Northern Ireland Assembly, 17 September 2001

36 contributions from 22 members. The official report.

Regional Development Strategy

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That this Assembly agrees the regional development strategy (‘Shaping our Future’) for Northern Ireland 2025.

On 2 July we were able to debate progress on the formulation of the regional development strategy. That debate was very positive. I valued greatly the contributions from individual Members and was very heartened by the broad support received from the Assembly. Following the debate I wrote to several Members in response to points that I was unable, because of lack of time, to deal with when winding up.

Since then I have made several changes to the text. In the main, these changes tidy up the text and, I hope, in the light of comments made during the debate, make a number of sections of the document clearer. Details of those changes have been incorporated in the final text of the strategy, copies of which have been made available to Members.

However, I wish to inform the House that in response to an approach made by the Regional Development Committee on Wednesday past I propose to make a further amendment to the change that I was proposing to the text on page 73. The last sentence of the second bullet point will now read:

"While the balance of the housing need shall be provided from ‘greenfield’ sites, as much new housing as practicably possible, (as assessed following receipt of the Urban Capacity Study), will be provided within the built up area to seek to achieve the regional ‘brownfield’ target of 60% but without town cramming."

I believe that this further change will reassure the Committee and the Assembly of my earnest commitment to the urban housing drive.

I stress again that the key principles set out in the text that was debated on 2 July remain unchanged. Those principles must underpin, indeed validate, the strategy, and it is worth repeating them.

The strategy is about establishing an important strategic planning framework for the next 25 years, which is much more than planning effectively our public infrastructure over the next 25 years, important as that is. It is about creating the conditions for a long-term competitive and sustainable economic and physical development of the region. Sustainable development concerns all of us. Whether we are in the public or private sector, we need to take account of it in our strategic planning. The strategy is about environmental, economic and social sustainability.

During the last debate I made the point — and this is an important view that is shared by many in the Chamber — that the strategy is critically about building sustainable communities. Social and economic cohesion is at its heart. That need has been all too visibly underscored by the terrible scenes in north Belfast over the past few weeks.

The strategy emphasises the need for balanced development. Every part of Northern Ireland, whether a rural or an urban area, should be able to contribute to a strong and prosperous Northern Ireland, and the regional development strategy is about urban and rural, not urban versus the rest.

It is also about achieving a balanced approach. We need to energise the contribution of different areas and ensure development in the north, south, east and west of the Province. It is also important to support the complementary roles of urban and rural areas — and do so in a way that promotes the overall development of the region.

The implementation phase of the strategy is important. For implementation to be successful, there must be a credible delivery mechanism that has the active support of key stakeholders. Achieving that requires Departments, agencies, councils, business, the voluntary and community sectors and individuals to work together to benefit the region as a whole. However, organisations do not take action, people do, and people implement what they are involved in creating.

Many people have already been involved in getting us to the point where, by leave of the Assembly, the strategy is agreed. That is a major plus. Over the next few months, I will put in place innovative and responsive arrangements at sub-regional level to assist Departments to deliver the strategy and ensure that progress is made across Northern Ireland.

The form of those sub-regional arrangements needs to be discussed. However, the city visioning processes under way in Belfast, Londonderry, Craigavon and Armagh, the work of several district councils that have formed strategic clusters, such as the rural west, and the development of local strategy partnerships under Peace II provide valuable new opportunities for focusing on the needs of specific places. To ensure that progress is managed in a co-ordinated and effective manner, I will establish and chair an interdepartmental steering group.

Monitoring and evaluation are critical for measuring the progress of the regional development strategy. In the autumn I will advance details of the monitoring and evaluation framework to the Committee for Regional Development for its consideration. I want to work closely with the Committee on shaping that.

We need to ensure that the strategy remains appropriate over time, and we need to record and measure change across the community. That is particularly important in the context of the planning process. Therefore the strategy needs to be sufficiently flexible to enable it, area development plans and the development control process to respond appropriately to emerging trends and opportunities. That need to remain flexible, yet still provide a tension between the various elements, is the reason why I will soon be advancing proposals for a relatively short strategic planning Bill, which will make a minor, largely technical, change to the Strategic Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.

Another important component of the strategy will be the development of key regional planning policy statements. The first of these will cover housing, retailing, transportation and the countryside. These overarching regional policy statements are designed to augment and guide a comprehensive set of operational planning policy statements being prepared by the Department of the Environment, which inform the preparation of development plans and decisions on development control. This programme of work on both the regional and operational policy statements is already well under way and will be developed by my Department and the Department of the Environment, working in close co-operation.

In looking at implementation, the spotlight will inevitably fall on housing and the progress towards the regional brownfield target of 60% by 2010. Let us not underestimate it: the target is challenging, particularly when one considers our baseline performance during the 1990s. However, the approach set out in the strategy is a more sustainable way of meeting our regional housing needs.

If we are to achieve that target, there is an onus on my Department and the other key Departments to engage positively with the developers and the builders. My Department is prepared to work with the industry — in whatever forum is most appropriate for it — to see how we might together meet the regional brownfield target.

Another area that will rightly come under the spotlight is the regional transportation strategy, since it is so fundamental to the success of the regional development strategy. On 28 September there is to be a major conference on the transportation strategy. It will bring together over 300 people to help us advance our thinking on how we might deliver a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system that will benefit society and the environment and will actively contribute to social inclusion and everyone’s quality of life.

I want to make a few final remarks. The regional development strategy is not a static single-dimensional framework. It is multidimensional. It must also be dynamic. Beneath the framework there will be a convergence — and I hope just a few divergences — of separate and often linked policies that will have an impact on future development. The trick will be to bring greater coherence to those policies. Also, we need to animate the strategy, by which I mean that we should stimulate debate around emerging policy issues that might have an impact on our drive towards a more sustainable Northern Ireland.

Benjamin Disraeli said that

"The secret of success is constancy of purpose".

In implementing the strategy we should aim for constancy of purpose and for success. I ask the Assembly to agree the regional development strategy.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

This important document will shape and form the development of this region over the next 25 years, and no one should underestimate its importance. We should congratulate the Minister and his officials on producing such a good document. As the Minister has pointed out, it is a framework; it is not something that is set in stone. It will be developed over the years. Nonetheless, this document represents a very important start to the future development of our region.

I thank the Minister for the way in which he and his officials have worked to shape the document in consultation with the Regional Development Committee. On numerous occasions, and at short notice, he and his colleagues went out of their way to listen to the Committee’s concerns.

As the Minister has said, the regional development strategy is about establishing an important strategic planning framework for Northern Ireland over the next 25 years. I commend him and his Department for the extensive consultation that has taken place, and I hope that that spirit of consultation will continue. As the Committee’s Deputy Chairperson, Mr McFarland, said during the debate on 2 July:

"The support of a panel of international experts, the public examination and the appointment of an independent panel has ensured a rigorous examination that has taken into account a wide spectrum of views, right across Northern Ireland." [Official Report, Bound Volume 11, p335].

It is now vital that the strategy be implemented successfully.

I welcome the Minister’s appreciation that the strategy is critical to building sustainable communities. As MLA for North Belfast, I agree with him that the recent sad events in my constituency highlight the urgency of starting that work.

I also welcome and support the Minister’s statement that the strategy emphasises the need for balanced development across the region. The Committee was concerned that the strategy would place too much emphasis on the Greater Belfast area and would neglect rural areas. The strategy must reflect the needs of all parts of Northern Ireland, urban and rural, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken account of those views and has ensured that the regional development strategy gives due regard to the importance of balanced development.

Successful implementation of the strategy is vital. The Committee debated the draft plans for implementation extensively and made certain recommendations to the Minister. As the strategy is cross-departmental, it is essential that all Departments support it, co-operate, and play their roles fully in implementing it in order to ensure its credibility and ensure the achievement of its aims. I cannot overemphasize that the regional development framework is not simply for the Department for Regional Development; it is for all Departments. It is an all-embracing strategy affecting areas as diverse as the environment, housing, rural development, tourism, business and employment opportunities. Consequently, it is a framework that must overarch the work of all Departments.

The strategy represents a golden opportunity for all of us to create a vibrant and cohesive society with a strong local economy, supported by excellent public services throughout Northern Ireland. I welcome the intention to establish an interdepartmental steering group, to be chaired by the Minister for Regional Development. I also welcome plans to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the strategy carefully. The Regional Development Committee is committed to playing its role in scrutinising progress in these areas and ensuring the successful implementation of the strategy.

The strategy will be vital for future development and planning control. Developers and builders must also support and co-operate with the implementation of the strategy to ensure that its aims are achieved. In particular, I refer to the development of brownfield sites in urban areas. The Committee welcomes the setting of the challenging target of 60% in regard to the use of brownfield sites and urges everyone involved in the development of housing to take every opportunity to avail of such sites.

As the Minister is aware, the Committee pushed the Department very hard on that issue. As recently as the Committee meeting of 12 September, the Committee proposed an amendment to the text of the document at page 73 to include an additional reference to the 60% target for brownfield development. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the amendment. It reflects a deep and genuine concern on the part of the Committee to seek to ensure that there is a real commitment to developing urban housing, rather than building on greenfield sites.

The Minister’s acceptance of the amendment is a reassurance to the Committee and the many others who lobbied the Committee and who are concerned about the future development of our urban areas. I am pleased that the Department will drive forward a strategy with the primary objective of developing brownfield sites. A clear message must be sent to developers, and the rules must be made clear to planners: brownfield options must be exhausted before consideration can be given to building on greenfield sites. That condition is crucial to ensuring that our cities and towns are regenerated and made much more attractive. The Committee welcomes the strategy’s sequential approach to choosing sites for development and urges that greenfield sites be used as a last resort only.

The impact of the regional transportation strategy is also vital to the successful implementation of the regional development strategy. The vision of a modern, sustainable and safe transportation system, which benefits society, the economy and the environment and which actively contributes to social inclusion, must be realised to underpin and support the regional development strategy. The Regional Development Committee will continue to work with the Department to ensure that a viable transportation strategy is developed and implemented as soon as possible. I wish the regional transportation conference on 28 September every success. It will be an important public consultation. I hope that it will be constructive and used by the Department.

I urge the Minister and the Department to implement speedily the strategy. I also urge all other involved bodies, including Departments and district councils, to play a full and honest role in its implementation. I also urge the Department to press on with the development and implementation of the regional transportation strategy, which will be a vital complement to the regional development strategy.

As the Deputy Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee, Mr McFarland said on 2 July,

"We must all look very critically at how the necessary funding for the regional development strategy is to be found …. It is clear that alternative means of funding must be found to ensure that the improvements to our roads and water infrastructure, and the transport system, can go ahead." [Official Report, Bound Volume 11, p337].

— there is little point in developing plans such as the regional development strategy unless adequate funding is made available —

"The Committee for Regional Development will be carefully monitoring and examining progress on that issue." [Official Report, Bound Volume 11, p337].

This problem can be addressed in part through the allocation of additional funding under the Executive programme funds. I urge the Minister to make a strong case for such funding to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

I thank those Committees that provided constructive commentary on the regional development strategy. I pay particular tribute to the Regional Development Committee, which worked very hard to painstakingly examine and study the various drafts of the strategy. They have made useful and constructive suggestions to guide and advise the Department, and we now have a strategy that provides a vital framework for the future development of this region over the next 25 years and beyond.

I support the motion. The Committee unanimously supports the strategy document, and I ask Members to agree the report and allow the Minister to begin the implementation of this vital strategy.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I welcome the document and associate myself with the Chairperson’s remarks. I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for their close co-operation, which is probably a model of co-operation that other Committees should look at because of its excellence.

At last we have a plan to take Northern Ireland forward. However, it needs to be co-ordinated. The Minister, notwithstanding the Committee, might want to look at the possibility of an executive steering committee as a way of tying the Executive and the Ministers into supporting the strategy. It could be that if particular Ministers were to object to the strategy, there might be a difficulty at ministerial level rather than at Executive level. He might consider such a committee if things were not to move forward at the speed that he would wish them to.

