I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Departments Bill [NIA 70/11-16] be agreed.

In their introduction to the document 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan', published on 17 November 2015, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister stated:

"At the heart of this Agreement is our common commitment to a better way of doing business together."

One of the ways in which 'A Fresh Start' provides for that will be by delivering on the commitment in the Stormont House Agreement to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election.

Reform of our structures of government has been an issue for a considerable time. The departmental system established in 1999 has long been regarded as cumbersome and ripe for reform. There was a commitment in the Programme for Government to agree changes to the structures that would apply in the next mandate. In 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee conducted a review and produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments. It received 21 consultation submissions from party political, academic, economic and community stakeholders. Although the Committee refrained from making recommendations, it identified areas of commonality that broadly reflected its views on how Departments could be reorganised, with the retention of the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education; a new Department for the Economy; a Department embracing agriculture, environment and rural development; a new social and community Department; and the reform of OFMDFM. All those suggestions prefigured what is in this Bill.

The policy proposals underpinning departmental restructuring were the subject of detailed consideration during the political process that led to the Stormont House Agreement, and the Executive discussed the matter on several occasions in the early part of this year. On 2 March 2015, the First Minister announced to the Assembly the decisions that had been reached by the Executive on the new departmental structures as a consequence of the Stormont House Agreement. He set out a future model of nine Departments with all the powers, functions and services of the current 12 Departments. Most importantly, no functions will be done away with and no policies will be terminated at this stage as a consequence of the restructuring.

The nine Departments are to be known as follows: the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; the Department for Communities; the Department for the Economy; the Department of Education; the Department of Finance; the Department of Health; the Department for Infrastructure; the Department of Justice; and the Executive Office. In almost all cases, the departmental titles are short and focused, with the exceptional case of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, where a longer title has been chosen to reflect the three significant pillars of its work.

The purpose of the Departments Bill is to create a statutory framework for the new model of nine Departments. It is a short Bill. It renames seven Departments and dissolves three others: DEL, DCAL and DOE. The names of two existing Departments — the Department of Education and the Department of Justice — are unchanged.

The Bill also makes necessary changes to the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which provided the basis for the current departmental system. However, important provisions of the 1999 Order on the legal status of Northern Ireland Departments generally and the exercise of their functions will not be amended.

The Departments Bill sets out the framework of nine Departments, as envisaged in the Stormont House Agreement endorsed by party leaders and agreed by the Executive. It is, as I mentioned, a short Bill to establish the new departmental framework in law. It consists of just three clauses and three schedules. Clause 1 renames seven existing Departments and dissolves three Departments — DEL, DCAL and DOE — as required to establish the new structures. There is no reference to the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, which are not affected by the Bill. It applies the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 to the new set of nine Departments. Clause 2 references schedules 2 and 3, which contain, respectively, consequential amendments and repeals. Clause 3 gives the title of the Act and arrangements for the commencements of clauses 1 and 2 on a day or days to be appointed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Clauses 1 and 2 are likely to be commenced very shortly after the election in May 2016.

Schedule 1 lists all nine future Departments under the titles that they will carry from 2016, and schedule 2 makes necessary amendments to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Bill reflects the law as it stands, but we are conscious of the progress in the Assembly of the Public Services Ombudsman Bill, which will supersede the Ombudsman Order. Pending the progress of that Bill, the Departments Bill may require a technical Amendment to schedule 2 at a later stage. Schedule 3 repeals provisions in the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, as subsequently amended. It has the effect of removing references to the 12-Department model.

Changing the name of a Department does not, in itself, have any immediate impact on its functions. However, the dissolution of three Departments will involve the reallocation of their existing functions, and there is to be some additional reallocation of the functions of others. Those details, however, are not addressed in the Departments Bill before the House today. Instead, the reallocation of statutory functions will be provided for in a separate transfer of functions order, which is at an advanced stage of preparation. It will make detailed provision for the statutory responsibilities that are to move between Departments in consequence of the Executive's decisions. The order will be sent in draft form for scrutiny to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and we will pay due attention to the Committee's views in finalising that order. In due course, the order will also be subject to an affirmation debate in the Assembly near the end of the session, after the Departments Bill has completed its Final Stage.

The decisions taken on restructuring and the reduction in the number of Departments will provide for a leaner, more streamlined and more efficient Administration. There will be fewer Ministers, and departmental hierarchies, permanent secretaries, central management units, press offices and support functions can be rationalised. However, we re-emphasise that, at this stage, no functions impacting on the public are being done away with and no policies terminated. These are changes to the machinery of government, but they are changes that will help us find better ways of doing things and improving services to the public.

At an operational level, it will be a challenging exercise to reduce 12 Departments to nine. A major programme is being taken forward across Departments to ensure that the necessary administrative arrangements are in place at the appropriate time. This work has been continuing since last spring and is making rapid progress towards all Departments achieving operational status on day one. It will ensure that support for the next Executive, future Ministers and the institutions is in place, with full access to key systems and information.

The conclusion of the recent talks process and the publication of 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for addressing some of our most intractable issues. In relation to departmental restructuring, it has made it possible for us to move forward quickly. We all want to improve the performance of Departments and to provide the best possible services to the public. The Departments Bill will help us do that by providing a firm basis for good and efficient government from the outset of the next Assembly mandate. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

I rise to speak initially on behalf of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the Second Stage of the Departments Bill. The Bill will give effect to the Executive's agreement to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election. It renames seven Departments and dissolves three others, while the names of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice remain unchanged.

The OFMDFM Committee received a pre-introductory briefing on the Departments Bill from junior Ministers on 30 November. The junior Ministers advised the Committee that the aim of the Bill is to deliver more effective, more streamlined and better government for the people of Northern Ireland. In response to questions from Committee members, the junior Ministers also advised that, while the number of ministerial appointments would naturally be reduced as a consequence of the legislation, no decision had been made regarding the appointment of junior Ministers — for example, whether the junior Minister positions will remain in the Executive Office or move to another, larger Department that may be facing significant challenges, such as the Department of Health.

At our meeting, the junior Ministers provided information on the programme board chaired by the head of the Civil Service, which is making practical preparations for the reduction in the number of Departments. Members heard that the head of the Civil Service has given a commitment that the new departmental structures will be ready for the first day of the new mandate following the election scheduled for May 2016.

The Committee was advised that changing a Department's name will not have an impact on its functions and that no functions impacting on the public will cease and no policies will be terminated as a consequence of the structural changes. However, members heard that the functions of the three Departments to be dissolved will need to be reallocated. There will also be some additional rearrangement of functions. These changes will be made by a transfer of functions order that will be brought forward after the Bill has completed its passage through the Assembly. Junior Minister Pengelly advised that it was her understanding — she has confirmed it today — that the drafting of that order is at an advanced stage.

The Committee made it clear that it will require as much time as possible to consider what is likely to be a comprehensive transfer of functions order, and it welcomed a commitment given by the junior Ministers that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister would work with the Committee on the matter. To ensure that it is informed in its consideration of the order, the Committee has already written to Statutory Committees to seek their views on the proposed functions of the nine new Departments.

There may have been concerns and cautions correctly and sincerely given in the Committee on the use of the accelerated passage procedure for the Bill, but, as the Chair stated at the end of our session with the junior Ministers, there is no disagreement about the urgent need for departmental reform and a reduction in Departments. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore support the Second Stage of the Bill.

