be a single coherent approach to dealing with victims across Northern Ireland. We must avoid the Balkanisation of the crucial issue of dealing with victims. The junior Minister (Mr G Kelly): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I do not intend to address every contribution to the debate. However, a couple of words have been thrown about, such as “apartheid”, which was used by David Ford, and another in-word, “Balkanisation”, which seems to come up during every debate in the House. Let us be clear: this is about an integrated approach; it is about four co-equal commissioners doing the job together in an integrated fashion. The Alliance Party Members go on about integration all the time, but that is what OFMDFM’s approach is all about. I find the use of the word “apartheid” offensive; the use of the word “Balkanisation” is complete nonsense. Mr Ford has misunderstood entirely OFMDFM’s intentions on this matter. Having said that, A LeasCheann Comhairle, I appreciate that all Members wish to ensure that the commission will be effective, and I share that view. However, today’s amendments will not do anything to enhance the work or the functions of a commission for victims and survivors. The two amendments that were made were an attempt to deal with some of the issues that were raised. We were accused of not listening, but we listened very carefully. Danny Kennedy said that we ignored the debates — far from it; the amendments that we tabled showed that we listened to Members and took on many of their concerns. During the Bill’s Consideration Stage, my colleague junior Minister Donaldson emphasised that OFMDFM wanted to maintain a flexible approach to the structure of the commission. The foundation of our approach to working with victims and survivors has been to place those most affected by conflict at the heart of defining needs, recommending strategies and structures, and advocating across Government and across society as a whole. The commission that is described in this legislation is one part of that evolving structure. It is charged to convene a victims’ and survivors’ forum, which will be representative of victims and survivors and will inform the work of the commission. We wish to fully involve the victims and survivors of conflict in driving forward the process, and we must retain the ability to respond to their proposals and recommendations. We have made provision to review the commission’s working practices to ensure their adequacy and effectiveness. Therefore, we reasonably seek to retain the flexibility to respond to need, to ensure the effectiveness of the commission and to be informed by the views of victims and survivors themselves. We have taken that flexible approach because we would never presume that we know what is best for victims and survivors, nor would we prescribe the structures to meet their needs. The changing and evolving nature of the needs of victims and survivors means that the legislation must allow us to have the flexibility to respond to those needs. That is why we tabled our amendments. We have made the right arrangements to allow us to develop our future work with victims and survivors. Amendment No 2 will create a situation in which we will be required to appoint a chief commissioner in four years’ time regardless of the circumstances. I noticed some paranoia in the UUP, SDLP and Alliance Party’s attempts to impose that provision four years ahead. Those parties clearly believe that they will never hold the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minster, and that is why they are trying to tie down the current office-holders. Mr McNarry: Rubbish. The junior Minister (Mr G Kelly): That is what they are talking about. They have no faith in OFMDFM because they will never hold those positions. No one would wish to be tied to such a decision. It would not be sensible — Mr Elliott: I thank the junior Minster for giving way. Will he state for the record whether he classifies himself as a victim of the Troubles of the last 40 years? The junior Minister (Mr G Kelly): That is not relevant to this debate. It would not be sensible to enshrine in legislation in 2008 a commitment to take a certain course of action in four years’ time. That makes no sense whatsoever. We want to see how the current arrangements work, and, as I said, we have already made provision to be flexible in our approach to the evolving structures for victims and survivors and to their changing needs over time. Mr McNarry: Your nose is growing longer, Gerry. The junior Minister (Mr G Kelly): There are a few Pinocchios in the Member’s party — I can tell him that. At least he did not slag me about my chin. [Laughter.] Amendment No 1 deals with reporting arrangements within the commission. It would be unwise to dictate in legislation the way in which reporting arrangements for commission staff will work. That is, rightly, an internal administrative matter, A LeasCheann Comhairle. I ask Members to reject the amendments for the reasons that I have given. Go raibh maith agat. Mrs D Kelly: My arms do not seem to be long enough to pick up my notes. [Laughter.] It is clear that there are still diverging views on why these amendments are before the House today. Some Members argue about whether it is proper democracy. The answer is yes. That is what the Chamber is for. It is for progressing legislation — not that Members have often had the chance to do so, because there has not been much leadership in that regard. However, when we have had the opportunity to debate legislation, my party has proposed amendments in order to improve it. Much play has been made of the necessity of moving this legislation forward. We agree with that — it was not the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party or the Alliance Party that failed to agree on a decision before the summer recess of 2007, at the beginning of the new debating season in September, or shortly before Christmas. Mr Molloy: Will the Member explain, therefore, why her party did not propose legislation to establish a victims’ commission when it held the post of deputy First Minister? 12.45 pm Mrs D Kelly: It is my understanding that it was the SDLP, alongside the Ulster Unionists, that instigated the strategy for victims and survivors, and first recognised — [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: I must repeat the one rule on which we are all agreed: remarks must be made through the Chair. Mr Molloy: Will the Member tell the House who was appointed on that occasion? Mrs D Kelly: That has nothing to do with this debate. I am happy to answer Mr Molloy’s questions, in so far as the budget and the fund was set up for victims and survivors, in opposition to his party’s views. The political instability over the past 10 years is certainly not something in which the SDLP had a hand. It is a matter of regret and bad practice that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has not realised the necessity to bring all staff under the direction of a chief commissioner. It is vital to the interests of commission staff and the commissioners that there be strategic decision-making and planning to deliver a consistent high-quality service to victims. A number of Members seem to think that one could employ all those people without giving them any clarity, responsibility or direction. That is not good employment practice by any stretch of the imagination, and it is something that amendment No 1 seeks to rectify. My colleagues and I are pleased to support amendment Nos 1 and 2 in seeking to inject some coherence and cohesion into the commission, which has been born out of division and indecision. Amendment No 2 has been tabled in a spirit of optimism, moving on from the fiasco that has characterised the process thus far. We propose, from 2012, a framework that is more consistent with the other commissions to which the junior Minister has compared the victims’ commission. In response to junior Minister Kelly, one of the reasons that we want to get this right is so that, when we take over, the legislation is right. There was originally to be the appointment of a single commissioner, so, whatever our misgivings, we are where we are. Having radically altered the commission’s structure, we urge OFMDFM to accept logical and necessary changes and commit himself to the designation of a chief commissioner — if not for the current commission, for the next one. Both Sinn Féin and the DUP failed to listen to our previous arguments, and we seem to be in the same situation today. It is interesting to note that, yet again, when debating the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill, some DUP Members remain absent from the Chamber. It is a matter of public record that those Members made much public comment in support of the appointment of a chief commissioner. The media-services department of the House can provide those who challenge my comments with the evidence necessary to convince them of my argument. There was much talk of Balkanisation and of a hierarchy of victims’ commissioners. Clearly, as Mr Farry said, there is cynicism across the community as a result of Sinn Féin’s and the DUP’s inability to make a coherent decision. Amendment No 8 served to kick their stated positions into the long grass over the next four years: on one hand, Sinn Féin is continually opposed to the appointment of a chief commissioner, and, on the other, the DUP is clearly at some loss as to whether to support it or not. Much of the Back-Bench view, and the view of certain senior DUP party members, is that there should be a chief commissioner. That is the best way forward. Over the years we have heard the cry — particularly from Sinn Féin and the DUP — for their mandate and their views to be respected. That is all that we are asking for today. I have spoken to victims’ groups, and they champion the idea of a chief commissioner. It is strange that one party will not accede to a logical request from the victims’ groups. I support the amendment. Question put, That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 25; Noes 52. AYES Mr Beggs, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Burns, Mr Burnside, Mr Cobain, Mr Cree, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Ms Lo, Mr A Maginness, Mr McCarthy, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr McGlone, Mr McNarry, Mr O’Loan, Mr P Ramsey, Mr Savage, Mr B Wilson. Tellers for the Ayes: Mr A Maginness and Mr McCarthy. NOES Ms Anderson, Mr Boylan, Mr Brady, Mr Bresland, Mr Brolly, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr W Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Ms Gildernew, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McQuillan, Mr Molloy, Lord Morrow, Mr Murphy, Mr Newton, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Ms S Ramsey, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Ms Ruane, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr S Wilson. Tellers for the Noes: Mr Boylan and Mr Brady. Question accordingly negatived. Amendment No 2 negatived. Schedule 1 agreed to. 1.00 pm Mr Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Local Government (Boundaries) Bill Final Stage The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I beg to move That the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill [NIA 14/07] do now pass. I do not intend to cover all the Bill’s provisions in detail. