The Business Committee has allowed up to two hours for the debate. The Minister will propose the motion, and all other speakers will have five minutes. One amendment has been received and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment —

On a point of order —

The Member will please take his seat.

The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speech.

I will take the Member’s point of order.

I was too quick, Mr Speaker, and I apologise.

As this motion relates to local govern­ment, I am sure that many Members will want to declare an interest before speaking in the debate, which is important. I am conscious that quite a number of Members are still involved in local authorities in Northern Ireland. It is important that they declare an interest in what might be discussed here this morning.

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the emerging findings of the review of the Review of Public Administration decisions, as they relate to local government, and the initial proposals for the future of local government.

I do not have to declare an interest as I have now left local government.

Before I move to the substantive matter before the House, I want to refer to two other matters. First, I abhor absolutely the attempted murder of a police officer in my constituency last night. I spoke to the district commander then and again this morning, and he told me that he is content with the co-operation that he is receiving from the community. I am pleased about that. However, we must ensure, as leaders in our constituencies, that we are unequivocal in what we say about those issues and that we ensure that the people responsible are brought to justice. As someone who has been the victim of terrorism in the past, I empathise with the officer and his loved ones, and I assure them of my prayers.

Secondly, I turn to the very distressing news from Omagh this morning. It is distressing to listen to the reports, never mind to look at what happened last night. The nightmarish scenes are almost too difficult to take in. All that I and others can say is how much we sympathise with the family circle. I pray for them at this very difficult and painful time.

I welcome the opportunity for the Assembly to debate local government. When I launched the review of the previous Administration’s review of public administration (RPA) decisions in relation to local government, I gave a commitment to engage with stakeholders as the review proceeded. The Assembly has a clear interest in the outcome of the review and the Executive’s proposals for the way ahead.

Now that the emerging findings of the review, which represent the Executive’s initial — and I stress the word “initial” — proposals for the future shape of local government have been published, it is timely for Members to be given an opportunity to express their views. That is particularly relevant as the Executive subcommittee that I chair looks forward to receiving and considering carefully and fully the views of stakeholders as the three strands of the review are drawn together and the final recommendations are considered.

The review of public administration was set up by the Northern Ireland Executive in 2002 to deliver wide-ranging and comprehensive modernisation and reform to the public sector. The full range of RPA decisions was included in two announcements in November 2005 and in March 2006. The decisions of the previous Administration in relation to local government can be summarised as: the creation of seven councils; the transfer of a significant range of functions to the new councils from central Government and other bodies; the development of a new council-led statutory community-planning process; and the power of well-being.

The local government task force, led by the former Minister with responsibility for the Department of the Environ­ment and with representatives from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) and from the five main political parties in the Assembly, was established to lead the implementation of the RPA decisions. It also led a parallel and integrated process of modernisation within local government, addressing issues such as governance, finance, estates, shared services, the relationship between central Government and local government, performance management and capacity building.

The task force also produced some very good work, particularly in relation to the modernisation of local government. However, it must be said that four out of the five political parties represented on the task force participated on the basis that they remained funda­mentally opposed to the seven-council model that had been agreed by the previous Administration and that their participation was without prejudice to that firmly held position.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair)

In addition, although NILGA and the political parties were committed to the development of strong and effective local government, to varying degrees, they expressed concerns about several of the functions that the previous Administration agreed should transfer to local government once seven new councils had been created. They also questioned the adequacy of the economic appraisal that underpinned the previous Administration’s decision.

The Transitional Assembly echoed and confirmed that debate, both in the Chamber and in the work of the Programme for Government Committee. That Comm­ittee’s work on the matter culminated in the publication on 23 January 2007 of its ‘Report on Review of Public Administration and Rural Planning’.

Following restoration of devolved Government on 8 May, the Executive reviewed the progress that had been made in implementing the RPA. They considered the strategic direction of the implementation programme, and, in that context, it was agreed that I would implement a review of the previous Administration’s decisions on local government. The Executive agreed detailed terms of reference for that review, which was launched on 6 July 2007.

Given the number of councils and functions that we believe will be required, the review is considering what we expect local government to deliver in the context of a fully functioning devolved Assembly and Executive and in the context of the strategic direction of the review of public administration. I remind the House that there are three strands to the review: first, developing a shared vision for local government; secondly, revisiting decisions that were made on the number of councils, while limiting that figure to the three original RPA options of seven, 11 or 15; and thirdly, considering the functions that will transfer to local government — again limiting that to those that were identified for transfer in the final RPA announcements of the previous Administration. We are also considering the previous Administration’s decision on the develop­ment of a council-led community-planning process and on the complementary power of well-being.

Over the summer months, consultants undertook desk research to establish the characteristics of local government in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, including the other United Kingdom jurisdictions, the Republic of Ireland and further afield. The consultants also facilitated several stakeholder interviews and events to test the findings of that research. In parallel, the Executive Committee’s subcommittee, which I chair, met three times. That subcommittee comprises me and my ministerial colleagues from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), the Department for Regional Development (DRD), the Department for Social Development (DSD) and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS). In addition, I also held several bilateral meetings with other Executive colleagues.

That work has culminated in the emerging findings report that I published on 18 October 2007. I will not rehearse the details of that paper, but I assume that Members will raise some of its findings with me. However, I will discuss some of its key points. Our vision is to create local government that will improve quality of life and create communities that are sustainable, vibrant, healthy, prosperous, stable and, above all, people centred. Discussions are continuing on the number and configuration of councils that can best deliver our vision.

However, the issues are complex. A considerable volume of material and commissioned research informs those discussions. Although there is a need for, and benefits to be drawn from, the reduction of some of the existing diversity that lies between councils, there is also a need to balance that reduction by creating local councils that are of a size that allows communities to identify and interact with them.

Proposals for an initial package of functions that should transfer to local government are presented for discussion in the emerging findings report. I know that local government representatives — and others — have expressed concern and disappointment about the scale and nature of the functions that are to be transferred. I understand the reason for that concern.

The process of further stakeholder engagement is not yet complete, and my ministerial colleagues and I will want to hear and consider fully all stakeholders’ views on the initial package before we finalise our decisions. We arranged several stakeholders’ meetings, and although the meeting in Cookstown was well attended and some forthright views were expressed, I must say that I am disappointed that 15 officials but few councillors attended yesterday’s meeting in Armagh. I hope that that situation is not replicated in the meetings that take place later this week.

I stress that the proposals outlined in the emerging findings report mark the beginning of a process of reform and modernisation of local government. Achieving strong, effective and efficient local govern­ment is a long-term process that will require sustained effort over a considerable number of years. Based on experience elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and beyond, the delivery of the vision for local government will not be achieved through a single set of reform proposals, no matter how well devised those proposals may be. We must continue to develop the role of local government, as well as the relationship among the Assembly, the Executive and local government, for many years to come. We cannot, and will not, allow previous direct rule Administrations’ wanton neglect of local government to continue.

As I said earlier, the Executive subcommittee, and the Executive as a whole, will wish to consider fully and carefully all stakeholders’ views, including those of MLAs, members of the Committee for the Environment and the public, before final decisions are taken on the future shape of local government. I shall discuss those views as they emerge with my colleagues on the Executive subcommittee, with other Executive Ministers through bilateral meetings, and with my colleagues on the Local Government Task Force’s strategic leadership board before final recommendations are put to the Executive Committee for discussion and agreement.

It is important to take time to consider all the issues before final recommendations are put to the Executive. It is also important to ensure that we conclude the review process quickly, in order that we can bring an end to the current frustration and uncertainty that exists over local government. Both councillors and staff, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy, are affected by that uncertainty, as is the wider community. I aim to conclude the review and report to the Executive before the end of January 2008 and to make a statement to the Assembly as early as possible in February.

Before I conclude, I should say something about what happens after the review process is completed. We will want to implement an agreed reform and modernisation package as quickly as possible. Our aim will be to implement that agreed package by 2011. I recognise that to do so will require sustained effort and genuine engagement between central Government and local government to ensure that the agreed package is implemented professionally and with care. I want to ensure the smoothest possible transition from our current structures and arrangements to those that we believe will provide stronger, more effective local government for all Northern Ireland’s citizens. I look forward to working with my Executive colleagues, the Assembly, the Committee for the Environment and, importantly, colleagues in local government — through the strategic leadership board and other Local Govern­ment Task Force elements — in a true spirit of partnership and shared endeavour in order to achieve that transition.