Speaking briefly as an Alliance MLA, in supporting the Bill, I make it clear that Alliance has long advocated a reduction in the number of Departments. In our 2011 Assembly manifesto, we argued and proposed a reduction from 12 to eight, but, in the interests of compromise and good governance, we have agreed to the nine-Department structure. There will hopefully be financial savings, but the primary rationale for the proposal is, indeed, to have more efficient and effective government for the people of Northern Ireland. It is hoped that the reorganisation will bring more joined-up government and that synergies can be delivered. However, the Alliance Party would go further and reduce the number of MLAs to 90 in time for the next election. We would also like to see greater use of a statutory duty on Departments to cooperate.

Institutional reform alone, however, will not deliver the effective power-sharing government that I believe the vast Majority of people in Northern Ireland want to see. We need to see greater cooperation and collaboration between all Departments and difficult decisions being taken. There is a need for cooperation on key issues to unite our community, to build a shared, fair and prosperous society and, indeed, to deliver environmental justice.

In supporting accelerated passage for the Bill, the Alliance Party still very much reserves the right to robustly scrutinise the transfer of functions order that will come forward. We do, indeed, have some concerns about how policy provision for children and young people, for example, will be dealt with, how good relations will be across all Departments and, indeed, where the employment service will rest. Indeed, we make an early indication that we believe it should be in the Department for the Economy. We also have questions about the need for junior Ministers in the Executive Office and, indeed, whether there may be other Departments where there could be a more appropriate use of resources.

I think that Mr McCallister made the most substantive objection to accelerated passage. He mentioned clearly that the Executive branch should not use the legislature as a rubber stamp: I strongly agree with Mr McCallister on that. Accelerated passage is not ideal; it should be used rarely, rather than regularly.

We dealt with that matter.

The Assembly should make it clear that it will not be a policy that is tolerated on a regular basis.

The decision before us today is whether we allow failings beyond our making to hold up much-needed institutional reform or show leadership in delivering departmental reform in time for the scheduled elections in May 2016 and to allow proper Programme for Government planning to be delivered further to that election. Alliance, therefore, supports the Bill and supports better, more effective government for everyone in Northern Ireland.

I support the Bill's Second Stage. Without incurring the wrath of the Speaker, I will also say that I support the accelerated passage. In the House, we are here to make decisions, and it is unfortunate that, for so many months, parties and politicians here were prevented from making decisions because partners in government did not have the courage to make the hard decisions that make this place tick and make Northern Ireland thrive. I am glad that that impasse has been unblocked and that things will move forward. Of course, I deeply regret that it has happened so late in the day and so near to the end of the mandate that, unfortunately, things have be done in an accelerated and fast way. Nonetheless, we are here, and the Committee will be able to scrutinise the transfer of functions order, which will be subordinate legislation but very important and detailed subordinate legislation.

The Bill has only three clauses, but three clauses of something that I believe must happen. If you are on the ground, as I am — some of us may not be, but I am on the ground — you will see how the silo mentality works, where it does not work and how it affects the people we represent in the House. Of course, it is fair to say that a good bit of the population blames everything on the council: if there is a pothole in the road, it is the council's fault; if the grass is not cut, it is the council's fault; if there is something wrong with a house, it is the council's fault. Of course, some people have not caught up with the previous reorganisations. We spend nearly every day trying to educate people in that regard, because poor old council gets the blame for everything. It is slightly different here, of course, but, nonetheless, it is more important and something that I believe has to happen.

When you look at the experience of the last mandate in Westminster, you see that it was hard enough for the coalition Government to function with two parties and all the problems that that led to. Think how much more difficult it is in the Assembly with five parties. It is now four, of course, as one party has walked away. There are four parties in government trying to make decisions, trying to push things forward and trying make things happen. It creates silo mentalities and problems when four or five parties are all coming from a different place, all wanting to go to a different place and all occupying a different space.

I welcome the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine, which our party has campaigned for ever since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and ever since the institutions have been up and running. We promised the electorate on that day that we would make things better and would repair the damage that was caused by the Good Friday Agreement and the functions of government that were formed in it. We stand here today having completed some of that work and are now moving forward, but we have to recognise that, for that to happen and for progress to be made, we must have agreement from all the parties involved. We will strive to do that day in, day out to persuade people of our arguments, persuade them that we are right and persuade them that this is the way to go. I believe that this is the way to go.

Savings will be made, but what we really want is efficient and effective government for our people, as they deserve nothing less; we will push and probe and work every day for that to happen. Even the reduction in the names of the Departments is a good thing, as it will help people to understand exactly what those Departments do and what functions they hold. That is something to be positive about because it will help to educate people on where they need to go and what they need to do.

The functions, roles and responsibilities of Departments will not change. Some are being merged and some grown, but that is a good thing. That will take away the silo mentality that I talked about and result in more efficient and effective government. With that, there will be savings in pounds and pence in the everyday functions of Departments, and those savings will filter down into the everyday lives of our population. Again, that has to be welcomed.

There is not much more to talk about. It is a three-Clause Bill. It needs to happen, and I put it to the House that it should be passed. This is good business, as it is us moving forward. Let us keep going and let us keep making hard decisions. A lot more decisions than just that on this Bill have to be made, and I am glad that those will be made in the following months to try to get the legislation over the line before the mandate is finished. Let the Committee scrutinise the transfer of functions order, which will be the subordinate legislation.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I speak on behalf of Sinn Féin to support the Bill and to commend junior Minister Pengelly for explaining to the House the rationale behind it. She went through the clauses and what they represented comprehensively. It is fair to say that, for some time, there has been all-party support for reform of the structures. There has been agreement on a reduction in the number of Departments. We now have that proposal in front of us, and, as far as we are concerned, this is the time for us to get on with it.

It is about delivering what we promised we would deliver. I hope that, in the context of the recent discussions and negotiations, this will form part of evolving this place into a more efficient place with more effective working relationships. On that basis, I commend the Bill and support it on behalf of Sinn Féin.

First, I acknowledge the contribution of Pat Ramsey to politics in the north-west, on the island and in the Chamber. His craft in working with other parties, his craft in his contributions on the Floor of the Assembly and his craft in taking forward many issues in a very productive way are the measure of what he will leave in the Chamber as he moves forward in his life.

In her opening remarks, the junior Minister sourced this proposal not just in Stormont House last Christmas but in 'A Fresh Start': I wish that people would stop doing that. Everybody knows that 'A Fresh Start' — this is the kindest comment that I can make about it — is a false start. All the hopes, expectations and ambitions of so many of our people in those negotiations can be best summed up as a false start rather than a fresh start. May I also again caution us? If you analyse the contributions of both junior Ministers — I know that this is not what they intended in their contributions, and I am sure that it is not what others, including Mr Frew, intended in theirs — there is a sense that, somehow or other, the reduction to nine Departments is a panacea for the failure of politics, government and Ministers over recent years.

Will the Member give way?

I will give way, but I will finish this point before I do.

The junior Ministers say that having nine Departments:

"will provide for more joined-up government" and "eliminate ... unnecessary bureaucracy" and so on and so forth. We hear scores of warm, meaningless phrases on how, somehow, the mere reduction to nine Departments will have a transformative impact on the character of government and the content of our politics. That view, if anybody indulges it, is as idle as it is casual, false and foolish.

Having nine Departments can mean more joined-up government and the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy, but the mere fact of having nine does not bring that into reality.

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not think that anyone in the House in this debate has said that having nine Departments is a panacea for good government. However, what makes bad government is when elected representatives do not make hard decisions. Not making hard decisions will affect our populace and make their lives worse. That is what makes for bad decisions and bad politicians in the House.

I am glad that the Member made that point because I am going to address it in my next comments. I accept that nobody said that the reduction in the number of Departments to nine — or, if Mr Allister had his way, to six, seven, eight, or whatever notion might be presented by any Member — would by itself improve things. I am making the point that Mr Frew made, namely that having nine Departments may help, but only if the wider architecture and character of government is such that it maximises the opportunity presented by having nine, rather than more than nine, Departments.

