Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 May 2002

79 contributions from 33 members. The official report.

Visit of Her Majesty The Queen

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Criticism has recently been levelled at the Assembly concerning the facilities that were made available to the media during Her Majesty The Queen’s visit to Parliament Buildings last week. Was that criticism justified?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have noticed criticism in the press, and I have received correspondence from Ulster Television (UTV) about the matter. I am writing to request an apology from UTV for some of the statements that were made. I am not surprised that UTV were embarrassed by the poor quality of the coverage of the event, especially since they were providing it not only for their own viewers but for those of other broadcasting organisations and, indeed, the Assembly. To obviate their embarrassment, they have sought to blame Assembly staff and have made several quite untrue claims.

They claim that it was to do with security arrangements, but it was not. Our staff gave full assistance as to the best place to take shots and discussed where they might have difficulties. They took their own advice, and discovered too late that they were mistaken. The only thing that they requested but did not receive was the right to place a camera in the middle of the floor of the Great Hall, where Her Majesty and all would have had to parade around it.

Assembly staff thought that that was inappropriate. However, UTV staff were permitted to place a camera on a riser at the back of the Great Hall, and they pronounced themselves totally satisfied with all the arrangements — until they saw the outcome. At that stage they sought to make a complaint, and to put blame on the Assembly staff who had co-operated fully with them.

That was not the only blunder on the part of the press. For example, a member of broadcasting staff was speaking so loudly upstairs in the Gallery during one of the speeches that it was thought initially that an intruder was trying to disrupt the proceedings.

Our own contracted staff have provided very competent and helpful broadcasting for almost four years. They are familiar with how to conduct things, and an obvious solution for future circumstances would be to have our own staff provide a pooled feed that the broadcasters could then take.

The stills photographer, who was offered the same facilities, managed to take excellent photographs that have been used widely and appreciated widely. I trust that that addresses the Member’s concern.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Members were notified of the intention to carry out searches before Her Majesty’s visit — as one would expect. Many Members made the necessary arrangements for desks, filing cabinets and rooms to be left open. However, there is an indication that not everyone did so. Can you investigate whether, in cases where people left desks, filing cabinets or rooms locked, they were penetrated in all cases, and can you report to the Assembly Commission on that?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have made initial enquiries on that issue. A few desks and filing cabinets were not opened. The security forces were entirely satisfied that these were well away from any areas where they had any concerns. In all the cases concerned, Members had not been around for some time, and that was why some desks and filing cabinets were not left open. I cannot comment more fully on it, save to say that beforehand, and subsequently when I checked, I was advised that the security services were wholly happy with the substantial co-operation that they received from all sides in the Assembly. As the Member has raised the matter, I will enquire further about it.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Further to the earlier point of order, Mr Speaker. You said that you are entering into correspondence with UTV. Is it your intention to report to the Assembly on that correspondence?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That would not normally be how I would proceed. It would generally be a matter for the Commission. If Members raise questions, I try to be helpful, but I am simply responding to the question raised. I received a letter from UTV that contained several scurrilous suggestions, and I have no option but to reply to it. The terms in which I will reply are the terms in which I have responded to the point of order this morning.

I will draw the matter to the attention of the Commission, which is the responsible body.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. We should thank those members of the Assembly staff and Members’ staff who stayed behind for some time to help with the security search.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Member for raising that matter. The Assembly staff, and the staff of all the parties, were extremely co-operative, and some people put themselves out substantially both before, during and after the visit. It would also be fair for the Assembly to record its appreciation of the substantial efforts made by Assembly staff to ensure that an important event passed in what I understand was described as "clockwork order" by some commentators who viewed it.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Harland & Wolff Lands Issue

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on the Harland & Wolff lands issue.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on my decision regarding the Harland & Wolff lands issue.

Last week, in reply to a question for written answer tabled by Mr Peter Weir, I said that I expected to be in a position soon to respond to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ application to my Department for approval to enter into an agreement with Titanic Quarter Ltd for the development of some 80 acres of land in the harbour estate that is no longer required for shipbuilding purposes.

Sir David Fell, chairman of Harland & Wolff, first briefed Sir Reg Empey and me on 25 February 2002 about the company’s difficulties and advanced the proposal that it might conclude a land deal with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners — the company’s landlord — aimed at financing a new business plan.

From the outset, my principal concern has been to safeguard the public interest. As Minister for Regional Development, I was also keen to ensure that those lands identified by the company as being no longer needed for shipbuilding were developed in the best interests of Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding between the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and my Department, the commissioners are required to consult with my Department and seek its approval for any proposed disposal or change of use of any harbour lands. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ proposal to my Department envisaged a partnership with Titanic Quarter Ltd, a sister company of Harland & Wolff Heavy Industries Ltd, for the purpose of development of the site. As part of that arrangement, it was envisaged that the covenants in the existing lease, which restricted use of the land to shipbuilding, ship repair and engineering, would be removed to facilitate the commercial development of the site.

On the back of that arrangement, it was proposed that Harland & Wolff’s parent company, Fred Olsen Energy, would invest £15 million in Harland & Wolff Heavy Industries Ltd, which was based on 50% of the market value of the site. That cash injection is intended to finance the company’s new business plan.

My Department’s consideration of the proposal has entailed careful examination of several matters including the market value of the lands involved, the legal documentation relating to the proposed agreement and any state aid implications. Having completed my examination of the proposal put to my Department under the terms of the memorandum of understanding with Belfast Harbour Commissioners, I am able to announce to the Assembly that I have decided to approve the proposal.

I have several reasons to believe that my decision is in the best interests of Northern Ireland plc. It will facilitate the regeneration of a substantial area of the harbour estate, a prime site close to the city centre, which, if left undeveloped, would rapidly become an eyesore. Development of the land offers fresh job opportunities. Both Harland & Wolff and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners accept that the site lends itself to development, at least in part, for light industrial use.

After protracted negotiations, the public interest represented by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners will share capital costs and revenue benefits fifty-fifty. That is the same share for the Harland & Wolff interest, on a lease that expires in 2114, as it is for the Titanic Quarter deal, the lease for which expires in 2019. Taken together with the adjoining Titanic Quarter site and the new science park, the lands promise to become a dynamic new development area of more than 180 acres.

Finally, both the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Titanic Quarter Ltd have undertaken to bear the on-site infrastructure costs and their share of the external infrastructure costs of the development of the site.

Those reasons alone mean that it is a strong deal that would, on a stand-alone basis, merit approval. There are also additional benefits of which I am aware, but which I could not allow to colour my judgement. They relate more to the responsibilities of Sir Reg Empey, as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, with whom I have worked closely throughout the process. Those are: Harland & Wolff will be given the opportunity to finance and implement its new business plan, and so ensure the survival of shipbuilding operations in Belfast for the immediate future; it will retain jobs and also allow the two roll-on roll-off vessels under construction to be completed; it will give the company the opportunity to improve the yard’s prospects in the longer term by making it more compact and efficient; and it will allow the company to develop new market opportunities in the construction of a renewables plant.

In considering those matters, Sir Reg Empey and I acknowledged that no public moneys would be involved in implementing the proposed development agreement or in financing Harland & Wolff’s new business plan. Fred Olsen Energy will be required to bear the commercial risk involved with regard to the latter. Sir Reg Empey and I consulted widely on those issues, because we were keen to secure the maximum political engagement and public support.

The consultation has extended to include Belfast City Council, the Regional Development Committee, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Executive Committee and the trade unions. The process has worked well, and it has demonstrated openness, transparency and public accountability. It has also proved to be a good test of the memorandum of understanding with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The public interest will be safeguarded in various ways in implementing the decision.

The injection of funds into Harland & Wolff Heavy Industries Ltd will be monitored by a committee of officials drawn from the Department for Regional Development, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of Finance and Personnel. The committee will also monitor the implementation of the company’s business plan and will be supported by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Department for Regional Development will be involved in the master-planning process, and the development proposals which emerge from that will be the subject of the full rigour of the statutory planning process. I commend those arrangements to the House and to the Northern Ireland public.

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

The Regional Development Committee has monitored this situation for some time, and it is generally supportive of the Minister’s statement. Some members of the Committee are rather doubtful about the long-term viability of the restructured company, but we wish it well. However, we are concerned about the protection of the public interest with regard to the surplus lands that will result from the restructuring of Harland & Wolff. The Regional Development Committee believes strongly that the lands are public assets and should be developed in the public interest. I hope that the plan that is being proposed today will protect the public interest. I note that the development costs will be shared fifty-fifty between the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Fred Olsen Energy. The Committee believes that that is important.

Will the Minister reassure the House that no public funding will go into the development of these lands and that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Fred Olsen Energy will develop them jointly?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Committee for the role that it played in examining the many issues involved. The Committee was able to profile the issues in a way that illuminated public understanding of this complex case.

Alban Maginness is correct that there is no assurance of a long-term future for Harland & Wolff on the basis of the injection of funds as a consequence of the land deal. Members hope that it will be the case. Nonetheless, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment can say that only the injection of funds into the company will make it theoretically possible to meet its business plan. The success of the business plan depends entirely on whether the company can secure orders. That is why I have emphasised that we have examined this issue on a stand-alone basis, and we have concluded that it makes sense.

Mr Maginness is correct in saying that the key issue has been the protection of the public interest, and that has been done in several ways. Harland & Wolff, through its Titanic Quarter deal, will be a partner with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, who have considerable experience of development. That secures the public end of the arrangement in an accountable way. I hope that, later today, there will be approval for new harbour Orders that will increase the public accountability of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners.

The moneys that will meet the requirements of Harland & Wolff’s business plan come from the injection of funds into Harland & Wolff Heavy Industries Ltd by Fred Olsen Energy as a result of the land deal, and also from a further loan from Fred Olsen, because there was a gap that had to be filled. The only public funds involved relate to the Department for Employment and Learning, which is deferring a loan — although not writing it off — so that it meets the business plan requirements. It is for the Department for Employment and Learning to make any statement on that. It seems to be a common-sense decision, because if the Department did not agree to that — and the deal fell as a result — it would not have had the money anyway, because it is an unsecured loan.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

I declare an interest as a Belfast City Council appointee to the Greater East Belfast Partnership Board, which has an interest in this issue, and also as chairman of the community enterprise scheme, Heirskip Village. I commend the Minister on his work and his report, and also Sir Reg Empey. Does the Minister think that there is concern in the local community that this is part of an eventual withdrawal of Harland & Wolff from the site? Methinks there may be Vikings about. Can he reassure us by elaborating on the monitoring board that will be established?

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

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to my Colleague from East Belfast for raising declarations of interest, as it gives me the opportunity to say that I do not have an interest, although the Register of Members’ Interests might suggest otherwise. Although my interest was minimal, I donated it to a local charity — of which the Member would approve — before decisions were made on the matter.

I am not sure that any Vikings gave orders to inject funds into Northern Ireland companies. Those who question Fred Olsen’s motives must recognise that, if he or any of his companies were interested only in asset-stripping, it is unlikely that they would have reinvested the moneys that were secured from that in Harland & Wolff Heavy Industries Ltd.

I am aware of the hon Gentleman’s interest in the Greater East Belfast Partnership Board. I hope that we can proceed with the issue relating to the board and the lands known as the Esso lands. I am happy to work with the Member and his Colleague, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, to secure the matter.

Although people may question the motives, the proposals make sense as they stand. I too have concerns about the future of shipbuilding in Northen Ireland. However, the deal offers shipbuilding a chance, without which it has no future.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has been considering this matter for some time, and before devolution the Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with the harbour lands. Modern shipbuilding does not require the huge tracts of land that were needed in the last century.

Does the Minister agree that the lands are not only a Belfast city asset but a Northern Ireland asset and should be treated as such? What input will his Department and other Departments have in drawing up the brief that will lead to the development plan for this site and for the Titanic Quarter? I welcome the fact that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Harland & Wolff will provide the necessary infrastructure.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I remember the days of the Ad Hoc Committee and its work. The question enables me to return to the question that Dr Adamson asked about the monitoring committee, to which I did not respond. The committee will comprise representatives from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department for Regional Development, which have been involved in the project and which will continue to have an interest in the development of the land and in monitoring the injection of funds and subsequent matters.

The Member for East Antrim, Mr Neeson, is right to emphasise the fact that this is not solely an east Belfast, in its narrowest focus, or a Belfast issue. The development of the site has implications for the whole of Northern Ireland. It is one of the most attractive development sites in the Province, particularly because of its proximity to Belfast city centre. It must, therefore, be tackled strategically and carefully.

I asked the official in charge of regional planning to leave all his other work aside and concentrate on the preparation of a draft plan to show how the site and the Titanic Quarter might be developed.

It is important that they are developed as one site.

A reputable Northern Ireland company is representing Fred Olsen Energy, and it is working on development proposals. That company has agreed to work in a body with the Department for Regional Development, and the work will be fed through to the monitoring group. However, the Planning Service will always have the final say, and proposals will be subject to all of its usual rigours.

Therefore, there is a series of "protections" as regards how the site is developed — not least of which is the fact that the partnership between private and public interests is fifty-fifty — which should help to secure public confidence. The public interest will be represented by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, which, under their memorandum of understanding, have worked closely with my Department throughout the process. I expect that to continue through to the end of the process because there is a good relationship between the Department and Belfast Harbour Commissioners.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the positive aspects of the Minister’s statement — the positive effect that the deal will have on employment at Harland & Wolff in the short term and the opportunity it provides for the company to improve its prospects.

The deal, however, involves £15 million being invested in Harland & Wolff Heavy Industries Ltd, and the Minister has said that there is no guarantee that the business plan will be successful in the long term. The House is aware of competition in the shipbuilding industry that Harland & Wolff faces from Asian countries. Will the Minister elaborate on the business plan and explain why a decision has been taken to invest £15 million in it? Will he state how confident he is about the possible success of the plan?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the business plan. That is a Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment issue, and it says that the figures add up. The future of the company will depend on its ability to secure work on the open market. That will be the test.

The Assembly would want to concentrate on why investment should be made if public money were being put into the company. In this case, however, the question must be put to Fred Olsen Energy. It is making the investment, and I welcome that. The alternative is for Fred Olsen Energy to put the money in its back pocket. I would much rather see it being invested in a Northern Ireland company and giving it a chance to survive.

The Department recognises that there is much competition from the Pacific basin. Harland & Wolff must look to contracts that have added value. However, the company will become more competitive by reducing its overheads and contracting the site. It will increase its ability to compete by bringing in modules for areas of activity that it claims are more costly. It will have a better chance if it looks to the niche market that is not covered by Pacific basin countries. However, the odds are no higher than that, and this is a matter for the company. I know that the House will wish the company well in implementing its business plan.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister agree that the existence of Ministers, Committees and the Assembly was vital to the construction of the plan and that had Harland & Wolff’s problems occurred before devolution the outcome in relation to protecting the public interest might have been different?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As someone who believes in devolution, I find it easy to answer the Member’s question. I have always believed that people who have an intimate knowledge of the issues will make better decisions that those who are not directly accountable to the Northern Ireland people. It is important that the process has been transparent, as it has been the subject of much criticism in the past. The public are aware of the issues involved in a way that they were not before.

The memorandum of understanding agreed between the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and my Department has worked well and, when it is enshrined in the new harbour Orders, will work well in future. Even if no benefits were to be gained by Harland & Wolff Heavy Industries Ltd, the arrangement would still be in the interests of Northern Ireland plc. It makes sense to develop the site.

As well as being a Minister, I also represent East Belfast. If no agreement on the land had been reached, I could not contemplate the blight and the loss of potential that would result from leaving the site, so close to Belfast city centre, derelict and overgrown with weeds. All the employment potential would be lost not only for East Belfast, but for the wider area.

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

The issue has been around for several years, and the Minister’s definitive statement is to be welcomed. Is £15 million a true reflection of the market value of the 80 acres of land that is to be released for development? Will more land be released for development in future? Is the Minister satisfied that there will be a proper mix of development use? Only light industrial use has been mentioned.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The £15 million is gauged to be only half the value of the land because only half the land belongs to Fred Olsen companies; the other half is held in the public interest by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. I know from working as an estate agent in the early part of my adult life that the value of any property is only worth what a willing purchaser will pay on the open market. Therefore, one can never know the true value of a property until it is sold.

Reputable companies conducted four valuations of the land. The lowest and highest valuations were disregarded, and an average of the remaining two was taken. The Department had the average considered by the Valuation and Lands Agency, which agreed that the average was within its appropriate tolerance level. The experts consider the figure to be reasonable. Of course, as soon as money is invested to improve the infrastructure of the area, the development potential will increase. However, the developers will have to speculate to accumulate on that.