Since I came to office, my engagement with local government has been very positive — at least, I think that it has been. I have very much enjoyed the time that I have been able to share with local government colleagues.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity for the House to consider the motion. I look forward to hearing Members’ views, and I will, I assure you, listen most carefully to what they have to say.

I beg to move the following amendment: At end, insert

“; and calls on the Executive to transfer meaningful and significant functions to local government.”

At the outset, I wish to declare two interests, which are already noted in the Register of Members’ Interests. I am a member of Lisburn City Council and, because I wish to say a few words on yesterday’s events in Dungannon, I should declare that I am a member of the Policing Board.

We tabled the amendment because we were very disappointed about the information that has been provided to date. When the Minister launched the review on 6 July 2007, she promised that its purpose was to ensure that:

“we can deliver the change which will achieve the strong, effective and efficient local government that we all want.”

Therefore, something obviously needs to be done. However, that is not what we have. What we have instead, and I can almost hear Sir Humphrey’s Civil Servicespeak, is a mask. A complete U-turn — an about-face — has been performed on what was promised before the Assembly was restored. The review amounts not to a tweak, but to a fundamental review that is taking us nowhere. That is one of the main reasons why we on these Benches are bringing the matter to the Minister’s attention.

The Minister also said at the review’s launch that she was:

“committed to working in partnership with a range of stakeholders to win consensus”.

If that is the case, we have not got off to a very good start. The Northern Ireland Local Government Association, on which many Members sit, has expressed the utmost dismay about the emerging findings. I will quote from the key findings following the robust meeting in Cookstown, which the Minister mentioned. It states that the feeling:

“was one of disappointment, frustration, concern and, in some cases, anger.”

That does not sound like much of a move towards consensus. One of the major problems emerging at that meeting, which was summarised by PricewaterhouseCoopers, was that there was an:

“implied lack of respect for local government’s capacity to deliver.”

That is a slap in the face to all those who work hard in local government.

Linked to that was the suggestion from members of NILGA that there is no point in having a review of public administration if no powers are to be transferred. If 5% of work is already being carried out by local government, and only 1·5% more work is going to be transferred, why should we bother with the review of public administration? There will be cost inefficiencies should we decide to proceed on that basis. Unless we are going to make a step change, the review is a complete waste of time and an expensive waste of money.

Other items arising at the meeting were that councils were concerned about their lack of clout and that there is definitely an imbalance between local government and central government. How can people be expected to do their work when their views are not taken into account?

The summary also discussed other issues that we were promised would be looked at, such as double-jobbing, and how someone could be in two places at the same time. Is there any conflict of interest involved when people sit in this House and make decisions on matters that impact on councils? The Assembly must deal with that issue, which is a more serious problem than people think. The people of Northern Ireland have a fundamental expectation that politicians should do something — to date, they have done very little, and that leads to statements such as the one I heard last night from one of the political commentators who said that, although there are some problems, the Assembly is fundamentally stable. I beg to differ.

The sinister events in Dungannon last night, and those that occurred previously in Londonderry, threaten to undermine the democratic process in which we are now engaged. It is important that society does not return to the old ways, and to ensure that that does not happen, people need to see action: they need to see us doing something.

I have been here for six months and I have seen nothing but people talking.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will give way: make it your best shot.

You can bet your life on that.

The Member has mentioned dual mandates. Will he tell the House, as a relative newcomer to the Assembly and to local government, how he is able to be in two places at once, because I suspect that he is no more superhuman than anyone else in the House? Will he also recognise that in the previous Assembly, when his party was the leading party, the Members on the Benches opposite were allowed to sit in Government while their army was fully armed? His party had no problems in sitting with them in Government on three occasions.

Thank you for that short, sharp intervention. I am at a complete loss to understand why the Member has not addressed the issue of treble-jobbing, given that he is a Member in another place. What gives him the right to criticise me?

The point is that we must address such issues. Five years ago, we were promised a review of public administration. So far, all that has been decided is that we should go back to the drawing board and start again. What kind of progress is that? People look to their councillors to make local decisions; they think that councils have more powers than they actually have.

Will the Member give way?

No, I will not give way. Lord Morrow has already spoken. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, is it — [Interruption.]

Order.

It is apparent that the dogs of war are straining at their leashes; although perhaps they are the poodles of peace.

This is a serious issue. We need to find a way to engage with local people on local issues. Where better to do that than at council level? We must give them not only the power but the responsibility to make a difference. That is what we are supposed to be doing, what we said we would do, and precisely what we are not doing. That is why my party has brought this amendment to the House.

There is also the issue of how to get other sections of the community involved. That is what this is all about. It is not enough to say that we have the same people in the same place. There are people who have provided sterling service for a long time, but it is also true that we need to find a way of bringing new people — people from different genders and different races — into our democratic process. One of the easier ways to do that would be to bring them in through the councils.

The Minister said that there was not such a good turnout in Armagh — I wonder why. If there is no power, there is no interest. The councillors saw in Cookstown that this was a complete and utter farce and a complete waste of time. Unless we are going to be serious about this, how can we expect people to give their time to go and do things?

We hear these sweet words: the Civil Service is brilliant at bringing them out. However, where is the real vision? Where can we actually get things done?

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take great exception to the Member saying that the words I spoke this morning were Civil Service words. They were my words. I take great exception to that, and ask him to withdraw.

That is not a point of order. [Interruption.]

Order.

It is interesting that those who argued long and hard at the start of this sitting about points of order now appear not to understand the rules.

We are here to debate the issue. The Minister said that she wanted to hear from all of us, but now that we are telling her what we have to say, she does not want to hear any more. These messages are coming loud and clear, not just from these Benches but from NILGA and other interested parties, and she should take them on board.

Where are we now? Dead slow and stop. The people of Northern Ireland will ask what we are for. What is it that we are going to do? You have grabbed control — [Interruption.]

It is good to see that there is still a bit of life there. For a minute, I thought that they had gone to sleep.

The key point is that there are people in this House who talk about equality. What we are really talking about is empowerment. We have to empower local representatives to serve the people, do their best for Northern Ireland and make sure that we all go forward in a positive future. That is what this is about, that is what this policy wants to do, and that is why this party has put forward this amendment, which I commend to the House.

I start by declaring an interest, like Mr McCrea, as a local councillor. I suspect that, given the plethora of declarations of interest that we are going to have, this will resemble the start of an AA meeting more than the Northern Ireland Assembly. I also declare an interest as a vice-president of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association, which Mr McCrea has referred to, and I welcome my colleagues from NILGA who are here today.

In looking at this issue, we have to ask why we are here in the first place. Mr McCrea has castigated the Executive for starting again. Perhaps he has forgotten one of the principal reasons why we have started again, which is that, under direct rule, a seven-council model was to be imposed. My understanding is that the Ulster Unionist Party was opposed to that model. Perhaps the Member for Lagan Valley has had some sort of Damascene conversion and actually wants to simply put that in place. We made it very clear that we were not prepared to accept that model.

Indeed there are deficiencies in the emerging findings document, which I will address later. My party does not have a problem with the amendment but does have a problem with the UUP, Pontius Pilate-like, washing its hands of the emerging findings. They emanated from an Executive subcommittee, and an Executive, on which all four parties that are in Govern­ment are represented, including the party of the proposers of the amendment. When Members castigate the lack of powers being given to local government, they should remember that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, for example, which comes under the remit of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, is controlled by an Ulster Unionist Minister. We should at least acknowledge the fact that there are deficiencies in the emerging findings.

For clarity’s sake, will the Member enlighten the House as to who represented the Ulster Unionist Party so effectively on the Executive subcommittee? That person has quite singularly failed to satisfy the Member for Lagan Valley, and Members need to be aware of the identities of the guilty people on this issue.

My understanding is that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety represented the Ulster Unionist Party. He also seems to have a problem in agreeing a Budget and subsequently not agreeing it.

I now move on to the substance of the report. Under the emerging findings, you are left —

Order, order. Mr Weir, please address your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to address my remarks through the Chair.