Let me ask the junior Minister something. There was a phrase that she used. I know why she put it on the record and I would like to probe her a wee bit in this regard. She, rightly so, said:

"no policies will be terminated at this stage as a consequence of the restructuring."

Obviously, that is a very important thing that she should say. However, let me refer to the contribution that she made two weeks ago at Question Time when she made reference to the High Court judgement in relation to the failure of the Government to have an anti-poverty strategy. I will conclude this point quickly because I am sure that it is already beginning to irritate the Speaker, but I think that it is fair to ask, in the context of this proposal, what she was getting at in the contribution that she made on behalf of the First Minister, who has now joined us, when she said, in response to the questioning of Members in respect of the anti-poverty strategy:

"There is a proposition out there that all our programmes should be rolled out in relation to spatial need ... The vast Majority of the services that we roll out through the Northern Ireland Executive are on objective need, but not necessarily on spatial objective need ... There are a range of programmes through the Department for Social Development and OFMDFM that we will continue to roll out in relation to spatial deprivation. But there is a lot of misunderstanding in relation to objective need. There needs to be greater clarification about that. Hopefully, we will take the opportunity to develop the strategy and give clarity on that matter." — [Official Report, Vol 109, No 8, p28, col 1].

I am wondering, behind the comment that she made this morning that no policies will be terminated at this stage, what all those words mean in relation to the core value and principle of objective need rather than spatial deprivation? Is there a rebalancing about to go on, if some people get their way, in relation to all those sorts of issues? The junior Minister may want to come back on that.

I will now deal with the point Mr Frew rightly made in relation to what will happen on the far side of nine Departments being established. That is the key issue. What is going to be the character and content of the Government on the far side of nine Departments being created? In my view and that of the SDLP, if we are going to maximise the opportunities of having nine Departments and the opportunities for the Government into the next mandate and beyond, a range of other interventions are complementary and mutual to the nine-Department model. In that regard, these are the points that I would make to Mr Frew. He may have heard me say this before, because I say it all the time, no doubt somewhat tediously, that there is a huge difference between Ministers being in the Government and being in power, and that any Minister —

Nobody should know that better than you.

You may well make that point from a sitting position, First Minister. However, there is a huge difference between being in the Government and being in power. In fact, when I left the Government, I got a letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister about the contribution that I made during the time that I was in the Government. You may recall that. I do not know whether the First Minister writes to all former Ministers when they have vacated office, but, on this occasion, he certainly found it necessary, for some reason or other, and I acknowledge the letter and thank him and the deputy First Minister for it.

The point that I am making is that, when I was in the Government, I know when I did not live up to the difference between being in the Government and being in power. I know where I made errors and mistakes, and I still regret some of them; because what I left behind when I left the Government was less than I might otherwise have achieved if I had not made those mistakes and errors.

The wider point is this: do we as a political institution, and do those who are going into and are in the Government, fully appreciate the difference between being in the Government and being in power, in the way that, as I have always said, in my view, the Scottish Nationalist Government did? That was long before they led the campaign for independence and had the election result that they had last May and in anticipation of the results that they are likely to have next May. Long before all that narrative, I was saying that Sturgeon, Salmond, Swinney and the other Ministers in Scotland knew more than any panel of Ministers on these islands the difference between being in the Government and being in power. Whether it is nine, 10, 11 or 12 Departments, if you end up with Ministers who are still short in knowing the difference between being in the Government and being in power, the nine-Department model will not remedy that failure. Mr Frew seems to be nodding in agreement.

In terms of the quality and character of our Government going into the next mandate and for decades thereafter, we in the SDLP believe that, whilst one day we will win the argument for the reunification of our country, part of the architecture of the reunification of our country will be an Assembly in the North for a multiplicity of reasons. However, if we are going to have assemblies in the North over many decades, are we going to have a panel of Ministers that demonstrates the difference between being in the Government and being in power?

The reason why that is so important is that a consequence of nine Departments is that Ministers will have a wider range of responsibilities and, if the Ministers are not fully facing up to and able to deal with the wider range of responsibilities that they have within their Departments because the Departments are bigger, there could be a greater failure of government on the far side of nine Departments than before. The need for coordination and integration between Departments could also be at some risk, given that Ministers, even in their day-to-day work, will have a higher level of responsibility and power.

The second point that I will make is this. There is a curious reference in A Fresh Start/False Start. The decision to bring in Eileen Evason in order to make recommendations on how welfare moneys might be spent in mitigation was, in my view —

I ask you to clearly establish the connection between this current point and the discussion before us. We are discussing the Departments Bill.

I appreciate that, but I am really taking up what Mr Lyttle said in his contribution when he was not speaking as Deputy Chair of the Committee. I am looking at the model of nine and trying to outline, as the SDLP sees it, where there could be added value over and above the fact that there will be nine Departments. The point that I am making, Mr Speaker, is that bringing in Eileen Evason is a recognition that there is such a scale of authority outside government that can inform the work of nine Departments, when we have the nine Departments established. Going by that model, all the Eileen Evasons should be brought in to help government in order to maximise the working of the nine Departments in the next mandate and beyond.

For all the skills and craft of many in the Civil Service, the lateral and most imaginative independent thinking often comes from outside the nine Departments that we will have. The scale of input that we could have — not through the civic advisory forum alone, useful though limited as that model will be — and the opportunity to bring in people who are the specialists in business, anti-poverty, human rights, disability, the environment or whatever it might be, as we are doing with Eileen Evason on the recommendations on allocations of welfare mitigation moneys, is a model that we need to escalate. The experience that I had in Departments, certainly in the Department of the Environment, was that the freshest thinking often came in when it was structured into the life of the Department through various summonses. Maybe the First Minister thinks that that did not add up to very much; my experience was that it added up to an awful lot. If we are going to maximise the opportunities with nine Departments, there is another way to do it. The reason why I say that is that, in an event held upstairs in the last two hours, the Equality Coalition launched a report called 'Austerity and Inequality: A Threat to Peace?'. I might not necessarily agree with that contention, but, nonetheless, one of the speakers said that the relationship between civil society and government had to be of a different character in the future from what it had been in the past.

Mr Frew has gone, but I want to make the point that it required a private Member's Bill from Steven Agnew to put into law a statutory requirement on Departments to cooperate on children's services. That was echoed by, I think, the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Mr Lyttle, who called for a more general statutory duty between Departments. My sense is that, while nine Departments could have more coherence internally and externally with the other Departments, the best way to discipline everybody to ensure that we have the best form of government going forward is to have statutory duties to cooperate and statutory requirements in respect of any policy sector. Whilst nine Departments may accommodate that, although it may not for the reasons that I have outlined, in our view, there is a need to build into the legal architecture of government responsibilities and duties to ensure that that to which we all aspire — joined-up government and the best outcomes for our people — is secured, rather than put in jeopardy.

Save those comments, we are content to support the motion.

Let me say from the outset that the Ulster Unionist Party fully supports the principle that the number of Departments should be reduced and a more streamlined Administration should be able to deliver better government for the people of Northern Ireland.

As I said earlier, the Bill could and should have been brought before the House for proper debate and scrutiny a long time ago. It is not some new idea that has appeared out of the ether. In September 2009, the independent review of economic policy (IREP), chaired by the then vice Chancellor of the University of Ulster, Professor Richard Barnett, put forward a series of significant policy recommendations intended to assist the Executive in realising their goals of strengthening productivity and raising living standards in Northern Ireland. The review was commissioned by the then Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, Arlene Foster, to advise on the extent to which existing polices could help to meet the objectives stated in the Programme for Government and to put forward new policies if needed. One of the key recommendations was that the core economic functions covered by DETI and DEL's areas of responsibility should be brought under a single Department of the Economy.

