The Transitional
Assembly

Tuesday 5 December 2006

Private Members’ Business
Review of Public Administration

The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Madam Speaker in the Chair).

Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Private Members’ Business

Review of Public Administration

Madam Speaker: The Business Committee agreed that the House may sit until 6.00 pm to debate the motion on the review of public administration (RPA). I have further consulted with the party Whips, who have agreed that the first round of Members’ speeches should be limited to 15 minutes, with subsequent speeches being limited to 10 minutes.

Before the debate begins, I wish to remind the House that, although Members will have made declarations in the Register of Members’ Interests, given the subject of today’s debate, they should also be aware of the requirement of Standing Order 29(f), which relates to the need:

“Before taking part in any debate or proceeding of the Assembly,”

for a Member to:

“declare any interest, financial or otherwise, which is relevant to that debate”.

Mr Weir: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why was the amendment that Mr Maskey and Mr O’Dowd tabled, which is effectively a direct negative of the motion, selected when the DUP’s proposed amendment to yesterday’s motion, which added to the motion, was rejected?

Madam Speaker: As I said yesterday, I will not discuss my reasons for rejecting any amendments. That is not convention. The amendment is not a direct negative. That is my decision. The amendment expands on the motion.

Mr Hay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise an issue that occurred in the House yesterday. It is important that it be raised. I am content for you, Madam Speaker, to deal with it today or in the future. There is nothing wrong with Members having a bit of banter during debates. Sometimes, it can add to the debate. However, for a Member to mislead the House and to tell an untruth is totally different. I refer to the words of the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Danny Kennedy, when he was making his winding-up speech after yesterday’s debate. I shall quote briefly from yesterday’s Hansard for your information, Madam Speaker. Referring to my colleague Nelson McCausland, he said:

“It would have been all very well for him to do so, had it not been for the fact that his party, during the negotiations at St Andrews, made provisions for an Irish language Act”. — [Official Report, Bound Volume 21, p48, col 1].

Madam Speaker: I have heard what you said, Mr Hay. Obviously, I have not had a chance to read Hansard this morning. I will check the report and get back to you on the matter.

Mr Hay: Madam Speaker, it was an untruth and was misleading to the House.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet, Mr Hay. I will consider the matter and I will make a ruling on it. I cannot do either until I have read Hansard. Thank you very much.

Mr Gallagher: I beg to move

That this Assembly expresses serious concern about the potential of a seven council model to centralise services, remove jobs and resources from many areas and to underpin sectarianism and community division; and further calls on the Secretary of State to shelve present plans for super councils and allow the decision on future council arrangements to be taken by a restored Northern Ireland Assembly.

It is entirely ironic that, on the matter of the number of councils, the only party to stand by the British Government with regard to super-councils is Sinn Féin. It is particularly ironic, given that the leader of Sinn Féin reminded everybody in the Assembly that it was the role of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and his predecessors to promote British interests in Northern Ireland.

Ms Stanton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Sinn Féin is not the only supporter of super-councils. Many other groups also support them.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, Ms Stanton, for that information. However, I am afraid that that was not a point of order.

Ms Stanton: The Member misrepresents many people.

Madam Speaker: Ms Stanton, I am on my feet. That was not a point of order. Thank you.

Mr Gallagher: Ordinary people will be less concerned with the irony of that than with its implications for them. Those who stand to lose their jobs are obvious potential victims. Those who live in rural areas and will suffer as a consequence of centralisation are also obvious potential victims. The great majority of people, who will bear the brunt of an unequal distribution of the rates burden under a seven-council model, are also potential victims.

There is no argument about the need for the reform of local government. Ratepayers want less bureaucracy, greater efficiency and better delivery of public services. They expect a better system. However, they are entitled to one that is fair to all, regardless of where they live, and one that preserves local identity and some sense of place. However, the architects of the plan arrogantly ignore such a laudable aim and instead want to push their plan for super-councils through. Of course, the plan is not in the interests of the ordinary people who pay rates: it is a plan that will lead to centralisation, Balkanisation and confusion, and to an unfair and unequal distribution of the rates burden.

This is a plan to centralise public services on an unprecedented scale, and it will be at the expense of rural areas and the people who live there.

It is a plan that will move jobs, offices and resources away from our county towns, and it will leave rural areas, especially in the west, even further disadvantaged than they are at present. Sinn Féin is the only party here that wants the plan to go ahead, and if that happens, it will be a serious mistake that will leave most ratepayers disadvantaged and disempowered.

The plan is based on an English model for local government, and it is totally inappropriate for Northern Ireland. It will lead to the closure of offices, especially west of the Bann, and it will move the jobs and resources into a small number of our larger towns. We are also being asked to accept a model with three unionist-dominated councils and three nationalist-dominated councils. That will underpin the community division and polarisation that has served the people of Northern Ireland so badly.

The Government tell us about a strategic framework plan for a shared future in Northern Ireland, yet they are completely undermining it with a seven super-council model for local government with its inevitable consequence of trapped minorities. Those trapped minorities will be under the control of dominant and domineering oppressive majorities.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to deliver equality and promote good relations for future generations, the architects of that model will separate and segregate people on a crude sectarian basis. It should be clear to anyone who understands the depth of the division in our community and the importance of working towards a shared future that this is indeed a retrograde step.

Even now there are some councils in which some parties continue to keep political power and exclude other parties from top council posts. Despite this, and despite the danger of such practices being repeated in the new councils, Sinn Féin continues to take the word of the British Government on something as fundamental as the protection and safeguards for what will become permanently trapped minorities. The fact is that while other aspects such as the boundaries of these new councils and the number of councillors have received attention, no safeguards have been produced to ensure equality.

We all know from experience and history that there are no effective checks and balances in the democratic world that can deter an elite group that chooses to abuse its powers. That is why the SDLP rejects the seven-council model. There are better models, and we want to have in place a model that guarantees equality and is able to deliver services efficiently to people everywhere in Northern Ireland.

The very first claim in the Government’s own document, from those who designed the seven- council model, is that it would allow service operators to operate to common boundaries. In other words, all citizens within the new council boundaries would share the same health trusts and the same common boundaries for all key services. The health trusts, which take effect from 1 April 2007, will have completely different boundaries from those of the super-councils.

Take the example of people in Magherafelt, who will go to Derry for their council services yet will not be able to go to Derry for their health and hospital services. They will have to go to Antrim or perhaps Belfast. People living in the new council area in the west will find that some of them will go to Derry for their health services, some will go to Craigavon and some will go to Antrim.

The result will be that the delivery of public services will be every bit as messy, confusing and chaotic as before. Serious questions must be asked about a Government that still want to steamroll ahead with a plan that is so badly in breach of their own standards of efficiency and equity.

10.45 am

Most Members will agree that the very least that the ratepayer is entitled to under any new configuration is a fair and equal distribution of the rates burden. As elected representatives, we already know how many people are worried about their rates bills and the threatened water charges. In addition to that, they now have the implications of the seven-council arrangement, and that is a cause for serious alarm.

Let me give Members the example of the new West Local Government District — to use the Government’s terminology — which includes the existing Fermanagh, Omagh, Dungannon and Cookstown council areas. Cookstown ratepayers are currently paying for a council loan of £1·55 million, Dungannon has a loan of £1·95 million, and Fermanagh ratepayers have a burden because there is a loan of £1·9 million, while Omagh has a £9 million loan.

In the proposed new council area, ratepayers will face a loan of £14·6 million. Given that the new councils will take over the liabilities of all existing councils, the rates bills in the old Cookstown, Dungannon and Fermanagh council areas will noticeably increase, while bills will decrease for the ratepayers in the old Omagh District Council area, because, as Members know, that is the way it will work. In any new council grouping where there is an exceptionally high burden of debt in one of the old council areas, that will become a debt burden on all of the ratepayers in the new council area.

If Members want a really shocking example, they should look at Magherafelt District Council. It currently has borrowings of £35,000 — very small indeed in comparison with the other councils — and as a result the rates there are among the lowest in Northern Ireland, at 120·67p. However, it will be in a new council area with Derry, which has a rate of 176·74p; Limavady, which has a rate of 152p; and Strabane, which has a rate of 149p. In the new council arrangement, the ratepayers of Magherafelt will face repayment on total borrowings of £31 million. Based on the estimates for the financial year 2004-05, that will mean a rates rise of 33%. To make that clear, a householder paying £1,000 a year will, because of this wonderful new model, be immediately faced with a rates bill of £1,330.

Those are examples of the serious flaws in the Government’s proposals, and they all add up to compelling reasons for those responsible for the plan to go back to the drawing board.

The sense of place and local identity that is important for communities everywhere in Northern Ireland is in danger of being stripped away. Fermanagh is well known as the one council area that has retained its townland names: all that is in jeopardy. Members from other constituencies and other district council areas will point to aspects of their own heritage that the local ratepayers do not want placed in jeopardy. All of our identities are shaped by local identity and a sense of place, and those are very important to all of us. In the new model, local identity and a sense of place are being vandalised — in the interests of what?

I have outlined the serious implications for ratepayers across Northern Ireland. I am interested to hear what the Sinn Féin representatives in my constituency have to say about ratepayers inheriting a debt from another council.

People have a shared pride in their area, and, in our divided community, that has empowered locally elected representatives to work for the common good. Many Members will know from their experiences that such shared pride has enabled those representatives to work for the common good in the interests of the wider community. Now, a direct rule Government and Sinn Féin are preparing to cast all that aside and expecting people to accept a model of local government that is neither local nor legitimate.

I fail to understand how elected representatives of local communities with any sense of responsibility — especially in the west — can possibly lend their support to the plan.

Mr Maskey: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after the first “Assembly” and insert:

“affirms its support for the Review of Public Administration and the new arrangements for strong and effective local government, within a seven council model, underpinned by power sharing, equality and social inclusion.”