The targets for brownfield sites, which the Chairperson mentioned, are ambitious: they depend on the urban capacity study. When we discussed this issue we understood that 60% was a high target. The logic behind it is that if we have such a target, subject to confirmation from the urban capacity study, we stand some chance of achieving it. If a low target is set, we would almost certainly achieve it, but that would not do what we are trying to do, which is to encourage brownfield development in urban areas.

A change of planning ethos comes with the document, and that is something that developers should pay close attention to. The document changes the practice of building and development in Northern Ireland forever. Its fundamental ethos is that we look at our environment and pay closer attention to it. We cannot any longer simply build where we wish to; sadly, that, has been the practice over the last number of years. We have only to look at our constituencies to see that that is the case. This is one issue that will unite all 108 Members. There are planning problems in our constituencies due to builders and developers building in an unplanned way. It is to be hoped that the regional development strategy will get a grip on that situation and solve the problem.

As regards how the strategy might be advanced and the issues developed, I have particular pet issues that I would like to share with the House. First, there is the use of existing rural sites. Throughout Northern Ireland’s rural community there are sites where buildings have started to fall down. For some reason we seem to ignore rebuilding on those sites because it is cheaper to build on new greenfield ones. We should look at rural communities and build on existing sites.

Secondly, we have all had experience of developers. Behind my property a perfectly serviceable house was knocked completely flat because it was cheaper for the owner to do that and build a new house than to extend the existing one. It is absolutely crazy. I appreciate that such matters are not necessarily the Minister’s responsibility, but they are part of the whole business of planning and strategy, and we need to look at them.

We need a co-ordinated transport network, and the regional transportation strategy will help us with that. When driving a goods vehicle from Dungannon, one can hurtle up the M1 — or if coming from Ballymena, one can hurtle down the M2. However, the moment that one hits the Westlink, one virtually stops. It is ridiculous in this day and age — and the Minister has got this issue in hand. It is crazy not to have a system that allows drivers to get through Belfast quickly. We need a system for taking goods rapidly to our airports, railheads and seaports.

That needs to be developed as part of this sort of strategy. Northern Ireland’s links across the Irish Sea need to be improved. Yesterday I headed off down the A75 — a road beloved of us all — when travelling with my children to university. The Assembly must work with the Scottish Parliament to sort out some way of improving our east-west links; they are not fit for the twenty-first century.

Rural roads must also be tackled, as Members from west of the Bann will know well. From Lough Neagh eastward one can get to most places fairly quickly. However, in the west of the Province the key transport corridors must be improved to allow the emergency services and others to get around and have fast access.

This is a good day. The strategy gives firm leadership. I commend the Minister and the Department for Regional Development and urge the House to support the motion.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

I join the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development in congratulating the Minister on the document. I would also like to thank the many departmental officers who took time over recent months to come to the Committee and explain in detail the many aspects of the regional development strategy (RDS). That has been helpful. It has added to the smooth running of the process and contributed towards our eventually getting to the stage where the Committee could give its total support to the Minister’s plans.

The regional development strategy is a wide-ranging document of considerable content. Twenty-five years seems a long time, but, as Members know, time has a habit of creeping up on us.

Will the Minister tell the House if all the councils in Northern Ireland have finished their area plans and if those plans were taken into account when pen was put to paper on the document? Have some councils neglected to get their plans produced? It is important that every council has an input to the regional development strategy, and I wonder if that has happened.

Housing is a subject that people in Northern Ireland hold dear. The document states that the Minister seeks to widen opportunity and choice and to improve the supply and quality of housing; no Member would disagree with that. It also states that he wants to promote sustainable development. The last two Members who spoke put some emphasis on development in greenfield and brownfield sites. Every Member realises that there must come a time when builders are brought to account. For too long there have been builders in Northern Ireland who seem to have been able to build where they want, when they want and how they want. Under the regional development strategy it is hoped that that will stop, and I am glad that we will begin to see sensible developments — not just in Belfast but throughout the Province. For that reason I welcome the document’s housing policy.

All Members want a vital, modern and safe transport system. Those of us who have travelled in Europe have been amazed at the modern railway and road transport systems that seem to be the norm with our European cousins.

At the end of September we will have a taste of what will be in the transport strategy programme when 300 people will be brought together. The strategy will be put before them, and they will provide feedback.

Will the Minister take another look at some of the railway systems? At the Regional Development Committee meeting last Wednesday alarm bells rang in some Members’ ears when we were told that some of the lines may be mothballed. I realise that money cannot be thrown at everything, but will the Minister consider that some of those railways take people to ports and to crossings between Northern Ireland and Scotland? That needs to be given grave consideration.

I welcome the Belfast metropolitan area plan. No one can oppose investment in our capital city, which has borne the brunt of terrorism for far too long. I congratulate the Minister on that plan, as well as on the Londonderry one. However, will he remember that there are several significant rural towns that also need some type of investment? Together with three of my colleagues, I met with development officers from Larne on Friday afternoon. They are looking for a way to revitalise their town and buildings and bring people back into the town. I thank the Minister for the document, and I am glad to support it. I wish him well in the future.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla pointe ginearálta a dhéanamh faoin straitéis, gan rud ar bith a athrá a dúradh cheana féin. The Committee has spent a considerable amount of time and effort discussing the regional development strategy. There has been frequent consultation with the Minister and the Department’s officials, and I thank them for persevering with the Committee on the issues raised.

The regional development strategy is a critical document, which will have interdepartmental consequences in developing the region over the next 25 years. The strategy provides for that period, so the document should contain a vision of how we would like to see the region at the end of that time. In the context of the Good Friday Agreement, the vision should be one of social inclusion, economic development, equality in environment and equality for people across the region. The strategy sets out those themes as part of its objective.

The effectiveness of the strategy will depend on its implementation by each of the Departments, with co-operation from social and voluntary bodies. It will also be dependent on the financial resources available.

It is proposed to alter the schedule to the Strategic Planning Order (Northern Ireland) 1999 so that departmental development plans, particularly those of the Department of the Environment and the Department for Social Development, will conform to the strategy as opposed to being consistent with it. The reasoning is that full consistency with the strategy requirement could create unnecessary and undesirable flexibility in the development plans.

I accept that reasoning, but to have plans that, in general, conform with the strategy does not mean that the strategy can be ignored, sidelined or weakened because of other considerations.

I welcome the Minister’s intention to establish an interdepartmental steering group to ensure the strategy’s implementation, to monitor and evaluate its progress and to provide an annual report to the Assembly.

Financial constraints, particularly on transport and the transportation system, will be a major factor in the strategy’s success. The Minister referred to the regional transport strategy that is currently under consultation. That strategy will consider possible sources of finance. However, we must be realistic about the starting point for all aspects of the strategy, not just transportation. It is a sobering thought that the current available budget for essential road maintenance in the region supplies only half of the necessary funding. We must bear in mind that such financial constraints will determine both the strategy’s effectiveness and its outcome.

Tough decisions must be made to agree the regional development strategy on transportation, especially as regards the sources of finance. If we go by current budgetary allocations, we will have to consider sources of finance other than public spending.

The regional transport strategy recognises that meeting future transport demands through road improvements and unrestrained car use is not a sustainable option. It recognises the need to focus on moving people and goods within, into and out of the region, rather than on an increase in the number of vehicles. Moreover, it recognises the need to change travel culture through more responsible car use. Hard decisions will have to be made on those issues.

The strategy’s aim is to change travel culture and to extend travel choice. Reform of a travel culture that sees private car use as the primary means of transport will require a viable and attractive public transportation system. Other measures such as reasonable journey duration and cost may be needed to encourage people to choose public transport ahead of the private car, particularly in larger urban centres and their hinterlands.

The regional development strategy document is a vision for the next 25 years. On other occasions, I have referred to a lack of vision concerning the future of the region’s rail network. The strategy refers to the long-term options to complete a circular link from Belfast to Bleach Green, Antrim, Lisburn and back to Belfast, to create a rapid transit system in the Belfast metropolitan area and to enhance the lines from Belfast to Derry and to Dublin.

I accept the railway taskforce report, which looks at the short-term future of the rail network. The report opts to consolidate the existing rail network for a short-term period of three to five years. However, if the regional development strategy is to move towards equality and social inclusion across the region, there should be a long-term plan to extend the rail network through Portadown to places such as Armagh, Omagh and Strabane. I hope that when formulating the regional transportation strategy, that will be addressed more positively.

Partnership is the guiding principle for implementation of the strategy, which states that plans for the development of the region will be fully implemented only if there is co-operation with our neighbours on this island and with Britain. There must be co-operation on this island on transportation.

The focus of a cross-border transportation system tends to be on routes from Larne to Dún Laoghaire and from Belfast to Dublin. Historically, under direct rule, there has been a focus on the Belfast metropolitan area. The issue of balance between the Belfast metropolitan area and Derry and rural areas has been raised during the Committee’s work, but there must be a localised focus on cross-border transportation, if towns such as Enniskillen, Omagh and Armagh city are to reach their full development potential.

Brownfield sites were discussed at length by the Committee. Several Members referred to them during the debate on July 2, and I do not want to repeat the arguments. The Minister has accepted that a clear signal must be sent on the development of brownfield sites. However, the strategy sets a target of 60% brownfield development by 2010. That will depend on the result of the survey that is being carried out on the land database as regards availability.

The availability of a site, and the extent of that land database, will be influenced by the Minister’s commitment to the development of brownfield sites. Developers must understand that it is not a matter of what they want to do or can do; it is a matter of what they must do. If the "must do" message is sent, the availability of sites for brownfield development will increase.

Finally, I want to talk about the more local issue of Warrenpoint harbour. Warrenpoint is about four miles from Newry’s town centre, linked, as is said in the strategy, by a dual carriageway. All port traffic to and from Warrenpoint harbour must go through Newry’s town centre. If Warrenpoint is to remain a sustainable and competitive port over the next 20 years, consideration will have to be given to linking the harbour with the Newry bypass, thus avoiding the town centre.

Go raibh maith agat.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Like other Members, I welcome the report, which is based on the principle of sustainability, and I congratulate the Department on the consultation process.

Some time ago the process of consultation began with a public meeting in Belfast. The consultation process has been wide ranging and time consuming. However, it is important to get it right. In the Minister’s introduction to the report, he was realistic enough to concede that there must be some form of flexibility. The report reflects the benefits of devolution for the people of Northern Ireland, and those must be recognised. Although the Department for Regional Development is taking the lead, it is important to ensure that there is an interdepartmental approach to carrying out the plan, particularly in relation to social, economic, transport and environmental issues.

The process must develop in tangent with the area plans, and it must be consistent. It will come as no surprise that one of my major interests is the development and delivery of the Belfast metropolitan area plan.

I have one concern. If there is to be an interdepartmental approach towards delivering the proposals, better co-ordination is needed between Departments, particularly between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development. As the Minister knows, a major business development in my constituency has been delayed because the two Departments have not agreed on the final process. It is to be hoped that this can be resolved quickly.

I also welcome the proposals for a regional transport policy for Northern Ireland. However, I have serious concerns about the required funding. The Department of Finance and Personnel needs to recognise the importance of the report. It would be remiss of me not to mention the problems of the A2 from Carrickfergus to Belfast. This is an example of area overdevelopment where inadequate infrastructure has been introduced to deal with the subsequent transport issues.

Many Members representing metropolitan areas will welcome the proposed introduction of the Belfast Lough ferry service — a novel idea. There have been experiments with ferry services in other cities worldwide, and I hope that when the project gets off the ground it will be a success.

I welcome the Minister’s statement about brownfield sites. Members have been lobbied strongly by interested parties throughout Northern Ireland. The Minister and the Department should perhaps concede that this is the best approach, as it should set a target that I hope is achievable, particularly in urban areas.

It is important that the Assembly monitor progress on the railways. I hope that the new rail sets will come into operation sooner rather than later, together with the improvements required for various lines.

The issue of transport must be examined from an external point of view as well as an internal one.