It should be noted that the IREP report was welcomed by Minister Foster, who said that she would give it her:

"full and urgent consideration and will work closely with ... Executive colleagues, listening to their views and seeking a consensus on the way forward."

She also said that, given the importance and complexity of the matters addressed, she intended to carry out a short period of consultation on the report and wanted to reach timely conclusions and initiate purposeful actions as soon as possible. That was just over six years ago.

As far as the Ulster Unionist Party was concerned, we were fully signed up to the idea of a single Department of the Economy, which the party leader, Mike Nesbitt, endorsed at our AGM in March 2013. It entailed effectively scrapping DEL and combining it with DETI. That was followed up in our 2014 European manifesto, which stated:

"The Ulster Unionist Party believes the creation of a single streamlined Department of the Economy is essential if we are to capitalise on opportunities for promoting growth and prosperity in the EU".

With regard to the Assembly more generally, in 2012, the Assembly Executive and Review Committee produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments. It identified areas of commonality that — I quote junior Minister Pengelly when she appeared before the Committee on 30 November — were:

"broadly comparable to what is now being proposed".

That fed into the Stormont House Agreement process, which hit the buffers, and part of it was resurrected in Fresh Start, bringing us to where we are today. This is not some idea that has emerged out of left field; it has been around the block on a few occasions. As I said earlier, this is not an insignificant Bill. It may be small in the number of clauses, as Mr Lyttle outlined, but it is of acute importance. It will, quite literally, impact on every person in Northern Ireland from the day and hour that we eventually reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine. That is why, in this debate on accelerated passage, I state that the Ulster Unionist Party has concerns about such an important Bill being introduced so late in the mandate. The attempts to use accelerated passage mean that it will not receive the attention that it deserves or the scrutiny that it clearly merits.

I say again that we are not arguing against the rationale for going from 12 to nine Departments. Our quarrel is not with the content of the Bill per se; it is with the failure of the Executive to run a Government and to get this matter agreed. That is why the Assembly is in the position that it is in today. The IREP report was produced in September 2009. The fact that it has taken more than six years to get to a position where we can firmly begin to see a single Department for the Economy take shape is nothing short of pitiful. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better.

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the Bill. Before I move to the substantive nature of what I want to say, I, too, pay tribute to Mr Pat Ramsey, who, I understand, will have his last plenary today. Some might say that, in this business of politics, gentlemen are in short supply; therefore, it is regrettable when we lose one. I can certainly say that I have always found Mr Ramsey to be an exceptionally good man and a huge encouragement, and I have enjoyed very much getting to know him over the last few years.

Anybody who knows me will know that, when I speak sometimes, in order for me to process it in my own mind, I like to demonstrate with an anecdote, and I will start with a little story to set the scene for what I want to say. Some people may know that I am a keen motorcyclist. The motorcycle sits in the garage for 49 weeks of the year, given our wonderful Northern Ireland climate, but, in the three weeks of the year that I manage to get it out of the garage, I get on it and do not really choose where I am going. I do not really care where I am going. It is about the experience of the journey and the freedom and enjoyment that come from it. The reason that I tell that brief story is that, in my time in politics, I have met people who fall into that category. They are not overly concerned about the destination; all they seem to be consumed with is the journey. In politics, that is a dangerous position to find ourselves in.

I have found that some people are on a journey of electability. They are more concerned with sound bites and what might be happening around them than with concentrating on their destination.

There are others who are on a journey of — I use the word guardedly — vengeance. They are disappointed by things that have happened in the past and, rather than concentrate on where we should be going, dwell on those things, which allows them to become bogged down in preventing the progress that is required. You may even meet some who are on a journey of inflexibility and do not accept the fact that the world around them is changing. Rather than focusing on the destination, those people are completely bogged down by the changes that are happening around them that they find very difficult to accept.

As my colleague Mr Frew said, that is not what we are elected to do. We are not elected to renege on our responsibilities as elected representatives. Sometimes, decisions will be easy; sometimes, they will be difficult. For the first time in a long time, we are debating a Bill that, in the world outside this little bubble, people are very interested in. We have spent the last four and a half years in the knowledge that we have had spending cuts imposed on us, asking the public and the public sector to tighten their belt, feel a bit of pain and do something to be more efficient. This is our opportunity, as a Government, to contribute. I share Mr Lyttle's aspirations to make the Assembly more efficient, to make it work better and, ultimately, to make sure that there is not wastage in it.

We have been asking doctors, pharmacists and civil servants to tighten their belt. Therefore, we should be very proud of the Bill. It could be better, but it could always be better. We have finally got to a point at which the number of Departments as they stand will be reduced to nine. Of course, there are then the outworkings of that, with a reduction in the number of private offices, special advisers and permanent secretaries and in the whole infrastructure that comes with government.

I am bemused when I listen to some people in the Assembly, regardless of how long they have been here, who seem to fail to see the complexities that exist in a coalition Government. Whether we like it or not, we are in a Government in which we rely on an element of agreement to get things through. I am hugely regretful that there are some parties in the Assembly who have failed in their duty to step up to the mark, do the right thing and do the things that the people want us to do.

I am glad that 'A Fresh Start' has been produced and that there is agreement on it. I am glad that legislation has already been brought to the House that will enable the decisions that were taken in that agreement to happen, and to happen as quickly as possible. Members should not be in the business of insulting not just the intelligence of the people in the Assembly and on the Executive but the intelligence of people outside the Assembly who know that there is a coalition Government in this place, know the reason for that and know that every effort is being made to try to make this place work as well as it possibly can for the people whom we represent. For anybody to be in denial about that shows, with respect, an element of naivety about the position that we find ourselves in.

I am not going to dwell on the accelerated passage procedure any further. We are where we are with that. If we are to get the Bill passed before the election in 2016, we have to be realistic. It would have been better had we been able to do that this time last year, but, unfortunately, circumstances somewhat overtook us.

In relation to staff, there will obviously be concerns around a contraction of any element of the public service. My understanding is that the terms and conditions of employment will remain relatively unchanged. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. Trade unions will be consulted. I understand that trade unions will have their own views, and there is always an element of hysteria among the trade unions when there is any sort of suggestion around a reduction in the number of public servants, the size of Departments, and the number of staff who come along with that. However, I am sure that those consultations will happen. Whilst we may not be able to deliver everything that the trade unions are asking for, I am sure that every effort will be made to make this as smooth a transition as possible.

There is also the issue of arm's-length bodies. I ask the Minister to address in her closing comments what the likely impact will be on those. Will there now be an opportunity, with a reduced government size as far as the number of Departments is concerned, to take a look at the arm's-length bodies — these unelected quangos, if I could call them that? I accept that many of them deliver a very good service. However, I do not believe that they should be any more immune from cuts than the rest of us.

I know that there had been some suggestion that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, which I have done a lot of work with, would be brought into the new Department of Justice. I hope that I am correct in my understanding that that is now not going to be the case and that it will remain in the Department of Health. I would welcome that; perhaps we could get confirmation of that.

I support the Bill and I hope that we will see it progress as quickly as possible. I hope that, for once, the news about the Assembly that is carried this evening will be that we have agreed something that is going to save the public some much-needed money. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and hope that we have cross-House support for the Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and very much welcome the Bill. It is very good that we are now at the stage where we are able to progress it. It is another significant step in the much-needed reform of the Assembly and the Executive. It is no secret that my party has been calling for measures such as these for quite a long time; in fact, since 1998. It has to be said that, when these institutions were established in 1998, decisions around the number of Departments and, indeed, the number of MLAs were made not in the best interests of people or government in Northern Ireland but with political considerations factored into them. It was about giving parties seats not only in this place but around the Executive table. The institutions here, which came about as a result of what took place in 1998, are not what they should be. Reform is necessary. I am pleased that we are taking this step today.