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

For the record, Members are aware that I am a member of Belfast City Council. As I listened to Tommy Gallagher, it was patently obvious that he has not spoken or listened carefully to some of his party colleagues. Two of them, Cllrs John O’Kane and Dermot Curran, sit on the political panel, which, as Members know, is at one end of the process of the Local Government Taskforce. Tommy Gallagher says that he wants a 15-council model. However, neither he nor any other Member has publicly or privately proffered a credible explanation for a larger number of councils making sense.

I simply ask Tommy Gallagher, or any other Member who talks about reducing the number of councils from 26 to 15, for example, to tell me and the general public which councils they want to retain or abolish. Do they want to retain Carrickfergus Borough Council? Tommy Gallagher should talk to his colleague, who is deputy mayor of Castlereagh Borough Council. On what I call a council league of shame, it has the worst under-representation of Catholics in the workforce, at only 6·8%. A similar disparity, both religious and gender-based, exists in other council areas in the Six Counties. I want anyone who argues for any particular configuration to provide a rationale for doing so.

Mr Gallagher also mentioned the argument surrounding the rates burden.

Mr Nesbitt: Mr Maskey referred to percentages of under-representation in the workforce. Can he give evidence from the Equality Commission statistics to show where there is not equality of opportunity?

Mr Maskey: I am not here as a witness, and I do not have to give evidence. However, Members will find that the recent Committee on the Administration of Justice report provides a good indicator. My point is that there is religious disparity in the workforce. Not only is there Catholic under-representation, but the reverse is also the case in areas where there is under-representation of the Protestant population in the work-force. Sinn Féin wants a system of local government that ensures that such under-representation does not happen in any district council area. From day one, as Tommy Gallagher’s colleagues on the Local Govern-ment Taskforce will know, Sinn Féin has never been wedded to having a particular number of councils.

In fact, Sinn Féin resisted it from the very early stages. We were not prepared to plump for a figure of seven, six, 15, 12, or 11 councils; we were not prepared to throw a dart and choose a particular number because it sounded OK or because it might guarantee a certain number of councillors. Much of the political debate has been driven not by the number of councils but by the number of councillors. There are parties that are afraid of having a serious reduction in their number of councillors in the next election.

In 1999 or 2000 the previous Assembly endorsed the RPA. If this motion succeeds, politically the work of the RPA will be given back to the Assembly. That will mean that it will have taken 10 years for the review to be completed, and many would argue that it will be out of date. I see no reason why Members should defer this matter. Sean Begley and I worked at task force level and on the political panel throughout the process. Based on that personal experience, I do not have confidence that the other parties will get to grips with the fundamental and serious issues that face us. We need to move full speed ahead on the RPA to get a result soon. We need a fairer rates burden and to have equality at the heart of local government, and when people are elected they must not be treated as second-class citizens in the chambers and the systems of local government.

Members need to bring on board the concept of community planning, which would ensure social inclusion. Of the nine options, the seven-council model is the one that guarantees that any minority community will be at least 20%. In any of the three versions of the 15-council model, there would be minority communities of such a small size and scale that they would not be able to return an elected representative to look after their interests. Sinn Féin is not prepared to accept a system of local government in which people cannot get elected or be represented in a council chamber. The option 7C model guarantees that minority communities will be of sufficient size to have people elected and be involved in the governance arrangements of the new councils. That is why option 7C is the only one, out of the nine options on the table —

Dr Birnie: The Member is arguing that under, say, the 15-council model, there would be cases in which one section of the electoral community would not be represented. The 15 proposed council areas are based on the 14 parliamentary constituencies outside Belfast, plus Belfast. Can the Member name any of the 14 constituencies outside Belfast that does not have a mix of nationalist, republican, unionist and other representatives in this House? Would that not be repeated at the council level?

Mr Maskey: Look at North Down Borough Council, for example. It is a small area; look at the community balance there. The key issue here is that the minority community would be so small that it could not be involved in the governance arrangements, the community planning process or even the elected representation. I ask Members to present the evidence. Sinn Féin has looked at every one of the nine models and asked people to bring forward further options. No options were brought forward.

Mrs Long: Is the Member suggesting that council boundaries should be gerrymandered in order to achieve certain electoral outcomes, rather than being divided in terms of good administration?

Mr Maskey: Certainly not. I hear people talking about Balkanisation — currently there are 26 district councils. How many of those are unionist-dominated, and how many are nationalist-dominated?

Can Members give me an answer?

11.00 am

The Members opposite have not even done their homework. There are more unionist-controlled district councils than nationalist-controlled ones. That should not be the case. If we have 15 councils, perhaps nine of them will be unionist-controlled and six or seven nationalist-controlled. Is that kind of Balkanisation any better? Is it the level of Balkanisation that suits Members here or is it the degree of Balkanisation?

We argue that the option 7C model allows minority communities in all council areas to have sufficient representation to allow them to be involved in the governance arrangements, in respect of both the community planning process and the ability to attain elected representative status.

Mr Storey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Maskey: No, I am sorry. I cannot give way again.

The system of local government that we advocate is the one that we have argued for from day one. We have never accepted anyone’s proposals. It is great to hear Tommy Gallagher talking about Sinn Féin’s supporting British policies. As someone said a while ago, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I have not heard him be so anti-British in a long time; he seems only to be so when the number of councillors comes into question, as it will in the next round of discussions on local government. Notwithstanding that, we have argued from day one that our preferred system of local government had to be strong in order to get more power, but that it could not, under any circumstances, get Sinn Féin’s support unless it was underpinned by the most rigorous checks, balances and safeguards for the benefit of citizens and their elected representatives.

Tommy Gallagher talked about the RPA proposals as if they were a done deal. He should ask his colleagues John O’Kane and Dermot Curran how many of the current proposals have already been signed off by his party. The community planning subgroup — [Interruption.]

I sit on the political panel, and I can tell the Member that his colleagues on it have never resisted the proposals or reacted negatively to them. Mr Gallagher talked about governance arrangements, but those are not tied down by any stretch of the imagination — because the unionist parties in particular do not want to concede the principal of power sharing in local government.

We want a system of local government that is strong and effective, which provides value for money for citizens, and which has a fair rates distribution across all the council areas. Councils must run on the principles of power sharing. Equality must be at the heart of governance arrangements, and, above anything else, the people, through the community planning process, must be involved. We have argued, both publicly and privately, with the direct-rule Ministers and on the political panel that equality should be put on a statutory basis. Citizens must be involved in the community planning process so that they can have a real say in how local government delivers their services.

I invite anyone to tell me how those principles can be underpinned by deferring this matter. The parties that want to defer the matter are not prepared to sign up to the kind of power-sharing arrangements that are required to prevent Balkanisation and further polarisation and to ensure that there is full inclusion.

Tommy Gallagher and members of other parties say that Sinn Féin is the only party to support the seven-council model. We may be the only political party in the Assembly to take this stand, but we are pleased to do so, and we are prepared to work through to the last moment to ensure that local government is based on all the principles that I have mentioned. There is a great deal of work yet to do.

INTERREG, the Equality Commission, the Rural Community Network and many other major organisations all say that they would prefer a smaller number of councils, and many of them have opted for the seven-council model in particular. It may not reach the totality that we would prefer — we are still working for that — but it does provide for a more coterminous approach between service providers.

Most reputable organisations, such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union, are in favour of the seven-council model and against having a larger number of councils, because the former provides a more coterminous approach and increases cohesion in local government. The larger the number of councils, the more political parties and some communities can continue to work in isolation.

The smaller the number of councils, the more parties are forced to work together. At present councillors work side by side, yet they never meet, discuss or plan jointly. Under the new arrangements, councillors will have to work together. Those arrangements are counter-Balkanisation and show how we are trying to redress the polarisation that clearly exists. For too long, too many people have been in their comfort zones.

Tommy Gallagher raised the issue of local identity. Who is suggesting that any townland will be abolished under the new council configuration? Of the present 26 district councils, some will go and others will be subsumed into other, as yet unnamed, councils. Who mentioned any townland, village or hamlet that will disappear? I have not heard of one. Will Larne disappear? Some people might want it to, but it will not. [Laughter.] Will Camlough —

Mr Storey: It is far too cold for you.

Mr Maskey: Mr Storey, you should talk to your colleagues on the political panel.

Madam Speaker: Mr Maskey, please speak through the Chair.

Mr Maskey: If Mr Storey would care to speak to his colleagues, he would know that in my last contribution to the political panel I highlighted Larne as an example of how people in smaller council areas may feel that they are not part of the new, bigger council. Therefore the bigger council would be obligated to have a structure to make sure —

Mr Storey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr Maskey: Talk to your colleagues, Mr Storey.

Mr Storey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is not what the Member said. The Member made a direct derogatory comment about Larne, but now he does not have the honesty to say what it was.

Madam Speaker: Mr Storey, you have said your piece, but it was not a point of order.

Mr Maskey: Everybody knows that many places have a particular reputation. Many people do not want the political entity of Larne to exist. Certainly, nationalists do not.

As I have already said, and as my colleagues will outline throughout the day, we support a model that we believe affords the fairest system of local government. We have not heard a single proposition from another Member or party that rationally advocates another configuration.

Madam Speaker: Before we proceed, I remind Members that it is unparliamentary to challenge the honesty of another Member.

Mr Weir: I serve on North Down Borough Council, and I am also a vice-president of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA).

I want to deal with a couple of the points raised by the Member who spoke previously. He concluded his speech by talking about polarisation and reputation. Many Members will take that with a pinch of salt, at best. There is a high level of hypocrisy in Members from the party opposite talking about polarisation when, for the past 35 years, that party conducted a sectarian murder campaign that, more than anything else, polarised the community.