The Member also raised the issue of more land being released for development. In many ways, I hope that no more land is released because that will inevitably mean that Harland & Wolff’s business plan has failed. We would have to reconsider the issue if that happened. Taken together with the original Titanic Quarter land, the development is sizeable and will probably take 10 to 15 years to fully evolve.

The land will be developed for mixed use. Ultimately, its use will be a matter for the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service. However, the land stretches from the Odyssey to what will be the new, contracted Harland & Wolff site, and it would seem natural to soften the land’s use as it draws closer to the Odyssey. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment highlighted his priority that the land be used for light industry, and he and I have pressed for such a use of a significant portion of the land. However, it will be a mixed-use development.

Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill: First Stage

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 10/01] to make provision for facilitating the carrying on of collective investment by means of open-ended investment companies and for regulating such companies.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage is determined.

Normally, I would move on to the next item of business, the Second Stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Bill, but I do not see Mr Dermot Nesbitt in the Chamber. For that reason I will, by leave of the House, suspend the sitting for five minutes. We will then continue with the next item on the Order Paper.

The sitting was suspended at 12.42 pm.

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

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last week, a motion stood in my name on the Order Paper and, because I arrived in the Chamber one minute after the previous business collapsed, the motion fell, and there was no opportunity for reconsideration. Also last week, Dr McDonnell tabled a private Member’s motion, and the House was suspended to give him time to arrive. This morning the House suspended to allow the Minister of the Environment to arrive. In my case, the motion could be taken only on that day last week. Dr McDonnell’s private Member’s motion, and the Second Stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill could have been taken at any time. Given that inconsistency, will you consult with the Speaker and your Colleagues and make a firm ruling on what business collapses and what business can be suspended?

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

I shall raise the issue with the Speaker and, of course, the issue may be raised at the Business Committee. It was with great reluctance that I suspended business today but, on balance, it was the best course of action.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill: Second Stage

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (NIA 7/01) be agreed.

The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a new methodology for the distribution of the resources element of the general grant that is payable to district councils. The existing statutory formula is complex and results frequently in wide variations each year, which makes effective long-term financial planning difficult for councils. The methodology aims to address the complexities of the current formula and to provide for regular payments to facilitate good financial planning. In accordance with TSN principles, it will incorporate factors to take account of the relative socio-economic disadvantage of districts.

The Bill will also be used to amend the economic development powers of district councils. The changes were contained in a proposal for a draft Order in Council that the former Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland prepared. The new provisions remove the financial limit on economic development expenditure and extend the existing powers of district councils to promote the economic development of their areas. That will allow them to engage in more diverse activities, such as providing sites for economic development.

In addition, the Bill provides for district councils to engage, if they so wish, in community safety activity through partnerships, which would be established as part of a community safety strategy devised by the Secretary of State.

By way of background to the Bill, article 3 of the Local Government &c. (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 provides for the payment of a general grant to district councils. The grant comprises an element to compensate district councils for a loss of rate income due to the statutory derating of certain properties and a resources element to provide additional finance to district councils whose rateable value per capita of the population falls below a standard that the Department determined.

The Bill will consolidate and replace existing provisions that relate to the general grant. It will introduce a new formula for the distribution of the resources element of the grant to district councils, to take effect from 1 April 2003. The new methodology is aimed at assisting the councils with the greatest need and ensuring a more equitable distribution of the available moneys. The formula is designed to measure a council’s wealth against its estimated needs. Wealth is determined according to the gross penny rate product of a district council, and needs are measured according to a council’s adjustment population. If a council’s wealth base is greater than its estimated needs, it does not qualify for a grant. However, if a council’s wealth base is lower than its needs, it will be eligible for a share of the grant in proportion to the total shortfall. The proposed methodology should be easier to understand than the existing formula.

The consultation exercises focused on underlying issues. Two consultation papers, which dealt with proposals for a new formula for the distribution of the resources element of the general grant, were issued. The first paper outlined a suggested new methodology for the distribution of the grant. Many of the responses to the paper were taken on board, and preliminary proposals were adjusted. On completion of an equality impact assessment, a second consultation paper was circulated widely to fulfil the Department’s statutory requirements under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

In addition to those formal consultation procedures, presentations were made to the Committee for the Environment and the National Association of Councillors. A presentation and two workshop sessions were conducted for local government finance officers. Meetings with individuals to clarify the proposals were also arranged. Four of the Bill’s clauses were discussed at the most recent presentation to the Committee for the Environment on 9 May 2002. I am grateful to the Committee for raising those points, and I will deal with its concerns when I address the details of the Bill.

The initial consultation with district councils and other interested parties resulted in 22 responses to the paper. Although there was broad support for the proposed methodology, valid points were made about the data and the waiting factors to be applied, many of which have since been addressed.

We received 21 responses to the second consultation exercise. The proposal was generally accepted as a major improvement on the present arrangement. It was recognised that adjustments made to base population figures reflected additional needs relating to deprivation and the influx of population. However, some reservations were expressed about the measures for addressing the problem of sparsity. Those were re-examined, and further adjustments have been made. The Department has noted other suggestions relating to the application of up-to-date data as it becomes available. The Department may revise periodically any of the detail of the formula, as this will be contained in subordinate legislation.

Overall, it was recognised that the proposed formula involves a simpler calculation. It allows for better financial planning by district councils. It was generally accepted that the proposed method meets the objectives of the resources element of the general grant.

Consultation on the amendment of district councils’ economic development powers took place when the Regeneration and Development (Northern Ireland) Order was drafted. District councils have been aware of the proposed amendments for some time, and their responses indicated overwhelming support for the proposed extension of economic development powers.

The Northern Ireland Office undertook consultation on community safety in the context of the Criminal Justice Review implementation plan. District councils and other interests were given an opportunity to comment. Several councils responded positively to the NIO proposals, and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) sought statutory powers to engage in community safety activity on behalf of all councils. No objections were made to the Northern Ireland Office proposals. The detailed community safety strategy devised by the Northern Ireland Office is undergoing an extensive consultation process.

The Bill contains 11 clauses, and I will now briefly outline the key aspects of the principal clauses 1 to 7, and cover issues raised recently in presentations by my officials.

Clause 1 makes provision for the general grant. Subsection (1) empowers the Department of the Environment to make payments of general grant to district councils each year. Subsection (2) sets out the two distinct elements of the grant: the resources element which is payable only to those district councils whose needs exceed their wealth base; and the derating element which compensates district councils for loss of rate income due to the statutory derating of certain properties. Subsection (3) empowers my Department to determine the timing of grant payments. Payments are made every quarter. However, district councils have indicated that they would like to receive monthly payments, and the Department of the Environment will accommodate that with effect from April 2003.

Clause 2 deals with the determination of the resources element of the general grant. Subsection (1) provides for the method for allocations to be determined by Regulations. Subordinate legislation is now being drafted. A new formula has been devised that aims to achieve a fairer distribution of the available funds. The purpose of subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) is to put in place a formula that will measure the wealth of a council against its estimated needs. Wealth is determined by the gross penny rate product of a district council, relative to that for Northern Ireland. Needs are measured by population of a district council, relative to the total for Northern Ireland. To take account of councils’ specific needs — which have been identified as deprivation, the influx of population and sparsity — population data has been refined: base population data has been replaced with adjusted population figures. Only those councils whose needs exceed their wealth are entitled to a share of the grant.

Subsection (3) clarifies the fact that not all district councils will qualify for the resources element of the grant. Subsection (4) allows the Department of the Environment to amend the subordinate legislation that will contain the detail of the formula. This is to ensure that measures and weightings, such as the Noble index, may be reviewed and updated at any time.

Subsection (5) provides for supplementary provisions or necessary refinement of the Regulations that may be required after the new arrangements come into operation.

Subsection (6) puts into place arrangements to amend the Regulations and lay them in draft before the Assembly. These Regulations are subject to affirmative resolution.

Clause 3 deals with the determination of the derating element of the general grant. I have already explained the nature of the derating element, which is defined in clause 1. Rating/derating policy is a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel. However, the calculation and payment of the derating element of the grant is handled by my Department. The formula for calculating the derating element, which is unchanged, is contained in part II of schedule I to the Local Government &c. (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. This clause is included in the Bill in order that the formulae for the resources and derating elements remain together. The wording of the clause is as before.

I should make it clear that, although the Department of Finance and Personnel has sole responsibility for the rating/derating policy, my Department, like all others, would be consulted on any changes in that policy.

Clause 4 deals with reductions in general grant. This clause enables my Department, in particular circumstances, to make deductions from the amount of general grant payable to a district council.

Subsections (1) and (2) empower the Department to take action in cases where a district council has failed to achieve and maintain a standard of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the discharging of its functions. This might relate to, for example, such failings as: the misappropriation of funds; excessive expenditure; or non-submission of annual accounts. My Department would prepare a written report that would include any concerns raised by the local government auditor and the justification for the amount of grant reduced. The full report would be laid before the Assembly. This provision is currently contained in article 4(1)(a) of the 1972 Order. In the past 30 years, my Department has never exercised this power.

Subsections (3) and (4) provide the Department with the power to make payments to certain bodies on behalf of district councils for services rendered. To recover this expenditure, an adjustment is made to an instalment of general grant in the same financial year. The organisations and bodies to which this arrangement relates are listed in the Local Government (Specified Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001. If any change to this list is proposed, district councils and other interested parties must be consulted before these Regulations are amended. The power to defray and recover district council expenditure is currently contained in article 4(3) of the 1972 Order.

Clause 5 deals with other grants to councils. This clause provides my Department with a general power to pay grants to district councils. That applies to any grant connected with a function of a council, other than general grant. The Department currently makes payments to district councils in respect of food safety, construction products and energy efficiency. The power to pay these grants is currently contained in article 5A of the 1972 Order.

Clause 6 relaxes the present restrictions on district councils in relation to the promotion of economic development. It also enables them to engage in a broader range of activities such as the provision of sites for economic development purposes.

Clause 7 deals with the community safety powers of district councils. The community safety initiative is driven by the Northern Ireland Office in consultation with Departments, district councils and other bodies. The powers provided in clause 7 are in response to the wish of district councils to have statutory cover when engaging in community safety activity. Subsection (1) empowers them to engage, if they so wish, in community safety activity in a relevant community safety partnership, as defined in subsection (4). Subsection (2) empowers my Department to confer or impose on district councils any functions aimed at enhancing community safety, which would be additional to, or complement, any community safety strategy devised by the Secretary of State.

The term "impose" is used here as it may be the will of the Assembly in the future to make these provisions obligatory rather than discretionary under the provisions in subsection (1).

Subsection (3) stipulates that no Order can be made under subsection (2) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly. Subsection (4) defines "community safety partnership" and the terms "enhancement of community safety" and "relevant community safety partnership".

I want to emphasise that in the Programme for Government my Department is committed to reviewing the existing statutory formula for distributing the resources element of general grant payable to district councils to take account of relative socio-economic disadvantage. There are many difficulties with the existing formula for distributing this element. The main problem relates to the complexity of the method, the uncertainty of grant allocations each year and the fact that distribution takes no account of New TSN; the Bill addresses those issues. It provides a framework for a new method of distributing the resources element of general grant, and that will meet my Department’s commitment.

In addition, the Bill will extend the existing power of district councils to promote economic development in their areas and enable them to engage, if they wish, in community safety activity through community safety partnerships. Most importantly, the Bill will ensure that the legitimate needs of ratepayers and residents are met, and I commend it to the Assembly.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I am sure that the Minister and his officials will apologise to the Assembly for holding up the proceedings. I am happy that we have been able to have this important debate, and I thank the Deputy Speaker for his intervention, which ensured that it happened. Other Members will want to raise matters that they think are important.

In January 2002 the Committee for the Environment considered a consultation document issued by the Department of the Environment on proposals for a new formula for distributing the resources element of the general Exchequer grant. This grant has two elements: a derating element and a resources element. There have been problems with the existing complex formula used for the resources grant, and it is widely accepted that there is need for change.

The consultation exercise related solely to the resources element, and this is the only part of the Bill that has been considered by the Committee. It received a detailed presentation from officials on the proposed new formula, and members were able to question them on some specific points.

The Committee wrote to the Department on 17 January 2002 giving a general welcome to the introduction of a revised formula. However, some representatives in the east of the Province have requested an explanation as to how the Department will deal with the equality impact assessment outlined in paragraph 33 of the explanatory and financial memorandum.

Members may not be aware that the Bill was to have been called the local government (finance) Bill or something similar. However, the title had to be changed to reflect several additions.

As Members have already heard the Minister say, the first major change will involve the introduction of new powers to district councils in relation to what is termed "economic development". At first glance, it would seem that all councils should welcome that as it seemingly allows them to engage in activities from which they were previously barred. It is important that we have meaningful consultation on the detail.

The second major change involves the inclusion of new powers to enable councils to engage in community safety partnerships. It was hoped that those powers could be included in the Criminal Justice Bill earlier this year, but for some reason that did not happen. Therefore, they are being included in this Bill.

The Minister appeared before the Committee in March 2002, and there was discussion about a proactive approach towards co-operating with him in dealing with five Bills that would be introduced by his Department over several months. The Committee agreed to co-operate fully with the Department subject to being fully satisfied with the specific terms of the Bill. The Committee has already been working closely with departmental officials on the Bill and hopes to continue to do so during Committee Stage.

The Bill is not straightforward. Even if it had related solely to the formula for the resource element of the general Exchequer grant, undoubtedly the Committee would have had questions and concerns to be clarified. However, the addition of two clauses relating to issues that will have a significant impact on every district council in Northern Ireland will add considerably to the Committee’s scrutiny remit.

The Committee is already pursuing officials on several concerns, questions and specifics in the Bill and will continue with its scrutiny at Thursday’s meeting. I appreciate that it would not be appropriate to raise those specific points during this debate. However, I assure the Minister that the Committee will be diligent and thorough — as he would expect — in examining the detail of the Bill and it will, if necessary, suggest amendments at Consideration Stage.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I used to shy like a startled animal — I will leave it to Members to speculate as to the species — when I heard the word "bill". That was because of the flood of small brown-windowed envelopes that used to flood through my door, which haunted much of married life for me and Mary, and continues to do so well into our present decrepitude.

Now that the discerning electorate has transported me to this Utopia, I have come to realise that Bills can be good if we can come to terms with the contorted language that so often successfully conceals what they are about.

I never had the fiscal agility to deal competently with the bills that emanated from the outside world: I was putty in the hands of hire purchase and credit card companies. Therefore, I will not try to compete with the steering group that devised a new methodology for the distribution of grants to enable district councils to do positive things about economic development and public safety.

What do I know, when my knowledge is compared with the combined wisdom of several chief executives and finance officers of district councils; representatives from the Northern Ireland Audit Office; the Local Government Audit Office; the Equality Unit; the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; and the Department of the Environment? Therefore, I will leave it to the savants among us to say "bravo" or "boo" to the formula designed to measure the wealth of a council against its estimated needs and to comment, if they wish, on the financial complexities of the Bill.

I will limit myself to a few comments on the powers granted to, and the restrictions imposed on, councils with regard to actions and expenditure on economic development and community safety.

The Environment Committee has given qualified support to the proposed new formula, although I cannot imagine that there is a single council that believes its wealth base exceeds its needs. The formula will be queried thoroughly by councils that feel badly done by when the formula determines that the amount of the resources element payable to them is nil.

Clause 6 gives councils powers relating to the acquisition, retention, development, management and disposal of land. The explanatory and financial memorandum gives reassurances about the financial and equal opportunity effects of the Bill, human rights issues and the equality impact assessment. There is no mention in the Bill, or the memorandum, of the need for any measure adopted by councils to be compatible with the principles of sustainable development. We need reassurance on that.

Clause 6, subsection (4) states:

"A district council shall exercise its functions under this section in accordance with such directions as may be issued from time to time by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment."

It would be important to have some idea of the type of directions that might be issued, and what recourse councils might have to satisfaction if they believe that such directions are unreasonable in their particular circumstances.

It is difficult to know what to say about the community safety element of the Bill. It is surprising — even amazing — that, despite our awful history, crime figures show that in general we are among the most law-abiding people in the world. However, many communities do not feel safe, and in some areas they have shocking reason not to.

It is horribly true also that certain organisations — some of whom claim to be working to implement the peace process — are exploiting community tensions and encouraging intercommunity violence. Everything possible must be done to create a situation where communities feel safe. It will not be easy to bring that about. It will require partnerships far more sophisticated and honest than some of the current arrangements. As an individual, and as a member of a party that, with tremendous difficulty, forced the concept of partnership on many reluctant people, that is important to me.