When we consider this Bill, what are the benefits that we find in it? Mr Attwood made a number of points. I do not know whether Mr Attwood is trying to steal the crown from Mr Allister for who can be the most negative Member in the Chamber. It seems that he has been quite negative about a lot of things of late, and that is obviously his right as a Member of the Assembly. However, we have in front of us a very good Bill. First, what we have here are savings that will come from our having a smaller government. A reduction in the number of Departments means a reduction in the number of Ministers, a reduction in the number of private offices, a reduction in the number of special advisers, a reduction in the number of permanent secretaries, a reduction in departmental central management units, a reduction in the number of press offices, a reduction in the number of Assembly liaison offices and a reduction in the number of finance and HR branches within those Departments.

Will the Member give way?

I will, of course, give way.

Does the Member accept that, yes, you will save money in the categories he is talking about, but it will be quite a small amount, unless you have a much larger reduction in the overall number of civil servants?

I am just getting to that point. Yes, we will have savings. It is obvious that those savings will be made; after all, what I have just listed will not be there any more. However, those savings will, perhaps, be small compared with the benefits that will come as a result of us having more efficient government.

I go back to the point I was making. We will reduce all of those things. That will make savings, but no functions will be done away with, and no policies will be abolished. They will be important savings, but the best thing to come as a result of the Bill will be the transfer of functions and the joining up of functions that should be together. I want to give one example of that. Yesterday, my colleague Lord Morrow wanted to raise a point of order in the Chamber in relation to flooding that had taken place in his Constituency. He asked the Speaker what the best way was for him to raise that matter in the Chamber. The Speaker replied that he had decided not to allow a question for urgent oral answer because:

"I found that not only were a number of areas affected but three Ministers were involved." [Official Report, Vol 110, No 2, p39, col 1].

That is the problem that we have with a number of issues: functions are found in different Departments.

Will the Member give way?

I give way to Mr Beggs.

The Member rightly highlights the duplication that exists with regard to flooding. There is the involvement of the Rivers Agency, Transport NI, obviously, and Northern Ireland Water, potentially. In recent years, the former Minister for Regional Development argued that we should bring forward the transfer and create one Department that would be responsible for flooding to try to better coordinate such events: why has that not happened sooner?

I do not know why it has not happened sooner, but I am glad that it is happening now. What we see in section F of the Fresh Start Agreement is that a lot of these issues will be brought in under the control of one Department. I would certainly like to see that happen, and I am glad that it will happen.

Obviously, we are here to talk about the general principles of the Bill. I am pleased that we will have further opportunity to talk about what functions are going where, by way of the Committee's scrutiny, which has been promised by OFMDFM. That will give us an opportunity to talk about that further. This is a short Bill. In my view, it brings savings in the cost of government, it brings functions together and it moves around departmental responsibilities, which will allow for more efficient government. However, it does something else: it continues the reform that is needed in this place. I am pleased that we will have a reduction in the number of MLAs. Although that will not happen until 2021, it shows that the process of reform continues. I think it was my colleague Mr Frew who said that we were in a system where we have to get the support of other Members and we have to convince people of the merits of our arguments. There are Members and parties in the House that were opposed to cutting the number of Departments from 12, and we have now secured that agreement. There are parties in the House who disagreed with cutting the number of MLAs, and we have now got that agreement. We are making progress, and that is welcome. There is, of course, more to be done, but this Bill has my full support, and I urge Members to support it.

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the proposed reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine. It is better late than never. There are advantages, such as saving on personnel, but, more importantly, as I briefly outlined, there will be greater clarity of areas of responsibility and an ability to better coordinate.

As my colleague Andy Allen pointed out, the reorganisation of Departments has been in the pipeline for years, with none more so than the creation of a single Department for the Economy. That goes back to 2009, when the independent review of economic policy made its recommendations. We were told at the time by the then Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Minister Foster, that she would give the report "full and urgent consideration". Improving government structures for the economy has been so urgent that it has taken six long years to get to where we are today. Given the current situation, with the Republic of Ireland's economy reported to be growing three times faster than Northern Ireland's, the sooner that happens, the better.

I thank the Member for giving way. I am a little surprised, and perhaps he could provide some clarity for me. He complains about the time that this has taken. However, his party was opposed to accelerated passage, which would allow this to happen in the first place. Does he not see a contradiction in holding those two positions?

We are simply pointing out what good government is. Good government should not rely on accelerated passage. This has been talked about for years and years; with regard to the Department for the Economy, it has been six years. Why has this legislation not been moved sooner? It is absolutely ridiculous that we are facing it only now, a few months from the end of the Assembly term. Remember, the Assembly was originally to be a four-year Assembly. We are already on nine months of borrowed time and are beyond what should have been our life.

Will the Member give way?

I want to proceed.

In its latest forecast, the consultancy firm EY, formerly Ernst and Young, has predicted that the Northern Ireland economy will grow by 1·7% in 2015, whilst the Republic of Ireland's growth is forecast to be 5·8%. I reiterate: three times as fast as ours. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. The Assembly was supposed to be about delivery, not survival. It was supposed to be about delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. It is past time that this Northern Ireland Executive started delivering. Their time is running out. It is time for a new Executive to be in place and to deliver to meet the needs of the people.

I thank the Member for giving way. Briefly following on from the last Intervention, I appreciate that the Member's party has now taken an oppositional stance, but can he advise what his party did on departmental reduction and government reform when it was in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister?

The Member is referring to something that happened several decades ago. I do not have the details at hand. You are trying to rely on something that happened decades ago, but that was a very different time. Clearly, we need to move forward. Having sown the seeds of a stable, democratic Northern Ireland several decades ago, we think it should now be about delivering and good governance. That is what needs to happen today.

For too long, the Executive have played fast and loose with people's prospects for jobs and of having money in their back pocket. Youth unemployment remains stubbornly high — among the highest in the United Kingdom — and the so-called Fresh Start Agreement is beginning to look like a false start, with Sinn Féin already rowing back from its support for the devolution of corporation tax-varying powers and setting the rate at 12·5% in 2018. If the reorganisation of Departments is to happen, it should be done correctly and should not be rushed through. We have not seen the transfer of functions order, which is mentioned in the Fresh Start Agreement. The agreement states:

"There have been some amendments to the transfer of functions from OFMDFM and between departments. These will be reflected in the supporting Transfer of Functions Order which is currently being drafted."

Earlier in the debate, Mr McIlveen referred to other changes that have been agreed. Whatever is happening behind the scenes should be happening transparently, with the public being able to make suggestions as well. It should not be a case of deals being made in smoke-filled rooms where one side gets this and the other side gets that, or something equally ridiculous. This should be about good governance for Northern Ireland. Hopefully, the Executive will move forward, giving the public and MLAs a copy soon.

Where is this transfer of functions order? The latest that we have been told is that we can expect it some time in the new year. Well, we know that we will definitely get it before the election in May 2016. It is easy to say that we will get it some time in the new year, because if we do not get it then, we will not get it at all. Why do we not have a date for its arrival? Why was the Bill afforded accelerated passage, and why has it not been given proper time for scrutiny?

Every party in the House wants to see a reduction in the apparatus of government to give us a more streamlined and efficient Executive. Sinn Féin and the DUP should have absolutely nothing to fear from proper scrutiny; it makes for better government.