The Member also referred to the political panel. Representatives of various political parties have worked on the political panel because their aim is to modernise local government. Indeed, most of the panel’s work is number-neutral. The Member mentioned SDLP members John O’Kane and Dermot Curran, both of whom I know. Those members of the political panel, and members from parties other than Sinn Féin, have consistently opposed the option 7C model. Time and time again, they have made their opposition to the option 7C model absolutely clear, and to imply anything else is a gross slur on them. Mr Maskey may be happy to continually highlight Sinn Féin’s isolation, but let us at least put it in context.

He also expressed concern at the number of councillors. Let us nail that issue. Under the proposals there will be 420 councillors. Most parties would be prepared to accept a similar figure. If Sinn Féin is prepared to accept that number, why not have those 420 councillors sitting on 15 councils? The number of councillors is not the issue that concerns Mr Maskey. Furthermore, if he is concerned about slowness of delivery, let Sinn Féin come out from its isolation.

Mr Maskey: Will the Member take a point of information?

Mr Weir: No, the Member has already had his chance; I do not want to give him any more rope.

Sinn Féin has the opportunity to vary the speed at which the RPA will be implemented. If Sinn Féin is concerned about delays, let it abandon its isolated stance and agree with every other political party in Northern Ireland that there should be 15 councils. There will then be unanimity on the issue and rapid progress can be made. It is in Sinn Féin’s hands.

I am delighted to debate this issue for two reasons. First, the DUP supports the motion and opposes the amendment because it believes this to be an important subject. Secondly, the Government have tried for the past six months to stop this debate taking place. Time and time again in the Business Committee, various parties have pushed this subject onto the agenda, but the Secretary of State’s veto has repeatedly prevented debate.

Sir Reg Empey: Does the Member accept that the motion was proposed and vetoed at every meeting of the Business Committee from 15 May to 23 November? Is that not correct?

Mr Weir: I cannot confirm that since I am not a member of the Business Committee. However, I believe it to be the case.

The Government have constantly blocked debate on the issue because the decision to support a seven-council model is one of the least justifiable of their many bad recent decisions. It has the least merit, is the most politically driven and has been produced for the wrong reasons. It is particularly appalling that the Government have used the issues of reform of public administration and the number of councils as devices in their wider schemes for political progress in Northern Ireland. At times in the past 35 years, councillors of various parties have been the principal voice of demo-cracy in the country. They have stood at democracy’s front line, providing services to ratepayers and constituents. Many have paid with their lives — the ultimate sacrifice. It is utterly shameful for the Government to use local government as a bargaining chip in the wider political process.

Mention has been made of the arguments advanced for the seven-council model. It is important that we examine each of them to show how spurious they are. The first is coterminosity, which Mr Gallagher has already dealt with to a large extent. The idea was that local government boundaries would be coterminous with those of health and education boards. The RPA proposes five health trusts, the boundaries of which bear no relation whatsoever to the proposed council boundaries. The five education boards will be replaced by a super-board that will oversee the whole of Northern Ireland. When asked about the subject at a recent meeting of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Chief Constable said that his new district command units could fit in with whatever model was produced; perhaps two councils would be coterminous with one district command unit. It appears that there is no coterminosity anywhere, yet it was said to be one of the main drivers behind the seven-council model.

We are also told that the responses to the consultation showed that the seven-council model is what people want. However, 90% of responses did not deal with the number of councils; rather, they concentrated principally on education issues such as libraries, youth services and issues involving the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. There is no overwhelming desire in the community for a seven-council model.

Not only do all the parties represented in the Assembly — with the exception of Sinn Féin — believe that the seven-council model is wrong, but smaller parties such as the Green Party also oppose it. At a meeting of NILGA some months before the RPA reported, every Sinn Féin councillor present voted in favour of the 15-council model, although this was before the release of the Sinn Féin statement.

11.15 am

I understand that in the press at the weekend Sinn Féin accused the SDLP of being in an unholy alliance, presumably because the SDLP agreed with all the other parties. I am sure that politically Sinn Féin would love to be in an unholy alliance, but it cannot get other parties to back it.

Sinn Féin also mentioned the rates base, and Tommy Gallagher has covered that point. If various councils are bolted together they will be burdened with different rates, rates bases and debts. Given the Government’s proposed review of rating, there will be regional disparities throughout Northern Ireland. Under the seven-council model there will be no similarity in the rates base.

There will be great savings, we have been told, yet those of us who have been involved with the RPA will know that simply putting in the mechanisms to implement the proposals will cost, conservatively, between £15 million and £25 million — that is purely for the mechanisms to bring forward the modernisation task force and capacity building. The cost of redundancies may be between £25 million and £30 million. However, both those figures will be dwarfed by the money that will have to be paid into pension schemes — perhaps £60 million or £70 million. Where are the great savings that have been promised?

We are told that there will be efficiencies. However, there is little evidence to suggest that that will be the case. Under a 15-council model there could be some economies of scale because one service could be produced for all the constituents in an area. However, under a seven-council model councils will have to cover such wide areas and incorporate such remote regions that pressure will be put on them to provide not simply a headquarters but also a range of regional offices, thus duplicating services again and again.

At a recent meeting with the DUP, the Minister raised the idea of civic councils subordinate to the new super-councils — in effect a form of parish council. The seven councils could create an additional layer of government. Where is the efficiency in that?

As everyone is aware, the real reasons that the Government plumped for seven councils were, first, to pander to Sinn Féin, and secondly to apply political pressure to the other parties, which opposed it. In other words, the Government are telling the political parties that if they do not like the new arrangements, they should get into an Assembly and sort them out. Those reasons are entirely spurious and utterly impure.

As Mr Gallagher said, we are going to Balkanise Northern Ireland, producing three councils that are nationalist-controlled, three that are unionist-controlled, and Belfast, which will be reasonably evenly divided. The justification offered by Sinn Féin is that there will be large minorities in the seven new councils. We will have large, permanently trapped minorities in council areas. Is it preferable to have large groups of disgruntled people rather than small groups? I fail to see the logic in that. It will inevitably lead to poor governance. Either an elite majority will enforce its will on a minority, which the SDLP is concerned about, or there will be so many checks and balances in the system that there cannot be effective government. Either way, it will not lead to good governance for the people of Northern Ireland; it will lead to remoteness and a lack of identity.

No one is suggesting that council areas should be based on townlands, but no one in Northern Ireland, outside Belfast, will identify with the new boundaries. The Boundary Commissioner’s initial report, which listed them as Inner East, East, or whatever, showed the absurdity of these boundaries. No one says, “I’m from east Northern Ireland”, “I’m from the south-east” or “I’m from the south-west”. People will mention the areas that they come from, but there is no community identification whatsoever in the RPA proposals. That will lead to a sense of dislocation, of people feeling isolated from their local council, and to lower turnouts in elections. It will lead to disaffection with the political process and to councils that are less responsive to the people of Northern Ireland.

Reforming the present model to a 15-council one will provide people with a system that they will feel is directly accountable to them because local councillors will still represent their area. People will see that the needs of their area are met rather than being subsumed into vast council areas that stretch across Northern Ireland.

The 15-council model will produce economies of scale; no one is arguing for the retention of the 26-council model. All parties, with the exception of Sinn Féin, have said that the 15-council model is more suitable for making economies of scale.

With respect to my colleagues from various parties in Belfast, rates in Belfast — for a range of reasons that I accept — have tended to be higher than in other parts of Northern Ireland. That is partly because Belfast is a capital city. However, the evidence suggests that moving to an economy of scale of 250,000 people does not produce any additional economies of scale beyond what would be achieved with, perhaps, 100,000 people.

Indeed, it could be argued that, due to the vast scale of Belfast — which would be replicated in other councils under the option 7C model — there is not the opportunity for the high level of budget scrutiny that many smaller councils achieve. Belfast’s status as a capital city is not the main reason for its higher rates, but it is a factor. There is no evidence to suggest that very large councils produce lower rates; in fact, the opposite is the case.

A 15-council model would provide local govern-ment that is close and accountable to the people, and which is local in the true sense of the word. The option 7C model will be bad for accountability and for the local identity of the people of Northern Ireland. All Members are in favour of greater efficiencies and greater modernisation in local councils so that they will be able to provide a better service for the people of Northern Ireland. However, a seven-council model will not provide that.

The option 7C model will be weak, unrepresentative and unaccountable. That is why the Assembly should reject it. A clear message should be sent to the Govern-ment: listen to the people of Northern Ireland and to their directly elected representatives who believe that the option 7C model will be bad, and that a 15-council model would be much better for their future.

Mr J Wilson: All parties — including Sinn Féin — should support the motion because it is the right thing to do. It should also be supported for another reason. The Ulster Unionist Party tabled a motion on an earlier no-day-named list along the same lines as the SDLP motion. However, that is by the by.

The option 7C model proposed for Northern Ireland is plainly and simply wrong. It is so wrong that it must be halted in its tracks this very day. The motion proposes that the Assembly call on the Secretary of State to “shelve” plans for seven councils and to allow a future Assembly to take the process forward.

In response to the RPA further consultation exercise, my party proposed a 15-council model, and its reasons for so doing were well publicised at the time. In any new consideration of the number of councils required to deliver local services — and there must be one — the Ulster Unionist Party will forcefully make the case for 15 councils.

We were told that support for the option 7C model had been identified through reading all the reports produced by the experts and panel members. However, it was difficult to identify precisely who supported that model. Mr Maskey mentioned a group of people today who, he states, supported the option 7C model. Time has moved on since those people supported that model, and if they were asked whether they still supported it, I think that, with reality having set in, much of that support would have gone.

Mr Maskey: In the past couple of weeks, INTERREG III has stated that the option 7C model would optimise the money available — through European funds, for example — to deal with the entire border corridor area. That was said only two or three weeks ago — not years ago.

Mr Hussey: I am sure that my colleague will admit that much of the INTERREG money is fed through the cross-border groups rather than directly through the councils.