It is good that councils are not just willing, but anxious, to play their full part. However, we must be conscious of the difficulties. Research commissioned by the Criminal Justice Review came to the conclusion that there is a low level of awareness in local government, and among statutory, voluntary and community bodies about the concept of community safety. The general picture of community in Northern Ireland is of modest Government support, ad hoc initiatives, lack of awareness at local government and statutory levels, and poor inter-agency co-ordination. We can only hope that the Bill will do what it is supposed to do.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill. It is timely that it has come before the House in this way. Sinn Féin welcomes and supports, and will continue to encourage, the different approaches that can be taken to deal with public and community safety which are led by, and involve, the community. We need to ensure that there are provisions to deal with that.

New initiatives that might lead to that include community restorative justice, a befriending service for the elderly, youth outreach and the services of various other bodies that might come under the provisions of the Bill. The present structure gives the opportunity for councils to become involved and to create their own type of structure for handling such matters.

I hope that the Bill will give us that opportunity, and that it will not be as prescriptive as the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) scheme. The NIO has not yet indicated who will be involved in its envisaged community structure. Community participation is to be welcomed.

As regards the general grant, I must declare an interest as a district councillor in Dungannon, one of the areas affected by last year’s proposed reduction in the general grant, which was reversed. I hope that under the new formula we will not face the danger of fluctuations because of the proposed Budget. If councils can rely on the formula and are not dependent on the Minister’s Budget proposals or the allocation to Departments, they will know that they will receive the money and can plan ahead and deal with the issues that concern them.

As the Minister said, the Bill will take account of TSN and will deal with socio-economic provision in a way that will benefit the community. However, the reduction that was proposed last year would have had a detrimental effect on all district councils. Any new proposals or powers to give or to restrict would be better framed in a comprehensive document dealt with under the terms of the review of public administration, rather than in isolation from it. I hope that this issue will be resolved with a view as to how it will be affected by the review of public administration, and that it will not become an obstacle to further review. We must examine how councils are funded, and we can do that only when we know what the structure of local government will be. As was the case with provision for economic development in district councils, what we are getting is an extension of powers to district councils without knowing what those councils are going to be or what local government structures will be.

I have reservations about the further extension of local government powers in relation to economic development, because few councils have taken up the 5p limit. We must examine how that economic development assistance is distributed. Would it be better distributed from a general Exchequer fund? Smaller amounts, generated at local council level, have no impact on the economic conditions of an area because they are distributed so finely. However, they do make an impact on the rates, because they are open-ended and can result in 10% increases. That will have a severe effect on what else councils can do.

There are pros and cons to the buying and selling of property and property development. I hope that it will lead to greater accountability, because councils are elected, as opposed to the quangos that have grown up around economic development, over which there is no control in relation to management and distribution of moneys. We must also be aware of TSN and equality legislation.

There are many complex issues, and we must re-examine them in the light of the review of public administration. However, there are also development opportunities for councils, such as the proposed broadband infrastructure, which could be of benefit to the economic prosperity of any district council area. That will need legislation, and this is one way to achieve that goal.

I am concerned that, as the Chairperson of the Environment Committee said, the Bill has been extended to cover other areas, but will not provide us with an opportunity to deal with the infrastructural neglect that has built up in district council areas through successive changes in local administrative structure.

Small areas of land, streets and structures in district council areas have been neglected for years, but no one is accountable for that. The Department for Regional Development is not accountable, and it does not have the authority or responsibility for bringing those areas up to standard. The district council cannot do that because it does not have provision for roads or infrastructure. Neglect continues in town centres and other areas. No one is responsible, but the Bill does not deal with that matter.

This could be a chance to clear up many problems that have been left behind from previous district councils in a way that would provide a better quality of life for people living in those circumstances. The Committee hopes that it can influence change when it deals with the Bill.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I welcome the lifting of the restrictions on councils promoting economic development. District councils should be the engines that drive economic development here. Responsibility for local government has been raised. Over the years, Members and councillors will admit that much more work has been thrown on district councils with few resources to do it, and that must be addressed.

I welcome the comments of the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, which will scrutinise the Bill. The Bill will introduce community safety partnerships, but there is confusion over the setting up of those partnerships because district policing partnerships will also be set up soon. There has been widespread debate in the community, and in some district councils, about how the two partnerships will sit side by side. The Policing Board has had lengthy discussions on their implications. The police will be involved in district policing partnerships, and they will also play a key role in community safety partnerships.

Members of the Policing Board have been trying to make sensible arguments to resolve the matter. For example, they have said that there should be one body rather than two bodies to deal with many of the same problems. They are also considering streamlining, but up until now that has fallen on deaf ears. The Policing Board has suggested that there may be a different way of setting up the safety partnerships so that they do not create problems for the policing partnerships.

Has the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) been consulted on the community safety partnerships? Its Members think that their burden will be greater because they will be responsible for the setting up and servicing of the policing partnerships.

They feel that this is an added burden, as they will also have to look seriously at being involved in setting up community safety partnerships.

It would be useful for the Committee to hear evidence from SOLACE, which represents town clerks and chief executives. The Committee for the Environment could play an important role in streamlining the setting up of the community safety partnerships. Town clerks and chief executives, as well as several councils, feel that there is a better way to set these up. None of us is against the principle; they are a good idea. However, there will be confusion when community safety partnerships are set up, as we are also going to have district policing partnerships.

The community safety partnerships model for Northern Ireland appears to more or less mirror arrangements elsewhere. The problem is that in England, Scotland and Wales they do not have responsibility for setting up district policing partnerships. Here that is added to district partnerships’ responsibilities. The Minister should take up that issue, and if the Committee receives evidence from SOLACE, a clearer picture will emerge of how partnerships could be set up without creating a problem for either body.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I broadly welcome the provisions of the Bill. Given that the Bill refers much to Regulations that may be made, it is difficult to do more than give it a general welcome. The meat will be when we see the Regulations, and no doubt the Committee will have the pleasure of going through the details of those Regulations with officials in the coming weeks and months.

The measures relating to the general grant are sufficiently opaque at this stage. It is hard to see what may be combined in the Regulations when they subsequently appear. It is surprising that the notes in the memorandum go into considerable depth on what the Regulations may cover, yet those Regulations have not been published. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister seems to have listened to some of the comments made by the Committee and others. In particular, I welcome the fact that under clause 2 (6) the Regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution rather than negative resolution. Perhaps that shows that the Department is now accepting a role for the Assembly. That is also the case in the community safety section. We should recognise and welcome that, but we should expect to see a great deal more detail and much more work done in Committee as the measures are dealt with.

The economic development power has day-to-day relevance, in a way that the formula for the general grant, for many, did not. I was somewhat surprised by Mr Molloy’s remarks about being unhappy with the provision for economic development. There is an issue in that district councils can only complement the work of major agencies. However, on a small scale and at a local level, the work has been well complemented to date, and we perhaps have to be careful as to how exactly those functions are carried out. Some district councils have carried out innovative work, and more should be encouraged and supported.

Can the Minister tell me if the power to acquire land under clause 6 (2)(b) includes the power to vest land, and whether that is his intention? If it is not, can he indicate how he sees the question of vesting powers being a potential future development for district councils in this area? Can he explain how the Bill gives authority to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to issue directions to district councils, as stated in clause 6(4)? That appears to be contrary to provisions elsewhere in the Bill to ensure that the Assembly is fully consulted on the Regulations. Directions coming from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment would not appear to be as open and transparent a process as that relating to the Regulations being made under the Bill.

Mr Hay highlighted an important issue in relation to community safety. The general power to engage in community safety, in clause 7(1), will be welcomed almost universally in Northern Ireland. However, the circumstances in which the Minister may start to impose functions on district councils in clause 7(2) suggest a different method of moving forward. That is particularly relevant, given Mr Hay’s complaints about how that may impact on district policing partnerships. Will the Minister tell us the circumstances that would lead to clause 7(2) becoming relevant and overriding the more generous and consultative provisions of clause 7(1)? I trust that he will be able to respond, if not today, then during the Committee’s detailed scrutiny of that clause.

The Bill should be passed. However, whether it is appropriate for us to spend much time discussing the rating system when that system might be changed is another matter. The general grant formula is long overdue for reform, and we must move quickly on that.

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

I largely welcome the Second Stage of the Bill, particularly the clause on enhancing the role of district councils in economic development.

The Bill provides for the widening of district councils’ role in local economic development and the promotion of local enterprise. It enhances greatly a council’s ability to help local development, which is a good initiative. It is to be hoped that it will allow district councils to collaborate more with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in helping to promote local enterprise and create local jobs. That could prove beneficial in allowing district councils to be more effective, relevant and meaningful partners in promoting economic development.

Many local enterprise companies throughout Northern Ireland have been very successful in promoting the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector, and many district councils have been leading partners in helping those companies to realise job creation and promote local enterprise. Omagh District Council’s successful Omagh Enterprise Company has created more than 200 jobs in the Gortrush industrial estate as a result of the increased potential for local economic development that arose from European funding.

There is genuine concern that community safety has been tagged on to the Bill, perhaps at the behest of the Northern Ireland Office, without due consideration of all the issues. Community safety provision is a radical development, and it is relevant to many of our communities, where there is a crying need for better safety. However, I caution against setting up community safety committees as substitutes for district policing partnerships.

The community safety initiative being promoted is based largely on a GB model. Councils in England, Scotland and Wales have been working on the issues for some time. They have been working solely in the community safety context. However, in Northern Ireland there is a new proposal policy initiative for district policing partnerships that does not exist anywhere else in the Western World. I am concerned, as are others, that imposing two new administrative policy mechanisms under the jurisdiction of district councils could create a bureaucratic nightmare for the management and servicing of both policy initiatives. Those of us who serve on the Policing Board, and who are sincere in trying to bring about better community-based policing, want to see district policing partnerships develop in order to deliver more effective policing in our communities.

That is one example of how the hand-me-down Great Britain model does not exactly suit our needs. I urge the Minister not to be steamrolled along a single track on that. We need further discussion about how district policing partnerships and community safety committees could be merged into a symbiotic policy initiative, which would prove much more beneficial to all communities.

Councils have a major role to play in service-level agreements and in trying to deliver better community safety and community-based policing. I contend that the primary objective should be to try to get community-oriented policing within a safer environment in council areas. There is potential there if we work in a positive, constructive and imaginative way to bring about a model that is viable and can bring about tangible benefits. I urge the Minister and the Department to give due consideration to the complexities that two parallel structures might impose on councils. It would be futile to bring in two new structures — community safety committees and district policing partnerships — and expect council officials to manage and administer both of them.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I normally receive some warning about how many Members are left to speak. However, I got no such indication. If you allow me time to pull my papers together, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be ready soon.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

There is no rush.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

There is no rush, Mr Kennedy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you must be paying me back for not being on time for the debate.

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

I can assure you, Minister, that that is the last thing on my mind.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The House will believe you without a doubt.

I thank those Members who contributed to the debate. My surprise at being called so soon to make my winding-up speech meant that I needed a little preparation. However, I am ready.

I endorse Dr McCrea’s comments and genuinely thank him for his co-operation on this matter. Officials have met with him often to discuss the issues that he has raised, and they will continue to do so. This is an important matter, and I will be mindful of the Committee’s views and take them on board whenever possible.

Dr McCrea has said that he will pursue officials on the details of the Bill and that he will be thorough in his scrutiny of it. I have no doubt that he and the Committee will be. Indeed, Mr Ford said that too. I must not forget about Mr Ford, another valuable member of the Committee.

Dr McCrea raised the equality impact assessment and the concerns of the eastern area of the Province. A key element of the equality impact assessment is the weighted capitalisation formula, and this has been proofed for each of the nine equality categories. The Department is trying to ensure that the formula adjusts need to match wealth. An example of that is refuse collection. In a scarcely populated area a refuse lorry covers a large distance to collect a few bins. The council pays for that high overhead cost — and it is costs such as this that are being addressed. The overhead cost per bin is not as high in areas where there are many bins. All aspects of adjusting the actual population to the weighted population to see whether any councils require more grant aid have been appraised and will be taken into account. The deprivation indicators incorporated in the formula are the Noble indices of income.

I welcome the Chairperson’s comments. If Members are unclear about the formula, or feel that it is either fair or unfair, they should contact officials who will explain it comprehensively. Sometimes ignorance, and I mean this in the best sense of the word, leads to a lack of understanding. If, or when, the Committee, or anyone, does not support what the Department is trying to do, a suggestion for improvement would be genuinely welcomed.

Arthur Doherty mentioned sustainable development, which is a thrust of the entire Administration. We are trying to ensure that economic well-being is distributed throughout Northern Ireland equitably while sustaining the environment. Part of the reason for a resources grant element is to provide a top-up to help people who are more disadvantaged than others. Through the grant, we are aiming for sustainable development throughout Northern Ireland — matching economic benefits with the necessary environmental protection.

Mr Molloy talked about dealing with a single agency and the importance of community participation. I agree — the community must participate. Mr Molloy said that he wanted much more opportunity for the community to become involved, that it should not just be a matter of dealing with the NIO. Those were his words, and I endorse them. The community safety partnership should involve the public, voluntary, private and community sectors to work in partnership to identify local problems and to devise action plans. Those are the key thrusts of community partnership.

Partnership members could include district councils; the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade; Translink; the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; the Department of the Environment; the Department for Regional Development; chambers of commerce; and various voluntary and community sectors. A plethora of participation is expected. I endorse community partnerships and hope that they will allay Mr Molloy’s concerns.

Mr Molloy’s second point concerned the formula for the resources element of the grant to district councils and how that would affect planning. The aim is to enable planning to take place. Although we cannot be sure about the actual amount that will be granted, the relationship based on the application of the formula will remain for three years and will be beneficial. Councils asked for the money to be paid monthly. That will happen from April 2003. We are trying to accommodate short-term and long-term planning through cash flow and projection using a formula based on a three-year cycle. We are trying to take those points on board.

Mr Molloy said that few councils avail of the 5p limit for promoting economic development. He also mentioned the review of public administration. The provision in clause 6 is set in the context of ongoing local government development. We do not wish to be prescriptive — we want to give councils flexibility. The fact that many councils have not availed of the existing allowance does not mean that it should not be provided.

With regard to the point raised by Mr Hayes and Mr Byrne about policing partnerships, it is for the NIO to decide the position on policing.

The prime responsibility of district policing partnerships is to hold the police to account rather than to engage in service delivery. This role is supplementary and complementary to policing. The community safety partnership, however, brings communities together to do things for the good of the community. Its function is service delivery.

I thank Mr Ford for saying that he did not seek a detailed answer today, but hoped that it would come through Committee work. I endorse both statements — he will not receive a detailed answer today, and it will be done through Committee work. I have noted it, and I am glad that he accepts it. However, I shall sketch the probable situation. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may issue guidance to ensure a cohesive approach. The Department wants to ensure that economic development policy does not overlap and is consistent, and it will have an overarching brief.

With regard to vesting, powers for district councils are in the Local Government Act 1972 and must be adhered to. Mr Ford also mentioned clause 7, subsection (2) of the Bill. I am glad that the Alliance Party is concerned about rigour, imposition and discipline. With regard to clause 7, it is anticipated that councils will engage in community partnership for the very reasons I mentioned in response to Mr Molloy: namely, that involvement in community safety would benefit communities that are working together. However, clause 7, subsection (2) enables a Department to confer or impose on district councils any functions involved in community safety. I stress that any such conferral requires the full approval of the Assembly. The will of the Assembly may at some time dictate that it is obligatory for councils to seek involvement in community safety. In that regard, I stress — and it is in the Bill — that any aspect of that will be subject to affirmative resolution in the Assembly.

I have addressed all of the Members’ comments as best I could. Any Member who feels uncertain or unclear about the Bill should not hesitate to contact officials. I look forward to further deliberations between my officials and the Assembly. Again, I request that comments or criticisms be constructive. Suggestions are invited, as we want to get this right.

I appreciate the Chairperson of the Environment Committee’s point about adding time, and I ask for his good diligence in processing the Bill. The time for completion of the financial aspect is limited and, if possible, we would like everything done in good order. I thank him in advance for that.

The Department has responded to the representations that were made to it, and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill addresses the needs of the people in Northern Ireland.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister provide written answers to the Members’ questions that he was unable to address today?

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

I advise the Minister to do so.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

My officials will review the debate and address any pertinent points. That is what I intended to convey in response to Mr Ford’s comment about receiving details in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (NIA 7/01) be agreed.

Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002

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

A Statutory Rule that is subject to affirmative resolution becomes law once the Assembly approves it.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR40/2002) be approved.

This is one of three similar Orders that relate to Northern Ireland’s main commercial trust ports of Belfast, Londonderry and Warrenpoint. I will speak less about the Londonderry and Warrenpoint Orders because my comments on the first Order will address many of the broad issues. The Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 will provide limited additional powers to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, within the constraints of the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, while securing improvements in public accountability.

Three years ago, the Department completed a major review of public trust ports in Northern Ireland, which paralleled a similar exercise in Great Britain. The main findings of the Northern Ireland review reinforced the strategic importance of public trust ports to the local economy. However, it also identified a need to extend the powers of such ports and to ease the existing financial controls under which they operate to enable them to compete more effectively and to meet the challenges ahead.

In parallel with that, the review considered what steps should be taken to improve the public accountability of all Northern Ireland trust ports. Since then, several developments, such as the lengthy consideration of the options for the future of the Port of Belfast, and the Committee for Regional Development’s inquiry into the Titanic Quarter leases, have influenced the legislative proposals that originated in the review. The Committee’s recommendations have contributed much to the final shaping of the three Orders, particularly as regards the public accountability of all harbour commissioners.

The Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 consists of 11 articles and two Schedules. Article 3 sets out general powers and duties of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. It provides that the commissioners may take such steps, as they consider necessary or expedient, for the improvement, maintenance and management of the port and its facilities. Those include providing port facilities, constructing, demolishing and altering structures in the port, lending money, maintaining reserves, investing surpluses, and anything that is necessary or expedient to facilitate the proper upkeep or development of the harbour.

However, those powers must be exercised in connection with port operations and do not constitute general powers to lend money or invest sums in unconnected matters.

Article 4(1) empowers the commissioners to retain for such time as they see fit any land that they have acquired and to dispose of any of their land that is no longer required for the harbour undertaking. The commissioners are empowered to effect such disposal under terms and conditions that they think fit. However, article 4(2) has been included in the Order to safeguard the public interest. That will ensure that the commissioners’ land disposal powers are exercised in accordance with the arrangements that the Department made and that they are set out in the memorandum of understanding that is already in place. Therefore, the Order will give legal force to that arrangement.

As Members are aware, the memorandum of understanding on the Harland & Wolff lands issue has proved valuable recently. As a result of the existence of the memorandum of understanding, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ dealings have been seen to be open and transparent, and the public interest has been duly safeguarded through my Department’s involvement.

Article 5(1) empowers the commissioners to

"form and promote a wholly-owned subsidiary for carrying on any activities which the Commissioners have power to carry on."

Those activities relate to harbour operations. Article 6(1) empowers the commissioners to borrow money on the security of their revenues and property. That brings the Port of Belfast into line with the situation that governs most major trust ports in Great Britain. Article 6(2) provides that the total amount of such borrowings must not exceed £45 million

"or such greater amount as may be approved by the Department in writing."

That figure was determined after professional advice was taken, and is based on the port’s profit-earning ratio. Article 6(4) makes it clear that such borrowings can be applied

"only to purposes to which capital money is properly applicable."

That is designed to prevent the commissioners from borrowing for revenue purposes under that article.

In contrast, article 7(1) empowers the commissioners to borrow temporarily for three months, by way of overdraft or otherwise, such sums as they may require to meet their obligations or to discharge their functions under any legislation.

Article 8(1) empowers the commissioners to license pleasure craft to be let to the public for trade or business, or to be used for carrying passengers for hire in the Port of Belfast. There is also power for the commissioners to license the boatmen or those assisting in the charge or navigation of pleasure craft.

Article 8(2) states that the commissioners may grant such licences for such periods as they think fit and may suspend or revoke licences when necessary or desirable in the public interest. Articles 9(1) to 9(5) make several consequential amendments to earlier Belfast Harbour Acts, which will be required as a result of making this Order. Article 9(6) introduces schedule 1 — the commissioners’ constitution — to the Order. That contains new provisions that relate to the constitution of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and their procedures and so forth. Schedule 1 re-enacts the existing constitution of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners but makes some important amendments. Paragraph 2(1) to schedule 1 states that the commissioners shall continue to be appointed by the head of the Department, who in this case is the Minister, but shall consist of not less than 10 and not more than 15 people. Paragraph 2(3)(a) requires that a commissioner

"shall hold office for a period of 4 years or such lesser period as the Department may determine but shall be eligible for re-appointment."

That has been increased from the previous three-year period to provide the Department with greater flexibility for succession planning and so forth.

Paragraph 3 states that up to four of the commissioners shall be members of Belfast City Council and shall be appointed by the Department after consultation with the council. They shall be eligible to serve for a period that is coterminous with their council membership.

Incidentally, I note that the Examiner of Statutory Rules, in his report, has drawn attention to the need to correct the spelling of "coterminous". I take responsibility for the idea, but not for the spelling in the Order. The Department has undertaken to make this amendment, and the others, as soon as possible.

The new constitution of the board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners provides for a significant increase in the number of elected representatives serving as commissioners. Previously, only one member of the council could be appointed to the board. The increase reflects one of the main recommendations in the Committee for Regional Development’s report on the Titanic Quarter leases. Assuming that the Order meets with the Assembly’s approval, the Department intends to secure the increase in the number of elected representatives as soon as is practicable.

Paragraph 5 applies section 18(2) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 to these appointments. It provides the Department with the power to remove, suspend, reappoint or reinstate commissioners. In my detailed consideration of the legislation, I gave considerable thought to the issue of the Department’s power to remove or suspend board members. However, following legal advice, I concluded that it was unnecessary to make any additional provision in the legislation at present.

I also draw Members’ attention to paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which sets out the experience required of persons who wish to be considered for appointment to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. At my request, this has been expanded to enable the Department to attract applicants with a wider range of interests when considering appointments to the board. I discussed the matter with the Committee because I had reached the conclusion that the narrow focus meant that it was almost impossible to appoint anyone who had not previously been a commissioner or who did not have direct interests in the harbour estate. Under the new provisions, relevant interests might include special knowledge of the local community area in which the port is located.

The Department intends to seek further nominations, with a view to filling these two important positions on the board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners as soon as the legislation is in place. Those positions will be additional to the three city council representatives.

Paragraph 7 provides the Department with new powers to appoint an official to attend meetings of the commissioners in an observation capacity. Any such official would not take part in the deliberations or decisions of the commissioners. This is a further measure to improve the public accountability of the trust ports, and it has been in operation on a voluntary basis for some time. I will review the arrangement once the number of elected representatives on each of the boards has been increased.

Paragraph 10(2) deals with conflicts of interest, and has been expanded to make it clear that, where a conflict of interest is identified, the commissioner involved should withdraw from the meeting and take no further part in the discussions about the contract or transaction. This accords with actual practice in each boardroom at present. Apart from those provisions, the constitution and procedure of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners remains as set out in schedule 1 to the Belfast Harbour Acts (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 1979.

Article 10 provides for section 23 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to cease to have effect. I am sure that all Members are acquainted with that legislation. That section restricted the commissioners to granting leases on property for a maximum of three years.

Article 11 of the Order details the statutory provisions that are required to be repealed or revoked to the extent stated in column 3 of schedule 2 to the Order. Extensive consultation has taken place on the Order with the harbour authority and other interested parties, including the city council and the Committee for Regional Development. The Department has incorporated several changes at the suggestion of the Committee. I have the impression that there is widespread support for the proposals.

The Order will secure a modest increase in the commissioners’ commercial powers, while providing for a significant number of measures to improve the organisation’s public accountability. More extensive change is planned, but that will require primary legislation. To that end, I hope to publish a short harbours Bill later this year. In the meantime I commend the Belfast Harbour Order to the Assembly.

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

On behalf of the Committee for Regional Development I welcome and support this Order and the two further Orders that will be debated shortly. The Minister has explained carefully and clearly the reason for this legislation and has outlined the main powers of the Belfast Harbour Order. The Committee has considered the Order carefully and has agreed unanimously that it is a useful and helpful piece of secondary legislation. It is important that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners can carry out successfully their fiduciary responsibilities to ensure that Belfast and other trust ports are properly and profitably managed.

Many successful commercial ventures require substantial borrowing. The legislation will provide the commissioners with the scope to increase their borrowing for the development and modernisation of operations, subject to the regulation specified in the Order and the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

The Committee particularly welcomes the proposed increase in Belfast City Council’s representation on the Belfast harbour board. Members will recall that increased representation of local councillors in each of the trust ports was one of the main recommendations to emerge from the Committee’s public inquiry on the Titanic Quarter lease — the Minister has already referred to that. The Committee believes that this safeguard improves the public accountability of the trust port, which is important because the Order increases significantly the borrowing limits of the commissioners. The safeguard will also allow for close scrutiny of any commercial transactions to ensure that they are in line with the duties of the commissioners.

The Committee for Regional Development is also aware that public accountability has been reinforced by the memorandum of understanding agreed by the Department for Regional Development and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, which requires the commissioners to consult the Department about any proposed changes to land use. The Minister’s statement earlier today on the proposed renegotiated lease for 80 acres of harbour land between Harland & Wolff and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners provides a clear example of the importance of the memorandum of understanding.

The need for clear and open public accountability cannot be understated. The fact that the Minister has made a statement to the House regarding the proposed land deal between Harland & Wolff and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners illustrates that he recognises the importance that the Assembly attaches to what is an important public asset to Northern Ireland. I do not apologise, therefore, for wishing to see that all our trust ports are scrutinised closely and properly to ensure that those entrusted with managing these valuable assets are acting in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.

The Committee for Regional Development believes that the public accountability of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners can be further enhanced. The Minister proposes to introduce a harbours Bill that will strengthen the Department’s powers. There has been some slippage in introducing this legislation, and I ask the Minister to give that a high priority.

During the Committee’s inquiry into the Titantic Quarter lease it was discovered that many trust ports in Britain are covered by a good governance guide — in other words a code of practice.

In its report to the Assembly, the Committee recommended that the Department should seek to introduce a similar guide. The Committee believed that this would provide a framework, setting out standards of independence, openness and accountability. The Committee also stated at that time that such a guide should specify clear procedures to ensure that both the Department and the Committee are kept informed of all key business activities.

I am aware that the Department has given a commitment to introduce a code of practice, and it would be useful if the Minister could advise whether that code is already in place, or when he expects it to be introduced. The code, along with the Belfast Harbour Order, the memorandum of understanding and the harbours Bill, will provide an effective and comprehensive framework for ensuring clear public accountability for the Port of Belfast and, indeed, all our trust ports.

I do not want to repeat the points that I have just made when considering the subsequent Orders that will come before the House; they will be taken as read in relation to the other Orders. I reiterate the Committee’s support for these Orders.

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

I too welcome the Order presented by the Minister, and, as a Member of the Regional Development Committee, I echo what the Chairperson has just stated. One of the good things to happen since devolution is that Belfast harbour has not been privatised. We know that the previous Northern Ireland Office Administration intended to privatise it. The Assembly has demonstrated its commitment to keeping all the trust ports within the trust port framework. I welcome the fact that the trust ports will now have increased commercial freedom, which will allow them to engage in more port-related development, particularly because they will now have increased borrowing powers and limits.

The key question that concerned members of the Regional Development Committee, and those on the previous Ad Hoc Belfast Harbour Committee, was public accountability. That aspect has been duly considered, and the provision for increased councillor representation on each of the trust ports — four for Belfast and three each for Warrenpoint and Londonderry — is to be welcomed. I also welcome the fact that the memorandum of understanding has been agreed and implemented in relation to Belfast harbour, which, I hope, will mean better formal mechanisms and procedures with regard to the relationship between the Department and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. In the past there was unease and concern, about how trust port harbour commissioners may have operated as semi-independent organisations. Given that they are trust ports, it is important that public accountability is transparent. I welcome the fact that there will be a tenure of four years’ service for those district councillors appointed as commissioners.

All members of the Committee were concerned that Belfast harbour should not be allowed to develop on its own in a monopoly position. It is good that we have proposals for both Warrenpoint and Londonderry harbours today. As someone who lives in the west, 75 miles from Belfast, I am acutely aware of the importance of having more than one viable trust port in Northern Ireland. If we are serious about achieving a balanced regional and economic development throughout Northern Ireland, it is important that Warrenpoint and Londonderry ports are allowed to have the capacity and capability to become more successful and more relevant to their hinterlands.

I largely welcome the proposal by the Minister. I hope that the trust ports will be allowed to develop and contribute to the greater economic development of Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I need comment only briefly. I thank Members for their positive contributions. I welcome the helpful views of the Committee for Regional Development, which will see its thumbprint on the Order and on some of the changes that it will bring about. The Committee Chairperson, Alban Maginness, was right to highlight the importance of improving public accountability, which he said would become all the more important in the light of the additional powers to be conferred by the Order and the extra borrowing facility that it allows. He also highlighted the importance of the memorandum of understanding. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners can regard positively the existing memorandum of understanding, which has worked well in the public’s interest and protects the commissioners. It has been seen to provide a welcome level of transparency in the Harland & Wolff lands issue. Mr Byrne made that point also.

The Chairperson is correct to state that the main purpose of the short harbours Bill is to improve the accountability of the main commercial trust ports by requiring them to adopt a code of practice and to supply information to the Department. The Department also proposed to incorporate in this Bill a power of general direction to safeguard the public interest. I confirm that the code has been drafted; the Department will consult on it later this year.

Mr Byrne highlighted the possibility that if powers were given only to the Port of Belfast, it would fall out of kilter with the other trust ports; that is recognised. I visited the Warrenpoint and Londonderry ports and was impressed by their performance. I wish all three trust ports every success in the operation of the new powers, which I hope that the Assembly will affirm that they should have.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR40/2002) be approved.

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

I remind Members that at 2.30 pm we will have to interrupt business for Question Time.

Warrenpoint Harbour Authority Order (Northern Ireland) 2002

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR42/2002) be approved.

Many of the provisions in the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority Order are identical to those in the Belfast Harbour Order. Therefore, I propose to restrict my remarks to the key differences between the two Statutory Instruments. First, as with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, Warrenpoint Harbour Authority has concluded with the Department a memorandum of understanding as regards its harbour land. The memorandum came into effect on 1 March 2002, and a copy of the document has been placed in the Assembly Library.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

As in the case with the Port of Belfast, article 4(2) of the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority Order will give legal force to the arrangements set out in the memorandum of understanding with the Department. As with the Belfast Harbour Order, article 6(1) empowers the authority to borrow money upon the security of the revenues and the property of the harbour authority.

However, article 6(2) provides that the total amount of such borrowings must not exceed £2·5 million, or such greater amount as may be approved by the Department in writing. That lower amount reflects the smaller scale of the Warrenpoint harbour operation relative to Belfast harbour. The other borrowing provisions are similar.

Article 9(2) introduces schedule 1 to the Order, which contains new provisions relating to the constitution and procedures of the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority. Schedule 1 of the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 differs from the Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 in the following respects.

Paragraph 2(1) states:

"The Authority shall consist of not less than 8 and not more than 12 persons".

In the case of Belfast, the range is 10 to 15, reflecting its larger scale.

Paragraph 2(3) requires that

"a member of the Authority … shall hold office for a period of 4 years or such lesser period as the Department may determine but shall be eligible for re-appointment."

That has been changed from the previous three-year fixed term to provide greater flexibility.

Paragraph 3 states:

"A maximum of three of the persons appointed [to the Authority] shall be members of the Newry and Mourne District Council [and shall be] appointed by the Department following consultation with the Council."

That represents a significant increase in the number of elected representatives serving on the authority, as previously only one member of the council could be appointed.

Article 10 of the Order provides for the repeal or revocation of certain statutory provisions relating to Warrenpoint Harbour Authority, as set out in column 3 of schedule 2 of the Order.

Those are the main differences, and as with the Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002, I commend the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 to the Assembly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I call Mr McGrady. We have a short period only before Question Time, and therefore it is likely that his speech will be interrupted. He will be able to continue after Question Time.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome this new initiative by the Department for Regional Development. It is important that the trust port of Warrenpoint should be made as viable as possible. It is an important contributor to the economic well-being of Warrenpoint and the surrounding district for employment and the general commerce engendered by the use of the port.

The three main features of the Orders are in common, and I do not intend to go into detail on each of them. The disposal of land is of academic interest to Warrenpoint Harbour Authority. Its concern is to try to acquire any piece of land in order to create a new deep-water facility, which, if not made available in the not-too-distant future, would put it in a much less competitive situation than at present. The authority has been exceptionally well run, and I compliment the board on the carrying out of its duties.