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not agree that, had his colleague stayed in the Executive, he would have had all those answers and, not only that, he would have had his input into the decision-making on the answers that he now seeks? You gave up your opportunity to have an input and to come here and ask questions.

I thank the Member for his contribution. If it was a real partnership Executive, with everyone valued and treated with respect, the Member's assertion would have some merit, but that is not my understanding of how his party and the DUP run the Executive. They made their side deals and treated everyone else like fodder. We have to move on to improve things for everyone in Northern Ireland.

I want to pick up on the earlier Intervention on the issue of flooding. The Department for Regional Development is responsible for Northern Ireland Water and, when storm water enters our sewerage systems, it has a role, under the responsibilities that it has, to react during floods. Similarly, Roads Service, which is now Transport NI, has a responsibility for culverts and grilles etc. We have learned that there is potential for road grilles to be blocked, and they have to be maintained to avoid flooding. The Rivers Agency, under the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, has responsibility for the flow of rivers and ensuring, for example, that ditches do not become clogged and result in flooding. It is also responsible for producing flood maps and determining new development.

The flood helpline service was located in the Department of Finance and Personnel — someone may put me right if I have got that wrong. When there is flooding, the public can contact the Department of Finance and Personnel or go straight to Rivers Agency, to Northern Ireland Water or Transport NI. Frequently, they do not know whom to contact — they just want help — and, in other instances, councils frequently assist. Several years ago, recognising that difficulty, Danny Kennedy, the former Minister for Regional Development — bravely to my mind — suggested that he would be willing to take all this on in one single Department so that there could be single responsibility, better coordination and better delivery for the public. What happened? It was not agreed. Why do we have to wait until there is some big deal and a stitch-up? Why can we not be mature as an Assembly and, when we see areas for improvement, move forward, improving things as we go along? We are meant to be serving the people of Northern Ireland. We are meant to be legislating for improvements and meeting their needs, not the needs of the political bubble that may exist here at Stormont. The changes that are being proposed to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine can allow that to happen, and I hope that they will. There is an indication that that is the direction of travel, but why are we taking so long? Why are we not publishing the changes in a draft format, thus allowing the public to have an input? Someone might spot another area for improvement that the experts have overlooked and make a suggestion to the Committee that will be scrutinising it. Again, that would have widespread support. And guess what? It would deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. After all, as the First Minister once said, this Assembly term was to be about delivery, not about survival. We all know what has happened. Where has the delivery been? The current Executive have let the people down. They have failed them. They have not delivered much, apart from stumbling from one false start to another.

It is more important than ever that the next steps that the House takes are the right steps, with a clear direction and sense of purpose. They should be about delivery for the people in Larne, in Carrickfergus, in Newtownabbey and, indeed, right across the Province, not just about what suits some parties here in the Stormont bubble. Why can the House and, indeed, the community not be presented with all the facts on all the proposals, instead of a Bill being railroaded through under accelerated passage? If the Assembly is going to legislate, let us make sure that it does it right. The Bill should get the attention that it deserves. Let us be clear: the Ulster Unionists fully support the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine, but we do not support the rushed job that is being driven through by the Sinn Féin and DUP coalition, which appears to be afraid of scrutiny and seems to be obsessed with retaining its control and its fingerprints. It is about not what is best for the community but whatever Sinn Féin and the DUP decide.

I listened intently to Mr McIlveen's story, and, when he talked about being on the journey, it reminded me of what I have often said about the Executive. The old adage is this: if you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there. The Executive have never quite looked as though they have had that purpose and direction, and, if they were to come to a fork in the road, to use Mr McIlveen's analogy, they would not know what direction to go in. To deal with it, they would probably form a commission or hope that Westminster or somewhere else would come in and make the decision for them. From listening to many Members in the debate, I can see that that demands almost a culture change for our Executive, whatever the number of Departments happens to be. Whether it is six, nine 12, they have to get to the point at which, as Mr Attwood put it, they look as though they are in power, not just in office, and able to exercise the Departments in a collective manner. That has bedevilled the process almost from when we began with these devolved institutions in 1998, from collapse through to the St Andrews Agreement, where there was almost a trial run at stopping what the DUP termed the end of solo runs by Ministers.

That comes back to how we share power here.

You will have heard me say before that we do not have genuine power-sharing; we have shared-out power. If going to nine Departments helps us to genuinely share power, that is the challenge. Not only do we need a clear direction on where the Government want to go, but there is an onus on political parties to start to work and think about what they want the Government to do. What do they want from whatever Departments or Executive there are and what do they want in a Programme for Government?

I welcome some of the things in 'A Fresh Start'. I welcome some of the changes to the Departments that we are debating today. I also welcome the idea that you would negotiate at the start. It is the wrong way round in 'A Fresh Start': you have to declare that you want to take up your position in the Government before entering negotiations. However, that, I suspect, is something for the parties that qualify to get to.

Once you reduce the number of Departments and whether you like it or not, you change the dynamic of how many parties might qualify for government. If the election results were exactly the same as in 2011, with nine Departments, Alliance would not be a party of government in the sense that it would not qualify under d'Hondt in the current arrangements. That is a change.

My Bill is in Committee at the minute, but I have set out in it some of the issues around unitary government and collective responsibility. Some of what is in this Bill and was agreed in 'A Fresh Start' does not go far enough, but it starts to move us down a certain road. Other parties seem to have accepted that we cannot continue with a model of government that looks so dysfunctional that even the head of the Administration has to refer to it as dysfunctional. These are all things that have to be addressed.

I thank the Member for giving way. Would the Executive not be, arguably, less representative, given what you propose for qualification for the Executive?

If you put in a threshold? Absolutely, it would be. You change that by improving collective responsibility. Not everybody who is in government honours those principles. Look at yesterday's debate on a legislative consent motion: two parties in the Government voted one way, and the other half of the Government voted against them. You cannot continue with that, as I have often said about government policy. If this Bill helps to deliver more cohesive government with nine Departments, you start to build in some of that. We cannot continue with a Government in which half the parties vote one way and half votes the other. That is where collective government comes from. I make the point that, if having nine Departments starts to move us, even slightly, down that road, it is to be welcomed. However, you are relying very much on a culture change to deliver that.

Mr Lyttle talked about needing a statutory duty to cooperate. What I have proposed and what I would like to see in the Departments Bill goes much further than a statutory duty; it will enshrine that collective Cabinet responsibility. It goes significantly further.

On some of the issues around the Bill and the transfer of functions that will come, I note the change in intention to move the Fire and Rescue Service to the Department of Justice. That is probably welcome: the last thing that we need is our Fire and Rescue Service coming into some political mess, which there was a risk of with it coming into the Department of Justice.

The ultimate aim of all of this has to be delivering good governance. The fact that we are changing the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which has been described by many as the most dysfunctional Department in government — to the Executive Office and to a coordinating role is to be welcomed. That is why I supported Mr Allister's SpAds Bill. It is important that with these changes we set limits on how many special advisers there should be. For example, the new Executive Office will clearly not need eight SpAds and two junior Ministers. I look forward to the junior Minister responding to this. A much more sensible use of junior Ministers would be to have one in the Department for the Economy to make sure that we did not take our focus off skills and universities, as could become the case. Perhaps there could be a junior Minister in the Department of Education looking at early years and early Intervention and how we can really raise our game on that subject. Certainly, there should be one in the Department of Health specialising in social care and how we can deliver on that. I would also like to see, possibly, a junior Minister in the Department for Communities looking at some of the impacts of welfare reform on social mobility and what could be done there. This gives the sense of a broader set of reforms that I would like to see flowing from a Bill like this.