Mr J Wilson: Alex Maskey has made my case for me: he could mention only one group that may still be holding on to the seven-council principle. Sinn Féin is the only party in the House that lends its support to that model, which caused more than a little disquiet in that party. My knowledge of how some Sinn Féin supporters across the Province think confirms what we have heard elsewhere: there is a growing number of party members in Sinn Féin who are not in line with Alex Maskey. That is yet to come out.

One could say that the voice of politicians across Northern Ireland has been ignored, and not for the first time. More importantly, the voice of those who elected them is being ignored. Of course, since the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner published his provisional recommendations, which regrouped 26 councils into seven, any support that there was for the seven-council model has been evaporating. Members need not take my word for it. If they talk to people in Antrim, Lisburn, Carrick and the surrounding region, they will not find much support for this new place — and “place” is all that I can call it at present — of Inner East Local Government District. At this festive season, one starts to think of Bethlehem and places such as that. [Interruption.]Someone suggested that the proposed new council looks like a big muffler around Belfast. I would not like the area that I represent to be called such.

When the commissioner published his provisional recommendations, he admitted, openly and freely, that he had consulted academics and local historians about possible names for the new configuration. They could not come up with any. Therefore we are left with North, South, East, West, Inner this and Outer that. The idea is absolutely crazy. Some of us advised the RPA team that it was ignoring totally the question of local identity. The UUP did, and I know that other parties did as well.

I had the good fortune to attend, as a Deputy Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the opening of the National Assembly for Wales. When I was there, Paul Murphy spoke to me privately. I shall not share what he said about the seven-council model; indeed, I would not be able to use the exact words, so I shall not repeat them. However, in an interview with ‘Fortnight’ magazine in February he said:

“I made it clear that I wasn’t happy with a small number of local authorities. I would have personally preferred something around the fourteen or fifteen mark…”.

And this is the important part of what he said:

“I am a bit troubled that they [the seven councils] are too big and whether in fact you’ll see an east and west of the Bann divide which will increasingly become more polarised.”

Those words are worth thinking about; in fact, they are worth repeating. Mr Murphy said that the seven councils would be too big and he wondered about the east-west divide and polarisation. The UUP agrees with that opinion.

That brings me back to the motion:

“this Assembly expresses serious concern about the potential of a seven council model to … underpin sectarianism and community division”.

Paul Murphy agrees with the political parties in Northern Ireland.

Many of us, in our political careers, have invested heavily in bringing together communities. I can speak only for myself, but I am satisfied that I have done my best. That was not always the easy option, and it has cost some of us dearly. Let us not destroy what we have achieved, because success was achieved, as seen in our communities.

11.30 am

A seven-council model is a nonsense. It is a recipe for division, polarisation and the total destruction of communities. It is, most certainly, a sectarian carve-up, and the Ulster Unionist Party warned against it. The proposals amount to repartition and will destroy decades of cross-community work and partnerships at a stroke. Let me make this clear to the Government: they are ignoring the democratically expressed will of the people of Northern Ireland. A seven-council model will not constitute the right approach. Sinn Féin may say that it does, but three quarters of the voting population of Northern Ireland say that it does not.

My party contends that the motion should receive support, and I hope that it does. It will send a loud and clear message that the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland believe that their communities deserve better than second best. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the goal of reform through the review of public administration but will not back a Government proposal that is so contaminated and falls so far short of its intended aims.

It is interesting to look back to the beginning of the process. When Ian Pearson launched the consultation process, he said tellingly:

“We must ensure that the new arrangements are fair and equitable, and that they command confidence among the political parties and their constituents.”

Have the Government delivered on this goal? No, they have not.

In responding to the Assembly debate on draft Planning Policy Statement 14 (PPS 14) earlier this year, the Secretary of State said:

“I will naturally want to reflect carefully on the Assembly debate.”

He went on to say that he would take account of the views expressed. I invite the Secretary of State to listen and reflect on what is being said in the Chamber today. Would Peter Hain have introduced such a proposal in Wales if all but one of the political parties there were against it? I very much doubt it.

The Secretary of State has said that the people of Northern Ireland expect MLAs to do the jobs that they were elected to do. How many times have we heard that from the Secretary of State? Well, today we are doing just that. We are making it clear that the current Government proposals to create seven super-councils do not command widespread support, particularly among politicians here.

I support the motion.

Mr Neeson: I declare an interest in that I have been a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council since 1977 and have a great deal of experience of local government. We all agree that 26 district councils are too many for Northern Ireland. There is a need for radical reform to create efficient and effective councils that are responsive to the local needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

The consultation on the new boundaries was basically a myth. I remember the number of meetings that my party had with Lord Rooker, and I am sure that other parties also met him. That particular individual showed great arrogance to the elected people of Northern Ireland, and I can assure Members that very few tears were shed on his departure.

To all intents and purposes, the proposed seven councils constitute a sectarian carve-up, with three nationalist councils to the west and three unionist councils to the east. However, I am pleased that the Alliance Party will continue to hold the balance of power in Belfast to ensure that power sharing continues in that council.

To all intents and purposes —

Mr Maskey: Obviously, Mr Neeson is a member of the political panel and has heard all the reports from the various subgroups, including the one on governance. Does he not agree that, although the final details of the power-sharing arrangements have not yet been agreed, his party has supported a plethora of proposals on such matters as proportionality, weighted majorities, call-in, petitions of concern, a code of conduct, internal standards committees, the structure of council committee systems, and decision-making? All of those measures have been instituted.

Mr Neeson and I had an engagement in a hotel in Templepatrick a while ago at which I reminded him that Sinn Féin would not be — [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr Maskey: Templepatrick has been a busy hub this last while.

Mr Neeson will recall — [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr Maskey: It is a serious point. Mr Neeson will recall that, during that meeting of the political panel, I reminded him that Sinn Féin would not be countenancing a governance arrangement that allows any party to usurp the will of the vast majority of the people and their elected representatives. Governance arrangements have been set down.

Madam Speaker: Mr Maskey, interventions must always be brief.

Mr Neeson: The only thing to emerge from what Alex Maskey has said is that Templepatrick seems to have become the centre of the universe.

To all intents and purposes, and apart from being a sectarian carve-up, this is in many ways a re-partition of Northern Ireland. I believe that that is why Sinn Féin has supported it — with the exception of Francie Molloy, who is conspicuous by his absence today.

We know that there is to be a radical shake-up of the health and education boards. One of the main objectives that the Government have been hoping to achieve is coterminosity between the various boards and trusts. That will not happen under the seven council areas that are proposed. On a personal basis, I also have serious reservations about NILGA’s proposal for 15 district councils. Serious consideration should be given to the 11-council model. That is why it is important that this Assembly be given the opportunity to look at the original proposals.

As Alex Maskey has already pointed out, I have been a member of the political panel — as has Sam Gardiner of the Ulster Unionist Party. A great deal of work has already gone into the proposals that have been made. Some very worthwhile work has been carried out, particularly by the nine task forces. However, there is still a great deal of work to be done. The Assembly should be given the opportunity to scrutinise the changes and proposals that are coming forward, particularly in relation to council powers over public transport and the whole question of responsibility for local roads and planning.

I am pleased to say that in many ways Lord Rooker’s successor, David Cairns, is much more responsive to the views of Northern Ireland politicians than Lord Rooker was. In the interim before the restoration of devolution there are opportunities to bring about various changes to the proposals. The restoration of devolution is the real challenge facing, in particular, the DUP and Sinn Féin. Yesterday, both parties gave us history lessons. As a former history teacher, I can tell those parties that, if no progress is made by 26 March next year, history will judge them very poorly indeed.

The issue of what will happen to current council staff must also be addressed. Morale among council staff is very low; they do not know what the future holds, which is why there is a need to consider their needs and develop certainty for them.

I believe that the Chief Constable is moving very prematurely in restructuring local policing services. Furthermore, it calls into question the future role of district policing partnerships under that restructuring. That issue also requires serious consideration.

Dick Mackenzie recently published his proposals for the new council boundaries, and I understand the difficulties he encountered in trying to find names for the proposed seven councils. Under the proposals, my own council will become part of Inner East Local Government District, which will comprise Carrickfergus, Antrim, Newtownabbey and Lisburn —

Mr Ford: And Templepatrick.

Mr Neeson: And Templepatrick, of course. [Laughter.]

In relation to the question of association, with regard to that particular proposed council, I ask Members what the people of Carrickfergus have in common with, for example, the people of Dromara — very little indeed. The current proposals do not respect local interests at all.

On the issue of the transfer of powers to local govern-ment, may I make an appeal about the supporting people programme? The proposal is to transfer responsibility for that programme from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to local councils. Over the years, the Housing Executive has been a major success story as regards the development of housing in Northern Ireland. Responsibility for the supporting people programme should remain with the Housing Executive. Members of the Housing Executive and the Northern Ireland Housing Council recently outlined their arguments to my local council. That responsibility should remain where it is at the present time.

The Government continually talk about a shared future, and we are told that a shared future is very much at the forefront of the current proposals. However, the truth of the matter is that, as far as the Government are concerned, a shared future is simply talk, and cheap talk at that.

There has also been talk, as Alex Maskey knows, about the possibility of councillor designations in the new councils — something to which my party is totally opposed. We realise that that is an entire sham, as demonstrated on a number of occasions in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

As a member of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, I noticed that one issue that came up time and time again was the inefficiency of Government Departments in Northern Ireland. Such inefficiencies are the result of the artificial creation of 10 Departments. We know why 10 Departments were created — to create jobs for the boys and girls in the parties that formed the Executive. If we are to achieve joined-up government, there must be a reform of central government.

If Northern Ireland is to really move forward, the current proposals for the new councils should be binned immediately.

Madam Speaker: That concludes the first round of Members to speak. The time limit for Members yet to speak in the debate will be 10 minutes. There is a long list of Members who wish to speak, so I remind Members that I shall be keeping them to their allotted time.

11.45 am

Mr Campbell: I am delighted to start the second round of speeches, Madam Speaker. I hope that we go the full 15 rounds, although it remains to be seen who will be left standing at the end.