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland as part of the review of public administration. Members will be aware that on 13 March, the Executive agreed that Northern Ireland would have 11 new local government districts based on an amalgamation of the existing 26 districts. That had been proposed and consulted upon as part of the review of public administration consultation document that was issued in March 2005. It is our objective that elections to the revised local government structures will be held in 2011. The Bill sets out the broad boundaries of the 11 new local government districts with reference to the current 26 local government districts, and it provides for the appointment of a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner in 2008. The commissioner’s task will be to review, and make recommendations concerning, the names and boundaries of the 11 new local government districts and the number, names and boundaries of the wards into which each district will be divided. The prompt appointment of the commissioner and early commencement of the review will advance the reorganisation and modernisation of local government. Furthermore, it will go some way towards achieving the deadline of 2011 — a deadline that, I acknowledge, is challenging. I thank Members and the Environment Committee for allowing the Bill to proceed by accelerated passage — although I acknowledge that that was not a unanimous decision. The debates at all Stages of the Bill’s passage have been extensive. Members have had the opportunity in those debates to air a range of opinions, and discussion of the Bill has been thorough. Some 19 amendments were proposed at the Consideration and Further Consideration Stages of the Bill. Although no amendments have been made to the Bill since its introduction, I thank Members for their careful consideration of the Bill and for their contributions to the debates on the merits and implications of the proposed amendments. Subject to the Bill’s being passed, I look forward to working with the Environment Committee and Members on subsequent Bills for developing and delivering a robust and vibrant system of local government. The Bill is an essential step in the process of bringing local government arrangements into the twenty-first century. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Mr Boylan): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá. I support the Bill. The Bill is about delivering services to the public and being responsive to the public. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that the Bill, through the commissioner, will ensure fairness and equality for the public, no matter to which council area they will eventually belong? We must get on with the job of appointing a commissioner so that the time frame for the new councils can be met. I support the Bill. Go raibh míle maith agat. Mr Beggs: The Local Government (Boundaries) Bill is the most significant piece of legislation to pass through the Assembly since the restoration of devolution. It will shape local government for decades and affect most citizens in some way — as has been said many times over the past few weeks. It is, therefore, crucial that we achieve the best Bill possible. Unfortunately, the Minister, backed by a DUP and Sinn Féin diktat, has pushed the Bill through the Assembly by way of the accelerated passage mechanism. The bypassing of the Committee Stage has prevented detailed evidence sessions and Committee scrutiny of the Bill, and, therefore, the Assembly’s scrutiny of the Bill has been limited. It would have been useful to have had a Committee Stage so that Members who are not part of the Environment Committee could have read reports of the evidence and used it in our debates. However, that was not to be. The Minister said that it was imperative that the Bill receive Royal Assent before the summer recess so that the elections could be held by 2011. However, it has been stated that, with the co-operation of the Committee, that goal could have been achieved without accelerated passage. It is now mid-May, and as this session of the Assembly does not end until July, it would have been useful to have been able to use the additional weeks to enable a greater level of public scrutiny. However, the Minister chose to ignore that, just as she has chosen to ignore every opinion offered and every amendment tabled throughout the process. I recognise that there are time constraints, but I do not understand why the Bill was not brought to the Assembly much earlier. Why did the DUP and Sinn Féin not recognise those constraints and ensure that the process occurred earlier? Had that happened, it would have allowed for the level of scrutiny that is normally available to Committees and to the Assembly. The DUP and Sinn Féin have agreed a specific 11-council model that many Assembly Members consider to be an abstract compromise that does not reflect the identity and needs of people in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Unionist Party has always been a strong advocate of the 15-council model and, therefore, strongly supported the Alliance Party’s amendment to the Bill that proposes such a model. However, because we are also pragmatists, we tried to improve the 11-council model by tabling amendments, but our efforts were curtailed. It was for that reason that we attempted to increase the scope and powers of the Boundaries Commissioner to allow him or her more power to change the boundaries and to ensure that he or she would explicitly take the identities and affinities of local people into consideration. Every other party in the Assembly made some reference to the fact that the Bill needs to take more account of the identity and desires of local people. There was general agreement that the Bill would be improved if it were to incorporate such considerations, and the Ulster Unionist Party attempted to convince the Minister of that through its amendments. However, by wilfully refusing to consider any arguments, the Minister and her colleagues in the DUP and Sinn Féin have ensured that their particular 11-council model will come into existence, largely as agreed by them in isolation and beyond the gaze of the public or, for that matter, without any involvement by other political parties. The Minister rejected the amendments that were tabled during Consideration Stage. In recognition of the fact that the Minister would not change the commissioner’s remit, we attempted, last week, to improve the commissioner’s democratic accountability by advocating that he or she consults widely with the 26 councils and holds public hearings in each of the existing council areas. We were trying to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland would have their voices heard during this vital period. Although the Minister has made some noises suggesting that she will recommend to the commissioner that he or she should carry out further consultations, she again rejected the amendments tabled by the UUP. The Bill’s passage has not been the Minister’s or the Assembly’s finest hour. Through its passage and through that of the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill, we are witnessing the mistreatment of parliamentary protocol and the stretching of Standing Orders to the limits of their interpretation. That has been done in order to save the DUP and Sinn Féin having to consider any detailed evidence about, or Committee scrutiny of, their diktat, or having to face any movement away from their carved-up compromises. That is not good for devolution or democracy, and I urge the Minister and the two main parties to resist from taking this direction again. If this were another place, the way that the Minister has treated this Bill and this Assembly could easily be considered to be an insult to parliamentary protocol. However, the fact remains that the passage of the Bill is reaching its conclusion, and the Ulster Unionist Party recognises that a commissioner is likely to begin his or her work soon. We wish that person all the best in their work, and urge them to use every means possible — within the restrictive legislative process in which they must work — to ensure that local government boundaries authentically reflect local identities, rather than following an abstract prescription that has been dictated to him or her in the Bill that has been presented to the Assembly. We will continue to oppose the motion. 