As Members may know, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee travelled to Brussels and Copenhagen last week with the Sabena travel company. Unfortunately, Sabena intends to withdraw that route soon. Brussels is one of many important international links. If Northern Ireland is to develop as a region of the European Union, external transport links are vital.

We must ensure that the general infrastructure — not just roads and railways — is adequate. There must be a level playing field; in particular, I stress that the natural gas pipeline to Derry must be developed. The Assembly should do all that it can to ensure that that project happens.

We must examine social issues at local and regional level. If the plan is to be implemented to the maximum benefit of the people of Northern Ireland, affordable public sector housing, good health and education services and modern retailing facilities must be provided. The Planning Service must adhere to realistic guidelines if we are to protect our countryside. Members must remember that some rural areas are among the poorest in Northern Ireland. The necessary public transport facilities should be provided in those areas. On its visit to Denmark last week, the Committee learnt much about the kind of sustainable waste management programme that we need for Northern Ireland. We should consider that issue for Northern Ireland as a whole. The strategy document is of vital importance to our future.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I said on 2 July that the document was a good start. However, the strategy is meant to cover 25 years, and I am concerned that it is not yet good enough.

Members should look back to 1975. We had not heard about the information superhighway — our superhighway was the Westlink. Bill Gates was a child. Life has changed dramatically since 1975. Members must think about where we are likely to be then, and we must use our imagination and strategic long-term thinking to guide ourselves in that direction.

I welcome the work that has gone into the document, and I do not doubt that it is a starting point. However, we need much more commitment to change. We should think about cars that run on electricity and about energy supplied by the wind, waves or biomass. We must put people at the centre of policy, rather than cars and buildings. There should be children’s play areas on every street corner and green and pleasant land. That vision is within our reach. It is 25 years ahead. People are realising it elsewhere.

We need to be prepared to become much more radical in our approach to change, and we need to start now.

I am not convinced that the document will get us to where we need to be. I am disappointed that there have been no fundamental amendments as a result of the 2 July debate on the regional development strategy. That debate lasted several hours, and I understood that it was to serve as a contribution to the consultation process and result in amendments to the document. Six amendments were made as a result of the debate, but I will stand corrected if the Minister can show me that the document has since been radically changed. One amendment provided for the adjustment of a diagram so that it includes Harry Avery’s Castle near Newtownstewart. I concede that it is important that the castle be included in the diagram, but where are the fundamental amendments based on the debate that took place in the Assembly on 2 July?

Admittedly, the Minister has been lobbied on the use of brownfield sites, and there was movement on that issue even at the last minute after the Regional Development Committee lobbied the matter further. That is to be welcomed, although we have always said that we should go beyond the 60% mark. We need to listen to people, but the strategy does not comprise a listening exercise, which is a vital ingredient.

I will detail four areas in which more should and could be done: planning; transport, with special reference to road safety; leisure, including children’s play strategies and youth leisure strategies; and environment and energy policy.

Greater account needs to be taken of communities when planning decisions are made. For a long time we have called for the implementation of a community impact assessment. Environmental impact assessments are made, and we worry about what the birds, bees, flowers and trees think about a new building, but we do not ask the neighbours. How many times do I need to say that? A community impact assessment would mean that the developer would be obliged to consult the neighbours before putting up a building. That is a vital factor — it is the way to listen to the community.

I have already said that we should match the legislation of other countries. In the South of Ireland a children’s play facility must be provided with every hundred houses that are built. Returning to the idea of swings and slides, we have huge sprawling housing developments without one area for children to play in. When are we going to bring about legislation to force that change? It will not happen otherwise. Alternatively, shall we retain the cul-de-sac kid mentality towards which we are moving? We say that kids can play on the streets while we worry about the safety of our car parking spaces.

On the issue of transport, I am very concerned about road safety. Traffic calming areas around schools, hospitals and residential areas are vital. A nod in that direction is made in the strategy; I welcome that, but it is not enough. The vital issue of public transport has been raised. We should be moving into an era of reduced car use and increased use of public transport. Why are we not pushing far harder for more investment in public transport? We should be investing in tram systems, light rail systems, buses and cycle lanes. A good deal more needs to be done.

In regard to leisure, have we forgotten about the importance of children’s play and how it can help kids’ futures? Youth leisure is also required to get our young people off the streets. There are not nearly enough facilities for the under-fives and the under-17s. We need to focus, if only at local council level, on the need to create children’s play strategies so that we have play parks, children’s areas, youth leisure areas, skateboard parks and other such amenities. We cannot forget them. They are just as important as car parking.

My thoughts on the environment and energy have been much influenced by the recent trip by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee to Denmark to study energy policy — something that Sean Neeson has also mentioned. We must do more to prepare ourselves for the huge changes that will take place in the next 25 years. Next year, for example, there will be changes regarding our dependency on oil. There will also be a need for us to move into the renewable energy sector.

In chapter 12, paragraph 5.1 (‘Consider the implications of climate change’), of ‘Shaping our Future’ it is stated that we must

"identify key issues for action" .

We should be able to identify key areas for action, such as promoting wind energy, wave technology, tidal technology and biomass schemes. If it is being done in Denmark, there is no reason why we should not do it. What is stopping us?

I was pleased to hear the issue of waste management mentioned earlier. Denmark is not even a thousand miles away from us, and it has a waste management strategy. Denmark is way ahead of us. We need guidance, direction and greater imagination.

I welcome the hard work that has gone into the document. I welcome the fact that there was a consultation process. I also welcome the Minister’s commitment to joined-up government, which is something we desperately need. I make an appeal to everyone who may be involved in any steering committee set up to implement the document: do not close this book — changes will be required very soon, and we must be prepared for them.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

The first round of Members from each party has now finished. In the past 10 minutes, many Members have expressed a wish to speak. Therefore, I must reluctantly limit each Member’s time to six minutes, in order to allow the Minister to wind up.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I welcome the motion and the finalisation of the regional development strategy. The strategy offers the opportunity to start a dynamic development plan for Northern Ireland over the next 25 years. I welcome the Minister’s comments on how an implementation process for the strategy can be delivered. We need to have five- yearly reviews on the strategy’s development.

The ‘Shaping our Future’ project has been a good post-devolution consultation exercise for Northern Ireland. The Department for Regional Development’s plan has been published after extensive consultation and enhanced drafting over a two-year period. Senior departmental officials have been sensitive and professional in their approach to finalising this important public development project for Northern Ireland. As a member of the Regional Development Committee, I appreciate the due consideration they gave to our concerns and views throughout the consultation and development process. In his meetings with the Committee, the Minister showed due regard and consideration for the various issues that we put to him.

I welcome the fact that the regional development strategy recognises the importance of the promotion of social cohesion and economic development, along with equality of opportunity and spatial equity throughout the region. I also welcome the Minister’s comments on a balanced urban/rural approach to development for the future. That is very welcome for Northern Ireland at this stage.

The concept of decentralisation of services is addressed in the strategy, and that is welcome. However, I would like the Executive to lead by example. Entire sections of Departments should be moved out of Belfast and relocated to realise the vision of balanced development right across the region. Overall, the strategy is innovative and dynamic, addressing many of our concerns about issues covered in earlier drafts. It contains many positive proposals relating to urban and rural development, transportation strategy, housing needs, environmental concerns and the tourism infrastructure.

Transport policy is vital to ensuring that the core principles of equality, choice, efficiency and accessibility, as well as environmental concerns and public safety issues, are taken into consideration. I am aware that the Department is currently devising a regional transportation strategy, and the Regional Development Committee is engaged in deliberations on that. The commitments to improve cross- border road and rail links are also welcome. It is important that the transport infrastructure be upgraded in an all-Ireland and European context. The measures to upgrade roads in Northern Ireland are long overdue, and I am pleased to read that this strategy proposes a more integrated approach to transportation in rural areas. That will improve accessibility, with, I hope, the objective of sustaining rural communities.

This strategy is an imaginative document with the capacity to address the problems associated with the uneven development of the region in the past. It is to be hoped that its proposals are not rigid and that they can be adapted and tailored, as circumstances require, to ensure that the principles of equality and social justice remain at its core.

One of the key tasks will be implementation. Securing the necessary financial resources will be the major task in realising the delivery of the regional development strategy. I hope that the interdepartmental steering group will tackle this problem in a committed way, particularly given the need for a lot of expenditure on transport infrastructure and water and sewerage investment needs. I welcome the fact that the steering group will be co-ordinating the implementation of the development strategy. The devising of local area plans is now very necessary. In my constituency, both Omagh and Strabane councils are awaiting the drawing up of the west Tyrone area plan. It is most important that it be drawn up as soon as possible so that the regional development strategy can be connected into it. A joined-up government approach will be necessary to deliver the implementation of this plan. This development plan offers a template for Northern Ireland’s future. If we can achieve joined-up government among Departments, in collaboration with the district councils, then we can deliver social and economic development for all our people across the region.

I support the Minister’s motion and congratulate him and the Department for bringing forward a radical and important document for the development of Northern Ireland.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I want to express my thanks to all involved in preparing the regional development strategy document. As an elected representative for Mid Ulster, I regard ‘Shaping our Future’ as being of particular relevance. The area that I represent has many longstanding social and economic problems that need to be addressed. I hope that this document can provide equality for all people living in rural areas. The document raises awareness of several key issues that must be remembered when developing a 25-year plan to rejuvenate Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland has a population of approximately one and a half million people, of which 60% live outside the cities of Belfast and Londonderry, and we must spread our resources fairly and not just around the east or west of the Province. ‘Shaping our Future’ aims to tackle inequality in health, education and living standards.

Recently hospital services in Mid Ulster were cut back. Initially we were told that it was a temporary measure, but that was only to soften the blow. If the Hayes Report recommendations are fully implemented, Tyrone will be without accident and emergency and maternity services. I cannot reconcile those developments with Government calls for equality. Where is the healthy living environment for the people of Mid Ulster?

The quality of many roads in Mid Ulster is another cause of concern. If hospital services are to be moved away from our area, the infrastructure needs to be upgraded. The safety of Mid Ulster residents is at stake because of the poor condition of our roads.

The document mentions the environment, community life and rural society. I support facilities such as churches, community organisations and other voluntary groups that contribute to the sense of belonging that is so often absent in rural settings. In my constituency, agriculture plays a vital part. Retailers in rural towns rely on farmers to buy their goods, and all benefit from the industry. For example, Cookstown is known as a market town, as it is built on agricultural roots.

I accept the need to look ahead when considering the development of Northern Ireland. I agree with the notion of diversification, yet to many farmers that means only one thing — building a golf course. Agriculture has been hit by successive disasters in the past decade. BSE and foot-and-mouth disease did most miserable damage to the industry, and the problems were compounded by financial factors such as trade enlargement, market globalisation and the strong pound.

It is one thing to suggest diversification; actually doing it is another. Farming is a way of life, not simply a job. Our farmers receive unfair treatment at the hands of those organisations that process or retail their products. For example, they get 18p for a litre of milk, yet it is sold in the shops for 90p. Revenue has been drained from rural areas because of unfair markets. That problem needs to be addressed.

Successful and sustainable development requires using those resources that we have on a scale and quality not enjoyed elsewhere. Tourism has enormous potential, and we can attract people to the natural and unspoilt beauty of Northern Ireland. Our rural areas would benefit from tourism, and I support the Sperrins and Lough Neagh as attractions. We need to raise awareness of such natural beauty spots as well as provide amenities for tourists.

Magherafelt has witnessed impressive levels of growth, particularly between 1981 and 1996. Its population has grown by almost one third, the second largest growth in any Northern Ireland urban centre. In addition, that population growth in the past year has been double the Northern Ireland average, and I am disappointed at the report’s failure to recognise Magherafelt as a town of great potential.

In the past 10 years it has faced many constraints to its growth. For example, sufficient land has not been allocated for industrial, commercial and housing purposes. However, in spite of all those difficulties Magherafelt has achieved those impressive figures, and the town has an important infrastructure asset in its connection to the A29, which runs from Newry to Coleraine. In addition, the town is located in the centre of the Province, so I ask that Magherafelt be classified as a main hub.