I wish to declare that I am a member of a local authority; I am a member of the city council in Londonderry.

Several Members have referred to the importance and seriousness of the RPA, and it is appropriate, therefore, that we are discussing the matter in the Assembly today. Very little disagreement remains on the need for reform of our public administration. It was blatantly obvious that, with three MEPs, 18 MPs, 108 MLAs, 582 councillors, and however many trusts and boards for a population of 1·7 million, we were the most over-governed part of the United Kingdom. Therefore it is well past time that we had reform. The matter for discussion, however, is not reform itself but the nature of that reform.

I agree with those Members who spoke about the importance of the cost-effectiveness of any reform of public administration, particularly for those councils that appear to be the focus of both the motion and the amendment.

I draw Members’ attention to the two areas with which I am most familiar. How can it be cost-effective to have a council in the west/north-west of Northern Ireland that stretches from Castlederg in the south-west to Magilligan on the north coast? I cannot think of a more difficult task than delivering cohesive local services that will attempt to bring together people with a common interest in order to get them to work for the greater good of all the people of that area, given the distance of 60 miles and the different terrain and demographics between those who live at either end of that range, not to mention those who live in the middle.

The north-east, which stretches for about 60 miles from Coleraine on the north coast to the shores of Belfast Lough, also contains huge diversity. It is difficult to imagine how a local council can serve communities in that diverse area cost-effectively. That will be the legacy of the seven-council model. A 15-council model — or thereabouts — would reduce an area of that size, enabling it to deliver local services much more effectively and more cost-effectively. For that reason, all the political parties, with the exception of Sinn Féin/IRA, prefer the 15-council model.

I also wish to deal with the issue of political representation. My colleagues and others who have served on the political panel have mentioned, quite rightly, the importance of governance, however many councils there are to be in Northern Ireland. Various political representatives have raised the issue of the feelings, concerns, fears and apprehensions that a minority would have in each of the council areas, and their views must be taken into account. However, those whom I have heard outline such concerns are usually people who trot out criticism of unionist-controlled councils for their treatment of their nationalist minority. We have heard such criticism today.

Rather than listen to a politician’s political views or fears, we should look at practical examples of what has actually happened in places such as south Armagh, Strabane and on the west bank of Londonderry. When Sinn Féin — or, unfortunately, the SDLP in some cases — has espoused a political view, not only have some unionists felt that they are not being treated well, they have moved out of the area en masse. We must face that reality.

It is not simply a case of people who come from the 15% minority community in council areas such as Castlereagh, Larne or Lisburn not being elected deputy mayor or chairman of a technical services committee. Unionists who live in nationalist areas fear that a jackboot will be put to their necks and that they will have to leave. Over the years, that fear has been borne out. We must try to ensure that people from a minority community can live in any future council areas, whether they are set up under the 15-council model — that is my preference — or the seven-council model, even if those councils are governed by councillors whose political outlook is fundamentally different from theirs. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in the past.

Mrs D Kelly: Does the Member concur that the reason that many people moved out of areas across the North — not only out of unionist-controlled or Protestant areas — was due to the conflict and sectarian violence of the past 30 years?

Mr Campbell: The short answer is yes; that is the case. However, why is it that the unionist community in the three council areas that I mentioned as examples is the prime target in the firing line? I am not aware of large numbers of nationalists moving out of Craigavon because of paramilitary activity or the activities of Craigavon Borough Council. However, I can point to numerous instances of tens of thousands of unionists moving out as a result of paramilitary activity —

Mrs D Kelly: Madam Speaker, if the Member wants me to —

Mr Campbell: I have not yet given way, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr Campbell: I accede to, and fully accept, the fact that paramilitary violence was the primary cause of division and population movement. However, politicians, by their actions, cannot wash their hands of those population movements and simply say that that was a terrible situation. In various areas, populations have moved because of the activities of the Provisional IRA and others. People who take political decisions that impact on those communities must realise that there are consequences to those decisions.

Over the past few years, I assumed that we were trying to move on from the days of population movements. However, the seven-council model does not offer that prospect. The 15-council model — or a similar model — with sufficient safeguards and governance procedures, would ensure that people in certain council areas did not feel that their culture, outlook and political aspirations were being ridden roughshod over. That has happened to both communities. All too often I hear nationalists and republicans referring to what happened in unionist areas, but we all know what happened in republican areas. In Dungiven, in my constituency, parasites drove out hundreds of members of my community. That has happened across Northern Ireland.

Mr Hyland: Will the Member give way?

Mr Campbell: No, I do not give way to Sinn Féin/IRA.

Those are the realities — [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr Campbell: Those facts and figures cannot be denied. When I hit the bullseye, some people become annoyed and angry.

That is just too bad: if they cannot take the heat, they should not be in the kitchen.

Ms Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First, I refute the myth that Sinn Féin is the only group that supports the seven-council model; many diverse groups also agree that that model is the best. Those groups include: the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action; the Institute of Directors; the Northern Ireland Tourist Board; the Ulster Farmers’ Union; the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation; the Confederation of British Industry; and Friends of the Earth. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Ms Gildernew: Those on the opposite Benches, particularly Gregory Campbell, gave many spurious reasons for why people have moved out of their homes. Plenty of people have been bombed out of their homes in places such as Ahoghill. We have argued that legislation should be put in place and financial sanctions imposed to deal with those councils that do not try to eradicate bigotry in their areas. We should consider creating good-relations policies.

Mr Storey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Again, in the interests of accuracy, Ballymena Borough Council had nothing whatsoever to do with any of those activities in the village of Ahoghill.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order, Mr Storey.

Ms Gildernew: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes — [Interruption.]

Mr Maskey: It is more to the shame of that Member’s party that it did nothing about it.

Ms Gildernew: Yes; it is more important that the Member’s party did nothing about it.

However, in every engagement —

Mr Hussey: Will the Member give way?

Ms Gildernew: No, I will not. I do not have much time.

In every engagement, Sinn Féin has argued that the number of councils is not the key issue. We want strong and effective local government and an end to the quango culture. We want increased value for money in order to bring about democratic accountability for local govern-ment. Crucially, we want all of that underpinned by rigorous checks, balances and safeguards. One reason that local government is in its current position, and has been for three decades, is because of unionist councillors’ systematic practices of discrimination. That behaviour continues.

I shall focus my remarks mainly on EU issues, particularly those that are connected to funding and rural matters. For 15 years, the European Union has had a LEADER programme that aims to bring local people together to create an agreed strategy for their area, using EU money, and to intervene to create jobs and assist rural communities. That has been successful across Europe, but it has been particularly successful in Ireland. The current LEADER+ programme in the North deals with 13 groups, it has a budget of £22 million for 2001-08, and it will create in excess of 1,000 jobs in rural communities and will safeguard many more. For example, compared to the EU programmes with budgets that are two or three times that amount that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is delivering, LEADER+ will prove to be extremely good value for money.

To date, additional resources that are above current levels of subvention that come into the Six Counties and the border corridor have not come from the British Government, or, indeed, from the old National Develop-ment Plan of the Dublin Government. However, through Peace III money, which totals €266 million, and the new territorial co-operation programmes, the EU will invest a combined total of €532 million between 2007 and 2013 in the COMET (Councils of the Metropolitan Region) and core partnerships and the border corridor. The border corridor is the most deprived area on the island of Ireland, and, in the past, EU funds have provided a major source of employment, and they will continue to provide that and other services.

Mr Weir: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that we are all fascinated by the investment in the border corridor and the EU programmes. However, is any of that relevant to the motion, to which the Member should surely be speaking?

Madam Speaker: Order. That was not a point of order. I am sure that Ms Gildernew will review the relevance of her speech.

Mr Hussey: Will the Member give way to a genuine question?

Ms Gildernew: No, I will not.

As I have pointed out, in a recent submission to the Special European Union Programmes Body on the new territorial co-operation fund, INTERREG IIIA partnerships stated:

“The RPA will have a number of implications, which are substantially favourable to the prospects of effective cross border territorial co-operation. These include a redefinition of council boundaries into the proposed 7 super councils. While some adjustments of boundaries will be needed, the proposed map of new councils broadly fits the current INTERREG IIIA partnerships … This should greatly facilitate the partnerships taking a strategic approach.”

Therefore, the seven-council model is the optimum configuration if a coterminous approach through the strategic use of those additional resources in the border corridor is to be facilitated.

12.00 noon

Indeed, the seven-council governance model — larger councils working in concert with community planning structures — is similar, in terms of scale, process and structures, to the county council and county develop-ment board model in the Twenty-Six Counties.

In relation to potential for strategic parity between councils in the border corridor area, the INTERREG IIIA partnership report also concluded that:

“The impact of the RPA, [the 7 super councils], is to bring the scale and the processes of local government much more into line between Northern Ireland and the Border Region of Ireland”

To promote balanced regional development in the border corridor area for the mutual benefit of all the communities that live there, the seven-council model provides a geographical area and institutional space to make best strategic use of EU development moneys.

It should also be noted that INTERREG IIIA partnerships are made up of social partners, staff and political representatives from Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the DUP, the UUP and the SDLP.

It is interesting to hear what the UFU has to say about the review of public administration. It has endorsed the approach of making high-quality services accessible to all by significantly streamlining the present administrative structures and redirecting the resultant savings to improve front-line services in the North of Ireland.

The UFU states:

“It is absolutely imperative that a satisfactory balance is achieved between administrative rationalisation and local representation, consultation, responsiveness and accountability.”

Specifically, the union has supported plans to move to a seven-council structure but says that rural representation must be protected.

However, in the midst of all this, the other political parties are having a field day; they are refusing to engage and are actively working to wreck any prospect of agreement on the way forward.