1.15 pm Dr Farry: We are discussing a flawed Bill, and that is regrettable, because it means that a major opportunity to put local government on a strong footing for the future is being missed. As Mr Beggs stated, there have been problems with the passage of the Bill. The House, and, I fear, the people of Northern Ireland, have yet again been the victims of the inability of the Executive parties to agree on critical issues in a timely manner. As a consequence of the delays that the Executive created when drawing up their final proposals, the ability of the Assembly and the time that is available to it to scrutinise and debate the matter properly have been curtailed severely. Accelerated passage was granted, which meant that there was no Committee Stage for the Bill. None of the 19 amendments that several parties tabled in good faith was accepted. I fear that the adversarial nature of proceedings on the Floor does not readily lend itself to the proper discussion of what are, in many cases, technical amendments. In contrast, the atmosphere in Committee meetings may have allowed for much more detailed discussions between the different parties and for consensus on a sustainable way forward. Mr I McCrea: Will the Member clarify whether the Committee for the Environment agreed to the accelerated passage of the Bill? Dr Farry: It seems that members of the Executive parties voted in Committee for accelerated passage. There was, however, opposition to accelerated passage, including from my party leader. It is important to note that Committees are not supposed to simply rubber-stamp the decisions that the Executive make; they are supposed to challenge those decisions. It is regrettable that not many Committees are fulfilling that important role. Mr Weir: Does the Member accept that not only DUP and Sinn Féin Committee members voted for accelerated passage but that SDLP representatives did so? Dr Farry: I do not speak for the SDLP; I am sure that its Members are more than capable of speaking for themselves. Indeed, I have no doubt that they will shortly take the opportunity to do so. The sustainability of reforms is important. Members will be familiar with the litany of local government reforms that has occurred in England and Wales over the past 30 years and more. Many of those reforms had to be abandoned after several years. I fear that the same will happen to the 11-council model. That model has not been devised through a proper policy-making process in which the evidence would have led to a natural conclusion. Regrettably, the 11-council model was a political fudge; it was a compromise between the DUP and Sinn Féin. As I said during the previous debate on the issue, I accept fully the rights of those parties, as Executive parties, to make such compromises. Equally, however, they must respect our right, as an opposition party, not to buy in to a flawed policy-making process. A move towards 15 councils would be more appropriate. There is always a balance to be found between the size and scale of councils and their functions on the one hand, and, on the other, the closeness of their decision-making process to people and their interests, including the maintenance of civic identity and coherence of local government units. I fear that that balance has not been found. The powers that have been transferred to local councils amount only to a move from approximately 4% of public expenditure to just over 5%, which does not represent a significant enhancement of powers. Perhaps the most significant move is the proposal to transfer community-planning responsibilities, which I welcome strongly. However, a move to 11 councils is not required to transfer those responsibilities. I suggest that local authorities in Northern Ireland will soon have an average population size that is well out of line with those of any council in the British Isles and Europe. In addition, councils in Northern Ireland have fewer powers than their counterparts in these islands and further afield. A much more extreme solution has been strived for than was needed. Major questions have been asked about some proposed pairings, or groupings, of councils. Some mergers make sense, but others do not. In a number of cases, there will be significant local opposition — one such case being the proposed merger of Fermanagh District Council and Omagh District Council. Arrangements in the south Antrim area — where Ballymena Borough Council, Larne Borough Council and Carrickfergus Borough Council will merge, and Newtownabbey Borough Council and Antrim Borough Council will merge — are not logical, and will not be sustainable. The proposed merger of Castlereagh Borough Council and Lisburn City Council has also raised many eyebrows. That proposal is not logical, if one takes into account how people lead their lives and access services, and that is regrettable. A system that uses a 15-council model as the centre point for devising new council areas would be a much more credible way of operating. It would allow natural communities to emerge; as opposed to a simple, quick-fix solution of grouping councils together. Although there may well be some revisions of the boundaries of the new districts, those will not be sufficient to address the system’s underlying problems. The workings of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner have also raised major concerns. Based on my recent experience of the process, the framework within which the new commissioner will make decisions is not sufficiently robust. The last report was flawed in a number of respects. A similar remit was given to the commissioner regarding the whole, or major, part of the districts that were grouped together. At that stage, only very minor amendments were made to the boundaries of the proposed seven super-councils, the only exception being Belfast. Even in the context of Belfast, there was major disquiet about the illogical outcome. The commissioner should be given more flexibility and be encouraged to think outside the box as regards those types of issues. Belfast should be recognised as a major city region and a major growth dynamic in the regional economy. It would be logical to allow Belfast to expand its natural boundaries and allow Belfast City Council to take a more co-ordinated approach to what goes on in the city. That would ensure that the city reaches its full potential. Such a process would also benefit Northern Ireland as a whole and the councils that border the Belfast area. That includes my own council in North Down, where there is a very close relationship with Belfast City Council. Both council areas would benefit from economic growth. An imperative has been missed regarding the natural layout of Belfast, and it has not been reflected properly in this legislation. Many people have also mentioned the need to reflect local identity and social coherence when drawing up the wards. This process is not about drawing up artificial boundaries or creating class or religious divisions; it is about reflecting natural communities. It is not about breaking up townlands — unless that cannot be avoided — and it is not about breaking up villages. This process is about trying, as far as possible, to keep towns within wards or within groupings of wards. It is about avoiding a situation in which unsightly wards are drawn up across huge swathes of countryside, touching upon the edges of different settlements. That would create issues about how credible district electoral areas would subsequently be drawn up, and how credible local representation would be if it were based around those district electoral areas. I was disappointed that more was not done in order to have a co-ordinated approach between the commissioner who is dealing with wards and districts, and the subsequent commissioner who will be dealing with district electoral areas thereafter. I appreciate that the process could be streamlined to a certain extent. However, it is critical that the first process should be connected to the second one. It should not be a case of the first commissioner tying the hands of the second commissioner; it should be about ensuring that the wards are drawn up so that they do not prejudice the process of drawing up district electoral areas thereafter, and that a situation does not exist in which wards areas extend across huge areas of countryside — or even towns — that make it more difficult to have district electoral areas that reflect natural communities. We could find ourselves in a situation in which it will be impossible for a town or major settlement to lie within only one district electoral area. The fringe of one town could be lie within the district electoral area of another. We should, as far as possible, seek to avoid such situations. I regret to say that my party believes that the process is flawed. We have missed opportunities to fix the already flawed process that has emerged from the Executive. The people of Northern Ireland will struggle with that situation in the future. The situation that must be addressed is not a flash in the pan that will last for five or 10 years; it could be with us for 30 to 40 years. It is critical to ensure that we get the process right at this stage, and I fear that we have not. Mr B Wilson: My opposition to the Bill is not political or personal — although I am a member of North Down Borough Council — it arises from my previous life as a lecturer in government and the fact that the provisions of the Bill run contrary to many of the principles that are fundamental to local democracy. The Bill is fundamentally flawed. There are many different models of local government, but most have a common theme. The Bill’s proposals ignore some of the basic principles for establishing efficient and effective local government. The role of local councils is to provide local services for local people. Councils should be accessible, democratically accountable, and encourage participation in decision-making. They should also operate on the principle of subsidiarity, which states that matters ought to be handled by the lowest competent authority. The Bill appears to ignore all those principles and focuses solely on achieving a