Once you start down the road of change, there are things that, naturally, should flow. Once you bring in junior Ministers to look at things such as social care or at rights and protections for our elder population, you start to question whether we need a Commissioner for Older People or a Commissioner for Children and Young People. Should those responsible not, in the idea of representative democracy, be under the control and scrutiny of this Chamber? That is what is interesting about the current reform, in moving to nine Departments and looking not only at how we get a functioning Executive and a robust Assembly and Opposition holding that Executive to account but at how we build in purpose and direction and that challenge to political parties to come up with policies, costed ideas and an idea of what they want to do, what they want to get into a Programme for Government and what they want to do if elected to serve in the Government.

Being in the Government comes with huge privileges, but it must also demand huge responsibility when making decisions. This is something that we have not seen. Under our current model, we have no idea about what is government policy. The Health Minister is now in the Chamber: if he goes to make a decision under Transforming Your Care, how many other Ministers will protest against him? That is why, when you move to a smaller number of Departments and you have fewer parties in the Government, you will help to bring in a collective Government, a disciplined Government and government policy that makes sure that, when Ministers speak, they do so on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland and not just on behalf of their Department. There would be no solo runs in Departments. That is where we have to move to, and I very much hope that that will be the direction of travel set out in the Bill. I do and will support the broad principles outlined today.

I call junior Minister Pengelly to conclude and wind up the debate.

On a point of order, I understood that my name was down to speak in the debate.

Your name was down to speak on it, but you were not in for the previous Speaker and are therefore ineligible to speak.

I explained my predicament to the Chair, but there we go. As you please.

I am grateful for Members' contributions. They have been invaluable and informative, although some were disappointingly negative, given that this is a good news story and a good day for government in Northern Ireland.

Reforming institutional structures has been a declared objective of government here for many years, and reducing the number of Departments has long been recognised as a key element of reform. The Bill represents a major element in the process of reform. The issues addressed in the Bill featured in a Programme for Government commitment; they were the subject of a review and report by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee in 2012; they underwent detailed consideration during the political process leading to the Stormont House Agreement in December last year; they were extensively discussed by the Executive at the beginning of this year; and they featured in the recent talks process that led to last month's Fresh Start Agreement. It is therefore disappointing that some Members have taken issue with the speed with which we are trying to bring about this reform, given that it has been discussed so extensively over the last four years. I say to those Members that this is the time for action. It should be done, it should be done now and it should be done in advance of the new mandate in 2016.

There is a broad consensus on a nine-Department Executive as a viable model for our future Administration. The Bill creates a framework for the most extensive reorganisation of the departmental system since 1999. Although it is quite a compact Bill, its impact on future Administrations will be far-reaching. A streamlined nine-Department system will offer fresh opportunities for improving the way we do business. The future Departments will have a clearer identity that, in my view, will be appreciated by citizens. The new slimmed-down structure will enable related policies and functions to be brigaded together and synergies to be achieved. It will provide a leaner, more efficient Executive.

The changes will have consequences for the Assembly too. Having fewer Departments should simplify Assembly Committee structures and business scheduling. Together with wider public-sector reform initiatives, restructuring will lead to a more efficient Administration on many levels. That will help us to deliver the excellence in public service and value for money that the citizen rightly expects.

I will turn briefly to the various contributions and thank all those who contributed. First, Mr Lyttle outlined the role of the Committee thus far in this issue and in the Bill. We appreciate the Committee's support for our actions on accelerated passage and the reform of the Departments. Mr Lyttle welcomed that the Committee will get to scrutinise the transfer of functions Order. I am happy to put it on the record that we will appreciate the Committee's help in this in the next few months and its comments on and analysis of the proposals set before it.

I welcome the support of the Alliance Party on reform. I am fully supportive of driving forward better government and a better Assembly. That is why I have been very involved in the Department, as has junior Minister McCann, on driving forward better working across Departments, trying to break down silo mentalities and to get better cross-policy working. Delivering Social Change is one example of trying to get a delivery framework.

However, Mr Lyttle mentioned rubber-stamping. What I will say is that we exist within a legislative and Executive context that requires hard graft to bring about brokered agreements. That was picked up by a number of Members. As the Member is well aware, the formal procedures are not always conducive to getting those negotiations and agreements that are required to bring these matters forward. So, we have to look outside the formal structures, but, of course, we liaise and interface with those formal structures when required and when appropriate to get that type of feedback.

I will turn to the contribution made by Paul Frew, who welcomed that we have agreement. I absolutely and wholeheartedly concur: getting agreement across a mandatory coalition, especially one that is so ideologically opposed or which comes from such different ideological positions, is not easy. Yes, it is slow and difficult, but it is worth persevering and achieving those agreed actions.

There was negativity, and I will come to that shortly. Others will snipe, sneer and condescend from their utopian fantasy world of what should be instead of what is. What I would say is that we will try to achieve action and agreement within the context that we exist in while striving to make the necessary changes to improve the system, and I believe that today is a very important step towards improving the system.

Alex Maskey welcomed the fact that we are getting on with implementing the agreement on those actions, and I absolutely concur with that sentiment. I think that action is good, but it takes a long time, as I mentioned, to get agreement. I believe that it is right to use this process to ensure that that is in place for the next mandate and to give the next mandate the best possible opportunity to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

I move on to the contribution from Alex Attwood. Again, there was a bit of negativity from him. He wanted to pour cold water on 'A Fresh Start'. What I would say to him is that, for many people, this is not a disappointment. Some elements will require further discussion, and we have made commitments to continue to discuss those very difficult and tricky issues. We got agreement on how to deal with welfare reform, on having in place 12·5% corporation tax by April 2018, and on comprehensively taking on cross-border crime and tackling paramilitarism. Those are big, big issues of agreement. They are intractable problems that people have struggled with for very many years. There is an agreement there and, while it may not have everything in it that we would hope for, it is a good agreement and a fresh start on a range of issues, and that should be welcomed, not received with such negativity. I believe that it is ambitious and comprehensive.

Mr Attwood raised the issue of the nine Departments and said that it is not a panacea or the answer to inefficiency or bad working. I absolutely agree. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that it is, but it is a good start. It is one of a range of necessary measures. My colleagues in other Departments, including the Department of Health and the Department of Finance and Personnel, are pushing forward an ambitious agenda for efficiency and reform, and we will continue to do that. We have made it absolutely clear that one of our key commitments is providing better public services for people in Northern Ireland, and that will require a change in how we do things and deliver services. We have made a commitment to drive through efficiencies and reform to bring about those changes.

The Member mentioned the issue of objective need that I had raised. To clarify for him, I am not necessarily saying that we should move away from objective need but, rather, that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what objective need is. I know, from talking to very many groups, including those involved in the legal challenge, that there seems to be a sense that objective need is almost entirely to do with spatial deprivation. My comments were to try to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. I mentioned objective need in the Department of Health — the objective medical expertise for your needs. As for unemployment, it does not matter where you live or what the spatial deprivation is, you will get your benefits and the help that you are entitled to. So, my point was more one of clarification about the understanding of objective need, not about actually changing that.

However, we need to step back and change some of what we do right across government. I do not think that anybody is suggesting today that the policy areas in Departments are crystallised and cannot or should not be changed. I have already mentioned the Delivering Social Change agenda, which was a new policy area to be pushed forward. I think that we need to look at the way that we have operated for very many years to see what is working and what is not working, and what is not working should be left behind. On previous occasions, I have mentioned the approach of Departments to strategies. We have started to take an approach of putting many strategies on a statutory basis.