If the Member who tabled today’s motion took a look at the pathetic delivery of assistance to rural communities, particularly building sustainable prosperity moneys and the Peace II programme, in which his former colleague, Bríd Rodgers, presided over a delivery mechanism that successfully delayed the beginning of many parts of the rural development programme for more than two years and kept the greater part of delivery in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development —

Mr Hussey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I trust that the Member will also mention the decision of Minister Cairns that the rural Protestant community needed extra money.

Madam Speaker: That was not a point of order. At the beginning of this afternoon’s sitting, I will again read out what I have said before about points of order. Quote the relevant Standing Order, Mr Hussey, and you may be allowed to make a point of order.

Ms Gildernew: Of a budget of more than £80 million, only £22 million went to the LEADER programme, but that will create more than 1,600 jobs. Will the Member be confident that the other £58 million — almost two thirds of the budget — will create anywhere near the equivalent, which would be about 4,500 jobs? I do not think so.

The majority of the jobs created by the Member’s party in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development were jobs for the boys. The SDLP is concerned about its own political skin. It is not con-cerned about local people being able to make decisions about local communities. It wants to keep control and join together with unionism, as it does throughout councils in the North, to maintain the status quo.

Mr Gallagher: Will the Member give way?

Ms Gildernew: No, Tommy, I do not have time.

The SDLP is putting forward false arguments that are more about being anti-Sinn Féin than being pro-rural communities. When the SDLP had the opport-unity to support rural communities, it failed. It allowed the Civil Service to dictate the terms, and rural communities are now suffering as a result.

Mr Gallagher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In relation to support for rural communities and —

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order, Mr Gallagher.

Mr Gallagher: And mention was made —

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. I am on my feet. I will take this opportunity to read out what I have already read out at least twice before. I remind Members that a point of order is not an opportunity for debate. It would assist the House if Members referred to the relevant Standing Order when they raise a point of order. I shall not accept spurious points of order, attractive though they may be to Members.

Mr Hussey: Under Standing Order 2A —

[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Do you wish to make a point of order, Mr Hussey?

Mr Hussey: Yesterday, it seemed that certain Standing Orders on the papers that we were given were not relevant. Will the Speaker determine which Standing Orders are relevant?

Madam Speaker: Mr Hussey, yesterday you referred to Standing Order 20, and I said that it was not relevant to the business of the day. That is correct. The point that I am making about points of order is correct every day: Members must relate their point to the relevant Standing Order. I will then comment on it. It appears to me that most of the points of order are raised in order to add to the debate and to make spurious points. Attractive though that may be for Members, it is not in order.

I apologise, Ms Gildernew. Extra time will be allowed.

Ms Gildernew: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

As I was saying, when the SDLP had the opportunity to support rural communities, it failed. It did such a poor job that it completely failed to put in any measure of rural proofing, and that has allowed draconian anti-farmer and anti-rural policies, such as Planning Policy Statement 14, to be introduced. Savings made through the reduction of governance here must be recycled into front-line services, and rural dwellers must be properly represented. Farmers and farming families are at the heart of rural communities. The option 7C model is the best way to enhance and protect them. I urge Members to support the amendment. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I am glad of the opport-unity to speak on this issue, because one hears many questions about it in the community. It is interesting to note that when the public are questioned, more than 70% of their concerns are about health. That is one of the major issues that I have come up against. However, although the debate so far has been wide-ranging, the health aspect of the RPA has largely been left to one side.

Public administration reform is not simply about the efficiency or effectiveness of delivery. Efficiency and effectiveness are important in themselves, but they are not the core activity of the public services. The clue lies in the word “service”: service is the core activity. Health and social services are arguably the most sensitive activities in which Government engage. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party has always emphasised that patients are at the heart of the Health Service. We must put the patient first.

There are aspects of the RPA package as regards health and social services with which I have no problems. For example, the creation of a single strategic health and social services authority to replace the four health boards and oversee the implementation of policy across Northern Ireland is welcome. The reduction of duplication has been consistently advocated by the UUP and reflects the role of strategic health authorities in Great Britain. However, that successful move has been marred and compromised by a failure to ensure that democratically elected representatives have a place on the strategic health and social services authority. That is unquestionably a serious flaw in the new arrangements.

That raises an important issue that is characteristic of much of the RPA process and its outcome: the system is driven and controlled by bureaucratic considerations, without sufficient regard for democratic input. That is not altogether surprising, given the Civil Service’s direct-rule culture. For years, it has operated in a direct-rule vacuum, insulated from the rough winds of democratic accountability and, in particular, public disapproval.

However, we cannot fault efforts by the Civil Service to improve service delivery. That is one of the better aspects of the Civil Service’s efforts to improve itself in recent years. I want to put on record my strong support for the current leadership of the Civil Service in its efforts to improve service delivery.

However, we can find fault with the insufficient regard for democratic input. I am sure that the Civil Service will argue that much consultation has taken place. However, consultation is not the same as locally elected representatives making decisions. It runs like a vein through the whole RPA process. That will be one of the biggest issues that the Assembly will have to sort out if it is properly restored. We will have to effect a major change of culture and mindset in the Civil Service in order to clear away the cobwebs of unaccountable direct rule.

Another disturbing aspect of the RPA is its drift away from the principle of coterminosity, which was mentioned several times this morning. That drift is one outcome of the lack of regard for democratic input, to which I have already referred. The proposed five new integrated trusts — the Western Area Trust, the Northern Area Trust, the Southern Area Trust, the Belfast Area Trust and the South Eastern Area Trust — are a step away from the principle of coterminosity. As will be the case with the local commissioning groups, the boundaries of local health units should coincide with those of local government. If the planners of the RPA had sufficient regard for democracy, they would see that weakness in their proposals. However, reducing the number of the current 18 trusts is a welcome step.

The failure to create a single Northern Ireland hospitals’ authority is one of many glaring missed opportunities in the RPA model. It has been historically proven that hospitals have haemorrhaged and drained a great deal of primary and community care funding. The separation of primary and community care from acute services would have created a proper basis for health funding and ensured that funds for primary and community care were not drained to support acute care. That is important, given that medical focus is shifting towards preventative medicine. However, it is difficult to see how preventative medicine can succeed if it must compete with acute services for funding — acute services inevitably win. One weakness of the old process is being replicated in the new system.

The seven local commissioning groups that deal with primary care may restore some of the balance that will be lost in the RPA health proposals. By recognising the centrality of primary care and the need for primary-care-led commissioning, there is at least an effort to underline its importance. If that is to be more than lip-service, however, it is vital that the local commissioning groups are properly resourced and that funding for that care is ring-fenced.

The lack of elected representatives on the new Patient and Client Council, which will replace the Health and Social Services Councils, is another incidence of the democratic deficit that is implicit in these proposals. That is a serious flaw, as it is only through elected representatives that genuine accountability and representation can be achieved. The seven-council model reduces the options that are available for coterminosity in health service delivery, and it creates inflexibility in the delivery of services. Critical mass and efficiency considerations may be important, but not at the expense of democratic input. Democracy must always hold the higher ground in any new arrangements. The twin pillars of democratic account-ability and improved service delivery will keep the RPA house standing. At present, the democratic-input pillar is largely missing, and this Assembly must address that deficit. The sooner locally elected representatives in the Chamber make decisions, the better for everyone. I support the motion.

Ms Ritchie: I declare an interest as a member of Down District Council and as a member of NILGA. Before speaking to the motion, I shall address some misrepresentations.

Contrary to assertions that were made by the Sinn Féin representative for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Michelle Gildernew, the former Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development addressed the needs of the rural community.

She addressed the needs of those involved with foot-and-mouth disease, introduced rural proofing and also overruled civil servants by introducing milk quotas for small producers. The SDLP led the charge against PPS 14, although I am led to believe that some Members from Sinn Féin were initially in favour of it. The SDLP led the charge in the Chamber when Sinn Féin was absent.

12.15 pm

The proposals for the seven councils under the arrangements for the review of public administration undermine the principle of local identity and a sense of place and dismantle the political homogeneity that has characterised many district councils throughout Northern Ireland for many years. They will sever natural power-sharing arrangements that have worked well in Down, Derry and Newry and Mourne councils, contrary to some of the assertions made by the DUP in the past, because it has benefited from those power-sharing arrangements in Down District Council.

The seven-council model has not engendered cross-community support, and it will simply heighten the east-west divide, cause greater division —

Mr Weir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ritchie: No, I have only 10 minutes.

It will cause greater division, polarisation and sectarianism. The seven-council model will place minorities in certain areas at greater disadvantage and place current and future proposals for investment and infrastructure in jeopardy. Unionists and nationalists will experience similar problems with the proposed configuration of seven councils. Take, for example, the proposed East Local Government District council — a name that makes people’s blood run cold — of which Down District Council will be a part. I have a point of information for the DUP: Down District Council has had power-sharing arrangements on an incremental basis since 1973, and my colleagues ensured that the DUP was represented on statutory committees over many years when its colleagues in the UUP would not afford it that opportunity.

Mr Campbell: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ritchie: No, I have only 10 minutes, and I wish to continue.

The proposed East Local Government District council will be overwhelmingly unionist in its representation. Coming from the south-east, where partnership, equality and working together have been common coinage since 1973, I fear that the new political demography will simply marginalise nationalists and could ensure that partnership and equality are consigned to the past, irrespective of the safeguards in legislation. Is that what Sinn Féin wants and supports? Does it want the existing arrangements eradicated in favour of a model that puts the future of Down District Council, which has worked well as a partnership, in jeopardy? Is that what its sense of a new political dispensation really means?

Furthermore, some of the councils that will form part of the suggested East Local Government District council have already had the audacity to object to the auditor about Down District Council’s plans for a new administration centre in Downpatrick. Why is there interference? Down District Council has not interfered with their business agenda. Undoubtedly those councils want to ensure, at this stage, that the suggested East Local Government District council headquarters will be in north Down, Newtownards or Castlereagh, thereby immediately colouring the future investment prospects for that area. Such developments cast unhappy shadows over future political arrangements for the people that the SDLP represents.