specific optimum population for each council area. The 11-council model will effectively destroy local democracy, and the proposals will create maximum disruption and achieve minimum benefit. First, we should recognise that it was not public concern about the delivery of council services that initiated the RPA. Indeed, the omnibus survey that was carried out for the RPA showed that there was strong public support for council services and that the public’s concerns related mainly to centrally provided services, particularly health, education and housing. Those concerns include inaccessibility, the lack of responsiveness of direct rule ministers, the lack of political accountability and the proliferation of unelected quangos. The main demand from the public — and some politicians — was that traditional council services, centralised by the McCrory Report, should be made accountable and returned to local government. That demand has, to some extent, been met by the restoration of the Assembly. I question the methodology that was adopted by the RPA. Mr A Maskey: I am curious as to whether the bulk of what the Member has said addresses the Bill, which does not deal with services and such like. We are dealing with the passage of a Bill that provides for the appointment of a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. Mr B Wilson: The Bill is based on the findings of the RPA report. The structure and the methodology that have been adopted are totally unacceptable, because they do not deal with the main problems of local government. The Assembly is basing the 11-council model on the proposals of the RPA, and I am addressing the RPA, which is totally acceptable. The RPA was unnecessarily complicated, overambitious, and ignored the fact that each service had unique problems in scale and timing. For example, there was no immediate issue facing local government, but the problems facing the Health Services were extensive and urgent. It is nonsense to lump all public services together and expect a single solution to resolve their problems. The Health Service in particular needed urgent reform, and that reform could not be delayed until the functions and structures of local authorities had been resolved. That is now clear, because the RPA’s main theme has been discarded, with major services such as health, education and policing deciding to go their own way. 1.30 pm We should therefore ignore the models that the discredited RPA put forward. Instead, we should look anew at the role, structure and principles of local government, in particular its relationship with central Government. The whole RPA exercise seems to have been based on four false premises: that additional powers would be devolved to local councils; that there would be significant savings to the ratepayer; that services would be delivered more efficiently and effectively; and that coterminosity would be central to the provision of effective services. To put it bluntly, the RPA has failed to deliver any significant increase in local councils’ responsibilities. They will not even have responsibility for libraries or the Youth Service. The main local services — health, education, housing and social services — will continue to be the responsibility of unelected quangos, and the percentage of public expenditure that local councils control will rise from 4% to 5%. An increase of 1% does not justify the disruption of thousands of staff and the massive relocation of estates, as model 11b requires. In fact, were the group system to be expanded slightly, nothing in the new powers that are proposed for councils could not be met by the existing councils. In earlier legislative stages, Members highlighted the benefits of model 11b’s introduction to ratepayers. However, they have provided no evidence to support those claims, and I suggest that no such evidence exists. Most local-authority expenditure goes on providing local services such as refuse collection, leisure services and building control. Those services will still have to be provided, regardless of which authority provides them, and that offers little opportunity to make savings. However, there will be a significant increase in costs due to redundancies, relocation and the upgrading of the estate. Similarly, the claim — Mr P Robinson: Will the Member give way? Mr B Wilson: Yes, I will give way. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members that, when they give way, they must resume their seat. Mr P Robinson: How can the Member argue both sides at the same time? He says that no savings will be made yet goes on to say that there will be redundancies. Mr B Wilson: There will be some higher-level redundancies, but the vast majority of staff employed in — Mr P Robinson: Therefore, money will be saved. Mr B Wilson: Yes, but my point is that those savings will not be significant. The vast majority of people employed by local councils provide a local service — [Interruption.]. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, please. All Members must make their remarks through the Chair. That applies to everyone. Mr B Wilson: There will obviously be some redundancies, but the vast majority of employees who provide services to the local community will continue to provide them. There will, at a higher level, be some rationalisation of the chief officers’ roles, but those savings will not be significant, and no one has provided any evidence to the contrary. We know that, if there are redundancies — there will be — redundancy payments could be significant. Many millions of pounds were paid out in redundancy packages to senior Health Service officers. Considerable expenditure will also be involved as councils’ relocate to new areas and new offices. The claim that the new councils will provide more efficient and effective services cannot be proven. As I previously pointed out, recent research by Tony Travers into local-government reform in England indicated that there was no link between the size of a local authority and the efficiency of the service provided. The coterminosity argument is even more dubious. Although the RPA suggested that coterminosity was the single most important factor in the review, I find that assertion rather strange, because coterminosity does not exist in the rest of the United Kingdom or, as far as I am aware, in any other European democracy. In fact, I suggest that coterminosity is not desirable, because the optimum population for the provision of different services will differ considerably, depending on the service. The fact that coterminosity has now been effectively discarded indicates that that has been recognised. Members speaking in favour of 11 councils also argued that we have too many councils that are too small to reach the critical mass needed to provide services efficiently. That, however, is refuted by the experience of Scotland and Wales. In Wales there is an Assembly plus a single tier of local government, comprising 22 local authorities of which only one has a population of more than 250,000. In Wales, a third of local authorities have a population of less than 100,000 — the minimum population size proposed in the Bill for a Northern Ireland council. All 22 local authorities in Wales have full responsibility for a much wider range of local services than that proposed in the RPA. In response to the RPA proposals for Northern Ireland, Professor Colin Knox has pointed out that the case for large, single tier local authorities is not grounded on experience elsewhere. Therefore, evidence from academics and people involved in local government discounts the premise that the 11-council model will achieve greater efficiency and savings. Mr P Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a convention and a Standing Order that require a Member’s speech to relate to matters on the Order Paper. What is being said has nothing to do with the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. The Member is discussing the substance of the changes in local government under the RPA. The Member must address the issue under debate, not go off on some hobby horse of his own. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member is reminded that he should stick to the subject. Mr B Wilson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I considered that the emergence of the 11-council model from the RPA was adequate justification for my making the points in question. All of the points — on efficiency savings and on more effective local government — have been made in previous debates by many Members who supported the Bill. I am refuting those claims because they are not supported by any evidence. The 11 proposed new councils are designed to deliver the optimum population size as determined by bureaucrats as part of a number-crunching exercise. However, they totally ignore local identity, traditional boundaries and long-established communities. There is no optimum size for local authorities. Factors such as population, geography, identity and history must be considered in every case. In adopting model 11b it is clear that the Executive accepted that a critical mass consisted of more than 100,000 and tried to maintain a population balance across the 11 proposed councils, an approach that totally ignores traditional boundaries and allegiances. Had local identity been considered, 11 councils would not have been the model selected. Instead, the new councils would reflect local communities, which are significantly different from those proposed. Fermanagh could have been given its own council for a population of 60,000, and there could have been an expanded council for Belfast that took account of the conurbation with a population of, perhaps, 400,000. Councils should not be kept within population sizes of 100,000 or 200,000. They can reflect local populations and traditions. There is no need to place a restriction on the numbers. The example of other countries in these islands should be considered. In Wales, Cardiff Council serves a population six