I welcome the enlargement of public representation on the harbour authority to provide the openness and accountability that has been referred to by other Members. The Minister said that a maximum of three members — presumably elected members — of Newry and Mourne District Council could be part of the new board. The Order uses the word "maximum". Is it the intention of the Minister and the Department to appoint the maximum number?

The Minister said that the board’s membership would range from eight to 12. It would be appropriate that one third or one quarter, depending on the representation, should be from the publicly elected Newry and Mourne District Council. That openness and accountability is important for the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority. I recall the difficulty in communication and the misunderstandings between the authority and the community in Warrenpoint regarding the proposed deep-water facility. Had that openness and accountability been there —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I must interrupt the Member. However, he will be able to resume his speech after Question Time.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I had started to make a few comments about the Order when I was interrupted. However, I warmly welcome the motion.

It is important that trust harbours are clearly accountable to the public. That will be achieved by the proposal for Warrenpoint harbour to have a maximum of three members from Newy and Mourne District Council as potential members of the new board. In his opening remarks on the Order, the Minister indicated that the board will have a membership of between eight and 12. In case the question that I put to the Minister became confused during my aborted attempts to ask it, I will ask it again. Will he recommend to the Department that the maximum of three members will mean three members elected from Newry and Mourne District Council? I presume that, theoretically, there could just be one or two. I simply want that clarified. Given that the possible membership spread is from eight to 12, it would be appropriate to have a commensurate number of non-council appointees with some specialism on the board.

The reason that the board is so important to the local community is given in the regional development strategy, which the Minister is also responsible for: it is one of the regional gateways referred to, and that attribute must be enhanced as far as possible.

The Minister will be aware of the tremendous difficulties that the harbour board and the community have had in trying to ensure the future of the port by way of a deep-water facility. Perhaps, on reflection and with hindsight, if there had been openness and accountability at that time, the misunderstandings that arose and contributed to the non-fulfilment of the deep-water provision would not have happened. That is an urgent matter. I welcome the extension of borrowing power for Warrenpoint harbour from a paltry £10,000 to a magnificent £2·5 million. However, the cost of a deep-water provision will be between £10 million and £12 million.

Much material grant money comes between maximum borrowing and that type of expenditure. However, I know that the Department can extend the borrowing range. I am sure that the Minister will note my enthusiasm and that of my South Down Colleagues for the future of the harbour.

The Minister said that the Department appoints an observer. That has been traditional to date; it grew up by custom and practice. However, subtly, or perhaps not so subtly, the Order makes it a statutory requirement for the Department to have an observer at a board meeting. If the board so desired, would it be possible for it to meet in private and not have the departmental appraiser, if that is what he or she will be called, present? That is not clear from the Order. It smacks a little of a spy in the camp. I hope that that was not the intention, because there have been, and are, good relationships between the Department and the board through the observer. Clarification of that issue would be appropriate.

Other Members wish to speak, and time is short. I welcome the broad thrust of the Order. Perhaps the Minister will have time to answer my two questions during his winding-up speech. If not, he will undoubtedly do me the courtesy of writing me a letter, as he always does.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I welcome the legislation. I apologise in advance to the Minister because, although I will be able to speak for a few moments, I will be unable to stay for his summation. There is a ministerial visit to Down district today, which I must attend.

I particularly welcome the increase in the local representation on the board. When vacancies arose on the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority last year, there were 30 applications for just two posts, which indicates the level of interest in working with the authority. There will be no difficulty whatsoever in filling the extra positions. Warrenpoint harbour is an important employer in the town, and we wish it well in its expansion plans.

However, a difficult balancing act must be achieved between the need to expand the port, which everyone recognises, and the need to maintain the unique character of Warrenpoint. Inevitably, that causes conflict. Having additional local government representatives will help in striking the balance that must be achieved between two apparently conflicting arguments. I understand that, already, some councillors in the area have not been hiding behind the bushes in suggesting that they might be appropriate for such positions. I have found the recently appointed council representative on the authority extremely responsive and helpful, which augurs well for any future appointments.

I welcome the increase in the borrowing powers but, as Mr McGrady said, Warrenpoint Harbour Authority’s problems will not be solved even by those new generous terms. The provision of deep-water facilities in a way that is acceptable to the community will be extremely expensive, and the harbour will require his support, and that of the Department, if those facilities are to be realised.

I take a different view from Mr McGrady about the position of the person whom he implied to be the Department’s "spy" who sits in on board meetings. I have found the Department’s representative extremely helpful in all the negotiations associated with Warrenpoint Harbour Authority. He has helped to oil the wheels of government and to make them more responsive to the authority’s needs, rather than acting as a spy or trying to slow down the authority’s work.

Apart from those minor comments, the legislation is to be welcomed. It gives Warrenpoint Harbour Authority more flexibility and will move the port’s work forward into the twenty-first century. Other difficulties still remain, of which the Minister is aware, but they are not relevant to this legislation. I give it my full support.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

The time set for this debate is running out quite quickly. Mr Bradley, perhaps a brief contribution?

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

Rather than elaborate on earlier speeches, I shall ask only questions. In the event of Warrenpoint Harbour Authority identifying land suitable for its needs in Warrenpoint or nearby, what level of pre-purchase valuation or approval will be required from the Department for Regional Development before completion of a purchase? My experience with Newry and Mourne District Council’s attempt to purchase land in Warrenpoint led me to ask that question. Officials, correctly, included pre-purchase clauses. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a private developer offered more money, and the property was denied to the council.

Will the powers permit Warrenpoint Harbour Authority to negotiate with the Crown Commission in regard to the purchase or lease of land or property owned by the Crown?

My third and final question relates to the locality. Can the Minister assure the operators of the Warrenpoint to Omeath passenger ferries that the Order will in no way interfere with their operations?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I understand that time is running out, and I want to answer some of the questions that have been raised, both before and after Question Time.

Mr McGrady referred to the key issue of sustainability. He and Mr Wells referred to the importance of Warrenpoint port as an employer. I agree that its role in the local economy is important.

Reference was made to the academic power to dispose of land. Although at present Warrenpoint Harbour Authority may wish to procure land, the circumstances might change in the future. The provision is there should the need arise. I agree that the board deserves its complement of elected representatives. During my visit I was impressed by the work it had performed, and I was happy to look around the port facilities.

I confirm that I intend to appoint the maximum number of elected representatives to the authority, after consultation with Newry and Mourne District Council. I understand that the Department of the Environment must have a formal resolution from the council before the council’s name can be changed. That will require another amendment to our legislation. However, none of that should impact on the appointments, and we will look for the council to provide us expeditiously with the additional names.

With respect to the borrowing range, Mr McGrady pointed out that it had increased from a paltry £10,000 to £2·5 million. However, there should be no rush to the shops. I understand the nature of the individuals concerned, and the matter will be dealt with prudently and responsibly.

Mr Wells said that the departmental observer should not be considered a spy. The harbour authorities consider him a friend and ally rather than a spy, and that is how it should be. As Mr McGrady said, it is not a statutory requirement. Schedule 1, paragraph 7, states that the Department

"may appoint one of its officials".

The Department is empowered, but there is no requirement upon it. As with Belfast harbour, now that there will be more elected representatives, I intend to review that issue. I understand, however, that our representative on that board has performed a very useful function. As a former Secretary of State said, we will look at it "in the round" as soon as the necessary additional appointments have been made.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 42/2002) be approved.

Londonderry Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the Londonderry Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 41/2002) be approved.

Many of the provisions in the Londonderry Harbour Order are identical to those in the Belfast and Warrenpoint Orders, so I will restrict my remarks to the key differences in the Statutory Instruments.

Like the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority, the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners have agreed a memorandum of understanding on their harbour lands with the Department. The memorandum came into effect on 1 March 2002, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library. As with the Belfast Order, article 4(2) of the Londonderry Order will give legal force to the arrangements set out in the memorandum of understanding.

Article 6(1) empowers the commissioners to borrow money upon the security of their revenues and property. However, article 6(2) provides that the total amount of such borrowing must not

"exceed £2,500,000 million or such greater amount as may be approved by the Department in writing."

As with the Warrenpoint Order, the lower amount reflects the smaller scale of the Londonderry port operations relative to those in Belfast. Again, the borrowing provisions are similar.

Article 9 introduces schedule 1 to the Order, which contains new provisions for the constitution of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners and the procedures of the commissioners.

Schedule 1 of the Londonderry Order differs from the Belfast Order. Paragraph 2(1) states that the board of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners

"shall consist of not less than 8 and not more than 12 persons".

The board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners has between 10 and 15 persons.

Paragraph 2(3)(a) states that a commissioner

"shall hold office for a period of 4 years or such lesser period as the Department may determine but shall be eligible for re-appointment."

To provide greater flexibility, that was changed from the previous three-year fixed term.

Paragraph 3 states that a maximum of three of the commissioners shall be members of the city council and, as with the Warrenpoint Order, shall be appointed following consultation with the council. However, that still represents a significant increase in the number of elected representatives to serve on the board because previously only one elected representative, my hon Friend, Mr Hay, has been a member of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners.

Article 11 provides for the repeal or revocation of certain statutory provisions peculiar to Londonderry port, as set out in column 3 of schedule 2 of the Order.

I commend the Londonderry Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 to the Assembly.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s announcement about the Statutory Rule for the Londonderry Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002. That three members of Derry City Council are eligible to serve as commissioners is welcome. It may mean that, for the first time, a woman from Derry City Council will serve as a commissioner.

I welcome the borrowing powers, which are similar to those for Belfast and Warrenpoint. Commissioners will also be able to make decisions about infrastructure, to issue licences for pleasure crafts and to take such decisions that they feel are in the best interests of local people.

It is also welcome to see that "pleasure crafts" refers to any vessel not exceeding 100 tonnes gross and that any unlicensed craft will not be allowed to operate.

I would like clarification on two points to which the Minister has referred. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 states:

"The quorum required for a meeting of the Commissioners shall be four."

Paragraph 10(2) states that if a commissioner feels that he has any interest, directly or indirectly, it should be recorded in the minutes and he should withdraw from the meeting. Paragraph 10(3) states that if a commissioner has been prohibited from participating in the meeting but stays, a quorum will not be formed and his deliberations will be disregarded. Why is that? The practice is at variance with that in any other boards in that a member can remain while a decision is being taken although he has no pecuniary interest.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I welcome the debate. We have come a long way, especially if we recall 1998 when reviews of trust ports in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain were being carried out in parallel. As the Minister said earlier, the findings of the review reinforced the importance of local trust ports to Northern Ireland’s economy. Mr Gordon Brown then announced the sale of Belfast port to get some money for infrastructure. It has not been easy to get the harbour Orders to the Floor of the Assembly.

We should thank the officials who have worked hard under difficult circumstances to produce the Orders. All trust ports in Northern Ireland welcome the extra powers, and there is no question about the significance of the ports to Northern Ireland: their importance to the economy cannot be overstated. Until now, the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners have been able to borrow only £350,000 for the port in Londonderry. The new Order will enable them to borrow £2·5 million. That is a huge increase and will be of great help in deciding what needs to be done.

I declare an interest because, as the Minister mentioned, I am a member of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners. Trust ports have played a significant and positive role in sustaining regional and economic development in Northern Ireland for many years.

A modern, effective port infrastructure will need continual investment to deliver high-quality port-related services. Given the significance of trust ports to our economy, it is important that we extend their powers to ensure that they can compete effectively with those outside Northern Ireland. They must act more commercially; develop a range of business activities; enter into joint ventures; and, most of all, access competitive finance and safeguard the public interest. Generally, trust ports in Northern Ireland have been more accountable than those in Great Britain. In Londonderry there has been a good working relationship between the council and the port.

The port officers and commissioners have kept the council informed of the three-year and five-year financial and economic plans. That role is important. When the new harbour Orders are finally in place, it is important that an understanding exists between the local authority and the ports. Where possible, trust ports such as Belfast, Warrenpoint and Londonderry should meet with councils to work in partnership on three-year and five-year plans. The trust ports should meet councils at least twice a year to update them on their economic plans. That is one way to achieve the proper accountability that the trusts ports in Northern Ireland must show.

Trust ports have stood the test of time and continue to perform a valuable role in supporting the local economy. The memorandum of understanding has been mentioned several times. We now have an understanding between the harbour authorities and the Department. For many years, trust ports have wanted to improve their public accountability. Moreover, there is a desire to protect the assets of the ports, as that is in the public interest.

I welcome what has been achieved in the House this afternoon, and I thank everyone concerned. The Committee for Regional Development —

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Order. The Member must bring his remarks to a close as we are running out of time.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

The subject of extra powers for trust ports has eluded members of the Committee for Regional Development for some time. We all worked well to achieve today’s outcome.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to those who contributed generally positive comments in all three debates on the new port Orders.

I am unsure whether I understood what Mrs Courtney was attempting to query about procedures for disclosure and withdrawal. I am clear that, as it appears in the Order, it would be common practice for someone with an interest in a matter that comes before the harbour authority to declare it and leave the meeting. A person who leaves the meeting will not participate in the procedures and should therefore not be counted as part of the quorum. Those who will participate in the decision-making process should form the quorum. Having increased the number of commissioners, it should not be hard to sustain a quorum.

I shall be delighted if the council includes a woman in its list of representatives. The Londonderry Port and Harbour Authority has taken a lead in that matter by appointing Mary Breslin as its chairperson. Those who have worked with her recognise that she is a very competent chairperson.

My hon Friend Mr Hay spoke about the working relationship among district councils — I suspect that he means in all three port areas — and the harbour authorities. I agree entirely. We wish that relationship to become closer.

There have been varying degrees of co-operation in each area, and, happily, it has been improving in all three areas. I hope that it will continue to do so.

The additional elected representatives will help to improve that relationship. However, Mr Hay will be aware that I intend to bring forward an additional piece of legislation — a short harbours Bill. The Department is already preparing that piece of legislation, and part of it addresses adopting a code of practice and providing information for the Department. He and his colleagues on the Committee may well have views on issues relating to the interrelationship between councils and the ports when we deal with that piece of legislation.

Overall, I am delighted that the Assembly has taken the attitude that it has to these three Orders. The Port of Belfast, Warrenpoint and Londonderry operate in an extremely competitive environment. Members will be aware that competition comes not simply from the private sector in Northern Ireland, but also from the Republic of Ireland ports. The Republic has much more flexible arrangements than we have had in Northern Ireland. This will assist our ports to be more competitive and give them the ability to borrow and invest money. Many people will recognise that this will assist them in how they handle their business. I am also sure that Members will welcome the memorandum of understanding that has been agreed by all three ports. This ensures that there is a close understanding between my Department and the ports when there is any disposal of land.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Londonderry Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 41/2002) be approved.

Social Security Statutory Rules Subject to Confirmatory Resolution

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

As the next four motions relate to social security Statutory Rules subject to confirmatory resolution, I propose to conduct one debate only. I shall ask the Minister for Social Development to move the first motion, and debate will then take place on all four motions. When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall call the Minister to make his winding-up speech and then put the question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Minister to move each motion in turn and separately put the question on each motion without further debate.

I remind Members that a Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution is already law, but will cease to have effect unless approved by the Assembly within a specified period. The following Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution was made on 13 March 2002 and will expire on 1 October 2002 unless approved by the Assembly.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 99/2002) be approved.

The following motions also stood in the Order Paper:

That the Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 441/2001) be approved. — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Dodds).]

That the Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 79/2002) be approved. — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Dodds).]

That the Social Security and Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 164/2002) be approved. — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Dodds).]

An uprating Order is made annually to increase rates of contributory and non-contributory benefits, together with the various premiums that form part of the income-related benefits. As usual, the increases are based on changes to the relevant price indicators over the 12 months ending in September. Most social security benefits rise in the usual way, in line with the retail price index, which this year is 1·7%. Income-related benefits — income support, housing benefit and income-based jobseeker’s allowance — are increased in line with the Rossi index, which is also 1·7% this year. Pensions and bereavement benefits are increased by more than that percentage.

It is important to look at the uprating measures as part of the wider pensions strategy. The basic state pension is, and will remain, the foundation of pensioner incomes. This year it has risen again — by £3 for single pensioners and £4·80 for couples — and on top of last year’s increases, that makes a total rise of 7% above the rate of inflation. Future rises in the basic state pension will be at least £100 a year for single pensioners and at least £160 a year for couples. Increases to the basic state pension alone would not be sufficient to tackle pensioner poverty. The minimum income guarantee has been radically improved, benefiting many pensioners. From April this year, a guarantee for a single pensioner has increased by £6 to £98·15 a week.