The emerging findings are something of a curate’s egg, with some good parts and some bad parts. Some findings have already been welcomed in NILGA’s report. I welcome the fact that local councillors will have direct control over the vast bulk of planning issues and local development, which have been a source of major frustration. Community planning powers will allow councillors a greater say in shaping their local areas, and although finance and personnel issues have not been fulfilled, it shows that not all powers are linked to those facets. That will make a difference. The Committee for the Environment has been told that vesting powers will be given to local councils, and there has been a begrudging admission that regeneration powers will also be given. I welcome that fact that councils will have increased economic development and tourism powers.

However, the report falls short in several areas, in that Ministers have been overcautious. The failure to give councils some control over local roads must be re-examined. Roads Service should retain control of strategic direction, but there are advantages to villages, towns and cities having some control over local roads. If local economic development powers are to be increased, perhaps some of Invest NI’s land bank might be better used if it were handed over to councils. Control of the Youth Service would fit neatly within local community development powers, as would local libraries, even if they were in some form of unitary structure. Local government could also handle certain public health and housing issues.

When local government seeks control of further areas, it is not simply in order to get its hands on power; rather it is because certain issues are best decided at a local level. The key issue is what is of most benefit to local people. To that end, there is much to welcome in the emerging findings, but they have also been too cautious.

The Member’s time is up.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First and foremost, I thank the Minister for tabling the take-note motion. As regards the theatrical introduction of Basil McCrea’s amendment, I remind Basil, as other Members have done, that his own party colleague is a member of the Executive subcommittee that produced the emerging findings report.

Sinn Féin shares the sentiment behind the amendment about transferring meaningful power to local government.By the same token, I remind Basil and the other parties that, from day one, Sinn Féin has strenuously argued that it would not support any additional functions being transferred to local government unless firm, statutory equality protections were built into their running and governance.

Throughout the work of the task force, subgroups and so on, Basil’s party has steadfastly refused to sign up to meaningful and acceptable governance arrangements. Although that section of the task force’s work has never yet been completed, if parties ask Sinn Féin to support the transfer of additional functions — or any changes to local government, because the emerging findings paper does not set anything in stone; it is a work in progress — they must bear in mind that Sinn Féin will not support such changes unless firm, guaranteed equality and protective measures are built into the running and governance of local government. That is the baseline from which Sinn Féin will judge any future discussions on the RPA.

Except for the number of councils, Sinn Féin and the other parties agreed with the previous — albeit direct rule — Administration’s findings. All parties were involved in the task force, the nine subgroups and the discussions with other stakeholders, including trade unions, local-government officials and many other sectors with a stake in local government. Although some of those deliberations have yet to be completed, all the parties signed up for that package at that time, except for the number of councils. Therefore, if those parties now prefer change, they must understand that there are consequences. From the outset, Sinn Féin did not advocate a review of the review of public admin­istration. It was prepared to build on the previous discussions in order to finish the task and to complete implementation of the RPA.

Although Sinn Féin was the only political party to support the seven-council model, the only opposition to the idea came from the other political parties. Of course, that is important; however, every other stakeholder wanted the smallest possible number of councils. During those deliberations, it was easy to attack Sinn Féin and to argue about cantonisation and the polarisation of local government, but not so easy to face the reality that going from a smaller to a larger number of councils would logically mean that Ministers and Departments, not wanting their services fragmented further, would resist. Not only the Ministers and Departments but every other sector in society argued equally forcefully against having a greater number of councils, on the basis that services would be further fragmented, harder to deliver and cost more money — valid reasons that still pertain today.

Other parties that are asking for change might get what they wish for, but not what they want. They should bear in mind that if their choice is for more than seven councils, which they are entitled to argue for and might get, the price to be paid will inevitably be that fewer functions will be transferred to local government.

In the past week, other parties, people involved in NILGA and others have approached Sinn Fein to ask what it will do about this matter. We are saying —

Time.

I want to stress the importance of statutory safeguards, about which there is no detail in the Minister’s paper. Without those safeguards and protections, the SDLP will not sign up to any changes to local government. When the details have been agreed, they should be subjected to a cross-community vote in the Assembly. That is the only real protection that there can be in order to arrive at equitable arrangements.

The subtitle of the review of local government aspects of the review of public administration report is “emerging findings”. That is a misnomer and a contradiction, because very little emerges from the report. That is disappointing, but it is more disappointing that the review team conducted no meaningful engagement with stakeholders, particularly with elected members of councils, who have been kept very much in the dark.

As we have heard from the Minister, the report says nothing specific about council numbers. What does that mean? Does it mean that, despite all the opposition to the seven-council model, the people who are working on the RPA still want to impose an English model of local government that will be totally inappropriate here? Do they think that they will get away with the wholesale closure of council offices west of the Bann and the stripping of more jobs from areas of high deprivation?

Could it be that they are being so guarded about council numbers because they believe that people in rural communities, especially in the west, will accept civic councils that feed into the deliberations of larger councils?

If that is the hidden agenda, I wish to send out a clear message: ratepayers in rural areas, particularly in the west, will not be conned. They will not accept any second-rate, lower-level arrangements that will leave them powerless and voiceless. People who live in the west have suffered enough of the deprivation and marginalisation that has resulted in poor roads and little investment.

As some Members will know, people in urban as well as rural areas are already worried about increases in their rate bills, not to mention the further burden of water charges.

Will the Member give way?

I will not give way.

Whatever the final number of councils may be, an equal spread of the wealth across all councils and a fair distribution of the rates burden is the very least to which the public are entitled. That requirement is paramount to the SDLP.

For all the supposed commitment to strengthening local government, to improving efficiency and to subsidiarity, it appears from the review paper that, apart from some functions of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) and the Department for Social Development, few functions will transfer from central Government. The Departments appear to want to continue to hold on to as much power as possible at the centre.

At least the SDLP Minister, Margaret Ritchie, has made it clear that her Department will transfer urban-regeneration and community-development delivery functions, for which there are significant budgets, to local councils.

The Department of Education, which does not deal well with school transport, among other issues, wants to keep everything. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which certainly does not provide emergency cover very well, wants to hold on to everything. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which does not appear to be dealing at all with trying to achieve a shared future, wants to hold on to everything.

The Department for Regional Development, which had been expected to transfer responsibility for roads back to councils, has failed to invest in road improvement in the west yet wants to retain that power at the centre. DRD has failed to maintain rural roads and provide winter gritting programmes. That is unacceptable. If councils are to play a meaningful role in local economic development, they must have responsibility for local roads.

The Member’s time is up.

I declare an interest: I have been an elected member of Carrickfergus Borough Council for 30 years. In fact, I am the longest-serving member on that council, and I am very proud of the achievements of local government.

However, there is great uncertainty about the future of local government in Northern Ireland, and if reform is to be meaningful, local government must have meaningful powers. The Minister is well aware of recent criticisms about what appears to be a future reduction in the powers of local councils, and greater clarity on that matter is required.

Members are aware of the need for the reform of local government in Northern Ireland — 26 councils are far too many for Northern Ireland. However, it is unfortunate that the reform of local government is taking place in isolation from a review of central government, and I have always been critical of that. Eleven Departments are far too many for Northern Ireland, and Members know that they were created artificially in order to appoint 11 Ministers. That issue needs to be considered also.

The ‘Review of Local Government Aspects of the Review of Public Administration: Emerging Findings’ report contains interim plans for consultation, and I hope that that consultation is meaningful. The report, which was produced by an Executive subcommittee comprising four Ministers, outlines how they intend to proceed with the review of public administration as it relates to local government. NILGA has responded critically to the report, and the Alliance Party supports NILGA’s stance. NILGA’s paper must be considered seriously as part of the consultation process.

The Alliance Party supports the rationalisation of health boards; a single education authority with a special duty to promote integrated education, and, believe it or not, a reduction in the number of quangos. We also support the transfer of urban regeneration, minor roads powers and local planning functions to local government. Consideration should be given to the options of having either 11 or 15 councils. Furthermore, we support the Community Relations Council’s challenge function regarding decisions made at local level on community investment funds; shared civic offices; weighted-majority voting for key decisions, and a new local government watchdog.