The seven-council model puts politics, political arrangements and the future of partnership arrange-ments on the back burner. With the Balkanisation of Northern Ireland — a term that was used by the Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster Francie Molloy, who seems out of step with his own party but in agreement with the broader body politic — the principles won by the civil rights movement of respect for political difference, equality and justice for all have been severed. Is that what Sinn Féin supports and campaigns for? Has it rejected people? It has simply pandered to the British and negotiated for itself in order to gain political control of certain parts of Northern Ireland. Is that part of the side deal — [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Ms Ritchie: Is that part of the side deal for those on the run? That cropped up last November and December — the same time as the new arrangements for local government. I wonder why.

We have been told that the new arrangements under the review of public administration will create savings. What savings? Mr Weir has already referred to savings. The SDLP doubts that any savings will be made, because they have not been quantified. Consider, for example, the proposals for the management of roads and the delivery of new road infrastructure in Northern Ireland: the unitary Roads Service is to demolished and replaced with nine roads authorities — for a place the size of Northern Ireland.

Seven of the nine roads authorities will be formed from the new councils, with different budgets, priorities and resources, and different abilities to undertake different projects. There will also be a motorway and trunk roads authority and a body to deal with standards and performance. Will different standards for roads maintenance apply in the same council area? Could the maintenance standards for motorways be different from those for country B-roads? What significant research has been carried out in that area?

Returning to the issue of the rates base, will some councils expend higher levels of funding than others? Will councils and the motorway and trunk roads authority give similar priorities to roads? How will proposals for the future management of roads deliver balanced regional development, equality and justice for Northern Ireland, yet simultaneously provide an upgraded roads infrastructure that will contribute to economic growth? Those are some of the issues that the economic challenges subgroup discussed.

The recent publication by the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner simply copper-fastens the proposals for the option 7C model, because he was circumscribed by the legislation to deal only with those issues. That publication demonstrates no cognisance of local identities. Some Sinn Féin representatives applauded him and the process that will eradicate their own roles. Electoral wards have been severed, natural ties of communication have been torn asunder and the new configuration bears no relationship to transportation or education ties or where people avail themselves of services or go shopping.

The Boundaries Commissioner’s driving force appears to be to undertake a mathematical exercise for each electoral ward. A cursory study of the figures demonstrates a difference in eligibility figures for electoral wards between the east and west of Northern Ireland. For example, the eligibility figures may be greater in the west than in the east or vice versa. The Boundary Commissioner’s proposals for electoral wards clearly demonstrate a need to meet the requirements of larger councils rather than an understanding or empathy for communities and their requirements.

Mr Kennedy: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ritchie: No. I have less than two minutes left.

In order for real political progress to happen, for people to continue working together and for respect for difference to be honoured, the option 7C model must be removed from the agenda.

The Programme for Government Committee — on which Members from the four main parties sit — must make more realistic proposals that reflect political homogeneity, the necessity for partnership, natural geographical patterns, community ties, transportation networks and economic growth. I wonder why Sinn Féin idolises the option 7C model; perhaps it has more to do with deals that that party has done in Downing Street.

[Interruption.]

The proposed model will not enhance political progress. It could act as an encumbrance to future political developments and hamper the people whom we all seek to represent. Remember: politics is about people and their requirements and demands. The proposed model must be withdrawn.

[Interruption.]

By snapping at me from the sidelines, Sinn Féin Members are simply thinking of themselves, their council seats and their level of political representation. That is their main agenda in today’s debate.

Madam Speaker: Members will know that the Business Committee has arranged to meet at lunchtime. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.24 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Wells] in the Chair) —

2.00 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Before the debate resumes, I wish to remind the House of the requirement of Standing Order 29, which relates to the need for Members, before taking part in any debate or proceeding of the Assembly, to declare any interest, financial or otherwise, that may be relevant to that debate.

Mr Hussey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Standing Order 34(d)(ii), there is terminology that might confuse the House; it refers to the “Army Council”. I ask the Speaker’s Office to investigate and report back to the Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will refer that to the Speaker, and no doubt she will give a ruling at a later date.

Mr Storey: I think that that comment from Mr Hussey would be better referred to the members of the party opposite; they might be able to give more clarity than the Speaker’s Office.

I wish to declare an interest as a member of Ballymoney Borough Council, the second smallest of the 26 district councils. We heard a lot this morning about identity, and in the very rural council area that I come from it is vital that the issue of identity is not lost; it is important. I have often said that, and I say it again. Take for example Lisnagunogue — and if anyone wants to try and spell that, they will do a better job than me — in my constituency of North Antrim. How relevant will a new super-council be to that townland and hamlet? That is an issue that we cannot easily dismiss.

The current Government plan to reduce the number of local councils from 26 to just seven would not only weaken local government, but also make it more remote and unrepresentative of the needs of local communities. It has another serious potential problem in that it could become the greatest organisational blunder of the twenty-first century.

The DUP has consistently called for improvements that would streamline the decision-making process and reduce bureaucracy, but I fear that the current proposals regarding local government will be detrimental rather than advantageous. The DUP has long pressed for real and serious savings in public administration. While others wasted their time in trying to house-train Sinn Féin/IRA in 2003, the DUP set about producing real and serious proposals to address financial waste and over-governance. We said that the 11 Government Departments created under the Belfast Agreement were too many; that was the Belfast Agreement’s Millennium Dome and the pro-agreement parties’ version of jobs for the boys.

The DUP pushed for real and meaningful savings. At last the Secretary of State has decided — and it is not often that we give him credit for anything he says or does — that the 11 Departments should be considered and looked at, and I hope that they will be reformed in a way that is more reflective of the needs of any future Assembly.

Dealing with Northern Ireland’s numerous unaccount-able quangos is key to the success of the reorganisation of our Province’s public administration. Those who deliver services ought to be accountable to the people of Northern Ireland through elected representatives; the boards and bodies that we have created down through the years have too many placemen who are not answerable to any electorate in any part of Northern Ireland.

However, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to make it clear that opting for seven councils is the wrong decision for Northern Ireland. Not many people would seriously argue that we need 26 councils to perform the functions of local government. However, the reduction to seven is several steps too far, for many reasons.

This morning, one of the Sinn Féin/IRA represent-atives accused us of not being able to give any reasons for our opposition to the seven-council model. There is one glaringly obvious reason for seven councils’ being a bridge too far: there is no evidence of any political support in Northern Ireland for the reduction from 26 councils to seven.

Other Members have said that the seven-council model will lead to a carve-up in parts of the south and west of our Province, handing them over to republican control. If it is wrong at this time to put into the Government of Northern Ireland those who cannot commit themselves to the rule of law and who cannot support the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the courts system, it is equally wrong to give those same individuals, and that same party, power over the seven-council model.

It was interesting to listen to this morning’s tirade from the Sinn Féin/IRA representative on the importance of European funding. The Member would like to corral us into the view that if we accept the European model as the delivery mechanism that we should all pursue, it could equally give us the same control in a council west of the Bann. We must ensure that local authorities are controlled in a way that is not detrimental to any section of our community.

These proposals for a seven-council model are shoddy and have only served to unite democratic political parties in this Assembly. On that basis, we exclude Sinn Féin, for whom democracy is but one option, one possibility, one string to its bow. For it, democracy is only a hobby, a tactic, a means to an end. Having got wind of the fact that the Government were going to opt for the seven-council model, Sinn Féin chose to back what it saw as the winner. In a classic piece of political scavenging, it changed course in order to be seen to be clever and ahead of the game. However, it must have forgotten to inform the Sinn Féin Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and left him not knowing exactly what day of the week it was. How could he have got it so wrong? Did he believe that Gerry and Martin were talking about RPGs (rocket propelled grenades)?

Mr Hyland: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Sinn Féin Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone is a female, not a male.

Mrs Foster: He is talking about the other Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Mr Storey: Yet again Sinn Féin has got it absolutely wrong. Francie Molloy thought that Gerry and Martin were talking about RPGs and not the RPA. Naturally enough, he concluded that he would need more of them.

Mr Hyland: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Member is referring to Francie Molloy, he is a Member for Mid Ulster. The Member opposite should get it right for a change.

Mr Storey: Naturally enough Francie Molloy concluded that he would need a pitiful seven, just in case they had to go back to what they do best.

However, we need to be absolutely clear about where this seven-council proposal came from. Why are we considering the reduction of 26 district councils to seven? Let me remind Members of a former Member of this House, a Mr Foster. It is not Ivan on this occasion, or my hon Friend Arlene either. [Interruption.] I would have been happy if it had been he.

Let me remind Members what Sam Foster said at the Ulster Unionist conference in 2000:

“In England, the average county council unitary authority serves almost 700,000 people and the average district council close to 100,000.”

Function, form, size and location are all aspects that we need to examine afresh to increase the effectiveness of our councils. Had Mr Foster had his way, the Govern-ment would not have suggested seven, six, five, four or possibly three councils in Northern Ireland, and that proposal would have fitted the analysis of the situation.

We must always remind the House that there is a consequence for the actions that we take. There are many Members running through the country saying that water charges are terrible and industrial rating is an awful thing, but remember: it was the decisions that were taken by this Assembly in a previous life that brought about those recommendations and that situation. The same is said of RPA — this was the place where it started. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Your time is up, Mr Storey.

The next speaker is Mr Philip McGuigan, and this is the first occasion on which the Assembly has heard from Mr McGuigan. He will be making his maiden speech. As Members know, it is convention that such a speech is heard without interruption.

Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I declare an interest in that I am a member of Ballymoney Borough Council. I have had the honour of listening to Mr Storey use any given subject for debate to launch a tirade against Sinn Féin and those who vote for and support us.

I listened with great interest to all that was said this morning and cannot help but draw the same con-clusions that my party colleagues have drawn: the arguments put forward by those on the opposite side of the Chamber against the current RPA arrangements just do not stack up.