The standard rate of maternity allowance, as statutory maternity pay, has increased from £62·20 to £75 a week. Next year, maternity benefit will rise again to £100 a week. More has also been done for families with children. Child benefit and the income support allowances for children, which provide real help to families on low incomes, have been increased. Extra money is being paid to low-income families with a disabled child. This year, it has increased by a further £5 on top of the normal uprating to a new rate of £35·50 a week. Next year, it will rise again by a further £5 above inflation to more than £40 a week, benefiting a large number of children who need that help. It will also help families on low incomes, both in and out of work. The Order increases rates of benefit in line with inflation and provides additional help for those who need it most.

I now turn to the Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001. The Social Security Act 1986 and corresponding Northern Ireland Order provided for a reduction in the amount of state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS) that a surviving spouse could inherit from his or her late spouse from 100% to 50%. This change, which was due to take effect from April 2000, was designed to bring SERPS into line with practice in non-state pension schemes, where it is usual for only half the pension rights to be inherited by the surviving spouse. The intention was that people would have the long lead-in period to make alternative provision, if they felt it necessary to do so.

In 1998-99, it came to light that several people felt that they had been misled due to incomplete advice in pensions leaflets, while others contacted the Benefits Agency in Great Britain and the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland to argue that they had been given misleading advice. In response to those concerns, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000 provided for the reduction to 50% to be deferred until 6 October 2002. As a result, no one widowed before 6 October 2002 will be affected by the reduction.

The Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 provide additional protection for the spouses of those at or near pensionable age and of those who attain pensionable age before 6 October 2010. Under the Regulations, the spouse of a person who reaches pensionable age before 6 October 2002 will be able to inherit up to 100% SERPS. The spouse of someone who attains pensionable age between 6 October 2002 and 5 October 2010 will have his or her inherited SERPS protected at a rate between 90% and 60%, depending on when the spouse reaches pensionable age.

The objective has been to devise a system that makes the transition to 50% inherited SERPS fair and recognises the fact that the amount someone must save to make up for the reduction increases the closer that person is to pensionable age. The Regulations provide such a system.

I now turn to the third Order before the House — the Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002. My Department spends over £3 billion each year on social security. It is our duty to ensure that the system is secure from both fraud and error, so that the right money goes to the right people at the right time. Members are well aware of the problem of social security fraud. During the debates on last year’s Social Security Fraud Bill, Members across the Assembly signified their support for measures to tackle this problem.

The Social Security Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, which received Royal Assent last November, introduced several powers to support the overall strategy of safeguarding social security.

The Regulations provide the detail for one of those measures. The loss of benefit provisions form part of the continuing welfare reform programme. They build on one of the key recommendations in the report by Lord Grabiner on the informal economy that was published in March 2000. For the vast majority of people who cheat on benefits, their first conviction is their last. However, for those who continue to offend, it is appropriate that an offence should be brought into play.

The Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 introduces powers that will provide a deterrent to those who are considering committing further benefit offences. The Regulations will ensure that there is an effective deterrent to dissuade those who are subject to a first conviction for a benefit offence from reoffending, provided that where a sanction must be applied, it is done in a uniform manner across all sanctionable benefits and that the level of the sanction applied is based on experience gained from other areas of the Department that are tried and tested.

The Regulations ensure that a non-resident parent’s responsibilities continue to be met by deducting child support payments before a sanction is applied. That sanction is enforced even when an offender tries to hide behind a partner by swapping benefit claims. That occurs in the case of a joint claim where an attempt is made to change the name of the primary claimant.

The Regulations provide for related passport benefits to continue when a sanction is applied and the availability of fallback provisions to protect the vulnerable, and those dependent on them, by providing a scheme that is a close reflection of the hardship scheme that already operates for labour market sanctions. Finally, they ensure that a sanction to benefit cannot be avoided by merely stopping and restarting a claim to benefit.

The Regulations are not disproportionate. They are consistent across the board and introduce a fixed 13-week disqualification period. The Regulations are part of the overall strategy of tackling fraud and rebuilding confidence in the welfare state.

The Social Security and Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 make some technical amendments to various sets of Regulations governing child support to prepare for the introduction of the new simpler child support scheme. The package also includes some small amendments to the current scheme that are designed to protect the interests of parents who find themselves in certain specific circumstances.

Under the current rules it is possible to depart from the standard formula assessment in certain circumstances. One of the circumstances in which a departure direction can be given is where a party to the maintenance assessment has an asset worth more than £10,000 that is capable of producing income but is not being used to do so. The Regulations amend the current scheme so that certain payments made under the compensation scheme for victims, and the families of victims of variant CJD, will not be regarded as assets for the purposes of a departure direction. A corresponding amendment is being made in respect of the variation scheme that will replace departures under the new scheme. Those payments are made in recognition of the pain and suffering endured by the victims of that terrible disease, and by their families, and are intended to help reduce any financial hardship that they may face.

A further current scheme amendment concerns the calculation of the exempt income figure. That represents the income that parents need for their personal expenses, and it also includes allowances for any of their children living with them. Therefore, it is not taken into account when making a maintenance assessment.

The Regulations further provide for an amount equivalent to the enhanced disability premium to be included in a parent’s exempt income calculation. It applies where either that parent or the child would, if he or she were on income support, satisfy the conditions for payment of the premium. It is important that we should provide protection for those clients who will continue to be subject to the current rules for some time yet.

Many of the amendments to the new scheme Regulations make minor technical corrections or serve to reflect the intended detail of the new scheme legislation, and I do not intend to elaborate on them.

In conclusion, the Regulations make small, but important, changes to the current child support scheme and ensure that the new scheme will work fairly and effectively, so that maintenance can be sorted out quickly and children will see the benefit of maintenance payments.

Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

I support all four of the amendments. The uprating of benefits is welcome. It will ensure that benefits for people on the breadline will be increased in line with inflation, which will help them to meet their daily expenses. I welcome the softening of the blow as regards the state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS) Regulations.

The Minister’s point about the loss of social security benefit is correct. It is essential that the right people receive benefits. The people who defraud the system take benefits from those who need them the most, and sanctions should be imposed on them. People must fulfil their responsibility to pay child support. The Statutory Rules are confirmatory, therefore parity of legislation principles dictate that they must be introduced, otherwise the whole social security benefits system in Northern Ireland will be upset. On that basis alone, we support their introduction.

It is interesting that the champions of the unemployed and claimants of disability living allowance (DLA) are nowhere to be seen today. That shows how much they really care about unemployed people; they merely grandstand.

This side of the House welcomes the Statutory Rules and hopes that they will benefit the people of Northern Ireland.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I concur with Mr O’Connor’s comments. The Minister has set worthwhile objectives, which we all support and wish to be realised. I welcome the report and the fact that the scheme will protect DLA recipients. I also welcome the new rules to deal with habitual defrauders. People who make one mistake will not have their money taken off them, but those who continue to defraud will be penalised.

Will the legislation help people who have received compensation for car accidents, as a result of which their health has been affected? Will they be able to keep their compensation? Will it affect the benefits to which they are entitled?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The debate has been brief. However, I shall explain the subordinate legislation.

I welcome the comments made by Mr O’Connor and Mr Shannon. The legislation is mainly technical, but it addresses issues that affect vulnerable and needy people, many of whom look to the Assembly to introduce the correct structures and the appropriate level of benefits.

I will respond in writing to Mr Shannon’s question. I welcome the fact that some Members have consistently shown an interest in the matter, as proven by their presence here today. Mr O’Connor, as a member of the Social Development Committee, is consistent on these matters. I am sure that he sometimes wonders why Members who are vocal on these issues in other areas are not present when these matters come before the House. That question is a matter for them, and no doubt their constituents will address it to them in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR99/2002) be approved.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

The second Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution was made on 31 December 2001 and will expire on 6 April 2003 unless approved by the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR441/2001) be approved.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

The third Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution was made on 6 March 2002 and will expire on 1 October 2002 unless approved by the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR79/2002) be approved.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

The fourth Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution was made on 29 April 2002 and will expire on 30 October 2002 unless approved by the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Social Security and Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR164/2002) be approved.

Committee for Employment and Learning: Change of Membership

Committee for Education: Change of Membership

Report by the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on its inquiry into ‘Preparation for the next Phase of the Rural Development Programme 2001-2006’ (2/01/R), and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to implement those recommendations relevant to her Department.

The Committee decided on the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s rural development programme as its subject for inquiry for several reasons. Most Committee members, and many other Members, have had some dealings with earlier phases of the programme. Therefore we were interested in the commitments made in the Programme for Government and in the Department’s public service agreement to implement a new phase of rural development actions in 2001. Importantly, the Committee was conscious that good scrutiny involves following up on promises and commitments made by Departments to ensure that they have been carried out.

It was this concern to engage in good scrutiny that led the Committee to agree the inquiry’s terms of reference as a follow-up on several issues highlighted in the Public Accounts Committee’s report on the rural development programme. The Committee had no wish to rake over criticisms of earlier phases of the programme. However, Members felt that it was important to find out whether lessons had been learnt and good practice developed and implemented by the Department and by those agents involved in delivering other parts of the programme on the Department’s behalf.

The Committee decided to concentrate on three main issues from the Public Accounts Committee’s report: participation, project appraisal and rationalisation of programmes. In addition, we decided to take a brief look at the resources assigned to deliver the programme. The inquiry was not an attempt to investigate the whole programme or the reasons behind it. As elected representatives in rural constituencies, Committee members welcome all investment in rural areas, and the £80 million to £100 million quoted by the Department is worth having.

Rural development groups throughout the country have done much good work, and the Committee applauds those who have worked hard and given of their time to make things happen for the benefit of others. Therefore we did not go into the overall policy. We concerned ourselves only with certain aspects of the programme’s delivery. Our hope is that the recommendations in the Committee’s report, which I ask the Assembly to endorse, will help to ensure that public expenditure is properly targeted, made available to those who are most in need and protected by good appraisal practices.

Of the three issues, participation was of primary interest to Committee members. The Public Accounts Committee asked the Department and the Rural Development Council — two of the main delivery organisations — to ensure that under-represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed participate fully in the new programme. The Committee felt that full participation was a fundamental requirement in a programme that sought to help the whole rural community. Members were keen to see the inclusion of farmers and their families. Although we recognised that the rural development programme is aimed at the whole rural community, members believed that the farming sector deserved special attention, considering its many recent difficulties. The Assembly has often debated those difficulties, and I do not need to repeat them today. We were told that audits and evaluations of the earlier programmes showed that farmers had not been involved as much as might have been expected, and Committee members felt that it was important for farmers to get a fair crack of the whip this time.

Members had no difficulty with the Department’s definition of participation, which includes administration of programmes, membership of partnership groups and direct involvement in projects. However, the Committee concluded that all these must be measured to ensure that the target groups were getting their fair share of funds and participating as they should.

The Committee also expected to see clear statements of intent from the Department and its agents regarding participation backed up by appropriate action. The Committee’s inquiry showed that the Department had stated its intention to encourage the participation of the farming community and other groups who had not benefited fully from earlier programmes. That was clear from the Department’s published strategy, numerous documents, and the Department’s written and oral evidence to the inquiry. It was also clear that the Rural Development Council and the rural community network had similar objectives. However, the Committee found that there were weaknesses in the Department’s preparation for, and implementation of, the new programme, and that those weaknesses had resulted in obstacles to farmers’ involvement.

To be fair, the Committee welcomed much of what the Department had done, such as making farm businesses and co-operatives eligible for funding for the first time and involving farmers when promoting the programme. However, it found that farmers, unlike community groups, had little access to assistance in the early stages of group development. The Committee was disappointed that the Department did not have targets for farmer participation and was not prepared to give a higher score to projects that came from under-represented groups when applying the selection criteria.

The Committee has made 12 recommendations to address the issues. Those include that the two divisions of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development co-operate to provide early development services to farmers’ groups; provision of form-completion assistance to farmers ring-fencing of funds for the target groups and for projects that take longer to develop; and full monitoring of the uptake of grant aid made by the target groups.

The Committee’s main criticisms concern the issue of full participation. However, Members believe that they have been constructive in their criticisms, and they have suggested solutions that should go a long way towards removing the weaknesses found.

The Committee was also keen to ensure that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development honoured its project appraisal commitments as that had been an area of major concern to the Public Accounts Committee.

(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Following the Committee’s inquiry, members were pleased to conclude that the Department had taken action to ensure that satisfactory appraisal procedures were in place. However, the Committee’s 11 recommendations on project appraisal — particularly those on scrutiny, audit and staff training — will strengthen the procedures. For example, the Committee recommended that the Department’s economists scrutinise a higher percentage of pro forma appraisals to take account of an increase in the value of projects that will be appraised in that way.

The Committee also recommended that the choice of appraisals for scrutiny should be made more independent from the teams that carried out the appraisals, and that each project officer in a team should have at least one appraisal checked. Members believe that those actions will provide greater reassurance that public money is being well spent.

The Committee also investigated the Department’s assurances to the Public Accounts Committee that it was seeking to rationalise the rural development programme structures. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had been criticised over duplication of the roles and responsibilities of different programme providers.

On a positive note, the evidence shows that real improvements have been made. For example, the number of delivery groups and partnerships has almost halved — from 33 in the last phase of the programme to 17 in the current phase.

The Committee considered that important, as less money should be spent on administration and more on projects. Time will tell whether that happens. The roles of the Department and its main agents were also found to be better understood by customers and by agents. Those are improvements on the last programmes. The Committee decided, however, that there was still room for improvement. It made six further recommendations, including the need for greater clarity on farm diversification opportunities and on the terminology used by the Department.

I have given only a flavour of the Committee’s report, as much effort went into its production. I commend it to the Assembly as an example of good scrutiny. I am sure that Committee members will want to add their own thoughts. The Committee will also be interested to hear the Minister’s views, although, to be fair, she has had little time to consider the report. The Committee has asked for a full written response in due course.

The Committee believes that the report is fair and balanced; it gives credit where credit is due but is rightly critical where it finds weaknesses. I trust that the Assembly will support the motion.

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

I support the motion. I thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee for his presentation; he covered much and has left the rest of us with little to say.

The Committee engaged in long, healthy debate in developing the report. It is fair to pay tribute to all those who gave evidence, because they supported the thinking of the farming community and associated bodies. They are all due recognition.

The greatest problem in the rural development programme has been present from the outset — the difficulty of persuading the farming community to recognise the need for change. Maximum effort is required by everyone who supports the programme to ensure that the farming community is fully aware that change is needed. I trust that the Department will endeavour to get that message across. A survey in rural communities would find that many farmers still do not recognise the need for change; however, the rural community cannot survive without participation in farming.

The red tape associated with accessing funding for projects is often prohibitive; it discourages farmers from applying. They find it hard to understand why the pound cannot reach their pocket without going through a complicated process. That must be addressed, even now, to make it easier for farmers who present a genuine case for funding.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The Committee is grateful to all who helped in compiling the report. I give particular thanks to the Clerk of the Committee and his staff, whose expertise greatly assisted us. The Committee also thanks the Assembly for scrutinising its work; that has created an in-depth report, and one that has considerable weight of expertise.

The report has 32 recommendations, many of which follow on from the work of the Audit Office when it drew up its report. Its work was backed up by the Public Accounts Committee. Their contributions are most welcome. However, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has examined those areas and has discovered some gaps, which it draws to the attention of the House.

I hope that the Department, when it is competent to do so, can address those matters and close many of the gaps, rectifying them for the benefit of the farming community and those who are associated with the rural development programme.

The House should be aware of the Minister’s statement on the importance of the rural development programme so that it can put the issue into context. The importance of rural development is highlighted in the Department’s current business strategy, which states:

"At the last census, just under 688,000 people (i.e. 43·6% of the population) lived in the rural areas of Northern Ireland. Rural communities are very important to the overall economy and society of Northern Ireland, and it is important that their development is supported.

The Northern Ireland Executive Committee’s Programme for Government recognises the importance of rural society and that the rural economy has been neglected in the past. The Programme for Government contains commitments to regenerate rural areas, particularly the most disadvantaged, and sustain rural life and the countryside for the future."

That extract highlights the importance of rural development in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s strategy. We must measure the importance that the Department, in those words, attributed to rural development against the resources that it allocated to fulfil its objectives. At the back of the same strategy document, the Department outlines exactly how much of its budget it allocated for rural development: £9 million, or 3% of its budget.