We know that the Mid-Ulster Hospital —

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

The Member will bring his remarks to a close.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I conclude by summing up the areas where action under the regional development plan will affect the Mid Ulster constituency, which has been underdeveloped for far too long.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

The Member’s time is up.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The difficulty that we face in Mid Ulster is that no Member from there is on the Committee. While the Committee has done a good job, and I commend both the Committee and the Minister for their general approach, there are concerns for the area that I represent.

Magherafelt, a part of the Mid Ulster constituency, has not been designated as a main hub town. I cannot understand that. I notice that Cookstown has, and I welcome that. The problem is that it seems to put Magherafelt against Cookstown. I was born in the Cookstown area; I reside in the Magherafelt area; and I believe that both these towns should have been classified as main hubs. Seventeen or 18 of the district councils are identified on the map as main hubs.

Magherafelt’s development, and especially its industrial development, has been curbed by the fact that its area plan is too rigid and long out of date. We also find that our town had one of the highest growth rates in the whole of the Province. That does not seem to have been recognised in the summing up of the report. It is important that Magherafelt should be identified as a main hub, and if it does not mean anything, why have other towns been identified as such? We all know that identification as a main hub is important, and this document will be used for the development of the area in years to come.

We have difficulties in this respect because when it comes to our fight to retain acute services in the Mid-Ulster Hospital, it will be shown that we are not identified in this plan as a main hub. I differ with the Member for Mid Ulster, Mr Armstrong, who said that if the hospital services are removed, the roads must be upgraded. I do not believe that we should be saying "if the hospital is downgraded". If we are to have proper acute services and hospitalisation, we must not entertain the thought of our hospital’s being downgraded. Our roads need to be upgraded, and we have been pressing for that. It is one of the things that the Minister has been well aware of for years.

We have endeavoured to achieve a continuation of economic growth in the area. Land has been acquired by the Department at Craigs, which is outside Toomebridge in the Magherafelt district area. The fact that Magherafelt is not identified as a main hub area is going to hinder progress with our economic growth. While I appreciate all the other things that the Minister and the Committee have identified, it must be clearly seen that there will be problems as a result of the fact that Magherafelt district and town has not been classified as a main hub area for future development.

It is acknowledged that the figures for housing are higher for Magherafelt than for neighbouring towns, yet for some reason that was not recognised by classification as a main hub. I appeal to the Department, and I still appeal to the Committee, to look further at this matter and make recommendations on it. I trust that this is not so rigid that it cannot be adapted if required. Magherafelt is vital to the economic development of Mid Ulster and to the wider prosperity of our Province.

There is a concern that some areas of the Province, identified for large increases in housing numbers, could be overdeveloped. They could lose their identity. Some of the smaller towns surrounding such areas could find themselves consumed completely. Smaller towns do not want to lose their identity, and it should not happen.

If areas in the Province have been identified as growth areas, it is essential that proper road networks accompany such growth. Many roads are already chock-a-block. Putting large numbers of houses into such areas without road networks would not be in their best interests.

While giving a general welcome to the strategy, I ask the Minister to seriously consider its deficiency with respect to the Magherafelt District Council area.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I give critical acceptance to the report. I accept the plan’s value and recognise the time, energy and commitment of the Minister, his officials and the Regional Development Committee, and its work with the Department.

It is clear that departmental thinking links regional development with the priorities of ‘Strategy 2010’, the economic development strategy document. However, ‘Strategy 2010’ has been widely criticised for its top-down approach, its continuation of failed policies, its bias towards the Belfast area at the expense of the western and southern parts of the Six Counties and its presentation of the economy as being almost completely dependent on British policy decisions.

Earlier this year, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment advanced a report to the House that was accepted by all Assembly parties. One of the key aspects of that report was the fact that infrastructure is a tool of the economy. We must recognise that the infrastructural tool we have now is not adequate to sustain a growing economy.

I draw the attention of the House to three of the many recommendations that were accepted. Recommendation 13 speaks of regional disparities:

"The Committee recommends that the Economic Development Forum needs to address the regional disparities within the Northern Ireland economy and promote distinctive measures to redress the geographical imbalances."

Recommendations 24 and 25 mention transport infrastructure. Recommendation 24 states:

"The Committee recommends a massive injection of funding over the next 10 years to develop a world class transport infrastructure within all regions of Northern Ireland to bring it into line with the needs of a modern world class economy, taking into account the legal equality duties and policies."

Recommendation 25 states:

"The Committee recommends a strategic approach to transport policy on the island of Ireland and within these islands with regular meetings of the regional/national transport Ministers of the relevant authorities to provide for increased co-operation."

I ask the Minister, when he sets up his interdepartmental committee, to take on board the agreed recommendations of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee. He should not base his recommendations and way forward on ‘Strategy 2010’ as it was written originally.

There is a need to take on board what was said by the Committee and accepted by all parties on the Committee. I also note that the Minister’s time frame is 25 years. Very few people in the House will be around in 25 years’ time. Some of us might be. I therefore urge the Minister to have annual or biannual progress reports in the interim.

I ask the Minister to have an ongoing look at the road from Strabane to Aughnacloy in my constituency of West Tyrone. There is a need for a fundamental and continual upgrading of that thoroughfare.

There is currently a huge debate in counties Tyrone and Fermanagh in relation to the Hayes Report. One of the key points in a rural context is accessibility to hospitals. The responsibility for that matter lies with the Department for Regional Development. It must take the need for accessibility on board in a very clear and focused way.

Transport, for instance, needs to be addressed on an all-Ireland basis. That was specifically provided for under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement’s 12 areas of North/South co-operation. It is not being pursued actively enough. There needs to be a huge shift in official culture if informed co-ordination of cross-border planning is to be achieved. Nevertheless, this report deserves study. We must engage with it in a very critical way. I hope that the result will be a better document and a better way forward.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I, as the Committee Chairperson and other Members have done, wish to compliment the Minister on his handling of the consultation process since he inherited the role of Minister for Regional Development. I welcome the fact that we have reached the stage where the Assembly is being asked to agree the regional development strategy. On Monday 2 July, when Members debated a motion on the progress of the report, 17 Members made largely supportive comments on the content of the publication titled ‘Shaping Our Future’. I want to follow up some of the observations and comments that I made in that debate.

I expressed at that time a degree of disappointment that farming and farm-related matters had little or no mention in the document. I commented, however, that the promise of rural proofing by all ministerial Departments should ensure that the farming community gets equality of treatment when the strategy is up and running. I want to hear what plans the Minister has to assure those with agricultural interests that the regional development strategy will be thoroughly rural proofed, where appropriate, by his Department.

On the upgrading of our major traffic corridors, I make a special plea to the Minister to use his influence to bring forward the programme for a dual carriageway on the A1 between Loughbrickland and Newry. I do that for a particular reason. As I made my way to the Assembly on Thursday morning last, I had to join other motorists making a detour in the Loughbrickland area due to a traffic accident on the A1. Sadly, that accident proved to be fatal. A 69-year-old female tourist from France lost her life in a head-on collision on that terrible stretch of road. Coincidentally, that was the second time recently that I have had to make the same detour for a similar reason — sadly with a similar outcome.

The route I refer to forms a portion of the eastern seaboard corridor as printed in diagram 12 on page 162 of the final text before us. Anything that the Minister can do to advance the proposals for that stretch of road will be greatly appreciated by the large number of daily commuters who use the A1 Newry to Belfast road.

I address my third comment on the strategy to those currently engaged in drawing up the new area plans. I recently attended public consultation meetings organised by the Planning Service in Rathfriland and Warrenpoint. Those meetings dealt specifically with the new Newry/ Banbridge area plan. On matters of rural development, there was widespread agreement among rural participants that the pending area plan would have to develop an attractive and prosperous rural area, based on a balanced and integrated approach to the development of town, village and countryside, to sustain a strong and vibrant rural community.

I make no apology to the wordsmith for copying the words that he or she penned under the heading ‘Strategic Rural Development Objectives’ on page 93, which refers to the overall aim of the strategy:

"to develop an attractive and prosperous rural area, based on a balanced and integrated approach to the development of town, village and countryside, in order to sustain a strong and vibrant rural community".

I am satisfied that the document’s declared aims are compatible with the overall wishes of the rural community. I can only add that planners should take note.

Finally, I share Jane Morrice’s concern about the level of attention paid to the comments on 2 July. Does the Minister still view the contributions made then as being helpful and relevant? I hope that his answer will be yes. I support the motion, and I call on the Minister to remember the debate on 2 July when he is implementing his strategy.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome the strategy document. The Minister and his officials will recall the origins of the strategy, when the main area of concern and complaint from some Members was that we felt that what was being offered was the Belfast metropolitan area plan with a bolt-on to keep the country boys happy. All Members would agree that there has been considerable consultation since then, and I must praise the Minister, his predecessor and his departmental officials, who have proved that they can listen to the concerns of people beyond the Belfast area. They have produced a much more balanced regional document as a result.

I regard the strategy as a macro-statement that can only succeed as it evolves at the micro-level of area plans. Today, the Minister has heard many concerns about area plans that have gone past their sell-by date. I urge the Minister to use his considerable influence to ensure that area plans can now take centre stage, as their role is vital in achieving the aims of the overall expectations of this truly co-ordinated strategy.

I am sure that the House will agree that the regional transport strategy will be vital. Within the transport strategy lies the means, not only of drawing the region together within the regional development strategy, but of ensuring the success of that development strategy at a local level, particularly with regard to the provision of services.

I may become slightly parochial at this stage, when I refer to the Health Service, for example, and the concerns that many of us have regarding a local acute hospital in the south-west — most logically sited in the Omagh area. We need a transport system to ensure that those in Fermanagh who are concerned about this can get to the Omagh hospital within the "golden hour". The Minister should understand that concern.

We look at the spatial framework and at people’s expectations about the various hubs that are to be established. Education and certain facilities are to be provided within such hubs. Accessibility — as Mr Doherty said — is vital. We need to ensure that the transport strategy put in place in the western area will guarantee people accessibility to the various services available. As much has already been said, I close by urging all Members to support the motion.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome this very useful document. It is good to have strategic plans laid out in front of us. There are several areas in the document that I would like to address. In my constituency, the Department has, by and large, listened to most of what has been requested. Lisburn has been outlined as an area of high development potential, and the local council will have seen that. Lisburn would welcome the development of more housing and facilities.

The buffer wedges that have been put in place between Belfast and Lisburn and between Belfast and the other council areas in the Belfast metropolitan area plan are also welcomed. It is essential that significant communities maintain their independent identities.

I also welcome the document’s indication that the Department for Regional Development is seeking more efficient links between areas such as Lisburn and Belfast. I welcome the circle line that is proposed in the regional development strategy. It is envisaged that the circle line will travel from Belfast to Antrim to Lisburn and back to Belfast. The Minister made a good move earlier this year when he maintained that line despite strong pressure on him to mothball it. I implore the Minister to maintain that stance and ensure that the circle line becomes a reality now that the Bleach Green line is in progress.

I am concerned about the significant expansion planned for Moira village. Moira is under severe pressure. Anyone who knows the village or travels through it to go to Lurgan or Portadown knows that they will hit a tailback in the evenings as soon as they come off the motorway. Moira will need a bypass in order to assist significant further development. That may be in the Department’s mind, but it needs to be made abundantly clear that any further development could be accommodated only if a bypass were built. I understand where the Department is coming from in wanting to develop a village such as Moira, because it has access to the motorway and the rail system. It is beneficial that it accesses the main corridors.

The application of caring for the environment is necessary, as not enough attention has been paid to the built environment until now. The section of the regional development strategy that deals with conservation could have been strengthened so that dwellings with large gardens could be left intact, rather than have developers opportunistically demolish them and replace them with large numbers of apartments.

I am grateful that the Department identifies the problems of rural areas, particularly in relation to agriculture. However, less stringent criteria should be applied to those people who seek farm dwellings. It might be worthwhile for the Department to look to extend the green belt so that one-off sites could not be approved for individuals who merely wish to sell them on. The Department might also consider reducing the criteria that must be met to allow young people who live in the countryside, who have been brought up on farms and who wish to stay in the area, to get a house for themselves approved.