times bigger than that of the smallest council. In Scotland, the population of Glasgow City Council’s area is 25 times that of the smallest council’s. In England, Birmingham City Council’s is 40 times that of the smallest council’s. Mr Weir: I want to be clear on the Green Party’s position on the issue; will the Member clarify whether he is arguing for more than 11 councils — 15, or perhaps even 26? Mr B Wilson: I am not arguing for either. I am saying that the principle for the 11-council model is based solely on numbers. The approach should be reviewed to take account of the most effective way of providing services for local communities that identify with a certain area. People who identify with Fermanagh should be able to provide services for Fermanagh. In England, Scotland and Wales, councils range from the very small to the very large, in order to reflect the diversity and differences among local communities. Services are delivered in accordance with communities’ needs and are not dictated by some central body. Councils are not drawn up by a computer in an effort to ensure the optimum population for a particular service. Initially, they must reflect the local communities to which services are then appropriated. Colin Knox maintains that recent amalgamations of councils in Great Britain lack shared identity. In certain places, councils that were created need to be reviewed because they do not reflect local identities. I envisage that that situation will arise in Northern Ireland in 10 years’ time. Dr Farry has indicated that the failure of some of those councils in England could mean that the 11-council model must be re-examined in the not-too-distant future. People have been distracted by the size of councils. As a result, local identities have been lost. For example, people do not identify with the Castlereagh/Lisburn “banana”. The experience in England has been that, when larger councils have been created, there has been loss of identity. Turnout for local council elections was only 30%, because people do not identify with those councils. In Northern Ireland, the turnout is over 60%. Public participation in the political process must be encouraged. The introduction of larger councils that have no common identity will, inevitably, lead to loss of participation. Another possibly minor matter is that many Members have served as mayors or chairpersons of particular local councils, each of which has a different identity. Certainly, mayors are invited to hundreds of engagements because people feel that they represent their local communities. Mayoral appointments are historic, and people identify with them. The new proposals will abolish certain positions, some of which have existed for 100 years or more. They will be replaced by new positions; for example, that of the new chairperson of the Castlereagh/Lisburn “bent banana”. Will anyone identify with that appointment? The present structure provides accessibility, accountability and civic leadership. It encourages participation in local democracy and promotes a sense of local identity, which will largely be lost as a result of the Bill. I regret that the Bill has been steamrollered through the Assembly. Certain amendments should have been made that would create flexibility and, perhaps, include the concept of local identity. I accept that reform of local government is needed. However, it is not urgent — it could be deferred until rationalisation of the Assembly, the Executive and the 11 Departments is carried out, which will impact on local government. If the current proposals are accepted, local-government boundaries will need to be re-examined within the next 10 years. I do not support the proposals, because they will weaken local democracy and local identity; they will create massive disruption for councils’ staff and estate for little obvious benefit; and they are likely to cost, rather than save, money. At best, they are an irrelevance; at worst, a distraction from the political and economic problems that face Northern Ireland. 1.45 pm Mr Weir: First, I, like the last two Members, declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council. I am also vice-president of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). I watched the ‘Politics Show’ yesterday, and a great injustice was done. Why Brian Wilson was not pronounced the greatest communicator in the Assembly — nor, indeed, politician of the year — is utterly beyond me. I support the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill, which is what we are supposed to be discussing. However, it appears to have become the local government anoraks extension Bill. Membership of that club seems to be widening day by day as each debate takes place. A number of criticisms have been levelled at the Bill, and I want to deal with some those today. First, in relation to the use of accelerated passage for the Bill, the Member for East Antrim Mr Beggs said that, in another place, that would have been deemed unacceptable. Of course, in another place, as when we did not have devolution, we might have been given only an hour or an hour and a half to discuss an Order in Council, and we would not have been able to amend it. Mr Beggs: Does the Member think that if a motion were to go through Westminster that affected local government in England and Wales, it would be put through in an hour or an hour and a half? We are talking about Northern Ireland and how to deal with local government here; it is in our gift and power to determine the length of time for such consideration. Will the Member accept that were MPs in England and Wales determining the future boundaries of local government in that jurisdiction, considerably more time would be spent on ensuring that they got it right? Mr Weir: I thank the Member for his comments. If a local government Bill that established certain boundaries were to go through Westminster I suspect that a guillotine would be applied to it to limit the amount of time that it spent there. In contrast, this is the fourth occasion on which the substance of this Bill has been debated, as many of the Members who have had to listen to those debates will be all too painfully aware. Indeed, the speeches delivered in these debates have not been time-limited. The argument against accelerated passage would be slightly more worthy had any significant and worthwhile amendments to the Bill been proposed. The Member said that the Committee Stage would have been the ideal opportunity to debate the Bill and produce a report that all Members of the Assembly could have then read. Although I am sure that many Members are fascinated by my words and those of Mr Ford, Mr McGlone and others on the Committee, if Mr Beggs seriously believes that the House would be better informed by listening to the Environment Committee — as opposed to all 108 Members’ having the opportunity to put forward their views on the subject — he is sadly mistaken. Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way? Mr Weir: To be perfectly honest, I have heard enough from you for one day. We must get the Bill through. Brian Wilson said that there was no time pressure and no reason why this should be happening. However, I remind the House that the original announcement about the RPA was delivered in 2000 at the Ulster Unionist Party conference. By the time this is put through — Mr A Maginness: Were you there? Mr Weir: I hear someone in a seated position asking whether I was there. On the afternoon in question, I was supporting our wee country at Windsor Park, which both at the time and with hindsight seemed a much more eminently sensible place to be. Once the RPA, of which the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill is just one part, is completed in 2011, a child who was born on the day when it was first announced will have reached secondary-school age. I am at a loss to see how the Bill has been rushed. We must grasp the nettle, provide some degree of certainty and get on with the job ahead of us. We were told that the Bill needed to deliver a degree of balance with the number of councils. That has been achieved in terms of size and scale. Of course, we must ensure that local communities have identities and that there is a level of accountability. However, we must also have the other side of the coin — and this has been sadly lacking in the discussion — which is to ensure that the proper economies of scale are in place to create a cost-effective model. Down the years, I have received more complaints about rate bills and lack of value for money than I have about the accountability of local councils or their geographical basis. The Bill tries to strike a balance on that basis. The opponents of the Bill do not appear to have provided a unanimous position on that. The majority of the Members who have expressed concerns want a 15-council model. Other Members, including Mr Brian Wilson, may want a 26-council model, a 60-council model or a 100-council model. We are told that local community identification is the be-all and end-all, yet all Members could provide examples of areas in their constituencies which are one or two streets apart but in which there is no connection between those communities. That does not mean that a plethora of committees and councils should be set up. The issue of our being out of step with parts of Europe was raised. We are out of step with, for example, France, in which every village seems to have a mayor and a local council. Is that really the model that is being suggested? More than 1% of the population of France is a local councillor. That may be good for ensuring local accountability, but where is the effectiveness of delivery? Ultimately, that is what people care about most. A range of weak amendments, which lack substance, have been proposed. The Alliance Party’s amendment No 13 proposed that, at all costs, a townland should not be separated, unless that was unavoidable in the interests of maintaining social cohesion. However, if that were to be