I am firmly of the view, for example, that a huge strategy that collates a range of actions happening in Departments is not the way to bring about change. We need to have an outcomes focus and to look at delivery frameworks and a better way of doing business across policies, within Departments and between Departments and other agencies. Mr Andy Allen —

I thank the Minister for giving way. I think that I have proposed five interventions, all of which were meant to be positive and should in no way be portrayed as negative. May I probe you further? Hansard will confirm, Minister, that you have just said that you are:

"not necessarily moving away from objective need".

You subsequently said that you were "not actively changing objective need". Can you confirm what your position is? Given that you have said that you would not necessarily move away from objective need, are you saying to the House that there might be circumstances in which you might find it necessary to move away from it?

There are a range of policies that any Department can implement, and you implement those policies on the basis of the problem that you are trying to resolve. There will be some problems with need, and, in that case, absolutely, there should be an objective-need approach. Section 28E of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 clearly states that there is a statutory obligation that a poverty strategy needs to be based on objective need. There are other strategies, of course, as you and your party will be well aware. For example, there is a statutory obligation in section 75(2) on good relations. There will be other policies and statutory requirements that mean that we will use a different range of criteria.

I will clarify my comments in that context. We have made it clear in the Chamber that we are committed to bringing forward a poverty strategy under section 28E based on objective need, and I seek to give better clarity on what "objective need" means. It is used colloquially to mean "spatial need", and that is a mistake.

Andy Allen said that this should have happened many, many years ago. The first thing that I will say back to the Member from the Ulster Unionist Party is that, given what happened last Christmas and given that the Ulster Unionist Party did not agree to 'A Fresh Start' or want to be part of that agreement, if it were left to that party, it still would not be done. It certainly would not be done in time for the Administration in the next mandate. I find it difficult to take criticism from a party that is not prepared to step up and make the difficult decisions, the compromises and the agreements that are required to move Northern Ireland forward and get those issues moving.

My colleague David McIlveen paid tribute to Pat Ramsey: I add my best wishes to that sentiment. I did not have much opportunity to know Mr Ramsey, except by reputation, or work with him. Warm words have been said, and it has been mentioned many times that he is a gentleman. Probably all of us around the House would like to have that type of tribute paid on leaving a political career, so I support David's comments on that.

David told a story in which he talked about a destination and asked this: where do we want to go? I absolutely concur with that sentiment. We need to have a vision. There are many visions contained in many strategies and many documents, but, for the Programme for Government, we will strive to have a clear vision of where we want to bring Northern Ireland. I have heard it said by all parties around the Chamber that we have a shared vision of wanting to build a better and brighter future for Northern Ireland. That means economic growth and reforming government, and today is a critical step in doing that.

I will clarify some of the Member's comments. He is not here at the moment, but hopefully he will read this in Hansard. Terms and conditions for staff will be largely unaffected. The only change that is possible may be a change of working location. There is a programme board being led by the permanent Secretary in DEL, presumably under the guidance of the head of the Civil Service, and I know that the board has been liaising with the trade unions throughout the process. He mentioned the efficiency of arm's-length bodies. I can give him a confirmation that arm's-length bodies have not been immune from efficiencies over a number of years. We made it clear through the Department of Finance and Personnel that arm's-length bodies must be included in efficiency measures. They have made year-on-year efficiencies, but we will continue to look at how we can improve that relationship. There has been some rationalisation of arm's-length bodies, and we will continue to look at what is necessary. Where it is unnecessary, that should be merged and examined in terms of a better way of working.

Perhaps there was a little misunderstanding by Mr McCallister of whether the Fire and Rescue Service would be retained in the Health Department. I just wanted to clarify that. David McIlveen queried that as well. I can confirm that, and I know that that will be welcomed by the Fire Service and the health service.

I move to the negative contribution of Mr Roy Beggs, who, unfortunately, has not stayed to listen to the response to the many questions that he posed. He started by saying that it was "better late than never". I welcome the agreement. It was hard fought for, hard won and finally achieved, but, quite frankly, that was no thanks to him or his party.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Mr Beggs was not able to answer my question but, in the Minister's view, it is not contradictory for the Ulster Unionist Party to oppose accelerated passage, which would allow the Bill to become law and make the progress that we want, while complaining that it has not taken place soon enough?

I thank the Member for the Intervention. Absolutely, I concur. It is deeply ironic that they have opposed accelerated passage. If we want to have better government and a better Assembly, perhaps a good place to start would be our legislative process. Quite frankly, it is far from agile in getting these issues through, necessitating the fact that, to get changes in the last nine to 12 months of an Administration, we have to look at accelerated passage. Perhaps it is a challenge to the Assembly to look at how we can bring about changes and deliver for people in the last year of the Assembly term.

It is also deeply ironic that the Member's party walked away from the agreement. They walked away from the Assembly. He talked about smoke-filled rooms. That is probably testimony to the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party absolutely live in the past. It has been a considerable time since a smoking ban was put in place. There certainly were not any smoke-filled rooms in these discussions. He talked about 1998 and the Belfast Agreement being many decades ago. That was a long, long time ago, so they are going to wash their hands and take no responsibility for that whatever. That is an utterly ridiculous argument. He stands up there and says, "Better late than never" and "It is about time" and tries to pour scorn on the parties trying to bring about the changes, while his party created these Departments. The Ulster Unionist Party created those Departments and the burdensome system that we are now trying to deliver change on.

Will the Minister give way?

I am trying to move business on. This has been a lengthy response, but I thank the Member for also standing up to take responsibility for the shocking example in relation to —

The ugly scaffolding.

Yes. The Member also asked what the Executive had delivered. I wanted him to be in the Chamber just, so that I could throw out a few headline statistics: 33% more spend on health; 22,000 jobs created; 12·5% corporation tax secured by April 2018, giving security to businesses that will attract further foreign direct investment and create further jobs for the people of Northern Ireland; no water rates; and the highest foreign direct investment per head of population. We have people sneering and condescending from the peripheries of the Chamber and the peripheries of the political parties in Northern Ireland, trying to pour negativity on what has been achieved. Yes, it has been hard and it has taken a long time, but we have got agreements and are changing things for the better. The Bill is representative of that.

I welcome John McCallister's contribution. He talked of a change of culture, and we can all support that. There is a saying that does the rounds at conferences or between officials that "Culture eats strategy".

The reality is that, unless we change the culture within Departments — the culture of working in silos and of inefficiency — we will not get better outcomes, regardless of how we change the structures. So, this is an important contribution in terms of the reductions, but we are also very conscious that we need to change the way people work. We have been trying to drive that forward, and it has been challenging. However, we need to get officials, bodies, Departments and, quite frankly, people across the Chamber working better outside the silo of where they are comfortable.

We need to be realistic. I take the points that Mr McCallister has raised about the systems that we have, but, if we were to hold out for all parties in the Executive to agree everything, we would have even less agreement and it would make it very difficult to move forward. We have striven to get agreement on a range of these issues. As I mentioned, these changes have been discussed for four years now. The changes in this piece of legislation are very straightforward. It is three clauses. Although some Members have expressed concern about wanting to sit and look at this even further, and add another six or 12 months to that process, it is three clauses, and they are very clear. It has been in the public space for the last four years, and now is the time for action and moving on that. I welcome that today.

In moving to some concluding paragraphs, I thank Members for their contributions to the debate and for the questions and issues that they have raised. I hope that I have answered comprehensively the issues raised. 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for addressing some of our most intractable issues. In relation to departmental restructuring, it has made it possible for us to move forward to an area that will benefit good government and society as a whole. A leaner, more joined-up Administration, with improved cohesion within and between Departments, is in all our interests. Most importantly, hopefully, it will help us to achieve our outcomes in a better way. I commend this Bill to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Departments Bill [NIA 70/11-16] be agreed.