The allocation of only 3% of the Department’s budget for rural development shows how few resources it has to apply to the needs of 688,000 people. We must put that in context. Considerably more than £9 million will be required to address the needs of 43% of Northern Ireland’s population. That problem was identified in the past, it is identified in the Committee’s report, and I hope that the Department recognises it.

The Department must cut its own cloth and decide how it wishes to allocate its budget. However, many are sceptical when, having heard about the Department’s commitment to rural development, they see how little money it allocates to fund the rural development programme. I am sure that the Department will wish to comment on those issues.

We must recognise not only that the resources to fund the rural development programme have been woefully inadequate, but that the Department, if it wishes to address the problems that the Committee identified, must choose to apply more resources for that purpose. Administration and salaries account for over 30% of the Department’s entire budget; rural development accounts for 3%. The Department will want to make its own judgement on how it allocates its resources. Many people involved in rural development are fairly sceptical about the extent of the commitment to the programme and want more resources to be applied to make it work better for the community.

Last Friday, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development discussed rural development with departmental officials. One official said that all departmental services should be seen in the context of broad support to the farming and rural community. In other words, one can marginalise the figure and say that only £9 million was spent on rural development, or that all the programmes funded by the budget are designed to assist the rural community.

I want the Minister to confirm that European Union subsidies do not constitute rural development.

The farming community’s rights to subsidy under EU legislation must not be confused with the issue of how the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development allocates its money to the rural development community. No other Department would do that. Rural development must be measured by what it does for farmers over and above their existing entitlement. It must be seen to make a significant difference beyond the existing rights of the rural and farming communities.

Many in the farming community are sceptical about the value of the rural development programme. That scepticism is identified in this report. However, that does not prevent those people from taking up these programmes, and it is good that they have done so. The Minister was very helpful in a reply to me, dated 13 May 2002, which indicated the level of uptake. Indeed, it is important to put this on the record of the House. In that letter the Minister stated:

"To date, 87% of the applications under the ‘for profit’ element of the BSP Programme have come from farmers’ groups or collectives."

However, she continued:

"Only 5% of the applications under the ‘not for profit’ element of that Programme have come from farmers’ groups or collectives. Likewise, 5% of applications under the Peace II Programme have come from farmers’ groups or collectives.

Individual farmers may bring forward projects under the LEADER+ Programme. It is expected that LEADER+ Action Groups will be in a position to call for project applications around August/September 2002."

It is, therefore, incumbent on the Department to recognise that 87% of farmers, farmers’ groups and collectives made applications under the programme’s "for profit" element. We would like to see that figure increasing. In the "not for profit" area we want to ensure that those resources also go to assisting the farming community. I am sure that the Minister is as disappointed as I am that only 5% of applications under the Peace II programme have come from farmers’ groups or collectives. I am sure that the Minister will draw her Department’s attention to those issues and address them.

The Department must do more to convince the farming community that the rural development programme is more than just "nice-speak" or Government gobbledegook. It must be seen as a solid programme for adding value to the work of the farming community and quality to the lives of those who live in the farming and rural communities.

I turn to some of the other points in the report that I hope the Minister can address — although not necessarily today, given the fairly detailed nature of the report. The Committee and I certainly look forward to seeing the Minister’s detailed response to the report.

Committee members wanted the report primarily to focus the minds of those in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on ensuring that the programme is targeted at the people who need it most. Both the Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee identified that. They looked to both the Department and the Rural Development Council to

"ensure, as far as possible, that under-represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed fully participate in the programme in future".

The report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development went on to say, in relation to the programme, that members

"were particularly concerned that farmers and their families should benefit from its schemes."

It is essential that "the backbone of the rural community" does benefit. That phrase is often used, but it should not be used glibly, because without the farming community there is no backbone in the rural community. Farmers make the rural community what it is, and they must benefit from the schemes.

The Committee is realistic about what rural development can achieve. Indeed, the report goes on to say that

"those involved in farming must have their needs addressed in the same way as other rural groups. That is not to say that rural development could ever provide a cure for the current ills of farming. It cannot. However, the Committee believed that the case of farmers was deserving of special attention."

The Committee recognises that what we have is not a panacea; however, it does provide an opportunity to assist the backbone of the rural community. The Committee has addressed the ways in which that could be done. Deserving groups in the farming community should be targeted to ensure that they receive funding. Dedicated form-filling assistance must be provided to farmers. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should lobby the Department of Finance and Personnel to simplify the process, particularly where small amounts of funding are involved. If we could overcome the cumbersome, complicated and off-putting form-filling processes of the past, it would be of great benefit to the farming community.

The Deputy Chairperson referred to eligibility. Those who are eligible must know that they can claim funding. A sickening aspect of today’s society, in claiming both social benefits and funding for rural development programmes, is that, although many people are entitled to claim benefits, a large proportion do not because they either do not realise that they can or they are put off by the process. The Department must ensure that people are aware of their right to claim. Of course, it is up to individuals to submit claim forms. I hope that the Minister will address those issues when she has considered the report fully.

The Committee considered the rationalisation of the programme structures. Rural planning is a pet subject of mine, and the Committee felt that the interdepartmental committee could play a role in dealing with cases in which legitimate regeneration objectives are hindered by the strict application of planning policy. That issue involves the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of the Environment. The Minister must address those issues and ensure that the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee’s excellent report is used effectively and expeditiously.

I support the motion.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The report’s recommendations are thorough, and it is to be hoped that good will come of them. In formulating the report with the Committee, I considered some of the many other reports. I hope that they will help the Minister to effect sustainability in the rural communities by creating additional jobs. Although the administrative offices are kept busy catering for those who work in the industry now, the future of the rural communities cannot rely on them. If that is the only result to come from the rural development programme, it is not worth implementing it. That is why the Committee stresses the need to focus on the participation and, as the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association points out, the role of farming organisations and farmers in rural development. To some extent, placing most of the emphasis on rural development has blurred that.

Due to modulation and the adoption of EU policies, farming is in decline because it is pitched against rural development to attract funding. Much EU money is allocated as subsidies. That is our current position with Europe. If farming declines to the point where we will have to work with countries such as the United States, which will support its own farmers when it suits it, and we have to deal with unfair prices, I am unsure whether we will have an industry in the future. We must look at globalisation, which was driven by Margaret Beckett and others to drive prices down. Will we have a rural community with all that? That is my main worry. If we cannot sustain the rural community in its present state, I fear for how it will look in 20 or 30 years’ time.

Many aspects of rural preservation depend on current farming practices. One only has to look at the Sperrins or similar areas that are kept in prime condition purely because they have livestock. If it becomes no longer profitable for farmers to keep livestock, the countryside will come apart and people in cities and towns may not want to visit it. I commend all the work that the vision group is trying to do for the future, but I also commend the work of the Rural Development Council, the rural community network and others who are trying to examine those programmes and listen to what we are saying about the future.

This programme contains much of what was discussed in the past, and we must ask what lessons of the programmes from 1991 to today will be learnt and acted upon. I am sure that many lessons on monitoring, evaluation, appraisals and so forth will be learnt, considering what has happened locally. Lessons will have been learnt about money and value for money. However, that can make it more difficult for people to find the programmes useful. The amount of paperwork and form filling involved discourages many farmers and people whom we tried to target, such as the most deprived or those who are most unable to access the funding and devise projects that will be useful for their areas. There will be no results unless we can do that.

People may ask how many farmers can avail themselves of the rural programme and how many young people can do off-farm work? A White Paper could facilitate the necessary research. How many people are currently full-time farmers? How many are part-time? How many could access any of those programmes? Do we know that? Are we merely gazing at crystal balls? Unless we know all that, we will have difficulty knowing whom to target and whom to help with mentoring, to whom the Department should give hands-on support and to whom we should give the resources.

CAB International carries out farm audits, and perhaps that should be extended because there are many farms that, even if they could diversify or move into micro-businesses or whatever, could not afford the energy or the time to do so because that would undermine their ability to pay banks and so on. People face huge difficulties when trying to take part in the programmes. In two years’ time we could be talking about how little effect those programmes had had. I am unsure about the amount of work that has been done on those areas. The capacity-building programme that supports developing the coaching of communities is of prime importance, and I know from talking to people that many feel that the results of some of the last programmes were not good. I refer to area-based strategy action groups (ABSAGS) and other programmes that were meant to help people in rural areas for whatever reason. If they did not receive funding, they will say that the programme was not good for them and that they will not get involved this time.

We must avoid that situation.

The Committee’s many recommendations on what must be done are accurate; however, without increased resources, many of them will not be implemented. In addition, many of the vision report’s recommendations for sustaining rural communities will not be implemented unless resources are provided, and I am not sure that that will happen.

How much more farmers’ money will be diverted through modulation? People may find reasons for diverting money away from farming. Ian Paisley Jnr asked about the £9 million that the Department allocated for the rural development programme. In addition, farmers worry about how much more money will be taken from them to fund what could turn out to be an administrative exercise, rather than a programme that can deliver what is needed. That is an important matter.

People have not always been able to make the best of the North/South aspect of the rural development programme. Perhaps even those on the Southern side of the border tend to be more interested in looking after their own positions than co-operating so that both sides can access the programmes. We should put more emphasis on that.

I have spoken many times about the lack of hands-on support for small businesses, which need a mentor similar to LEDU. If we are to start small businesses, we cannot simply ask people to complete a form and leave them to get on with it. We must support them throughout the process.

The Committee wants the Minister to listen to what it said in the report. There is no point in detailing all the recommendations. We dealt with issues such as women’s involvement in agriculture. The Minister visited Fermanagh to see what could be considered to be a pilot programme for women in agriculture. It may be a conduit to deliver some of the programme, as women are often more open to new ideas than men. They can see matters differently to farmers, who do not have time to consider new ideas. That programme should be made mainstream, rather than simply added to other women’s initiatives. It has a great deal to offer and may help to deliver some of the recommendations. I mention it as a possible approach to the delivery of the programme.

The Ulster Farmers’ Union has made many points about farming families and the past exclusion of farmers from many programmes. That has left farmers with a bitter taste and has affected how they consider the concept of rural development. Therefore, there is a job to be done in educating people. Cross-departmental work on health is needed. Rural action zones, such as the one in Dungannon, are required to look after the health of farmers.

Much can be achieved by working together, rather than establishing many separate programmes and co-ordinating groups that work to their own agendas, often to the detriment of the overall programme. We do not want that to be the outcome of this or any other programme.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I have pleasure in endorsing the report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on its inquiry into the preparation for the next phase of the rural development programme 2001-06. The programme is valuable in providing financial assistance and promoting rural development through the strategies established by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, will it regenerate agriculture, or will it merely create circumstances in which people will be happy simply to have tried even if people in the agriculture industry do not participate in the rural development programme? Therefore the Committee felt that it was of the utmost importance that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development encourages full participation in the new strategy by under-represented groups — particularly the farming community — and guides and supports them in planning and completing every application. One group that had no input was young people in rural areas who intended to go into agriculture, and the main reason for this was that they were not there.

The Committee also wanted to ensure that the Department was thorough in delivering its strategy and financial efficiency. The main criticism of the rural development programme was the lack of expertise of those delivering the project. They should provide farmers with clear, easy, readable documentation and unambiguous help in completing applications. They should also ensure that the application process is straightforward. A project such as this could help farming families throughout Northern Ireland. However, the Committee found that the farmers were required to form groups to avail of this funding, and they would have neither the time nor the expertise to prepare themselves for such applications. The long, complicated applications deterred completion. In fact, the Committee found that there were different funding rights available for farm diversification.

The Committee was concerned that projects might lead to uncertainty for prospective applications. It is often difficult to gain access to funding, and that is the case with the rural development fund. Proper assistance for groups would have helped them to apply for such funding. This would help the groups that deserve the money most to access resources. Guidance by departmental staff on form completion must be improved, and the Committee recommends the use of experts to provide necessary assistance in rural areas to ensure that dedicated support is available.

The Committee welcomes the programme, as we welcomed the countryside management scheme and good farming practice. However, farmers in Northern Ireland need a decent income. The rural development scheme is welcome in theory, but it must provide practical support for farmers. It provides support for people in rural areas, but not for farmers. The Department could assist in the application process by simplifying the form.

I also endorse some of the concerns of the Public Accounts Committee, such as the lack of appropriate training for staff and poor standards of business plans prepared by consultants for major projects. It is fair to say that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has made positive moves in addressing some of these problems, but there must be continued improvement. Farmers want to know what the Department is doing to evaluate the rural development programme; they want the Department to acknowledge others’ suggestions on how to improve it.

I also want to make a few points on rationalising programme structures. Close relationships should be developed with every local delivery organisation. The agriculture industry must be given every assistance, and this would be helped by rural co-ordinators working in all areas. Meeting producer and consumer would lead to a more efficient and quantitative agriculture sector.

The application process must be made as straightforward as possible so that money will be used efficiently to strengthen agriculture. I commend the staff of the Agriculture Committee on their forbearance with the Committee over the past few months. It is important to urge the Department to renew its programme and to accept the criticisms of the Agriculture Committee. The Agriculture Committee does have a vision for the future.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The proper appraisal of rural development projects and the Public Accounts Committee, which I shall speak about later, have been referred to on several occasions. It is important to remember that following the publication of the Public Accounts Committee’s report, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development accepted its recommendations in their entirety. That should be welcomed.

In future, we can expect community groups to carry out the work without the difficulties that many of them experienced in the past when managing projects that had not been fully appraised for their viability. All too often, consultants offered poor advice to community groups and did not stay around to address the failures. It is my understanding that, in future, where they are deemed necessary, consultants will be selected solely through the Government Procurement Agency. The selection of poor-quality consultants is not exclusive to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development got poor value for money when appointing a consultant. In that respect, we must share the disappointment.

Some projects represented poor value for money and did not contribute greatly to rural regeneration. However, much has been learnt from the mistakes and inexperience of the past. An operating manual now exists, and there is appropriate appraisal training for staff. Business plans of a poor standard that were prepared by consultants will no longer be tolerated. Indeed, they have not been tolerated for a considerable time. The Committee welcomes those developments, as it outlines in the report.

The Rural Development Council will play a vital role in ensuring that socially excluded groups play their full part in the implementation of the new programmes, and the rural community network is also fully involved.

My main concern is that resources will not be adequate to address the various inequalities that exist in rural communities. In the past few years, the viability of many farmers has been in crisis, and special measures are needed to ensure that their futures as valuable members of the rural community are addressed. Young people find themselves in a difficult position, with income from farming too low to provide them with an acceptable standard of living. Training programmes must address their needs. Planning departments must be more flexible when considering planning applications for rural industries, which many young farmers have now turned to as a substitute for the agriculture industry.

The Rural Development Council must represent the many families on low incomes, as well as victims, ex-prisoners, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities. As a member of that body, I am glad that they subscribe to the motto "not for profit-taking".

In future, farmers will have to consider collective action. In that respect, I am delighted that the principle of co-operatives is once again a focus of attention in rural communities. I am also pleased that the Minister has promised to encourage the development of co-operatives, and I accept fully her insistence that people in the community must accept responsibility for the establishment, development and running of rural co-operatives. Nevertheless, for the foreseeable future, the Department has an important advisory role to play and will be called on for seeding grants and expert advice.

Members will recall that there are four target groups: the farming community; women; young people; and the long-term unemployed. The Minister has identified the special role that women have played in agriculture in the past. Research is now being carried out by her Department to ensure that women will be afforded equality and will not be taken for granted, as a handy form of cheap labour or, dare I say, slave labour. That is of fundamental importance, and I simply want to put on record my acknowledgement of the Minister’s determination to address the problem. As she is a woman, would we not expect her to?

Partnerships are a feature of life today. They have a vital role to play in agriculture and rural development. The LEADER+ programme has much to contribute to the development of successful partnerships, which will add value to the rural community in a variety of ways. The monitoring of those partnerships over the next few years will be critical, and that cannot be overemphasised.

I want to return to the role of the Public Accounts Committee, and I must issue a word of caution. Although the Committee will scrutinise the accounts and check that business plans, policies, aims and objectives are not ignored, it will not become a handy excuse for inaction. It would be very unfortunate if the dreaded Public Accounts Committee became a firewall between the public and the Department and its agencies. There was too much talk about that this afternoon.

Rural development projects are high risk; otherwise they would be seized upon by the private sector. The regeneration of our rural communities is worth the risk, provided that that risk is within the parameters laid down by good governance. I would not want to see the Public Accounts Committee going beyond that.