held as a hard-and-fast rule, a large area such as a golf club could fall into two different council areas and would pay different rates on parts of its land. There was not much sense in that amendment; Members who supported it said that there must be social cohesion, but they did not give a proper answer to how that would be brought about. Amendment No 14 proposed that the Bill reflect local identities. I take exception to the comments from the Member for East Antrim Mr Beggs. He said that everyone acknowledged that there was a degree of deficiency in the Bill on that issue. On the contrary, the ability to reflect local identity is contained in the Bill by way of the process that will be carried out by the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, who will be able to consult widely and take evidence from local communities. That flexibility is at the heart of the Bill, which is concerned to ensure that the boundaries for wards and particularly the council boundaries reflect the desire of people on the ground. Many examples have been used in which a strong case can be argued for which side of the line a particular community will fall. That may be the issue of Saintfield and Killyleagh, that of the southern boundary between North Down and Ards, the question of which area Castlederg should belong to, or the much-discussed issues over the boundaries in Belfast. The Bill provides the full level of flexibility for those issues to be resolved. By contrast, the adoption of the amendments would have led to a blank map that would have been left to the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to fill in, in whatever form he or she wanted. That would have meant a further period of uncertainty and delay, and the strong, effective local government that is sought by the Bill would not have been achieved. I agree with the concept of consulting widely. During the debate on 6 May, the Alliance Party accepted the point that was made by the Minister that the Bill will lead to a consultation exercise in each of the 11 proposed council areas but that the Bill does not restrict the number of consultation exercises to 11. There will be an opportunity for the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to consult in much greater detail where he or she sees fit. In contrast, proposals to, in effect, ring-fence the 26 existing local councils would have been wholly inappropriate. Indeed, although I hope and believe that local councillors will play a role in putting people’s opinions to the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner, to ring-fence those councillors into a special place that would be above other members of the community would be the wrong way in which to proceed. The Bill can help local government to make progress. As many Members said, under the review of public administration, much work must still be done on many substantial issues that will probably have a much greater impact on the future shape of local government than the anorakish, navel-gazing discussions that have taken place on the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill. However, those are debates for another day. Had better amendments been tabled, Members would have been minded to support them. Unfortunately, the arguments that the Bill’s opponents made demonstrate that submitting the legislation to more thorough consideration than accelerated passage would have been a complete waste of time. The Bill will enable the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to get on with the job, allowing the commissioner’s office freedom to manoeuvre, and flexibility to reflect local concerns and needs. I look forward to the commissioner’s achieving what everyone in the House desires — strong, effective and accountable local government. I support the Bill. Mr Ford: My colleague Stephen Farry outlined the problem with the Bill, and, therefore, Members will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to speak at length. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Ford: As someone, as proclaimed by Peter Weir, with an anorak-wearing tendency, as well as being a member of the Committee for the Environment and Antrim Borough Council — he declares rapidly — I wish to comment specifically from the Committee’s perspective about issues that Peter Weir raised about the Bill’s accelerated passage. The Bill is a classic example of legislation that does not follow proper formulation but which emerges in a hurry as a result of another deal, and the reason why accelerated passage has contributed to that must be examined. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) The Taxis Bill’s progress through the Assembly was an example of a Minister’s willingness to engage with the relevant Committee, and a Committee’s willingness to engage with its Minister, in the course of which the Minister’s officials played a full part. As a result, amendments were produced that, when first considered, might not have been perfectly crafted for an experienced lawyer such as Mr Weir, but which ended up being positive and constructive additions to the Bill. Given the confrontational nature of debates in the Chamber compared with discussions around the Committee table, for Mr Weir to sit back — as he does now — having got to his feet to criticise the quality of the proposed amendments, he implies that some points that were made a few weeks ago when we debated the Bill’s accelerated passage were right. Mr Weir appeared to acknowledge that, if only we had had his learned experience in Committee in order to improve other members’ feeble ideas, better amendments might have produced a Bill that he, and even the Minister, might have found to be better. That matter must be addressed. I welcome the Minister’s indication that, in other circumstances, such as those that I mentioned, accelerated passage is not the best way in which to pass legislation, and this Bill is proof of that, as is the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill. The confrontational nature of debate in the Chamber does not allow for the necessarily detailed working-out of proposed amendments. No matter how many anoraks were to be assembled in the Chamber, that could never be considered a substitute for a proper Committee Stage. Some of Mr Weir’s criticism of specific amendments appeared to omit the fact that some amendments — particularly on procedural matters — noted that certain actions would be desirable; nevertheless, he described them as if they were being rigidly laid down. The Alliance Party considers the Bill to be deeply flawed for several reasons. First, the figure of 11 councils is somewhat doubtful and cannot be said to have achieved public confidence. The proposed groupings are not coherent or acceptable. Indeed, they conflict with other aspects of the model as presented elsewhere in the RPA. Mr S Wilson: The Member said that public confidence has not been secured for the 11-council model. On what does he base his view that the public are deeply unhappy and are agitating for more than 11 councils? 2.00 pm Mr Ford: The Member cannot tell the difference between the meaning of “not attained confidence” and “people are agitating”. No model has attained public confidence, and there was no specific consultation on any particular model. As I said earlier, the single convincing argument for the 11-council model seems to be seven plus 15 divided by two equals 11. I have seen no evidence, from anyone in the Member’s party or from Sinn Féin, of a better argument than that. One does not have to join Mr Weir in his expeditions over the mountains of East Antrim — Shane’s Hill in the wintertime — to know that Roy Beggs had a point when he said that, according to models 15b and 15c, local community ties would put Antrim with Ballymena and Newtownabbey with Larne and Carrickfergus. However, the grouping in 11b is different for those five councils. No other grouping has operated on that basis, so it should have been subjected to local tests with more, not less, flexibility given to the Boundary Commissioner. There is flexibility in the proposals — however, there should have been more. Furthermore, the issue of coterminosity has been raised. It was clear that there was never going to be one-for-one coterminosity once the seven-council model had been rejected. As has been highlighted previously, the 11-council model makes one-to-two or one-to-three coterminosity, on issues such as health and social care trusts or policing, impossible. That we are manage no movement towards coterminosity is regrettable, because, at one stage during the discussions under direct rule, it was elevated as the only thing that mattered. The process will not be helped by that, and timetable pressures will combine to make difficulties. I regret that reasoned amendments were not accepted, and that the only concession was — as Mr Weir has highlighted — the Minister’s assurance in last week’s debate on the number of boundary hearings. If that is the level of ministerial concession for Members to expect when Bills are discussed, it does not hold out great prospects if accelerated passage continues to be used. I am afraid that some of us still believe that the Bill is deeply flawed. The Minister of the Environment: I thank Members for their contribution to the debate, particularly the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment who began the debate and said that he wanted me to say something about fairness and equality. Obviously, those two issues underlie all the work done on the reform of local government, and will become apparent when further Bills are brought before the Committee and the House. Mr Beggs revisited arguments that he made during the Consideration Stage of the Bill. He spoke of an alliance between the two major parties to push the Bill through, which ignored the fact that, in the Environment Committee, we had gained the SDLP’s support for accelerated passage. However, accuracy does not seem to be one of his strong points. I