The Alliance Party has three broad concerns about the emerging findings report. First, there is a lack of attention to good corporate governance and how that may be improved through local government reform. Secondly, there is no reference to financing: it makes little sense for councils to have expanded powers and no means of expanding their incomes. Thirdly, there is no clarity about what has been learned from good practice elsewhere. For example, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of local councils in Denmark; and there have been significant reforms in the Republic of Ireland and across Great Britain. However, there is scant evidence that any account has been taken of those examples.

Regarding economic responsibilities, I am pleased that my own council — Carrickfergus Borough Council — has taken a proactive approach on economic develop­­ment. If local councils are to have real powers, issues such as the vesting of land must be considered.

Councils throughout Northern Ireland have been proactive in promoting local tourism to great effect. The main priority of the Programme for Government is growing the economy. However, if the economy is to grow, local councils must have the necessary powers.

The Member’s time is up.

Given the number of contradictions that there have been during this debate, the Minister will have difficulty in responding to the issues raised. Mr Neeson talked about the Alliance Party’s desire to do away with quangos. Members know that, when Alliance Party members get together, their favourite game is not ‘Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?’, but rather “Who wants a quango chair?”.

They have had plenty of them; it is their own job-creation scheme that has been scuppered by Mr Neeson.

The SDLP talks about devolving more powers to local councils, yet its Minister is the one who is holding on, as tightly as she can, to such functions as urban regeneration, housing responsibilities and so on. The Ulster Unionist Party has complained about the delay, but it was the party which rightly said, along with the DUP, that the proposed number of councils was unsuit­able and that there should be more time to reconsider that issue, along with a whole range of other matters.

So there have been contradictions in the debate —

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Where a Member has a number of mandates — more than a dual mandate — is it correct that he should declare his interests?

At the beginning of the debate, the Speaker said that Members should declare their interests.

I apologise for not declaring my interests. [Laughter.]

My interests are declared in the Register of Members’ Interests, and, therefore, they were declared before the debate began.

I will make three points in relation to the debate. First of all, time. Some Members have alleged that we are delaying matters further, but this will be a once-in-a-lifetime change for local government. We have inherited some of this from a direct rule Administration that viewed the RPA through direct rule eyes. Following devolution, certain things need to be looked at in a different way — I will refer to some of those in a moment. Time should be taken over the process, and if that means that we must delay it a little, it is far better to shape it correctly than to rush in and do something on the basis of what the direct rule Ministers said. There is also the issue of building capacity at local government level. That requires work, and it will take time.

Secondly, there needs to be commitment from Ministers to devolve certain functions. I have already mentioned DSD. I could also mention the DUP Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure: he should look again at the library function, which, I believe, fits much better at local government level. The Minister of Education should consider whether youth services might be devolved to local councils. Some of the things predicted in our Programme for Government may have to be reconsidered.

Lastly, some imagination is required. Some functions are to be devolved to local government, but that may not mean that they are simply handed down. Earlier in the debate, a Sinn Féin Member said that if there were more units of local government, fewer powers would be devolved to them. That does not necessarily follow. Whereas there might not be the same economies of scale with 11 councils as opposed to seven, there is the option of grouping councils for certain functions, which could provide those economies of scale.

Does the Member agree that, with respect to the clustering of councils, the LEADER groups that delivered rural development funding were a key example of local councils working together to deliver for the people, unlike the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), which this year had to return millions of pounds to the European Union?

There are already models that show how grouping of councils can work. In some rural areas, the building control function is grouped, and it works well. Let us not run away with the idea that if we step back from the seven-council model, fewer powers will be devolved to local government. There are ways of doing it: it requires a bit of imagination. In some cases, it may be a matter of directly devolving issues, such as the Youth Service or library services.

One model that might be tried is that councils might be given money for roads, for example, but would buy in services from Roads Service. That would avoid the breaking up of responsibility for roads and the loss of economies of scale there. In other cases, councils might liaise with other bodies. In education, they might liaise with the education and skills authority, the Department, or whatever body emerges from the RPA, to ensure that services delivered locally are delivered properly.

There are many imaginative ways to do it. Let us not simply criticise Ministers: my concern is that local government has not engaged properly. Local government, the Assembly and Ministers must engage equally. If that takes time, we should ignore the bluster of the Member for Lagan Valley Basil McCrea, get down to work, and do the job properly. I would add one word of caution in that the process cannot be delayed interminably because people are worrying about the future; for example, those who are waiting to be recruited into local government. We must ensure that that capacity is not lost.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoin rún. I would like to say a few words on this matter.

I declare an interest as a member of one of the best councils in the North — Armagh City and District Council. I apologise to the Minister that I could not make it to the meeting yesterday.

This is work in progress. Sinn Féin did not ask for this review. However we are prepared to work with, and develop, what was originally proposed, and we expect debate and negotiation between parties to begin in a serious way. Sinn Féin has no interest in giving enhanced powers to councils unless those powers are accompanied by robust checks and balances in order to avoid the discriminatory practices that still exist in many councils. Economies of scale mean that the number of councils proposed must be the optimum number for delivery, and not be cumbersome, unwieldy and impractical. Having more councils means a greater service fragmentation and poorer services for the public.

The key issues emerging from the review of public administration are about governance and equality, which must be delivered. The emerging findings report is disappointing as regards the number of functions to be transferred to local government, and my council is using words such as minimalist. It would appear that some Ministers are intent on watering down the powers to be transferred in order to hold on to those powers themselves. I ask them to explain their position not only to their party colleagues, but to bodies such as NILGA and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE).

The emerging findings leave a lot to be desired, and we welcome the opportunity to have meaningful debate. At the heart of that debate, Sinn Féin believes that community planning will deliver fair and strong local Government. Go raibh maith agat.

I welcome the debate as it brings the review of public administration, which has been a cause of concern for some time, back into focus. Not least, I welcome it because the emerging findings report is one stage in the process of undoing the damage that was outlined in previous review of public administration conclusions. Due to that, I am surprised at the response of the Ulster Unionist Party in the House today. I thought that, like the DUP, they would be opposed to many of the earlier findings of the review of public administration. Their fingerprints are all over this report — their Ministers contributed to it, and signed off on it, so it is surprising to hear their criticisms.

Will the Member give way?

No, I will not give way, because I am going to make a point. I will give way in a moment.

However, as is customary, UUP Members have forgotten their past, and the fact that their fingerprints were also all over the beginning of the review of public administration process. In 2000, Minister Sam Foster initiated the fundamentally flawed process, and what one Minister Foster cocked up, another Minister Foster must correct.

Today’s debate is a staging post in getting the review of public administration correct. As my colleague Sammy Wilson said, this is a one-off opportunity to get it right, and such opportunities do not come along frequently.

I declare an interest as a member of the city council of Londonderry.

The Member has mentioned disturbing trends that have emerged in the debate. Does he agree that another disturbing trend is that several nationalist Members have talked about the importance of governance arrangements, which should be a paramount consideration for all parties, because the many unionist minorities who have suffered at the hands of nationalist majorities also want to see good governance arrangements in the new RPA?

I thank the Member for his inter­vention. I have noticed that there have been contributions on governance arrangements from the Benches opposite. I must declare an interest as a member of Ards Borough Council, which I omitted to do at the start of my contribution. In the east of the Province, unionists have large majorities on councils. However, we are mindful that unionists in the west of the Province need protection from nationalist and republican domination. Therefore, I take the Member’s point on board.

Much of the discussion has centred on functions that should be transferred to local government. The emerging findings report criticises to some extent the initial RPA decisions. There is scope to examine the prospect of additional powers being transferred to local government. I am glad that the public-realm aspects of local roads have been included in the report. However, other local roads issues remain to be examined.

Youth services would fit neatly with local government, particularly given the amount of work that already takes place between local government and youth services; for example, through community-safety partnerships. That would have a knock-on effect for libraries and youth services, where there would also be a neat fit. Although I do not want to disagree with the process that has been initiated by my colleague the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, a body beneath the single library authority could have input at local government level.

Urban regeneration is an increasingly important area of local government. That is why I, and many others, were disappointed — quite annoyed, in fact — that, although she deemed that she would transfer urban-regeneration powers to local government, Minister Ritchie has done so begrudgingly, criticising what she has called a “narrow skills base” at local government level and saying that those powers would be devolved over time and through a phased approach. It is rich for SDLP Members opposite to complain about how few functions are to be transferred, when their own Minister has held on for grim death to some of her Department’s functions.