It is more necessary than ever to reduce the new criteria because more and more young people are having to farm part-time and take other jobs. In those instances, it is necessary for the young people to live on the farm because they work there for such a short time that it needs to be accessible. I ask the Department to re-examine those criteria.

I would like to see a fairly large-scale development of small settlements and hamlets in the countryside, particularly in Greater Belfast. Young people cannot afford to buy houses in the area of Greater Belfast in which they were reared. They cannot afford to buy houses, particularly in Hillsborough and Moira. Demand for development land is so high that house prices are out of their reach. I would like to see more development of small hamlets in those areas to allow young people to stay in the areas in which they were raised.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I give the document a critical welcome. I welcome the changes that have been taken on board, particularly the upgrading of the north/south corridor — the A29 — which is important to the infrastructure of the North. That was left out of the earlier document. Our community depends on having a coherent and far-reaching development strategy. Unfortunately the ‘Shaping our Future’ strategy contains some shortcomings. However, with some flexibility in our interpretation, we can, perhaps, overcome some of those.

We must put regional development in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. We want to create opportunities for people. The infrastructure of the area west of the Bann is in need of development. There is an opportunity to bring in new thinking and create regional hubs and key transport corridors. I agree with Rev William McCrea that roads are no replacement for hospitals. We must ensure that we have proper hospital facilities in the regional hubs, so that we do not have to depend on the road system. We need hospitals in the regional hubs. If we identify somewhere as a hub for one type of development, we cannot downgrade its status for another.

We must abandon the approach that was taken in the past. It discriminated against people who lived west of the Bann, whether Catholic or Protestant. The infrastructure was not put in place; there was no development of the east-west corridor and no development of the motorway network. The M2 does not go beyond Antrim on the northern side of Lough Neagh, and, on the southern side, the M1 stops at Dungannon. The infrastructure and everything that goes along with it also stop there.

It is clear that the Department’s thinking is still linked with ‘Strategy 2010’; that is a flaw. That document has been criticised for its top-down approach and lack of local consultation. We must take on board the need for local consultation and build a structure that people can get involved with. Now that we have a devolved Administration, we can ensure that we have local input.

The development of transport must be carried out in line with housing and community development. I agree with Jane Morrice, who said that we had an opportunity to enforce planning regulations and ensure that play areas become part of the local structure. Communities have been deprived of building; motorways are not the only infrastructure. Planners should adopt a "play before build" approach. During the PPP inquiry, we found that there were examples of developers being obliged to create play areas before they began to build massive housing estates. That protects the right of children to play.

We can interpret the strategy in our own way. We can put together a structure that will allow for planned development, as opposed to jumping from one area plan to another. I hope that all the area plans will be implemented, but I am concerned that a number of those plans will be out of date by the time that they are put in place. The plan for my area covers the period up to 2010 and is not yet complete. It will be 2005 before it has been completed and the relevant inquiries held, so we will end up with a five-year plan. I encourage the Minister and the planning authorities to create a structure that will enable us to make more long-term plans for the environment and allow us to take account of local communities, the need for infrastructure and the importance of linking services.

Another important aspect is the link between rail and road services. Unfortunately, we have not taken on board the European concept of linking such services. In the few towns here that have railway stations, they are often located at one end of the town, while the bus station is at the other end. For example, a new bus station has been built in the centre of Newry, but there is just a rail stop in the town, instead of a proper station. The rail structure needs to be developed alongside the M1 to expand the network of linked services.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I recognise the energy and effort that the Minister has put into seeking an agreed strategy. The widespread consultation that has taken place has undoubtedly been helpful. For example, road safety is to receive more attention. There is now an attempt to tackle the increasing numbers of fatal and serious road accidents, and measures such as traffic calming have been mentioned.

As elected representatives, many of us know that it is sometimes difficult to get a response from the Department for Regional Development on issues such as the introduction of speed limits, street lighting and improved signage. The strategy is a hopeful sign, and I hope that the Department will re-examine the criteria relating to these measures and remove any inconsistencies.

The urban/rural balance needs to be attended to. There has been poor funding of roads in Fermanagh. There has been an imbalance in the allocation of funding, and that has been to the detriment of the west of the North of Ireland, especially Fermanagh. I hope that that will be improved, but the key transport corridors identified in diagram 10 of the strategy document suggest that the imbalance might well continue. In other parts of Northern Ireland the routes run east to west, north to south and diagonally, but there is only one key priority route in Fermanagh, and it runs from east to west. Many who live in that area and operate businesses there — regardless of their political allegiance — recognise the importance of North/South links. I want that issue to be looked at as the strategy progresses.

The draft strategy has emerged after the publication of the Hayes Report on future acute hospital provision, in which the matter of accessibility crops up repeatedly. I will not be as presumptuous or as partisan as the Member for West Tyrone, Mr Hussey, to say that one town would be better than another for the purposes of implementing the Hayes review. Everyone would agree that the Hayes review showed that future hospital provision must be based on certain and agreed principles that are in the best interests of everybody, whether they live in Omagh, Enniskillen, Antrim or County Down. The Enniskillen to Omagh road will be a key corridor in future hospital provision in the west of the Province. That road will have to be kept under review, and I hope that, before very long, it will be identified for funding.

There have been strong statements on rural development and the importance of maintaining and promoting the rural community. It almost goes without saying that employment is central to rural development. A review of the Water Service is currently under way. Rationalising the service and reducing jobs have been mentioned. Over recent years, people from the west who have been involved with the service have seen jobs being moved elsewhere. I bring that to the Minister’s attention. I look forward to his response and to whether he will give a commitment that the review will not lead to further centralisation of the Water Service. People in the west of the Province generally want decentralisation in the range of services.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the bulk of the report and the degree of consultation that went into producing it. However, I have some reservations.

I particularly welcome increasing the target for brownfield development to 60%. However, achieving that will require subsequent moves and perhaps subsequent changes in legislation. Making it a reality is not just a matter of setting a target. Practical aspects have to be established for the target to be achieved. How will developers be encouraged into town-centre regeneration, rather than perpetuating the doughnut effect that is occurring in many rural towns in Northern Ireland?

I welcome the report’s commitment to the continuing development of Larne as a gateway into Northern Ireland. Larne is one of the most important gateways, and the plans to continue the development of the potential of the Port of Larne, which is one of the largest roll-on/roll-off ferry facilities in the British Isles, are also to be welcomed.

The trans-European network route between Larne and Dún Laoghaire has also been recognised and must be developed. However I must flag up some aspects of that route, particularly the urgent need to upgrade accident black spots on the A8, between Larne and Belfast, at the Millbrook and Ballyloran junctions, where there have been several fatalities.

I welcome the report’s recognition of Carrickfergus as a heritage town. However, the town’s importance as an industrial centre and a service centre must also be recognised. There must be a more efficient linkage between Belfast and the neighbouring towns in the metropolitan area. Carrickfergus is the only one of those towns that does not have a four-lane carriageway linking it to the centre of Belfast. Indeed, investment on the A2 has been overlooked when its traffic usage is compared with other routes in Northern Ireland that have received funding for four-lane carriageways.

I welcome the concept of strengthening the regional rail system, under the heading of ‘Developing a Regional Transportation System’, contained in the report. While Carrickfergus is included in the Belfast metropolitan area for an increased rail service, I am concerned that Larne, which is a major gateway to Northern Ireland, is not mentioned in the report’s opening comments on the subject on page 159. Indeed, it is only later in the report — when discussing linkages — that Larne is mentioned.

The importance of the trans-European network rail route to Larne should be better appreciated in the development plan for our rail service. By encouraging more commuters from east Antrim and Larne to use the railway, we might minimise — or remove — the major daily road blockage at Mallusk.

Several Members talked about the need for investment in hospitals and education in the west of the Province. Parts of the east of the Province have also suffered from underprovision. The hospitals in Larne and Carrickfergus have been closed, as have the further education colleges. Transportation routes in the east of the Province must be improved to ensure that those important towns are better connected to hospital services and to provide access to further education.

I too encourage the provision of green space and play facilities in new development. This should be concentrated in areas that have suffered from underprovision. We must learn from past failures. There are huge areas of towns in which planners and developers have been allowed to make money simply by building as many houses as they wished. It is essential that development should be properly planned and that the needs of coming generations are recognised by developers through the provision of play areas. We should not beat about the bush; such areas should be provided at the start. There is no point in leaving them until later, when people who live close to an earmarked play area might object. They should be there from the start, and planning must provide for them.

The plan is not perfect, but it is better than what preceded it. On that basis, I am content to see it proceed.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank Members for their contributions and for the many positive comments on the strategy. I acknowledge some of the concerns raised. There were 16 contributions, ranging from the price of milk to hospital provision, so Members will appreciate the size of my task in dealing with all the issues raised.

There was some concern for balanced development. I heard over and over again that the implementation of the strategy would be the most important and relevant consideration for the community. I understand that. There were queries relating to specific areas, particularly rural ones. Concerns about rural proofing, overdevelopment in some areas and about the lack of infrastructural development in others were also voiced.

The document emphasises the need for balanced development. This is not an urban versus rural matter. We have a regional strategy for the long-term development of Northern Ireland. It provides a framework that goes beyond the land-use plans of the past, and it supports the drive towards the creation of a dynamic, prosperous and outward-looking Northern Ireland.

Some Members commented on the lack of forward- looking initiative in the document. However, I looked briefly over the debate of 2 July and my senior civil servants, to whom I pay tribute again, and I have endeavoured to respond as positively as we can. It is important that both Members and the public are aware that the document is not static. It lays down guidelines and a framework and, like Northern Ireland, will evolve in the coming years. It is a spatial plan concerned with the patterns of development and the scale and nature of activities and services to create and sustain communities.

Several Members referred to specific circumstances, and if I do not respond individually to each one now, I will write to those individuals. However, the document is a framework for balanced development within which area planning and increased local council-led community planning will play critical roles. Public policy alone will not deliver the strategy, and I take on board Mr Beggs’s comment that, particularly due to private-sector investment and individual choices, the market will play a key role. Policy can influence decisions and choices.

In my opening address, I focused on the implementation phase. I did not intend to pre-empt the debate but to signal that if we are broadly content with the key principles of the strategy — and I believe that we are — the real task is to get on with that implementation.

I looked at the range of consultations undertaken since the initial documentation entered the public domain. On over 20 occasions, successful efforts were made to deal comprehensively with the views, concerns and issues that people raised.

The task ahead of implementation is challenging, but it is doable. It will require a partnership made up of key stakeholders, some of whom are Assembly Members just as some are district councillors. They will have an important role to play in helping to deliver the strategy. Over the next few months, my Department will initiate discussions with local council staff to see how we might work on key aspects of the regional development strategy with the emerging local strategy partnerships.

Several Members referred to the brownfield target. I thought that they would; in fact, I would have been disappointed had they not referred to it. I must be honest. My Department will not be able to deliver that target on its own. That is why I have signalled clearly that we will work with the development industry in whatever forum is appropriate to meet the challenge of achieving that target.

I also made the point that through the strategy we are attempting to bring coherence and synergy to policies that will have an impact on the long-term development of the region. The creation of an agreed transportation strategy will be critical to our long-term development. Members referred to transportation, and I heard references to the A2, the circle line, the Knockmore line and Carrick. Obviously, the conference at the end of the month will bring us a step forward in addressing transportation matters.

In the autumn, after that conference, the draft regional transportation strategy will be published. That will be a key, tangible, first piece of the implementation jigsaw of the regional development strategy.

To assure Members of the importance that I attach to their contributions I give a commitment that I will keep the Assembly updated on progress, as we implement the strategy. If Members believe that some issues are not being addressed quickly enough, we will see how we can improve that. If Members believe that some issues are not being dealt with at all, we can look into the reasons for that and endeavour to deal with them.