I want to place on record my appreciation for the hard work performed by officials in the Rural Development Division of the Department, and we can rely on them for their continued support. Their contribution to the whole peace process and the regeneration of towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland is far too often underestimated.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the recommendations in the report. I will not go over the issues that Members have already mentioned, and I will keep my comments short and to the point.

There is a need for a rural development programme. With that in mind, and with the comments that have been put forward on the four target groups, I recognise that the farming community needs special help. That is what this programme is about. We want to ensure that the detrimental effect on the farming community over the last few years — BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and the introduction of large supermarkets — can be addressed, and give the farmers opportunities and options that they have not had.

I want to highlight the issue of women in the community. It is not just a matter of saying that behind every male farmer there is a woman. In many cases, the woman does as much work as the man. Not only is she rearing the family and looking after the household, she is also doing farm work.

Young people are drifting away from farms and the countryside into the towns. That is a concern for those who live in the rural community, and it must be addressed. That is one of the target areas for this programme, and we welcome that.

There are more long-term unemployed than ever in the rural community. I hope that those who have little prospect for the future can find something there.

Recommendation 12 refers to active monitoring, and that will address those four issues. The Committee has concerns about the take-up and the slow response by farmers’ groups. It requests that sufficient resources be made available to the Rural Enterprise Division, which is farmer-oriented. Who understands the needs better than those who are involved at the coalface, so to speak, and understands what the farmer needs? If those resources could be made available, it would be a way forward.

Recommendation 6 refers to hold-ups and shortcomings in the system. We must make it more accountable and easier to understand.

I and other Members believe that clarification is needed to differentiate between the farm-based rural development plan and the wider rural-community-based rural development programme to ensure that what is available in each is clear for those who are looking for assistance today. That must be highlighted.

My last point refers to the previous reports that have been introduced to the Assembly and other Committees. There is a need, and in the past it has been identified as the needs of the rural community.

The Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee identified those needs; however, we have waited for those Committees to table recommendations for implementation, and for some reason they have been delayed. We now have the recommendations of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and it is to be hoped that the Minister will be able to respond and affirm that the recommendations will be implemented quickly.

We agree on the thrust of the report’s proposals. They are focused on helping the most needy in the rural community, and that is what we are trying to achieve. I commend the report.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I welcome the report on the rural development programme and thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Savage, for his recognition of the work already done to implement the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. Appraisal is essential to ensure that we continue to refine and better focus the Department’s rural development programme. I welcome Mr Dallat’s recognition of the risks that have to be taken in rural development work.

The rural development programme provides a valuable review of our progress on several important issues. I shall give careful consideration to all its recommendations. The rural development programme is co-financed by the EU structural funds, and so, in developing and implementing the programme, we have had to work closely with the European Commission, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Special EU Programmes Body. None of us had anticipated the amount of work that would be involved in negotiating the programme with the Commission, or putting in place the arrangements for implementation.

Although considerable progress has been made on all fronts, we have not advanced as far as we hoped. Nevertheless, the report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development shows that all the key issues on which we were focused have been, or are being, addressed.

I wish to thank the members of the Committee for the time and effort that they have devoted to the exercise, and for the constructive recommendations that they have made. I also thank those Members who contributed to today’s debate for their interest in the rural development programme. Many of the report’s recommendations have already been taken into account, or are currently being dealt with. I shall give my initial comments on each of the recommendations and deal as far as possible with additional points that have been raised in today’s debate.

I agree with Mr Bradley’s comments on the changes that face the farming community. At every opportunity, I shall seek to highlight to the farming community those changes that are beyond our control and make them aware of the need to meet the challenge of those changes. There are opportunities for farmers in the rural development programme, and I encourage farmers and farmers’ groups to avail of those. I know that many Members, Mr Bradley included, do their best to help farmers and encourage them to take up opportunities.

Several Members referred to the full participation of under-represented groups. The Public Accounts Committee’s report on the rural development programme drew attention to the fact that not all groups in the rural community participated in the 1994-99 rural development programme. Women, youths, farmers and the long-term unemployed were highlighted in the report.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has recognised the efforts I have made to alert all sections of the rural community to the opportunities offered by the programme for 2001-06. The Committee has recommended that the Department and the Rural Development Council maintain that effort. It is intended that promotion of the programme will continue and that progress will be regularly reviewed.

Promotional material will be updated when it is appropriate to do so. The Committee has recommended that the Department introduce early development services for farmers’ groups to help them to secure grants through the programme. The matter requires careful consideration.

Mr Paisley Jnr mentioned the relatively small uptake by farmers. He is correct in saying that rural development programme money does not come from agricultural subsidy. It is up to each applicant to decide what measure to apply for, and farmer collectives are applying mostly under the "for profit" measure. That does not surprise me.

The Department is in discussion with the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) about how best to help farmers and their families take advantage of the opportunities offered by the range of programmes and measures available. I will await the conclusion of those deliberations before deciding what assistance is appropriate. I have had public meetings with farmers in some areas, and I am aware of the problem.

I accept the Committee’s recommendation that there should be a series of calls for projects from the profit-taking sector and that funds should be ring-fenced for each call. I am keen to give the profit-taking sector in rural areas as much opportunity as possible to develop worthwhile projects that will be eligible for funding under the programme.

I note that the Committee has welcomed the considerable effort that has gone into producing explanatory material for the programme. The Department will continue to review the need for further interpretative material.

The Committee has recommended that the Department put in place form-completion assistance for farmers. I have already explained that the Department, in conjunction with the UFU, is considering how best to help farmers to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the range of measures available. However, I am not yet convinced that there is a significant problem with completing the application forms, but I accept that they are long.

The real problem may be the lack of ideas that can be transformed into projects that will be eligible for funding under the rural development programme. If completing the form were a significant problem, I would expect it not to be confined only to farmers. Therefore if such a scheme were considered necessary, it would have to be open to the whole rural community. Farmers and other applicants can get advice on completing the application form from the rural development co-ordinators and the Rural Development Council.

I welcome Mr Dallat’s comments with regard to the Rural Development Division staff, because I see, at first hand, the results of the work of rural community groups assisted by the Rural Development Division staff as I travel throughout Northern Ireland. I agree that the impact of the programme is often understated, and I am happy to endorse his comments about the work of the rural development staff. Farmers and other applicants can get advice from the rural area co-ordinators.

I am happy to bring to the attention of my Colleague, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Committee’s recommendation that there should be a simpler application form for small grants. The Department is adopting a top-down and bottom-up approach in the programme. The Department has already commissioned a study into the needs of rural women. The rural development division, as part of a consortium, is discussing with Youth Action how the needs of the rural youth sector could be addressed. The Rural Development Council has been asked to consider how the participation of the long-term unemployed might be encouraged.

I hope that Members will recognise that what I have said in a few words represents a considerable amount of work. The study on the needs of rural women will be presented to the interdepartmental steering group on rural development so that other Departments can consider what, if any, of the identified needs they may address.

Gender balance is not a problem only for the rural development programme, as can be seen from the membership of the Assembly and from some of the departmental Committees. It is a much wider problem. I am committed to encouraging women to participate fully at all levels in the rural development programme. My Department will encourage natural resource rural tourism partnerships and LEADER groups to be proactive in that respect.

I have visited and had discussions with Fermanagh’s Women in Agriculture, Mourne Ladies in Agriculture, and Omagh’s Women in Agriculture. Mr McHugh said that women are more open and more adaptable, and I also find that. That is why I want to encourage women to be more proactive in accessing and having their capacity built to bring forward new ideas and to think outside the box. Women are particularly good at that, and I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker agrees with me.

The gender balance of these groups will be monitored, as the Committee recommends. I intend to monitor the participation of women, youths, farm families, and, as far as possible, the long-term unemployed across all the elements of the rural development programme. Although I am committed to encouraging the participation of these groups, I am not convinced that they should be given preferential treatment in project selection. At this stage, individual projects should be selected on the basis of the quality of the proposal.

We will occasionally review the participation of under-represented groups based on monitoring information, and a judgement can be made at the time of the review as to whether any further action is appropriate. I assure the Assembly that every effort is being made to get the monitoring systems fully operational.

In section 3 of the report, ‘Full and proper appraisal of all projects’, the Department will give guidance to natural resource rural tourism (NRRT) partnerships and LEADER groups on the economic appraisal process and will also check compliance. The Department will keep its procedure manuals under review and will update them to take account of advice from the Department of Finance and Personnel.

The Rural Development Division procedures for the Northern Ireland building sustainable prosperity programme have already been scrutinised by the Department’s Internal Audit Division, and a forthcoming audit will check compliance with procedures. The operating rules for the NRRT and LEADER programmes form part of the contract with the respective groups. The groups will receive the operating rules at the same time that they receive their contracts to administer the programme.

I do not anticipate the rural community network having to use consultants to prepare economic appraisals under the rural development programme. Therefore, the question of managing such consultants should not arise. The Department appoints consultants in accordance with guidance from the Government Purchasing Agency (GPA). It reviews the performance of the consultants after each assignment, and the outcome of this review is held on the GPA’s central database. The Department’s economists would bring any shortcomings in a consultant’s economic appraisal to its attention. These arrangements meet the objectives of the Committee’s recommendations. The recommendation that the Department should increase the checks by economists on pro forma economic appraisals has resource implications, and I will have to consider it further. The Department will review its policy on economic appraisal training after economists have considered the first tranche of project appraisals.

In regard to recommendations 21 and 22, I agree that the selection of project appraisals for scrutiny by economists should be independent from the rural area co-ordinators and Department agents undertaking the appraisals. The Department will consider how this can be best achieved.

I accept the recommendation that the Rural Development Council should amend its procedures to incorporate assessment of marketing and management needs in the appraisal pro forma. The Department will instruct the council to adopt the same pro forma as used by the Department.

I want to address section 4, ‘Rationalisation of programme structures’. It is one of the key roles of rural area co-ordinators to keep close links with local delivery bodies. LEADER and NRRT partnerships are also encouraged to develop such links. Rural area co-ordinators are prepared to engage with and assist those in the profit-taking sector who need advice on the rural development programme and how to apply for a grant. However, it must be remembered that the grant scheme is competitive, and co-ordinators cannot give one applicant an advantage over others who also seek help. Within the parameters they will assist as best they can.

The Department has sought to maximise the amount of funds available for rural communities, including farmers, and to that end it has drawn on all the EU schemes available. Had the Department restricted its efforts to one scheme for each sector, it would undoubtedly have limited the available funds. I agree that it would be ideal to have one scheme only for each sector, but Members will agree that it is important to access as much EU funding as possible, and that means meeting the separate financial and organisational requirements of each programme or initiative.

Mr McHugh mentioned the rural health action zones, and I have given my full support and finance to that work, but the rural development programme is small and cannot cover everything.

I accept that the rural development plan, which is farm focused, and the rural development programme, which is aimed at the broader rural community, have the same acronym of RDP, and that causes confusion. The rural development programme has been in place for about 10 years and is unique to Northern Ireland in its work to engage rural communities in regenerative action. The rural development plan was one of four UK farm-focused plans that were put in place under the 2001-06 structural funds. I will consider the Committee’s recommendation on that further.

I intend to provide regular public information on funding allocations to successful applicants and on expenditure on and uptake of the various schemes. I accept the recommendation that, where rural development regeneration projects appear to be at odds with planning regulations, matters should be discussed through the interdepartmental steering committee mechanism.

I welcome the Committee’s recognition of the importance of the rural development programme for ensuring appropriate numbers of properly trained staff. I do not need to remind the House of the pressures on departmental running costs. At this stage I await the outcome of the staff review. However, I encourage modernisation in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and there is a real challenge for the Department, in conjunction with agrirural interests, to best forge and deliver rural development measures that address the needs of the rural communities and the demands of wider society. Last week at the Balmoral Show, I announced that I intend to create a stakeholder forum to consider the strategic issues that must be addressed.

I accept the Committee’s recommendation on early agreement of the Rural Development Council’s annual budgets. However, I must point out that there is much debate between my officials and those in the council on the details, which can sometimes cause unavoidable delay.

There is much to consider on rural development funding beyond 2006, such as the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the post-Objective-1-status situation, the amount of EU support that will be available after 2006-07, the pressures from accession countries and the various fields of agriculture and non-agriculture development action.

I would like to deal with some of the issues that were raised in the debate. Mr McHugh’s comments on the future of the agrifood industry, the rural economy in general, the vision report and the work of the rural development programme were welcome. He has often heard me speak about the need to manage the coming changes that are outside our influence, such as the reform of CAP and globalisation. Undoubtedly, the rural development programme has a role to play in helping to sustain rural communities and their way of life, which is worth protecting.

Mr McHugh also referred to modulation money, which is not used for the rural development programme. The rural development programme aims to encourage innovative thinking to complement traditional agriculture, not to replace it.

The rural development programme is aimed at the whole rural community, including farming families. Modulation money is returned to the farming community through programmes such as organic farming, agrienvironment schemes, and so forth.

As regards North/South co-operation, the INTERREG III programme will comprise a specific rural development measure that will be delivered through the cross-border steering committee, which operates under the North/South Ministerial Council. I remind Mr Armstrong that it is to be hoped that individual farmers will be able to apply to local LEADER+ action groups in early autumn. Farmers and their families will need to have innovative projects on which to base their application. I encourage them to think along those lines — outside the traditional box of farming — in order to access the funds.

I am encouraged by the call from Mr Dallat and others for additional resources to deliver the rural development programme. As the Committee is aware, resources are very tight, but I will consider carefully the comments on the matter. I welcome Mr Dallat’s recognition of the risks inherent in rural development.

The matter will continue to be considered in the coming years. Although changes to farming, farm families, rural communities and the Department are inevitable, I assure the Committee and Members that my Department and I will continue to strive for the best possible rural development deal for Northern Ireland. The Assembly and, in particular, the Committee agree that Northern Ireland’s rural communities are an important part of its social fabric. It is extremely important that those communities remain viable and that locals can remain there and have a prosperous economic future. They should not — as was mentioned by a UUP Member — be forced to move into towns to take up jobs outside the community in which they have lived, and where they feel comfortable.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister, who gave up her time this afternoon, and Members, for their contribution to the debate. They showed that rural issues are close to our hearts.

The Committee embarked on its inquiry when the Department was preparing for the next phase of its rural development programme. Circumstances led to a delay in the completion of the inquiry, so Members were able to take into account the programme’s launch and the implementation of its first schemes. The delay made the inquiry all the more relevant, enabling it to take into account the Committee’s aims in respect of scrutiny, and the report of the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee’s recommendations will improve the delivery of the programme over the next four or five years.

During the inquiry, the Committee also considered the resources available to the Department and its agents for the duration of the programme. It found that the Department’s Rural Development Division increased its staff by almost 50% in order to deliver the new phase of the programme. Members expect that to translate into an improved service for customers. The amounts to be spent over the programme period are still small. However, according to the service delivery agreement for 2002-03, for example, rural development accounts for less than 7% of the Department’s expenditure limit. Therein lies the opportunity for the Minister.

The Committee suggests that that allocation amounts to small potatoes in the overall scheme of things. Such levels of provision may need to change in the context of the CAP review, which is likely to result in a further shift towards rural development and away from the provision of traditional support for agricultural production.

The Committee has, therefore, recommended that the Department should consider internal rationalisation to improve co-ordination in policy areas where objectives may be linked to improve understanding of what rural development means and to raise the profile of rural development in the Department.

The Committee heard concerns regarding the continuation of support for rural regeneration programmes after 2006, when it is expected that European funding may be lost or, at best, severely curtailed. The Committee concluded that the current phase of the rural development programme will in no way address all the needs of rural areas. There will still be much work to be done after 2006.

The Committee has, therefore, recommended that the Department begin contingency planning, sooner rather than later, for a rural support programme to be delivered from national funding. That will require a case to be made to the Assembly. It will not be an easy case to make in the face of other pressures such as education, transport and health. The Department must address future funding concerns long before 2006. I give the Minister and the Department one bit of advice: keep it simple, plain and easily understood. Those three ingredients will go a long way towards getting everything going.

The Committee has carried out a thorough inquiry and has offered a report worthy of the Assembly’s endorsement. The Minister made many comments. The Committee is concerned that no help was offered to farmers — a specific target group — to fill in forms. Some schemes need careful consideration. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

We must look forward. There is no use looking over our shoulders at the past. The person who never made a mistake never did anything. I hope that, in the days that lie ahead, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development will progress with such zeal and understanding that people will regard it as a Committee that has really done something for the community. I thank the Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on its inquiry into ‘Preparation for the next Phase of the Rural Development Programme 2001-2006’ (2/01/R), and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to implement those recommendations relevant to her Department.

Adjourned at 6.19 pm.