Will the Member give way?

No, I will not give way, because my time is almost up and I have already given way. Minister Ritchie has held on to her powers. She has actually insulted many local government representatives and officials, particularly in places such as Belfast and Londonderry, which have a rich experience of involve­ment in urban regeneration.

In conclusion, I remind the Minister of the Environ­ment to maintain a focus on efficiency. Although the delivery of strong local government is important, the need to achieve efficiency is equally so. The Assembly must not lose sight of that fact. If that efficiency is not achieved, there is little point in proceeding with the process.

At the outset, I acknowledge the great debt that is owed to local government and to those councillors who served during the darkest days of the Troubles, often at great personal risk. The pattern of the 26 local councils that were established in the early 1970s was intended to operate in tandem with the Administration at Stormont. Sadly, that proved not to be the case.

The review of public administration was originally welcomed. It offered the prospect of a new beginning and had the potential to deliver strong and effective local government, which Northern Ireland has been denied for too long. It was seen as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, because it could determine the pattern of local government for the next 20 or 30 years. Therefore, we cannot afford to get it wrong.

Hopes were high that the review would transfer real powers to local authorities — powers that would bring them more into line with their counterparts in Great Britain. It was hoped that the review would utilise modern thinking to improve service delivery and provide a template for local government in Northern Ireland in the early twenty-first century. Sadly, because the review took place amid the background of direct rule, many of those hopes were dashed.

Unfortunately, the reviews have too often been run by unaccountable civil servants, or former civil servants, who have usually paid scant attention to the wishes of locally elected politicians — hence the absurd proposal for seven councils, which was supported by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Sinn Féin. That is the very definition of an unholy alliance.

The restoration of a devolved Administration provided us with the hope that the situation would be rescued. However, the RPA emerging findings report received a less than enthusiastic welcome from significant quarters, including the Northern Ireland Local Government Association.

I am particularly concerned that the proposals do not go far enough in transferring powers to local government. Rather than letting local government get on with the business of delivering local services — and allowing the Assembly to busy itself with Province-wide strategic and infrastructure projects — I fear that we are in danger of weakening local government by denying it real powers. The Assembly and the Executive are trying to micromanage functions that simply do not need to be the responsibility of central Government. Those fears have been articulated by Alderman Hatch — one of my Ulster Unionist colleagues — who is currently the president of NILGA.

For local government to remain relevant, it must have real powers to affect the lives of citizens. Certain Ministers must resist their natural instincts and temptations to retain as much centralised control as possible, and must trust local government. Among the additional services that NILGA has called for the Executive transfer to local government are planning; community planning; regeneration; local roads; libraries; and youth services.

I respect the vast experience that resides in NILGA, and I have no hesitation in supporting its call for the Executive to consider the proposals contained in the emerging findings report and to return with a set of proposals that will transfer meaningful and significant functions to local government.

I welcome the Minister’s contribution. She made some good points about a shared vision and, in particular, about reviewing the number of councils, which are most welcome. Does the Minister also accept that there is a lack of morale and motivation in all local authorities in Northern Ireland due to uncertainty about their future? We must have clarity about the future and the terms of the proposals.

As for the transfer of functions, I accept that the youth service is an example of a model that should be transferred to local government, bearing in mind the range of joint provisions between the community sector and the youth sector. The social-education programmes that the youth service brings to the table are exemplary, considering the current levels of antisocial behaviour and ill discipline.

The SDLP is disappointed by the limited list of functions that are proposed for transfer. However, more importantly, it is unacceptable that such important issues have been addressed without meaningful engagement with political parties and councils on the detail of functions for transfer, budgets, staff and options for cluster working by councils.

In addition to concerns about the nature of the functions to be transferred, the SDLP remains concerned about the process and implications of transfer. We raised concerns about assets and debts of existing councils, which are still to be addressed. Concerns related to equity arise across a range of issues, an example of which is the redevelopment of local areas. Some towns have benefited from central funding for redevelopment. If powers are transferred, will other towns have access to adequate funding to meet the same standards?

A note has been passed to me to remind me to declare my interest as a member of Derry City Council.

Considering the Department of the Environment’s connections with the origins of the conflict, the SDLP is concerned about planning policy. My party wants to see greater influence on local planning by councils, but as part of an overhaul of the planning system, and in the context of effective statutory power-sharing safeguards for new councils. As for the comments of the Member for East Derry Gregory Campbell — who is not in the Chamber, at present — it is a fact that, in nationalist-controlled councils in Northern Ireland, a power-sharing system is in place.

I am sorry that the Member is not in the Chamber, because I want it noted that unionists have 20% of the seats on Derry City Council but hold 30% of committee positions. That is more than would be the case under d’Hondt and power-sharing arrangements.

Will the Member inform his colleagues on Down District Council of that arrangement? The DUP has never held any senior civic position in that council throughout its entire existence, despite maintaining three seats on it.

I cannot comment on Down District Council. However, I can assure the Member that in Derry City Council, the SDLP has given up the position of mayor and two deputy mayors as allocated under d’Hondt to ensure that there is shared responsibility and that the unionist position is represented in the two top posts.

The SDLP has called for a full-scale review of the planning system in order to make decision-making more transparent and accountable, and to shorten the planning process. The party believes that stronger planning policies are required, and there should be greater clarity about interpretation. The Planning Appeals Commission is not considered an adequate vehicle through which to hold the system to account. There is also a need for greater connectivity between planning decisions and their impact on other services, which underscores the need for community planning.

Clarity is also required about area plans and new local plans. With an 11-council model, area plans could be difficult to distinguish from local plans. There must be flexibility and responsiveness at a genuinely local level.

The SDLP welcomes the emerging findings, but they are quite vague about the number of councils, with little indication of which of the three options is favoured. That is disappointing, given that there are plans to put a paper to the Executive by December. As set out in the SDLP’s responses to earlier phases of consultation, the party is totally opposed to a seven-council model on the basis that it is inadequate to meet the needs of our dispersed rural population. The party believes that it will lead to Balkanisation in Northern Ireland, making power sharing more difficult to establish. It will also lead to reduced democratic accountability and fundamentally undermine the character of local government. Furthermore, it will contribute to central­isation at a time when we should be trying to reverse that trend to ensure that the west of the Province is being supported, as Tommy Gallagher mentioned. We should support the rural economy and rural communities, promote balanced regional development and tackle rural and western disadvantage.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I declare an interest as a member of Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council, which is the lead council on this issue. I wish to express my concern about some of the emerging findings. In general, many people, particularly local government representatives, expected that more power would be transferred to local government. I am concerned that a gap is developing between local government and central Government. For years, local government feared that when the Assembly got up and running, Ministers would claw back the powers that they had previously talked about devolving. We need to devolve powers to local government that will make it very powerful and allow it to deliver for communities in the future.

The power of general competency has been talked about again and again, and there has also been a focus on the power of general well-being. However, local government must follow the needs of the area. The present local government structure means that, far too often, local government and councils cannot follow those needs or deliver for the communities that they serve. They have no responsibility for roads or footpaths or for the general well-being of the area. Unfortunately, responsibility for such matters falls between several different stools — local government, Roads Service, the Housing Executive, and so on. That power of general competency is needed to ensure that local government can deliver for its communities.

In the past, local government has been on the edge of involvement in European funding and its delivery, but it has never had any responsibility for it. I welcome the fact that, under the new structures, local government will have a greater role in delivering those funds. That will bring the statutory agencies together, thus ensuring that they deliver on their responsibilities. It will also bring together various community groups that often have good ideas but no particular strategy to facilitate or bring them all together. If local government were to have a more powerful role, we could look forward to the delivery of those strategies.

The role of the Assembly is to legislate for the empowerment of local government and to allow it to deliver on the ground. The local agencies are aware of the needs of communities and can deliver at ground level. It is important that we separate the two situations so that we do not have everybody doing everybody else’s job. That will build a better relationship between central Government and local government in the future. Each must carry out its role to the best of its ability, and have the relevant powers to deliver for communities. At the end of the day, that is what we want.

It has been proposed that local government elections be delayed for two years. That is dangerous, because it would render councils dead for two years, and neither staff nor councillors would know what is happening. People would be hanging on, instead of being empowered. An election gives people power to carry on, which is important. It is possible to complete the current strategy within the time left to councils, instead of delaying. Otherwise councils will lose a lot of valuable staff due to the uncertainty, and will have no power to plan for the future because no one will know what their role is going to be.