I want to thank Members for the debate today. If, after checking Hansard, I see that there are issues that I have not dealt with, I will respond in writing. The Magherafelt issue that was raised by Rev William McCrea and others springs to mind as does the Loughbrickland- Newry Road problem raised by Mr Bradley. I will check and write to Members as appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly agrees the regional development strategy (‘Shaping our Future’) for Northern Ireland 2025.

Housing Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Before I ask the Clerk to read the motion, I wish to remind Members that a Statutory Rule that is subject to confirmatory procedure becomes law once it has been laid before the Assembly. It ceases to have effect, however, unless approved by the Assembly within a specified period. This Statutory Rule was made on 18 May 2001 and will expire on 2 February 2002 unless approved by the Assembly.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That the Housing Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 213/2001) be approved.

I wish to seek the Assembly’s approval for a set of regulations that introduces new procedures for decisions by the Housing Executive and the Rate Collection Agency on claims for housing benefit. These regulations are subject to the confirmatory procedure and must be approved by the Assembly within six months of their operative date, 2 July 2001. These regulations were made under powers contained in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, which provided for a new decision-making and appeals system for housing benefit claims.

The regulations also provide the detailed framework for a new decision-making and appeals system with the right of appeal to a tribunal, constituted under the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. There is a further right of appeal, on a point of law, to a social security commissioner.

I will now explain why reform of the system was required. Under the previous system, if a person wished to dispute a decision on a housing benefit claim, this was done by an initial internal review by the Housing Executive or Rate Collection Agency, with the right to a further review by a review board. The decision of the review board could only be challenged by way of a judicial review. Housing benefit claimants did not have the same rights of appeal to the social security commissioner or higher courts as social security benefit claimants.

Therefore, these regulations bring arrangements for decision-making in housing benefit claims into line with those applying for all other social security benefits; they also bring the arrangements into the mainstream appeal system.

I now turn to the substance of these regulations, which provide for the implementation of the new procedures. The regulations closely mirror decision-making provisions for other social security benefits administered by my Department. They set out the procedures for revising or superseding decisions and the procedures to be followed in making an appeal. They also provide that the general provisions relating to powers and procedures of appeal tribunals, and the procedures for making appeals to the commissioners, apply to housing benefit appeals. I do not propose to explain the detail of each individual regulation, but I am happy to respond to Members’ questions.

The regulations are beneficial in that the same rules for decision-making and appeals will now apply across all social security benefits. That will make matters easier for claimants to understand, as many claim other social security benefits. The regulations will allow the authorities to correct mistakes quickly and encourage claimants to make early contact to resolve queries and discuss any areas of disagreement. People will know how much time they have to ask for a decision to be changed, and they will still be able to appeal. These more transparent rules are designed to improve the service to claimants.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Housing Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 213/2001) be approved.

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 October 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill (NIA15/00).

The Committee for the Environment formally started consideration of the Bill on 19 June 2001. However, this work was delayed because of the large number of issues that the Committee had to deal with before the summer recess. For example, we dealt with the Committee’s report on its inquiry into the transport used by children travelling to and from school, as well as finalising our input to the Department’s consultation document on a new road safety strategy for Northern Ireland.

The primary purpose of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill is to extend the period during which partridges may be shot. However, several other clauses have been included and they will require due and proper deliberations by my Committee, especially in light of representations that we have already received. The Committee has therefore considered it prudent to apply to the Assembly for this time extension, but it hopes to be able to complete its work by a much earlier date. I therefore ask Members to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 October 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill (NIA15/00).

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In the normal course of events, I would move to the next item of business — in this case, the motion on Titanic Quarter leases. However, as there are now less than ten minutes to Question Time, I suggest that the House take its ease for 10 minutes.

The sitting was suspended at 2.20 pm.

On resuming —

Titanic Quarter Leases

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That this Assembly takes note of the report of the Regional Development Committee’s Inquiry (1/01) into Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ allocation and variation of leases and connected transactions within the Harbour Estate and the extent to which they have served the public interest.

I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly in what I consider is an important debate on the Regional Development Committee’s report on the Titanic Quarter leases. Let me say from the outset that this is a timely reminder of the need for public or semi-public bodies to be sensitive to public interest and, particularly, to the need for transparency in their business activities.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who gave evidence to the Committee for Regional Development during the course of its inquiry. In particular, I thank officials from the Department for Regional Development, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Harland & Wolff for their co-operation throughout. The Committee also received written submissions from interested bodies, for which it is grateful.

Before I outline the Committee’s key findings, I will explain briefly why it considered this inquiry necessary. Following the announcement on 7 February 2001 by Harland & Wolff that Harland & Wolff Properties Ltd and Titanic Quarter Ltd had been purchased by Fred Olsen Energy, the Committee for Regional Development wrote to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners registering its concern about the lease arrangements. On 20 March an Ulster Television ‘Insight’ programme made several allegations about a secret deal being struck between the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Harland & Wolff. The Committee for Regional Development viewed these allegations very seriously. As a result, I, as Chairperson, wrote to the Harbour Commissioners seeking clarification on a number of points, in particular on the terms of this agreement and what additional revenue would be received by the Harbour Commissioners, who strenuously refuted the allegations.

Despite receiving some correspondence from the Harbour Commissioners, some important questions remained unanswered. As a consequence, and given the continued uncertainty around this matter, the Committee formally announced on 3 April 2001 that it would hold an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Titanic Quarter development agreement.

For the record, the intention to hold this inquiry was agreed unanimously by the Committee for Regional Development. Members recognised the social and economic importance of the Port of Belfast to all people in Northern Ireland. Members were also reminded that the Port of Belfast is publicly-owned land and that the Harbour Commissioners, as public appointees, are entrusted with the stewardship of the port and its lands to promote the maintenance, improvement and efficient operation of Belfast harbour. The Assembly, therefore, has a clear duty to safeguard the public interest and, in turn, expects those entrusted with the management of Belfast port to ensure public accountability and transparency in any transactions involving its future development.

I will now summarise the key findings of the Committee’s inquiry into the Titanic Quarter leases. On the public availability of Titanic Quarter development plans, and based on the evidence provided to the Committee, the Committee concluded that all key facts about the negotiations and signing of the Titanic Quarter agreement were not in the public domain. While giving evidence to the Committee, an official from the Department for Regional Development stated that the Department was not aware of all the details, including the signing of the agreement on 20 December 2000. The Department was not aware that the agreement involved the consolidation of several leases into one and that leases would be allocated to developers on a site-by-site basis for periods of between 125 and 250 years. The Department had been informed that negotiations had been classed as commercial in confidence.

The Committee was also concerned that, despite an approach from the Department to the Harbour Commissioners on 7 February 2001 with regard to the details of the agreement, the Harbour Commissioners were somewhat dilatory in responding to the Department’s request, taking approximately five weeks to do so.

It appears from the available evidence that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners became aware of their public accountability responsibilities only when the UTV ‘Insight’ programme was broadcast. The Committee for Regional Development concluded that had it not been for that television programme, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners might not have been so forthcoming in informing public representatives of their activities relating to the Titanic Quarter agreement.

During the inquiry, the Committee learned that while Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Harland & Wolff were negotiating the Titanic Quarter lease, the commissioners were also in discussion with the Department for Regional Development about a memorandum of understanding. The purpose of that memorandum was to provide the Department with greater involvement and consultation in any new leases or disposal of lands in the Belfast port, pending the introduction of the power of direction relating to the development of such lands.

Several key areas, including the Titanic Quarter, were excluded from the memorandum. There was a difference of opinion between the Department and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners as to who had requested those exclusions. After careful consideration of the evidence, the Committee concluded that it could not see any benefit for the Department in its requesting exclusions from the memorandum of understanding. The purpose of the agreement was to facilitate the Department’s monitoring of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ activities in areas of major public interest, such as the Titanic Quarter. The Committee therefore concluded that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners could have been more open in their dealings and could have displayed greater public accountability.

In their evidence to the Committee for Regional Development, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners quoted commercial confidentiality as the reason why they did not inform the Department about the Titanic Quarter deal. They stated that Harland & Wolff had requested confidentiality. That, the commissioners stated, was a key factor in the amount of information that they made available.

The Belfast Harbour Commissioners confirmed Harland & Wolff’s request for confidentiality in a letter dated 26 March 2001 to myself as Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development. The commissioners also informed the Minister for Regional Development of Harland & Wolff’s request at a meeting on 22 March 2001.

However, Harland & Wolff stated that it was not opposed to making a public statement after the signing of the deal on 20 December 2000. Its representatives explained that there had been no pre-determined or conscious effort by Harland & Wolff to keep the details of the deal secret. To Harland & Wolff, the Titanic Quarter deal was primarily about enabling it to continue with its core business of shipbuilding. At the signing of the agreement, Harland & Wolff acknowledged that its representative had casually mentioned that he did not think that a press release was needed. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners agreed with that.

As further evidence to support its claims of not being involved in a secret deal, Harland & Wolff highlighted the statement by Fred Olsen Energy ASA to the Oslo Stock Exchange on 31 January 2001, which openly referred to the Titanic Quarter deal.

The Committee for Regional Development accepts that it is possible that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners might have misconstrued the comments of Harland & Wolff’s representative at the meeting on 20 December 2001. However, the Committee believes that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners should have been proactive in seeking to publicise the deal in the interests of public openness and accountability, as well as the significant potential benefits that the deal would bring to the Northern Ireland economy.

It is important that the Assembly acknowledges the good work that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners have done over the years to ensure the commercial viability of the Port of Belfast, continually seeking to improve performance and profitability. I would not like anything that I say to take away from that achievement. I speak for everyone by recognising the economic importance of Belfast port and its lands to all the people of Northern Ireland. Apart from European funding, the Port of Belfast has never received public finance.

The Committee’s concerns have focused on the level of public accountability of the Titanic Quarter transactions. It has not questioned the Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ ability to manage a profitable and commercially viable port. However, the Committee and the Assembly are anxious to ensure that those entrusted with such a large public asset are aware of their need to consult all those with an interest in how that public asset is managed and developed.

During the time it has taken to bring this report to the Assembly, I am aware that a memorandum of understanding has been signed between the Department for Regional Development and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The commissioners have voluntarily and willingly signed this agreement, which now includes the Titanic Quarter area. This memorandum of understanding will ensure increased public accountability and scrutiny. The other recommendations of the Committee are to be implemented, and I am assured that similar problems can be avoided in the future.

It is important to bring this to Members’ attention. In paragraph 52 of the report it says:

"The Committee acknowledges that devolution has afforded locally elected representatives increased opportunities to examine more carefully those tasked with safeguarding the public interest. In many ways this process is at an embryonic stage, whereby many are still adapting to the more direct involvement of the Government and the Assembly and the increased scrutiny and accountability which this inevitably brings to the decision making process. Indeed this increased accountability goes to the heart of this inquiry. However there appears to still exist a perception among many within key public appointments that given their breadth of experience, knowledge and expertise in a particular area, they are best placed to protect the public interest without reference to the democratically elected representatives or institutions."

In many ways, that sums up what this report is about, and I commend it to the Assembly. This inquiry has served an important public purpose, which is to sensitise those in public roles and in the public sector to the need for accountability and transparency.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development has ably covered the key points in the report. The inquiry has cleared the air and improved relations between the Department, the Port of Belfast and the Assembly Committee. The report shows that Committees can be effective watchdogs. There is evidence, and not just from this inquiry, that some Departments and public bodies are using the commercial in confidence label to hide detail from public gaze.

The message that should be sent as a result of this report is that any public organisation, or any organisation receiving public funds, can expect enquiry into its affairs by the public representatives in the Assembly who have a responsibility to protect the public interest. Hiding behind the commercial in confidence label, except where it is legitimate so to do, should not be an option. I too commend the report to the Assembly.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

It is difficult to know where to start with this debate. I agree with the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development that the Port of Belfast has been a success story. It is important that we, as public representatives, acknowledge that success and congratulate the people involved.

