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

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

The Harbour Commissioners should never have been under any illusion about public interest in their plans for the non-port related-land. It was well highlighted by the Ad Hoc Committee before devolution. It was reinforced post-devolution, and there were debates in the Assembly about the future of the port. Various options were put forward - from the sale of the port to keeping it under public ownership, with additional powers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and more significantly,

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

Later, he went on to say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<< Prev