At what stage will the Member address the number of councils? Is he still of the opinion, shared by the unionist Benches, that seven is not the preferred number?

My party has made it clear all along that, whatever about the number of councils or the powers devolved to them, the issue is that they are meant to deliver fairness and equality and ensure that people are accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, that is where a number of councils currently fall short. There are unionist-controlled councils that could do better in delivering for the communities that they serve, and in ensuring that there is equality, fairness and good governance. Now is the time to show that goodwill. People can take things in good faith and can put legislation in place, but now is the time for unionist-controlled councils to ensure that they can deliver.

We must ensure that we have powerful local govern­ment that can deliver for the community. Unfortunately, the council on which I sit has gone down in history as the council that brought local government down because of past discrimination. That led to the civil rights movement and a 40-year campaign to bring about equality and justice. That is where we are today, and it is important to concentrate on how we deliver local government, regardless of the number of councils.

I declare an interest as a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council.

I support the amendment. Prior to devolution, all parties expressed their support for the transfer of additional responsibilities to local government. However, there now appears to be some considerable backtracking. Is this the outworking of the control freakery of some Stalinist, centrally controlled parties? We must have faith in the elected representatives on the councils and give them the responsibility. Decisions must not always be taken centrally; that is not what democracy is about.

I shall focus largely on planning, because it is hugely significant for local communities and would give greater responsibilities to councils and councillors and enable them to have a much greater impact on their areas. Planning is a key issue for local government, and there has been a significant proposal to backtrack by removing responsibility for area plans from local authorities. Local authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom have that responsibility: why should it not be the case in Northern Ireland? Why is it OK in England, Scotland and Wales, and why should it not happen in Northern Ireland? Is the planning Minister reluctant to lose significant powers from her Department? The responsibility for planning must be devolved to councils.

Will the Member give way?

I may give way later on, but I wish to pursue this issue.

Area plans are not developed in isolation. They must adhere to the regional development strategy; there is an outline that must be followed locally. Local plans are not developed independently, but must follow on from other regionally developed policies. The scale of the current plans will not be hugely different from that which is being proposed.

I know that there is a huge Belfast metropolitan area plan, but that plan could possibly develop through amalgamated plans, which may well be in the interests of council areas that are being developed. However, in the northern part of my constituency of East Antrim, an area plan covering Larne, Antrim and Ballymena is under consideration. I suspect that that would not be much different in area than those of the new councils that are likely to emerge, whether there be 11 or 15 of them. I reiterate my opposition to having seven councils.

I acknowledge what the Member has said, and I agree that as much planning as possible should go into local government if we are to mirror the arrangements that are in place in other parts of the UK. However, there are no area plans in England, Scotland and Wales.

The issue is that decisions should be taken locally by councillors. It is better that councils develop and follow plans for the purposes of trans­parency. However, decisions should be taken locally by councillors. The proposal will add a third level of bureaucracy, giving councils a third planning level. I suspect that that would lead to increased costs and not reduced costs. Why not give councils full responsibility?

Plans developed at local government level would be subject to an appeals process, public inquiries and scrutiny from the legal system, so there would be protection. Ultimately, the electorate would determine whether it believes that inappropriate decisions are made by local representatives, but I hope that that would never be the case.

I will illustrate further why that is important. There has been much talk about community planning. To give community planning real teeth, councils must be allowed to incorporate it in their area plans. What is the point of giving councils responsibility for community planning without the full teeth to demand that the issues flowing from that responsibility are built into an area plan? Councils will not necessarily be able to do that under the current proposals.

There are significant failings in the existing process. Area plans are determined remotely from councils, and council views are often filtered and eventually lost. In Carrickfergus, for example, a proposal emerged that new houses could be built under high-voltage cables. The council specifically said that that should not happen, but the area in question has now been earmarked for possible housing.

In addition, rather than using additional housing to ensure that spine roads are completed and are developer-led, gaps are being left. Local councillors would have been aware of the issues and would have driven the process through to completion. The current process is failing, and mistakes are happening. It is important to have faith in local representatives, give them respons­ibility and allow them to be held accountable to the electorate.

I declare an interest as a local govern­ment councillor for Craigavon. I also mention my membership of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and I endorse the earlier comments that were made by the Minister about the two PSNI officers who were shot recently in brutal attempts to take their lives. I express the SDLP’s sympathy and our hopes for their recovery. We also endorse the comments that were made to the Minister about the horrific events in Omagh.

Many SDLP Members are missing from the Chamber as former Member Mr John Fee is being buried today. Our party sends its sympathies to his wife and family, and the wider family circle.

In her statement, the Minister said that she wanted to listen. We hope that she will take action on many of the concerns that have been raised, understandably, by Members across the Chamber. I have not heard great dissent this morning, once the arguments over the strength of powers that local government should have are distilled.

At the early stages, the SDLP set out its vision of strong and accountable local government, which would encourage and promote participative democracy. The Minister referred to the number of meetings that are being held across the North, and she expressed disappoint­ment at the turnout at some of those meetings. However, I ask the Minister to reflect on her many years as a local councillor. She will acknowledge that, during the early stages of the RPA, local councillors were not allowed to engage in the process. They now feel that they are being consulted at the end, rather than at the outset, of the process. That goes some way towards explaining why councillors believe that they have been excluded.

The SDLP’s major concerns centre on the lack of meaningful engagement with stakeholders, particularly parties and councillors, on the detail of the transfer of functions. That lack of engagement persisted throughout the period of direct rule, and the limited progress achieved in eventually securing policy-development panels on RPA has now been rolled back because those panels have been suspended. During the present exercise, only the most superficial level of detail has been shared.

I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge — as other Members have — the concerns of local government staff about morale, motivation and uncertainty about their futures. The emerging findings paper sets out no detail on where local government headquarters will be located when agreement is finally reached. Many people are concerned about council-owned buildings and where the centre of authority will be located. Some Members highlighted how councils have come together and delivered well for the people, particularly in areas where they received EU funding, but, disappointingly, no departmental funding.

Community-safety planning and the local strategy partnerships were intended to be vehicles for greater engagement with other stakeholders. When I was a member of a local strategy partnership, from the outset, senior staff from various agencies and Departments attended meetings. However, as time went on, ever more people who attended meetings represented their agency, but had little power to make decisions. Decision-makers must be at the table and if they are to deliver, they must bring a substantial budget with them.

The SDLP strongly supports the principle of retaining the community-planning initiatives that were set out as a vision for local government. That is the best way to address the concerns of, and deliver for, the people. Many Western democracies are experiencing less engagement by voters at the ballot box. Voters feel that they have no stake, because they are not part of the decision-making process. Community planning is one way in which it is hoped to stem the tide of a lack in engagement by members of the public.

Many Members have explained the positions of the various Departments. There is great concern that many Departments have yet to hand over any power, or indicate that they will do so. No information has come from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on how they envisage power being devolved. I am sure that all parties acknowledge the concerns about community relations. Local councils can achieve results in that area.

The Member’s time is up.

The RPA is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a world-class system of local government for the people of Northern Ireland. I am dismayed that the Executive’s current plans, as presented in the emerging findings paper, fall well short of the necessary mark. The Executive subcommittee is engaged in a blatant attempt to pass only small amounts of responsibility from each Department to local government. That is the wrong way round: it should be a matter of identifying what local government can and should deliver and, subsequently, how central Government needs to be reformed to take account of that.

Most importantly, local representatives must hold prime responsibility for local community planning. They must have a direct say on all its elements, including economic development, emergency services and transport. Local representatives are closest to local communities, and they offer the most direct accountability to local people. Therefore, they must take the leading role in community planning. Currently, they face severe restrictions in doing so, because they cannot vest land for economic development, and, in most cases, have no direct say on local emergency services.

Furthermore, local representatives play merely a minor consultative role in dealing with local roads and public transport. In practice, local community planning functions are severely restricted by the fact that responsibility for many functions rests with Departments, agencies and quangos. Therefore, ultimately, although most of the blame is often assigned to local councils, most of the power rests with central Government. It is disappointing that the plans in the emerging findings report pay mere lip service to addressing that matter.