The Port of Belfast has been widely debated for years, as have many of the issues surrounding it. As long ago as 1997 we had reports from the Minister then responsible, Lord Dubs, on its privatisation. After devolution, on 29 November 1999, the Committee for Regional Development was given the task of looking at various matters in connection with the port. There were several options, and it is no secret that the Committee was heavily in favour of option D. This recommended the retention of the Port of Belfast as a trust port with extended powers. The Committee Chairperson referred to the memorandum of understanding, which is included in that.

The Committee became annoyed, to put it mildly, that, despite the memorandum of understanding having been discussed between the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the Department for Regional Development, three weeks prior to the publication of its findings on the future of the port Harland & Wolff announced on 7 February 2001 that Harland & Wolff Properties Ltd had been bought by Fred Olsen Energy.

That created major problems for the Committee as well as for the Department and the Minister. The Committee wrote to the Harbour Commissioners registering its concern about the lease arrangements and requesting additional information on the announcement, because there had been a major shift on what had been agreed to concerning the leases and lease agreements.

Titanic Quarter is an important development for Belfast and for the future structure and investment of the Port of Belfast, but it is also important for the future economic life of Northern Ireland as a whole, and that should be said publicly.

The problem was that the Committee found it difficult to get answers to several questions. For example, why did it take almost five weeks for the Harbour Commissioners to give us the relevant information? We found it difficult to get the commissioners to clarify some points, and even the Department found it difficult to get to the nub of the situation.

It was only after an Ulster Television (UTV) programme, on 20 March, that a fire was lit under the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. Had that programme not been screened, we would not have got the response that we needed from them. After the programme, a mountain of information came to the Department, the Minister and the Committee. The UTV programme certainly made the Harbour Commissioners more aware of their public responsibilities and accountability.

It is a tragedy that it took a UTV programme for the Committee members to get answers to the questions that we had been asking for five weeks. After the programme, the commissioners sought meetings with the Committee and with the Minister to reassure us all that everything that they had done was out in the open and that they had nothing to hide. Had the Committee got a response to its points much sooner, it would not have considered the situation to be as serious as it did.

Given those circumstances, it was right that the Committee decided to hold its inquiry. At the outset of that inquiry, the Chairperson was correct to say that it was not a witch-hunt, nor were the Belfast Harbour Commissioners or the Department on trial. The inquiry tried to get to the nub of the situation and of the secrecy surrounding the decision to develop the Titanic Quarter. It sought to find out why the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, and Harland & Wolff, did not keep the Minister informed.

The Deputy Chairperson referred to the issue of commercial confidence. However, when such a change affecting the lands at Titanic Quarter was being mooted, and when the commissioners knew that serious changes were to be made to the leases, they should at least have informed the Minister privately as to what they might be signing. Those were the issues of concern to the Committee.

We have all learned lessons from this. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners certainly realise that the Assembly and the Committee for Regional Development have laid down a marker. Irrespective of whether they felt, even after the signing on 20 December, that they could not say anything publicly about the matter, the Committee felt that the reasons given by the commissioners for not putting information into the public domain were not justified.

I hope, now that the memorandum of understanding between the Harbour Commissioners and the Department has been signed, that we will all move on from here.

The Port of Belfast has a huge part to play in the economic life of the city and of Northern Ireland as a whole. As members of the Regional Development Committee, as Assembly Members, and as public representatives, all we want is to make sure that the Port of Belfast succeeds in the future. I hope that we have all learned lessons from something that could have been avoided had there been greater accountability from people who should have known better.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Committee report is comprehensive, and the Chairperson has outlined the essential issues and the sequence of events that gave the Committee cause for concern when it called for the inquiry and during the evidence sessions.

Belfast port is a trust port, as are most of those in the North. Belfast Harbour Commissioners, as the port authority, are required to ensure the maintenance and effective operation of the Port of Belfast and to ensure that it is managed in the best interests of the public and other stakeholders.

The ports are an essential asset; they facilitate economic development in the entire region, and are therefore of significant public interest. However, as they are currently constituted, trust ports are not accountable to Government; they are autonomous. Therein lies the problem — bodies that exist to serve the public interest are not accountable to the public or to the Government.

The Regional Development Committee was tasked in November 1999 to look at the options for the future of Belfast port and others. It gave its response to the Minister at the end of February 2001. The Committee met several times with officials from the Department, the Minister and representatives from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The subject of discussion on those occasions was the future operation of the ports. In regard to the Port of Belfast, discussions focused on the potential use and development of non-port land and the means of ensuring its future viability and competitiveness.

The proposed memorandum of understanding between the Department and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners also formed part of the discussions, as did legislation that would enable the Department to direct the Belfast Harbour Commissioners in future business decisions in regard to the port.

During the discussions concerning the future of non-port lands, the Department for Regional Development — and therefore the Minister — and the Committee were not aware of the detail of agreement in relation to the future leases of the non-port land of Belfast port. We were discussing the future of the port while unbeknown to us arrangements were being made that would have a significant impact on the future use of non-port land.

That was not an example of accountability or transparency, in spite of the fact that Belfast Harbour Commissioners claimed to have fully informed the Department for Regional Development about the planned development of the Titanic Quarter.

I therefore commend the report’s recommendations, particularly the recommendation that legislation be fast-tracked to give the Department the power of direction over key business activities of Belfast port.

I commend the memorandum of understanding, which will outline the responsibilities of each port authority and its accountability to the Department. I also commend the increased number of local representatives on harbour authorities.

The report’s recommendations will ensure that the trust ports will remain viable and competitive. It will also ensure that the authorities are publicly accountable and that the ports are managed and operated in such a way that they serve the public interest. Go raibh maith agat.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am not a member of the Committee for Regional Development, but I was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee that the Assembly established to deal with the privatisation. For many years, I have taken a deep interest in the operation of the Port of Belfast and other ports in Northern Ireland.

I share the concerns about the lack of openness in the way in which deals were done. However, I welcome the fact that there is now a memorandum of understanding between the commissioners and the Department for Regional Development. I also welcome the proposal that four locally elected representatives should serve on the board and that a representative from the Department for Regional Development will attend the board meetings.

Despite our reservations about the way in which the deal was done, we must look forward. The Titanic Quarter is one of the prime waterfront locations of Europe. I echo what William Hay said: it is of major significance to Belfast and the whole of Northern Ireland. We must acknowledge that when we consider the development of the site. There are many interested parties that must be involved in the development of the site. They include the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, Harland & Wolff — through Titanic Quarter Ltd — Belfast City Council, the Laganside Corporation, the Department for Regional Development, the Department of the Environment and others.

Members know that I have spoken with enthusiasm about the idea that Belfast should be the European City of Culture in 2008. The Titanic Quarter provides major opportunities to create the sort of developments that would reflect the city’s position. Various draft development plans have been put forward over the years. We must get it right. The area should be developed as a major tourist and cultural location for Northern Ireland — from the Odyssey Arena to the slipways where the Titanic was built.

There is significant international interest in the development of the site. I remind Members of the impact of, for example, the development of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. That city was facing serious deprivation because of the decline of its industries, but it was revitalised. I see enormous potential.

I also welcome the fact that, as Mr McFarland said, the air has now been cleared.

It is important for all the partners who have an interest in this area, and for the Assembly, to move forward so that the Titanic Quarter can realise its full potential, not only for the citizens of Belfast but for all the people of Northern Ireland.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee spoke about the difficulties the Department had in obtaining information from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The Committee had to cope with the same level of confusion. Since I joined the Committee in January 2000, very few meetings have gone by without some reference to the Port of Belfast or the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the jigsaw that is known as the Titanic Quarter leases.

My first impression was that many of those who were called to give evidence to the Committee, particularly people called to give evidence about the Titanic Quarter leases, were brief in their answers to questions and certainly did not volunteer any additional information. I can only attribute that to commercial confidentiality and perhaps to the degree of uncertainty that surrounded, and continues to surround, the future of the Committee and the Assembly. If a devolved Administration did not exist, the chances of any significant information regarding the Port of Belfast and the Titanic Quarter leases making its way into the public domain would be nil.

There was much confusion in the early stages of the inquiry. To this day, I doubt whether anyone could write a factual book on the subject. I agree with the statement in the report that the detailed written evidence given by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners about the development of the Titanic Quarter area provided what could be considered a breakthrough in the Committee’s investigations. It certainly gave members a better insight into what had happened.

As the Chairperson has already said, there is a suggestion that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners have been successful in helping to make the Port of Belfast a commercial success, from which the economy of Northern Ireland has benefited. During the inquiry, the Committee was concerned about the lack of openness and transparency of the enterprise. Therefore, the statement by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners that they will undertake to examine their public accountability is welcomed.

Having referred to such matters as information in the public domain, accountability and commercial confidentiality, I welcome the Minister’s view on the recommendations on page 5 of the report. Although that issue might be slightly removed from the Titanic Quarter saga, it has a similar significance. I am not deviating from the matter in hand; I am availing of an opportunity. Indeed, my question relates to section 52 of the report. What level of confidentiality is expected from locally elected representatives who will serve on the boards of trust ports? How much information should they present to the councils of which they are members? I apologise if I deviate slightly, but in the event of the Assembly not meeting for some time, and as those representatives will take up their positions, it is important to know what information we can expect to get back from them.

I am grateful to the Chairperson of the Committee, Alban Maginness, and his Deputy Chairperson, Alan McFarland. I am also grateful to the Committee Clerk and the Assistant Clerk for their guidance and expertise as we made our way through the mountain of paperwork and publications that related to the Port of Belfast and the Titanic Quarter leases. Now I can get rid of that four-foot-high pile of paper in my front room.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I congratulate the Regional Development Committee on the work that has been done on what to some people might seem an esoteric topic, but is in fact an important issue. We are dealing with a body that has control over the largest swathe of development land in Belfast. The major area of expansion for the city lies in the harbour estate. But we are also dealing with a body that for years has dealt secretively with the development of that part of the city. From the first day that the Assembly was operational, Members have been expressing concern about what is happening in the harbour estate.

I am not a member of the Committee, but I read the Committee report with great interest. I only wish that I had been on the Committee, having read through some of the question-and-answer sessions. As Sean Neeson said, we went through the same tooth-pulling process for months with the Harbour Commissioners, officials from the Department for Regional Development and the previous direct rule Minister, Lord Dubs. I can understand the frustration that Members must have felt as they tried to elicit responses and information.

The Harbour Commissioners should never have been under any illusion about public interest in their plans for land that is not port related. It was well highlighted by the Ad Hoc Committee before devolution. It was reinforced post-devolution, and there were debates in the Assembly about the future of the port. Various options were put forward — from the sale of the port to keeping it under public ownership, with additional powers.

The concern at the heart of those discussions was what would happen to the hundreds of acres of land in the port, which, at that stage, remained undeveloped. Some of the land was held onto by Harland & Wolff in long-term leases, but could only be used for shipbuilding unless variations were sought on those leases.

The Harbour Commissioners must have known that if those leases were to be changed, a plethora of public representatives from all parties would want to know what was going to happen to them.

Yet, despite entering into variation agreements with Harland & Wolff, the Harbour Commissioners did not inform the Minister. Six days before the agreement was finally signed, they had a meeting with the Deputy Chairperson, and they did not inform him. Five days before, they met with the Committee and did not inform its members. The departmental official who gave evidence found out about the variation agreements in January, when someone from the Industrial Development Board mentioned it to him. If nothing else, the Committee has done a good job to obtain that kind of information.

I note with interest what Mr Cushnahan said to the Committee on page 68 of the report:

"….when we met the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson on 14 December, I had no knowledge that we should even have had a transaction completed on 20 December……I had no idea that we should have completed the agreement that week".

Within about half a page he is telling another member of the Committee that

"the board finally agreed on 28 November 2000"

— three weeks before 20 December to give Mr Irwin the go-ahead to deal with the "finer points of the transaction".

They cannot say that they had no idea that they were close to agreement when the board of the Harbour Commissioners had given permission for an official in the Harbour Commission to agree the final details two or three weeks beforehand.