While I do not want to touch on all that has gone before us this morning, I want to tackle a few points, particularly the point that was laboured by Tommy Gallagher and Peter Weir with regard to the economies of scale and the rates distribution — in their terms, the fair rates distribution.

People should remember that the proposals for the seven-council model came about as a result of an independent investigation into the matter. If the House does not want to take our word for it, listen to the words of the Equality Commission, which has said:

“Fewer councils could assist in better distribution of resources between council areas. More councils are likely to have a greater unevenness in the rating basis with a greater mismatch between demand for services and local government income generated through rates.”

The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action has said that seven councils will create the most equal property wealth base.

I also want to refer to the point that Peter Weir made when he talked about the inequalities and the differential between rate bases which currently exist within councils. He then went on to propose a 12-council model, but he failed to explain how the 26 councils could be reduced to 12 without tackling the differential rate base.

I also want to take up the point that was made this morning about Sinn Féin being on its own, or, in some cases, a lackey to the British Government. I do not think that Sinn Féin could ever be accused of being a lackey to the British Government, and we are not, as has been said this morning, on our own in supporting these proposals. My colleague Alex Maskey referred to a number of groups who support the seven-council model. Those groups include the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Rural Community Network, the Confederation of British Industry, NICVA, the Irish National Teachers Organisation, Friends of the Earth, the Institute of Directors, the North West Public Sector Group, the Tourist Board in the North, the Institute of Public Health in Ireland, Help the Aged and Derry Chamber of Commerce to name a few. It is obvious that these proposals, which currently exist in the review of public administration, have widespread support throughout the community.

While I realise that the review of public administration covers a wide group of subjects, I want to focus particularly on Tommy Gallagher’s notion that the seven-council model will underpin sectarianism and community division.

2.15 pm

When people use that argument, I ask myself where they have been for the last 30 years. If they want to see a model that underpins sectarianism and community division, they should open their eyes and look at the current model. Are Castlereagh, Lisburn, Ballymena, Coleraine, Newtownabbey or Ballymoney — my own council — beacons of pluralism and good practice in promoting equality and power sharing? In unionist-controlled councils, a LeasCheann Comhairle, the practice of widespread and systematic discrimination is the norm. In any new arrangement, that needs to be addressed. As Mr Maskey said earlier, Sinn Féin’s support for any new arrangement is predicated on the need for appropriate safeguards to protect both elected representatives and the ratepayers whom they serve.

Much has been made by the SDLP, in the media and in public, of the term “Balkanisation”. I remind the SDLP that that term means “the proliferation of ethnically-defined areas”. It stands to reason that the greater the number of councils, the more Balkanised local government will become. The SDLP fails to explain what will be different in an 11- or 15-council model. How would the boundaries be drawn? The seven-council model does not create the sectarian bipolarity that defines the geography of the Six Counties; the same sectarian line can be drawn on the map of any other proposal.

More than any other model, 7C appears to ensure that each council area will have a minority community of sufficient size to ensure its inclusion in the arrange-ments for the governance of the proposed council. As a councillor who lives in the north-east of Ireland, dare I say that that is a very welcome prospect. That is not simply my opinion, nor that of Sinn Féin; it is the opinion of the Equality Commission that the best option, on equality grounds, is to have the smallest number of councils that will secure effective service provision.

Sinn Féin is serious about equality and about political emancipation. The importance of the opportunity offered by the seven-council model should not be lost on unionists, particularly those who live in border areas and who fear assimilation and erosion of their political identity and culture. As has been said on many occasions, a LeasCheann Comhairle, when we in Sinn Féin talk about equality, we mean equality for all. When examples of good and bad practice are compared, that becomes clear.

I want to see local government in the North move forward in an effective manner; the shackles that hinder local councillors from making more effective changes removed; councillors from all political parties and perspectives working together to enhance the lives of their communities and of all who live in the Six Counties; and stronger councils driving local communities forward. Provided appropriate equality measures and power sharing are implemented, those objectives are best served by the proposals of the review of public administration. I have heard nothing in the arguments of others today to deflect me from that view. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Gardiner: I declare at the outset that I am a member of Craigavon Borough Council in the Upper Bann constituency.

The seven-council model is a system designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. A new system of local government should, instead, be modelled around democracy and local participation, giving life to local communities and pushing meaningful decision-making down as far as possible within the system. Even by its own standards, the seven-council model fails miserably. The effective abandonment of the principle of coterminosity of services means that there is no standardisation of governance between health, education and local government. The failure to achieve coterminosity wipes away any gains that may be made in economies of scale and critical mass.

It would be no exaggeration to say that coterminosity was the central organising principle behind public administration reform in the first place. The whole idea was to have democracy accountable at every level across a broad range of public services. That vision has been lost — instead we are facing a repeat performance of the confused pattern of demarcation lines of the public services under the existing system.

Why has the objective of coterminosity — and its underlying principles of local democracy and account-ability — been quietly abandoned? Why did it cease to matter? Lack of coterminosity has led to ludicrous situations. Consider the example of the so-called banana republic council area, a proposed merger of Lisburn, Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus and Antrim.

In the further education sector, however, Lisburn Institute of Further and Higher Education is to be merged with the North Down and Ards Institute, which is in a totally different council area. The East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education in Newtownabbey is to be merged with the North East Institute of Further and Higher Education in Ballymena in yet a third council area — so much for rationalisation. If that is the best that the RPA planners can come up with, it is time that this Assembly sorted them out.

We are embarking on a seven-council model, creating units with an average population of 250,000, when average council sizes elsewhere are much smaller. Even those Members who favour greater integration with the Irish Republic must have difficulty under-standing why council areas will cover a population of 250,000 when the average size in the Irish Republic is only 100,000. Unionist-minded people wonder why an average council area in Scotland or Wales has 100,000 inhabitants, while we must make do with remote super-councils.

Likewise, everyone wonders why decision-making in Northern Ireland is to be taken away from local areas to remote super-councils, when the English model that is currently being constructed is designed to push the decision-making process as far down the system as possible — in some cases even into local neighbourhoods.

Northern Ireland is a small place, suited to small council areas that reflect historical patterns of local identity. People cannot possibly be expected to identify with remote super-councils that often sit some distance from many of the areas that they govern. That is bound to lead to yet more people failing to engage with local democracy. Voter turnout at council elections will, I predict, fall further.

At a time when we in Northern Ireland should be bolstering democracy and the democratic process, the option 7C model will effectively kill democracy and further reduce public participation in the democratic process. The political vacuum created by direct rule and the lack of accountable local Ministers has already undermined that. Instead, we should take measures designed to boost democracy, and give people the sense that they can make a difference and that they can change things.

It is strange that one aspect of the option 7C model that retains some balance of level involvement — the creation of civic councils involving elected represent-atives and business interests in local towns within the new super-council areas — has been quietly forgotten and abandoned. That is why I have called for the civic council proposals to be revisited. No matter what model or number of councils we eventually opt for, we must nurture the democratic process, not cosh it.

The process of public administration reform has been as flawed as its conclusions. Discussion about the regeneration of the education boards is meaningless without the inclusion of the Department of Education. Public administration must include the entire system of public administration for the reform to be meaningful. Leaving the functions of Stormont Departments out of the equation actually influences the outcome of that reform. How can a realistic restructuring of local administration be undertaken without reference to this Assembly?

Now that the Assembly seems to be back on track, the process of arriving at a seven-council model must surely be revisited and revised. The way that local councils relate to this Assembly is the single most important consideration for the smooth operation of Government in Northern Ireland in the future.

It is also intolerable that public money should continue to be spent developing the seven-council model, when four of the five major parties in the Assembly are opposed to it, and the likelihood of a seven-council model being agreed by this Assembly is almost zero. There should be no more public money spent on pursuing the seven-council model until the Assembly pronounces on the subject. The whole process and outcome of the reform of public administration is so flawed, incomplete and erratic that it will have to be examined again, root and branch, by the Assembly.

As a member of the political panel, I have drawn the Ulster Unionist Party’s concerns on the seven-council model to the Minister’s attention time and again, but thus far he has not made a final decision. I hope that the powers necessary for Northern Ireland to go forward will be back with this Assembly.

Mr Hay: This is a lively debate. There is no doubt about the importance of trying to get the future of local government right. I listened today to the Members opposite talk about equality and fairness. However, let me relate to the House a story that, I think, is important to the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Hay, have you anything to declare?

Mr Hay: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have quite a lot to declare. I am a member of a particular council in Londonderry, and I have been for many years.

Mr McElduff: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. To clear up any confusion, will the Member declare the name of the council?

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Hay: The party opposite talks about fairness and equality, but I can remember — not that long ago — when a member of Sinn Féin came into the Guildhall, where the council was meeting, and decided to set a bomb there. That happened on two occasions — not just one. Do Members know how Sinn Féin rewarded that party member? It selected him as a candidate for the next local government elections, at which he was successful. That was the work of Sinn Féin and the entire republican movement. Therefore that political party endorsed that candidate for what he had done. Not only did he blow up the Guildhall where the council sits, but he put lives at risk, and he had the audacity to fail to apologise for his actions. That happened in the early 1980s. The Members opposite talk about equality and fairness; however, I give that example of their associates’ actions — I hope that the organisation has moved on from that.

Members will agree that local government in Northern Ireland has worked reasonably well over the years, even with the limited powers that it has had. I will go even further and say that over 30-odd years — the difficult years in Northern Ireland — it was the only political and democratic voice that ordinary people had. The public could go to their individual council areas and express their views on issues. That was a useful tool; there was no other political forum in which ordinary people could participate.

Over the years, local government has also been hugely successful in many aspects of driving forward economic development, inward investment and job creation in the individual areas. On occasions, even with limited powers, they were able to give a lead on many issues. It is important that the House should recognise that and recognise the work of local government over the difficult years in Northern Ireland.

2.30 pm

There are 26 district councils, four health boards, 19 health trusts, five education boards and about 100 quangos serving a population o