For local community planning to become a reality, that will mean not only the transfer of key functions, such as vesting of land for economic development or libraries, but a new type of local government, with partnership-working on areas such as fire and rescue, local roads and bus services. Local representatives need to be given a meaningful say, and new and fairer financial arrangements must be put in place. Estates management should be transferred to local councils so that they can take the lead in the placement of essential education, emergency and health services, even where those are managed by central Government.

Local community planning will also mean a new approach to good relations. Councils must be bound by best practice in community and race relations, and they must take the lead in ensuring improvements in those areas. However, that is not an excuse for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and other Departments to shirk their responsibilities. Good relations in this society must be the cornerstone of government at all levels.

Reform of local government to the extent that we want will also mean reform of central Government. That is no bad thing. Devolution of justice powers will require a review of Departments in any case. Therefore, in order to deliver more accountable and efficient government, the opportunity should be taken to reform Departments and quangos. Local government cannot be reformed without reforming the whole structure; therefore, we want to see plans from the Executive for reform of all structures of government.

Our message to the Executive is simple: try again. We want to see local government in charge of local functions, using local finance. Most importantly, that will mean real responsibility and accountability for community planning, and a meaningful say for all its associated functions. Moreover, it will mean reform, not only of local government, but of central Government. This is an opportunity to create a world-class system, and the Executive must not throw away that opportunity. I support the amendment.

I declare an interest as a local councillor on Fermanagh District Council. I express my condolences to the family of the victims of the fire in Omagh this morning. The family who died came from my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I also express my sympathy to the family of the police officer in Dungannon on whose life a murder attempt was made. I spent over three hours at the scene last night, and I must say that it was a dastardly act.

I thank the Minister for tabling the motion. Although some of the issues raised may have been controversial at times, I hope that they will prove helpful in developing the process. In the absence of devolved government, local councils were the only show in town for almost three decades. Councils were the only forums in which people had an opportunity to display their political views and to make local politics work in the Province. I reiterate my party’s call for as much power as is reasonably possible to be given to councils throughout Northern Ireland, as is the policy employed in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The publication of the emerging findings paper was disappointing and aggravating for those who support more power being devolved to local councils. After the release of the paper, NILGA moved quickly to state that the content of the publication was unsatisfactory in many ways. I agree with that interpretation.

As the majority of Members are aware, over 120 elected representatives and officers from local govern­ment expressed their feelings about the emerging findings paper at an event in Cookstown on 24 October 2007. Among the arguments expressed at that meeting, and in subsequent publications by NILGA, was the fear that the proposals will not deliver the previously agreed vision and that they will not support the radical transformation of service delivery or provide the opportunity to reinvigorate local democracy. Those were just a few of the concerns that were expressed — there are, of course, many more.

The need for regional democracy to be supported by the Assembly is of major importance. The joy felt by the majority of people in Northern Ireland after the return of the Assembly earlier this year is not in doubt. However, that does not mean that all local government powers can be held within the Executive or the Assembly. Councillors across Northern Ireland are elected by local people on a localised platform. Those of us who support democracy will agree that those elections afford a reasonable level of accountability to local councils, which brings them closer to the communities that they represent.

Accountability provides the basis for an increased mandate at local council level. I have just read through the emerging findings paper; local councils will be overjoyed to hear that in the transfer of the public-realm aspects of local road functions, they are regaining control of grass cutting, weed spraying, gully emptying, street lighting, off-street car parking and pedestrian permits. All those issues are sensitive and important for local people. However, they do not go far enough in increasing local accountability.

The vision in the paper states that there should be:

“greater clarity between the roles of central and local government”.

It also states that:

“the interests of the citizen should be at the centre of not only the vision for local government but also all decisions relating to the new arrangements”.

For a number of reasons, that is just not the case.

The paper does not provide any clarity on the number of councils or on the proposed functions for transfer to local government.

The Member’s time is up.

I begin by making the rare declaration that I am not — and never have been — a councillor. The Assembly has heard accusations of rowing back, and I will speak briefly on the issue of dual mandates. When the RPA was first announced, I was greatly encouraged that the issue of Members trying to do two or three jobs at the same time, or be in two or three places at the same time, would be addressed. That was going well; last summer, the Preparation for Government Committee met, with the five member parties agreeing to abolish dual mandates.

I am slightly concerned that in meetings of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee — of which I am a member — DUP representatives, supported by their Sinn Féin counterparts, have begun to say that the new councils will need experience. That ignores the substantial number of councillors who are not MLAs or MPs, and who will presumably continue to sit on those councils. The argument that those Members make is that the new councils are so important that sitting MLAs in their parties are required to continue as councillors after 2011. That is crazy stuff. The House must face the issue of dual mandates early and be honest. People do not expect Members to be on councils, in Westminster or in the House of Lords and still perform their duties here.

I ask the Minister to urge her colleague Jeffrey Donaldson, who chairs the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, to address the issue of dual mandates — and to do so quickly.

I remind the House that I am a member of North Down Borough Council and have been so for more years than I care to remember. I thank the Minister for tabling the motion. It is timely and its purpose is to enable Members to discuss the emerging findings of the RPA review and, hopefully, have changes made to them. It is an important debate, and, as other Members have done, I must mention the poor quality of the initial engagement with the RPA team. Despite that, we hope to have a good outcome.

The debate has been good, although there has been a lot of bluster and blether. Mr Weir dwelt on the pluses of the review, but he admitted that it had shortcomings. He highlighted the economic aspect of the review and said that the land bank from INI should be considered for transfer to the councils, which could do a better job with it. He also commented on the transfer of libraries — which was supported by other Members — and housing, among other things.

Mr Maskey referred to the seven-council model, and he appeared to link the number of councils to the amount of power that they will have. That is an interesting situation. Mr Boylan admitted that the review appeared minimalistic, and Mr Molloy — along with other Members — referred to the clawback by Departments.

Mr Gallagher referred to taking the power back to the centre, and Dolores Kelly made a good point about the poor turnouts at local elections, which she linked to the limited powers that councils have. That is worthy of note, and I think that she was the only Member to mention it. Mr Neeson mentioned the Alliance Party’s intention to support the NILGA paper, which many of us do. Sammy Wilson referred to the grouping system, which was one of the success stories of the last revision of local government, and that should be considered again.

The Ulster Unionist Party is disappointed at the limited proposals that form the basis of the emerging findings paper. The review of public administration, as it impacts on local government, has the potential to significantly improve the delivery of services to the public by offering effective, efficient, focused and relevant services at the time and place that they are required. The Ulster Unionist Party does not support change for change’s sake, but strongly advocates the transfer of those services where the public can experience a significant improvement to their lives and communities. Most people accept that the transfer of a comprehensive range of services would result in a transformation of service delivery, impacting upon — and improving the quality of life of — everyone in the communities in which they serve.

It is clear that the retraction of key services from the original proposals is at odds with the vision outlined in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the emerging findings paper. The proposal to transfer only 1·2% of the public-sector budget and 0·45% of public-sector jobs is a small change. Many believe that that de minimis approach would jeopardise community planning and call into question the value of reorganising councils, given the significant cost of the change process. The limited proposal before the House could be carried out by the existing councils without any further cost or disruption. The Ulster Unionist Party supports that assessment, but would go further and suggest that the proposed review of Departments has resulted in a circling of the wagons by Ministers and senior departmental staff.

The lack of a strategic vision — and a desire to keep control of the minutiae of Government — undermines the commitment and resources expended by local govern­ment over the past five years in preparing for the reform. We appear to have been given a masterclass in U-turning.

The Ulster Unionist Party is committed to local government that is accountable to local communities. That is why we support the 15 local authorities for Northern Ireland model; it would have the power to deliver a comprehensive and responsive service to the people. I ask the House to support the amendment.

This has been a very useful debate, and I genuinely mean that, although there was one notable exception, and it is unfortunate that the Member was the first contributor to the debate, because he could have spoiled it for everyone else. Thankfully, he did not, and we have had a very useful exchange about functions, numbers and the vision for local government.

Mr McCrea, who moved the amendment, stated his dismay and frustration, and he wanted to know the purpose of the review of public administration. Not once did he mention what he wants to see for local government. His outburst in the House today was more about a leadership challenge in the Ulster Unionist Party than it was about the review of public administration.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will.