Once the agreement was made, knowing the degree of public concern, surely the Minister, the Chairperson, or the Deputy Chairperson, who had even gone down to see the Harbour Commissioners about the matter, should have been informed out of courtesy. It should not have been the case that somebody from the IDB happened to mention it to the official at a meeting.

I must say that part of the blame rests with the Department. Departmental officials appear to have been of the view that what happened in the Belfast Harbour Commission had nothing to do with them. They always hid behind their statutory obligations.

I will quote from evidence given by a departmental official. When asked if there was detailed evidence from the board to the Department in relation to the timing and authorisation of the lease he answered no. This is amazing. Here was an organisation that did not have the courtesy to inform the Department, and we get departmental officials coming along and making excuses for them. His answer was

"No, but the board was under no particular statutory obligation to share such information with us",

and more significantly,

" we were under no statutory obligation to seek it."

Later, he went on to say

"In my dealings with BHC over the years I have been conscious that they are an independent, autonomous, statutory body, independent of the Government and over which the Department for Regional Development has no control."

That may well have been the case as far as the law was concerned, but the Department — and I remember having many gruelling meetings with departmental officials — was under no illusion. They knew that public representatives, not just in Belfast but wider afield, were concerned about what Belfast Harbour Commissioners got up to in relation to non-port lands. However, we get this type of laissez-faire attitude from the Department. It is little wonder that the Harbour Commissioners felt that they could treat the Minister, the Committee and the Assembly with contempt.

When we look at some of the excuses they gave for keeping the whole deal secret, we find it gets even murkier. On one hand the Harbour Commissioners wrote to the Committee Chairperson indicating that the reason for keeping the deal secret was that Harland & Wolff had asked them to maintain confidentiality. It is a pity that they did not get their story straight with Harland & Wolff. When Sir David Fell gave evidence he said that he was conscious of the letter concerned. When asked if he agreed with it, he said that he did not. In fact, as far as Harland & Wolff were concerned, there was no request for confidentiality: its representatives had been asked if they thought a press release was necessary and they had said they did not think so.

First, they said that they could not tell us when they came to the Committee because they did not know that the deal was going to get done — five days later — even though the board had authorised an official to sort out the finer details of the deal. Secondly, they said that they could not tell us because they were asked to keep the deal confidential by Harland & Wolff; and Harland & Wolff, in as straight terms as it possibly could, said that that was not true.

This issue is of great public importance, and the background to it is very clear. One of the options was that the non-port-related land should be removed from the control of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners — that is how strongly the Assembly felt about it. There almost seemed to be an indecent haste to sign up as much non-port-related land as possible in case, at some stage, the Assembly decided it was going to remove land from the control of the Belfast Harbour Commission.

That is the real reason for the secrecy and the haste in this matter. The report makes recommendations on public accountability, and I hope that the Minister will act quickly on those to increase the number of public representatives on the board of Belfast Harbour Commissioners. There must be a breath of fresh air and a breath of accountability through the doors of the Harbour Commissioners’ office.

A yearly update on activities in the harbour must be instigated. In their evidence on the Titanic Quarter, the Harbour Commissioners said that there would be no public money. I know that this is not solely the Minister’s remit, but I ask him to check that.

On page 65 of the report Mr McFarland asked whether they were anticipating Government grants in the evaluation — or indeed for the project. The reply was that as far as the Harbour Commissioners were concerned, the Titanic Quarter development would have to stand alone.

The Social Development Committee looked at the report on Laganside. To my surprise, one thing being considered was the extension of the road for Laganside into the Titanic Quarter. The only reason for doing so would be to use public money for the infrastructure of the Titanic Quarter. I hope that the Minister will press the Belfast Harbour Commissioners to find out whether the evidence that they gave to the Committee less than four months ago is now out of date, or whether they knew then that the information was incorrect.

This is a good example of the Assembly’s ability to scrutinise the darker recesses of some of the activities of non-accountable bodies in Northern Ireland. Such an important area of the city should not be under the control of a non-accountable body. The past practice of concealing things must not be allowed to continue, and the Committee’s recommendations will enable us to move towards much greater accountability.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

As a Member of the Regional Development Committee, I commend the report to the House. The Committee was concerned during its deliberations in February to hear through a public press release that a deal had been done on the Titanic Quarter. The Committee had been working on the proposal as a recommendation to the Department.

The Committee’s inquiry was a good exercise in scrutiny. Thirty years of direct rule allowed Belfast Harbour Commissioners to operate almost as an independent economic statelet, covering almost 2,000 acres near the city of Belfast.

In carrying out its inquiry, the Committee held meetings with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the Air and Sea Ports Division of the Department, and it did get answers to the fair and honest questions that it asked. The Committee was always concerned about the public interest in the economic development of the port.

There was always a suspicion on the part of Committee members that the full hand was not being revealed to us prior to the inquiry. Lessons have been learnt and put into effect through the new memorandum of understanding. As Mr Sammy Wilson said earlier, there must be much greater public accountability in regard to the operation of a trust port commission. It is not good enough to say that commercial confidentiality should prevent a publicly elected body such as the Assembly or the Minister from obtaining a full disclosure of negotiations and related facts, particularly when the asset in question is owned by the public. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners are trustees acting on behalf of the public.

I agree, however, that until now the Department should have been more active in ensuring stronger and closer collaboration, through its Air and Sea Ports Division, with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. I am also conscious that the non-port land included the important industrial complex of Harland & Wolff Shipbuilding and Heavy Industries Ltd, which has been very important to the city of Belfast. It would appear that there was a massive change in the leases because of financial difficulty pertaining to the shipyard. I am aware of the importance of jobs and the economic viability of that enterprise; therefore I understand that a change of leases was needed to facilitate the ongoing economic operation of the shipyard. It is to be hoped that lessons have been learnt. The new memorandum of understanding will greatly increase the understanding of the House, and any future Minister, of the operation of bodies such as trust ports.

It is good that the inquiry took place, and I pay tribute to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson for the effective way in which it was conducted. Every Committee member acted in the best interests of the public; that is our duty.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

As Minister for Regional Development, with responsibility for ports policy in Northern Ireland, I very much welcome the publication today of the Committee’s report following the inquiry into the Titanic Quarter leases. In noting the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, there is much in the report with which I agree. Obviously, I will want to consider carefully each of the report’s recommendations, and I intend to respond to the Committee on these in due course. However, I can say straight away that none of the recommendations surprises me. Many stem from discussions that I have had with the Committee for many months. In general, therefore, I regard them as a reasonable and sensible set of recommendations.

In welcoming the report, I congratulate the Committee, particularly the Chairperson, on the way in which the public inquiry was conducted. It was a necessary and worthwhile exercise, and I am confident that lessons for the future will have been learnt. As the report acknowledges, a memorandum of understanding has already been concluded between Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the Department for Regional Development. This will ensure that the Department will be notified and consulted before there can be any material change in the use of any lands in the harbour estate, or prior to their disposal.

A copy of the memorandum of understanding that came into effect on 1 August 2001 has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Belfast Harbour Commissioners entered this agreement voluntarily, but, as I made clear in an earlier statement, it remains my intention to advance suitable legislative proposals soon, in the form of a reserved power of general direction to underpin the agreement. As a consequence of the completion of this agreement, elected representatives can be assured that the public interest will be fully safeguarded in all future land transactions affecting the harbour.

However, as I explained in my announcement of 3 May this year, this is only one of a series of measures that the Department intends to implement with the aim of achieving greater public accountability in the trust port sector. They include promoting legislation to increase the number of district council representatives on each board, developing a code of practice for trust ports, and the attendance — as appropriate — of a senior Department for Regional Development official at future board meetings.

Several Members raised the issue of public accountability and the level of confidentiality that would be required of local elected representatives on the boards of trust ports, including Belfast port. A public representative who is a member of the board will be bound by the same commercial confidentiality as other members of the board. There should be no distinction whatsoever with regard to the level of confidentiality.

I listened with care to the Members who said that the Department ought to have been more active, and I shall point out to Members the series of recommendations that were announced in early May. I am not content simply to increase the number of elected representatives in the trust ports, although for many years there has been an elected representative from Belfast City Council on the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. However, as Members know, I am deliberating the increase, and I note that the Committee has recommended that it should be increased to four in the case of Belfast. As I said earlier, I shall consider that and respond.

The publication of the Committee’s report, the introduction of the memorandum of understanding and the other package of measures to improve public accountability mark a new beginning in the relationship between Belfast Harbour Commissioners, other trust ports and elected representatives. For my part, I consider the controversy surrounding the Titanic Quarter lease, concluded by Belfast Harbour Commissioners late last year, to be now behind us. We are entering a new era. I have made that clear in my discussions with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, and they have responded positively. It is agreed that we are now entering an era where we can expect better understanding of our mutual roles and responsibilities, and in which increased commercial freedom will be — and must be — balanced against improved public accountability.

As the Committee’s report points out, an earlier take-note motion on the future of the Port of Belfast was withdrawn immediately before the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Titanic Quarter development agreement was launched. This was unfortunate, as the Committee and I were, and remain, in complete agreement on the way forward for the port. I reiterate my conclusion that the port should remain in the public sector as a trust port. Like similar ports, it should be given wider commercial powers and greater financial freedom to allow it to compete better in the future.

At the same time, as I have already mentioned, steps will be taken to improve the public accountability of all Northern Ireland’s trust ports. Publication of the report, coming after my earlier statement, marks the end of the debate on the future of the port. It means that Belfast Harbour Commissioners and port users can now plan the future development of the harbour with greater confidence and certainty.

I encourage the commissioners to seek to build on the port’s proud record of commercial success, while ensuring that the Assembly, and elected representatives in general, are kept fully informed of any development plans. We all have a vital role in ensuring that the public interest is safeguarded.

If there are any other issues that I have inadvertently not responded to in the debate, I will read Hansard and respond to individual Members concerned.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Mr Neeson is correct in saying that the air has now been cleared. Lessons have been learned, and the report and inquiry have been important in achieving that.

I agree with the substance of what Mr Sammy Wilson said, though I might not have used his colourful language. Over the years, a degree of mist has surrounded the activities of Belfast Harbour Commissioners. I hope that that mist will now disappear. It occurred to me that given the DUP’s policy of rotation, Mr Sammy Wilson might end up as Minister for Regional Development. I wonder what might happen if he were to become Minister? However, it was only a mischievous thought. Strike that from the record.

Mr Sammy Wilson was correct to bring to the attention of the Assembly that what we are talking about is a vast swathe of very valuable non-port land — not just Titanic Quarter, but other land as well. It must be remembered that all of this happened in the context of consideration by the Assembly and the Regional Development Committee of the forfeiture, or removal, of land from Belfast Harbour Commissioners.

The idea of the power of direction was developed as an alternative to forfeiture. As an aid to the development of the concept of the power of direction, and pending legislation, we agreed the memorandum of understanding, which is an interim measure to allow a degree of public control, albeit on a voluntary basis, over the disposal of such lands. It was within that context that all of this occurred. It is no wonder that public representatives were concerned. Mr Wilson was quite right to remind us of that dimension.

I agree with Mr Byrne that it has been a good exercise in scrutiny by the Assembly. The report has been of value not only because it deals with a particular issue, but because it sends a message to all civil servants and officials in public bodies that they must be accountable and transparent in their activities. I agree with Mr Bradley and also with the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, Mr McFarland, that public accountability has been the kernel of the inquiry. Public bodies should be accountable to the Assembly; we cannot overemphasise that.

I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. I accept what Mr McNamee said about the report’s recommendations. The recommendations are important and, if implemented — I accept the Minister’s assurance that most of them will be — will help to safeguard the public interest. I thank the Minister for Regional Development for his contribution and for his acceptance of the report. I know that there are certain recommendations that he has not accepted in full, but I know that he will, none the less, consider them. That is indicative of the good working relationship that the Committee has had with the Minister. We will build upon that relationship, as we address issues such as the future of the Port of Belfast.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly takes note of the report of the Regional Development Committee’s Inquiry (1/01) into Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ allocation and variation of leases and connected transactions within the Harbour Estate and the extent to which they have served the public interest.

Adjourned at 5.09 pm.