want to have a Boundary Commissioner in place by the start of July so that the work can begin. Mr Beggs contradicted himself by saying that we did not need to rush things before welcoming the news that the Boundary Commissioner will soon start work — if the Bill had not received accelerated passage, he or she would not be able to start work soon. He also accused me of: “wilfully refusing to consider any arguments” and of ignoring his amendments. There is a difference between ignoring amendments and considering them, but finding them muddled and incoherent, as were the amendments from his party. I am surprised that the Member keeps flogging that particular dead horse. Moreover, he alleged that the DUP and Sinn Féin went into a darkened room to make the decision. He knows that the matter was debated in the Executive on 13 March 2008, and came to the House as quickly as possible. Many of the points that Mr Beggs made can, therefore, be dealt with quickly. Dr Farry went over old ground. I am sorry that he does not accept that we have had a detailed debate on the matter, and I dispute that. I have been present in the House for an entire day of scrutiny of the Bill. I have not yet had the privilege of that experience with the Environment Committee, but I am sure that that is something to which I can look forward. This process is not the end of the review of public administration as far as local government is concerned — it is an ongoing process, which will be continually reviewed. Brian Wilson said that this issue may have to be re-examined within 10 years. The workings of local government will be continually under scrutiny — the Executive should do that. That examination will be ongoing, instead of waiting for some 35 years to reform local government, which is what happened heretofore. Points were raised about Fermanagh and Omagh, and how never the twain shall meet. That is despite the fact that Fermanagh and Omagh are together in housing, policing, education and health. I cannot see what the difficulties are in that respect. There were also some philosophically grand phrases about the need to allow communities to emerge naturally. That type of subjective nonsense does not help the debate, and I am surprised at Members for coming out with that. In Government, we must deal with realities. I do not have the luxury of fantasy local government, unlike Brian Wilson or Dr Farry. We are trying to put in place a real, effective, deliverable, efficient local government structure. I believe that that will be achieved through the model that is being considered. Brian Wilson then regaled Members with tales of Armageddon and how we could be seeing the end of local democracy as we know it. Mr Weir: It is notable that the Green Party Member has given indications on two occasions that the death of local democracy is near. If local democracy is about to die, will the Green Party boycott the elections? The Member has been challenged on that, and he seems reluctant to answer. The Minister of the Environment: We will wait with bated breath to see whether the Green Party stands in the local government elections of 2011. I am sure that the electorate of North Down will be greatly worried about that. For clarity, I can inform Brian Wilson that I do not hold responsibility for health matters. He delivered a wide-ranging speech on health matters, and if he wishes to raise such issues in respect of the review of public administration, he should raise them with the appropriate Minister. I wonder whether the Member read anything of the current local government review of public administration. He registered absolutely no recognition of the links that we are trying to develop through community planning. Is it the position of the Green Party in Northern Ireland that health and education should be provided by local government? That is an entirely different matter, and is something that no one else in this House has suggested. Brian Wilson then provided his own unique understanding of redundancies — that they are significant, but not in respect of efficiencies. I find it bizarre to take lectures on turnout from the Member for North Down, when his voter turnout is not the same as some of which we in the west are very proud. The functions that will transfer to local government currently account for an annual expenditure of £116 million, and involve around 1,070 staff. That represents a 25% increase in the budget of local government and an increase of almost 12% in respect of its staff complement. This is the start of a process — it is my intention that a review of the family of local government functions will be conducted 12 months after the new councils become operational, and periodically thereafter. The Member is correct about one issue: the rationalisation of the devolved institutions will have a knock-on impact on local government. Mr Weir pointed out that the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill is just part of the process. Further Bills will be introduced in relation to the review of public administration. I have already indicated, as has been acknowledged by Mr Ford, that those will be considered by the Environment Committee. Accelerated passage was not my first choice. All other parts of local government reform will be subject to the normal procedure. Mr Ford ended the debate by reiterating his points about accelerated passage. The good work that has been done on the Taxis Bill has come back to haunt me on many occasions throughout this debate, but I must say that that was a good job, well done. One of the benefits of local government reform is that it will raise awareness of local government, and thereby help to address the apathy among the public, which David Ford mentioned, and people’s lack of knowledge about the debate on whether to have seven, 11 or 15 councils. I hope that these debates, and the debates to come, will help us to engage those apathetic voters who could not care less about local government. Finally, I wish to make one correction to David Ford’s speech. He said that the policing structures do not have to be coterminous with local government structures. One of the recommendations of the Patten Report was that the police units should be coterminous with local government boundaries. I have, therefore, written to the Policing Board to alert it to the findings of the Executive and to see what it intends to do on that issue. Subject to the passing of the Bill, I look forward to bringing to the House the subordinate legislation that will give effect to the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner’s recommendations. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Local Government (Boundaries) Bill [NIA 14/07] do now pass. Insolvency (Disqualification From Office: General) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr Dodds): I beg to move That the Insolvency (Disqualification from Office: General) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 be affirmed. Provisions exist in a number of pieces of Northern Ireland legislation that disqualify a person from holding certain offices and positions should he or she become bankrupt. Following the passing of the Enterprise Act 2002, a review of legislative provisions of that type that applied in Great Britain resulted in the making of The Enterprise Act 2002 (Disqualification from Office: General) Order 2006. The aim of the review was to reduce the stigma of bankruptcy by removing unnecessary or outdated restrictions resulting from bankruptcy, while ensuring that restrictions were in place for those found to be culpable and made subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order. The equivalent of the Enterprise Act 2002 in Northern Ireland is The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which amended the main piece of primary insolvency legislation, namely The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, and made it possible for my Department to apply to the High Court for a bankruptcy restrictions order. A bankruptcy restrictions order would be applied for — or an undertaking accepted — in cases where evidence had emerged following investigation that a bankrupt had been irresponsible, reckless or otherwise culpable. A bankruptcy restrictions order imposes a number of insolvency-based restrictions on a bankrupt for a period of between two to 15 years. It continues in force after a bankrupt is discharged from bankruptcy. As an alternative, the Department can accept a bankruptcy restrictions undertaking from the same bankrupt, which will have the same legal effect. The 2005 Order also reduced the period after which most bankrupts are discharged from bankruptcy from three years to one year. My Department invited other Departments to review existing bankruptcy disqualification provisions and legislation that were under their policy control. As a result of the review, four Departments identified bankruptcy provisions that they wished to have amended. The outcome has been that it has been possible in five cases to do away with bankruptcy as grounds for disqualification and substitute that the individual would be subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order. In the remaining seven cases, it was decided to retain the bankruptcy disqualification, while extending the disqualification to those subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order. In general, that was because the office or position could involve duties of a fiduciary nature. 2.15 pm The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr P Maskey): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On 9 October 2007, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment considered proposals to amend disqualification provisions, which are contained in various pieces of legislation, that apply if an office holder becomes bankrupt. The Committee was content with the proposals, and, as the Minister outlined, five such provisions were amended. As a consequence, bankruptcy will no longer result in disqualification, and the office holder will be disqualified only if he or she becomes subject to a bankruptcy restriction order. Another seven provisions were amended, with the effect that bankruptcy, or being subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order, will result in disqualification. After consideration of the Order’s proposals at the SL1 Stage on 9 October 2007, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment subsequently considered the Order on 17 April 2008. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Assembly affirm the Order. Go raibh maith agat. The Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister wish to make any further comment? The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment: No, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Insolvency (Disqualification from Office: General) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 be affirmed. Draft General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): I beg to move That the Draft General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 be approved. The Order is intended to provide for revised certificate and change-of-name fees that are charged by the General Register Office (GRO), and it includes a proposed date for the commencement of those new fees. The previous fees Order was made in 2005, and this Order proposes new fees to reflect the increases since then in the costs of providing those public services. Under the current law, fees are not charged for the statutory requirement of registering births and deaths, or for providing one copy of a birth entry at the time of registration. There is no intention to change those statutory provisions. Fees are chargeable, however, for providing other certificates and for further certified copies of registration events, including, where necessary, searching indexes and retrieving records. There are also fees for recording a change of name and for marriage, including the giving of notice and the solemnisation of marriage. Under Government accounting rules, the cost of such chargeable services is recovered by means of a fees Order, as provided for in the relevant legislation. It is in that context that this Order comes before the Assembly. The General Register Office and district registrars’ offices produce more than 175,000 certified copies of vital events each year, for which fees are chargeable. The majority of records are held in bound registers, and the certificate process requires significant administrative input, involving receiving moneys, searching indexes, retrieving entries, producing copies on security paper, necessary checking, certification, and final dispatch. General Register Office efficiency in those areas has increased, and it is expected to increase further with the implementation of plans to digitise the register entries, thereby creating a fully computerised system. By introducing new services, the General Register Office has improved significantly the options for delivering registration services. Certificates can be ordered from anywhere in the world, 24 hours a day, seven days a week over the Internet or through a programmed 24-hour telephone answering service. Customers can also pay by credit card. In recognition of those and other developments, for the fourth time, the General Register Office was awarded Charter Mark status in 2007. Customer satisfaction surveys indicate that the office has achieved a satisfaction rate of 98% — I am sure that the Assembly would like the same percentage — and the office has received unsolicited letters praising the service. To develop the service still further, we will introduce legislative measures to provide greater choice and more flexibility in the registration of vital events and in the places in which they may be registered. Those measures will also provide additional types of certificates to meet public demand and greater access to historic civil registration records to facilitate genealogical enquiries. As I indicated, the General Register Office is required to cover the cost of chargeable services, including those that are provided by the local register offices that are based in each district council. The previous fees Order was introduced in 2005, and increases are now necessary for some services. The cost of each fee has been calculated individually using work study analysis and takes into account the full range of costs that are involved, including staffing, ancillary services and other costs such as rent and maintenance. A similar cost-recovery system operates in Scotland and in England and Wales. Passage of the draft Order will ensure that, as has been the case here and in Great Britain, the cost of providing certain services and producing chargeable certificates is borne by the parties that require such certificates and not by the public purse, as would otherwise be the case. However, at the new levels, fees in Northern Ireland for certificates that are issued from the General Register Office are commensurate with those for certificates that are issued centrally by the GRO in England and Wales and from all offices in Scotland. The draft Order has been considered by the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and no objections to it have been raised. I commend the draft Order to the Assembly. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel explained, the draft Order sets the fees to recover the costs of the various services that are connected with the registration of births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships. On 13 February 2008, the Committee for Finance and Personnel considered the proposals that are contained in the statutory rule and sought further information on a range of issues, including details of the proposed changes in fees, clarification on whether there was an equality issue arising from the proposal to charge for the registration of civil partnerships while apparently not having a charge for registering a marriage, and clarification on whether there was a need for a regulatory impact assessment, given that the increased fees may have an impact on charitable and voluntary bodies that are involved in associated activity, such as genealogical research. The Committee raised those issues formally with the Department, and it received a substantive written reply on 20 February 2008, which provided the necessary clarification, including a detailed list of proposed changes and fees, confirmation that registration fees are in place for civil partnerships and marriages, and that both are calculated on the basis of the time that is spent by the registrar on each event. Therefore, the Department advises that no equality issues arise. Further confirmation was also provided that a regulatory impact assessment was not required, as the fees are calculated on the basis of the actual cost of providing the service. The Department also pointed out that the main users of the services are individuals and businesses rather than charities and voluntary organisations. Having received that clarification, the Committee agreed unanimously on 16 April 2008 to support the Department in seeking the Assembly’s endorsement of the provisions of the draft Order. Therefore, I support the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister wish to make any further comment? The Minister of Finance and Personnel: I thank the Chairperson and the Committee for their work on, and co-operation with, the draft Order, and I urge Members to support it. If they do so, it will come into operation on 1 June 2008. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Draft General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 be approved. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. 2.30 pm Office Of The First Minister And Deputy First Minister North Belfast: Conflict Resolution 1. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail its plans for a task force to tackle interface and conflict resolution work in the North Belfast constituency. (AQO 3435/08) The First Minister (Rev Dr Ian Paisley): The future that we look forward to will be one without barriers, in which society is characterised by respect, tolerance and interdependence, while sectarianism and racism are consigned to the past. In that context, significant progress has been made in the past three years to improve relationships. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) wishes to ensure that those improved relationships in the community continue. In his closing statement in the 22 April Adjournment debate on the interfaces in North Belfast, the junior Minister Mr Donaldson confirmed that the Member’s proposal of creating a task force for the North Belfast constituency would be considered. OFMDFM will liaise with the Minister for Social Development and the north Belfast community action unit on the issue. In the meantime, our Department and the community action unit continue to engage with communities on an interdepartmental basis to address the important interface and conflict-resolution issues that exist in North Belfast. Over the past few years, the community action unit has facilitated a north Belfast interface working group, comprising representatives from statutory agencies and community groups, to develop an action plan for interfaces in North Belfast. The action plan contains 10 key recommendations for addressing interface issues. The unit continues to work with the interface working group, and is facilitating the group in developing an application to the International Fund for Ireland to help take forward the key recommendations in the action plan. OFMDFM also recognises the invaluable work that communities have undertaken to build sustainable relationships that have been the foundation for the peaceful summers of recent years. In recognition of that, I can confirm that funding of up to £100,000 will again be made available in the current financial year to provide a diversionary programme for young people at risk of be |