I ask the Minister to be careful when using the name Mr McCrea, because I think she means Basil McCrea, and not the other two honourable gentlemen of that name. [Laughter.] I can understand the mistake, because he is a new child on the block, and is, therefore, totally inexperienced.

I am very happy to clarify that I am referring to the mover of the amendment. I was never referring to my honourable friend on those issues.

As regards the transfer of functions in the emerging findings paper — and they are emerging findings, and I make no apology for that — I said that I would bring the emerging findings to the House so that we could have the sort of engagement that we are having today. Perhaps some Members would rather that I had waited until I was finished before coming to them.

Emerging findings show that there is an increase to net local government expenditure of 21% — an increase from £455 million to £558 million. Members have indicated that they do not think that that is enough, so I will have to take that matter back to the subcommittee, which will be meeting very soon.

Basil McCrea also said that he did not want a review of the review of public administration. That obviously means that he wants seven councils, which would be another broken UUP manifesto promise, but then consistency has never been a strong point of the Ulster Unionist Party.

Initially, the Executive subcommittee, and then the Executive, which includes two Ulster Unionist Members, approved the issue of the emerging findings paper for consultation. The Member should remember that point, when he talks about a complete and utter farce, because he is talking about the leader of his own party.

Will the Member give way?

No, I will not give way. I have taken quite a bit from you this morning.

When the Member talks about complete and utter farce, he is talking about the leader of his own party, who gave the go ahead to put the emerging findings paper out for consultation.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will give way to my colleague. [Laughter.]

Surely, there must be something with Mr McCrea criticising his leader.

You mean Basil McCrea.

Sorry, I mean Basil McCrea criticising his own leader. What possible purpose could he have for doing that?

I could not possibly comment.

Order.

Now —

Order. Take your seat.

Would Members please stick to the motion, instead of political point scoring? [Laughter.]

I find that very interesting. I will be raising issues with the Speaker concerning comments made by Mr McCrea. Obviously, I have some more issues to raise.

Moving on to the content of the motion; Mr Weir welcomed issues on planning, community-planning powers, vesting powers — which Mr Neeson mentioned and will be given to councils — regeneration powers, economic development and tourism. He expressed his disappointment about local roads, the land bank and Invest NI.

He also expressed disappointment in respect of youth services and libraries.

Mr Maskey said that the review of local government was a work in progress, and referred to governance issues. He will know that governance is referred to in paragraph 49 of the emerging findings paper, and that that is very much a live issue, which we will be addressing. He also talked about the consequence of the move to seven councils, and about finding ways of dealing with shared services, which is an issue that the subcommittee is actively examining with respect to economies of scale.

Mr Gallagher also spoke about governance, and I refer him to paragraph 49 of the emerging findings paper. He said that there was very little in the paper, and that stakeholders did not know what was going on. I take issue with that. We are presently engaged with groups of councillors and other interested parties right across Northern Ireland. Mr Gallagher spoke of his concern about stripping jobs out of the west. It will come as no surprise to him that I will not be stripping any jobs out of the west, if I can help it. I assure him that the paper has no hidden agenda, and that is one of the reasons why I brought it to the Floor of the House.

Mr Gallagher said that the only good Departments were the Department for Social Development and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure — and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues will be delighted about that. Obviously, he missed the reference to planning in the paper. Mr Gallagher also said that he was disappointed about the local roads issue.

Mr Neeson spoke of the need for councils to have more meaningful power. He, in common with Ms Lo, said that we should not be looking at RPA in isolation from the current review. That is why, in my opening comments, I referred to the evolution of local govern­ment. We should have cognisance of what is going on, but I cannot wait for the institutional review report. We must move ahead with the review of local government.

Mr Neeson said that he wanted me to take NILGA’s paper seriously. I certainly will. NILGA has been an invaluable partner in this process, and that will continue. He also referred to reform in health and education. Again, as with institutional review, we must be aware of the reform that is ongoing in other areas. There is a real need to link local government reform to reforms in health and education, for example. I am engaged in talks with the two relevant Ministers to see how that can work in practice.

Sammy Wilson spoke about a once-in-a-lifetime change in local government, as did other Members. I reiterate that very important decisions lie ahead, but this is also a process of evolution and looking to the future. Mr Wilson talked about the need to build up the capacity of local councillors, and said that we should reconsider library functions and youth services. He implored me, and other Ministers, to be imaginative in considering shared services, and he referred to sectors where that had worked well previously. We are actively considering that matter. He also referred to the purchasing power of local councils in respect of roads, and I am also looking at that issue.

Mr Boylan apologised for not being in Armagh, and I accept his apology. He also talked about equality in governance, and I have already addressed that matter. He said that he was disappointed with the functions package, and referred to the importance of community planning.

Mr Hamilton talked about governance issues from a unionist point of view. I am disappointed that some Members across the Floor thought that it was funny when we were talking about unionists in the west, but did not think that it was so funny when we were talking about nationalists and republicans in the east. Equality in governance is for everyone in Northern Ireland, and it should not be seen as a threat. Mr Hamilton also referred to youth services and libraries.

Mr Molloy said that local government needed more powers and hoped that a gap would not develop between central and local government. I do not want to see a gap; I want to see a more joined-up relationship between central and local government, with the appropriate body delivering the appropriate service. Even if there is not full devolution to local government, that should not mean that councils cannot deliver services in particular areas. However, we are looking at ways of teeing that up.

Mr Molloy said that he was disappointed at the talk of a delay of elections until 2011. It is legislatively impossible to have the provisions of the review of public administration through the House before 2009.Therefore, we must either delay the election or simply hold another election to the 26 existing councils. That issue must be resolved.

Mr Beggs mainly addressed planning matters and the need for area-planning powers. Some 85% of what is currently contained in the area plans will be delegated to local councils. I am disappointed that the Member did not pick up on that fact. There are no area plans in England, Scotland and Wales. All that the Department will retain centrally is the remaining 15% of the content of the area plans, which is required for strategic reasons and to deal with European law. I am sure that Mr Beggs is aware of the judicial review that is under way in respect of the northern area plan. Mr Beggs said that councils must have the power to draw up plans for their areas. That is precisely what we are trying to achieve through local plans. He should also be aware that a planning review is ongoing. We are trying to ensure that the planning process is fit for purpose when those functions are devolved to local councils.

Mrs Kelly said that she hoped that I would listen to the points that Members made from the Floor of the House. I hope that, by now, she realises that I have listened very carefully to what has been said; that is why I brought this matter to the Floor of the House. I accept her comments about the earlier consultations and the lack of engagement. I also accept her comments on the concerns about local government staff and estates. I acknowledge Mrs Kelly’s support for community-planning initiatives. Ms Lo also said that community planning was important.

I thank Councillor Elliott for his helpful comments. That is you finished, Tom. [Laughter.] I thank him for his comments about Fermanagh District Council and the role that it could play, the need for clarity in respect of relationships between central and local government, and the importance of sorting out the number of councils in the near future.

I firmly acknowledge the work that local councillors have done over the past 35 years, when there was no devolved elected Chamber to take the flak. Local councils were often the only place in which the views of the community could be expressed. I wish to place that on record.

Alan McFarland, who was quite glad to acknowledge the fact that he is not a councillor, said that matters related to the institutional review and dual mandates need to be sorted out. I am happy to pass those comments on to my Rt Hon friend the Chairman of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee.

Leslie Cree made the winding-up speech on the amendment and gave the somewhat surprising indication that he believed that 26 councils could deliver on future arrangements. I hope that the Ulster Unionist position is not that we stick to 26 councils but that we move to the appropriate number, with the appropriate level of service.

Our shared goal is the delivery of a vision for local government, to improve the quality of life for all our people and to create communities that are sustainable, vibrant, healthy, prosperous, stable and people centred.

I look forward — believe it or not — to coming back to the House with the final recommendations of the review. There is much interest in those recommend­ations, not only among local councillors, but in the House.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the emerging findings of the review of the Review of Public Administration decisions, as they relate to local government, and the initial proposals for the future shape of local government; and calls on the Executive to transfer meaningful and significant functions to local government.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet as soon as the Assembly suspends for lunch. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.34 pm.

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