Northern Ireland Assembly

4.30 pm

The three cross-border networks represent 18 councils along the entire border corridor with some 100 elected representatives serving on the various cross-border networks. Obviously there is significant political support in the border regions, both North and South. I am aware that there is widespread support for their integrated area plans, and for the combined border corridor strategy, which consultants have been drafting on their behalf. We want to make sure that those networks can have as full an input as possible to the developing work on INTERREG III and, indeed, on some of the wider cross-border issues. As Mr Hussey rightly identified, there is a common chapter under the community support framework that will underline the importance of optimising the rate and nature of cross-border co-operation across the full range of social, economic and environmental programmes. Any contribution that representative networks, such as the three cross-border ones, can make would be very welcome.

We will fully respect, and ask for, that input. That of itself cannot constitute a promise that what the networks bid for themselves, as to what they would directly administer, will automatically be granted. The Member will be aware that we have to proceed on an open basis, and I am sure that the three networks will be satisfied with the quality of that openness.

Ms Morrice:

I have three questions for the Minister of Finance and Personnel. First, I was asked this morning about intermediary funding bodies. Will the Minister clarify what use will be made of the intermediary funding bodies in the new round of Peace II? Secondly, can he give a commitment that non-Government parties will be included in the monitoring process? Finally, what specific budget has he made available in Peace II for victims?

Mr Durkan:

First, intermediary funding bodies are clearly going to be involved in the delivery of Peace II. However, I cannot speculate about, or anticipate, the precise bodies and areas of involvement. Those matters will be decided in conjunction with the Peace II monitoring committee. I appreciate that there has been concern in some quarters that local delivery mechanisms and partnership boards may somehow be relegated in relation to Peace II. That is not the case.

I understand that people were also concerned that intermediary funding bodies were going to be squeezed; that is not the case either. We are trying to learn and apply all the positive lessons of Peace II and develop them in ways that will be effective, so as to sustain these measures, not just for the life of the Peace II programme, but beyond that.

We want these benefits to continue into the future. Our European Colleagues, who gave this money, do not just want to see us spend it over a five year period - they want us to invest it and secure returns on it in positive peace-building terms, involving regeneration and reconciliation over a longer period.

I indicated that decisions about the precise bodies that would be used, and the areas of their responsibility, would be something that would be developed and worked on with the monitoring committee. Currently the Interim community support framework monitoring committee has places for all parties in the Assembly. Unfortunately, it is a pretty unwieldy body, and I am not sure that the added presence of the various political parties, and the rotating attendance that that tends to give rise to, necessarily helps the focus of the Committee as far as some of its other members are concerned.

I refer the Member to the point that Éamonn ONeill made when earlier he suggested that the Assembly should have a separate monitoring committee of its own, particularly in relation to Peace II. That would be one of the ways in which the Assembly could underline the importance and distinctiveness of the additionality principle, and it is certainly something that I would not be averse to. If it happened, it might ease the overcrowding problem that can occur on the wider interim monitoring committee.

Industrial Development Board:
Report of House of Commons Public Accounts Committee

TOP

Debate resumed on motion:

That this Assembly welcomes the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report on the Industrial Development Board (HC 66) and directs that the Northern Ireland Assembly Public Accounts Committee give continuing attention to the issues raised in the report. - [Dr O'Hagan]

Rev Dr William McCrea:

I must confess that the brass neck of those who have instigated today's debate, in reference to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee Report on the Industrial Development Board, never ceases to amaze me.

Like many others, I have expressed concern over the years at the lack of real long-term employment brought into Northern Ireland by all the job creation agencies, the chief one of course being the Industrial Development Board (IDB). However, I also understand the difficulties that the IDB and other agencies have had over the years in attempting to increase employment and remove the scourge of unemployment, especially in areas west of the Bann. Those difficulties were made worse by 30 years of terrorism when IRA/Sinn Féin carried out a bloody campaign of terror against workers, against industrialists and against places of employment.

Many of our towns and villages have been blown apart. Tens of millions of pounds were wasted, and thousands of jobs were lost from the Northern Ireland economy. Magherafelt town centre, for example, was blown asunder; the banks were destroyed; shops were destroyed; the blood of an innocent bystander, Mr Johnston, flowed along the street - shed by the sectarian thugs of the IRA. There was also a young man in that town - a street cleaner - who was seen as a great threat to the community. He was blown up as he sought to do his work in our local town and community. He is still alive, but his legs were completely blown off. He has been left to wheel himself around in a wheelchair for the rest of his days, when he wanted nothing more than to be employed and to work to provide for the needs of his wife and children.

Who will forget the vanload of workmen coming down the Omagh/Cookstown road - men returning from a hard day's work, doing an honest day's work for a simple pay! Yet they were also thought to be a great danger to society because they happened to work in a security base - builders, bricklayers and the likes - returning from work one evening, coming to a place called Teebane. There is a memorial to those men along the side of the road and attempts have been made to disfigure that - the Provos even think the memorial to be obscene, just as they saw the workmen as obscene. They saw them as a threat because, unlike the Provos, they did not lie about all day and then go and blow the place to smithereens at night. They simply worked all day and rested at night before they went to do another hard day's work.

It is rather obnoxious to find that party trying to use us to sanitise them - house-train, I think is the phrase - and make them look democratic. Somehow the party thinks that we are going to overlook the atrocities and vote in support of a hypocritical motion which would sicken any true democrat. I think of many of those people because many of them were my constituents.

Millions of pounds have been wasted west of the Bann, and thousands of jobs have been blown to smithereens, and now we hear pious platitudes and appeals for jobs from Members for the west of the Bann. Those are empty words, and I suggest that it will do no credit to the House to give any credibility to those who have no credit, decency, integrity or sense of democracy whatsoever.

It is against that backcloth of sickening, dastardly, atrocious and sectarian murders and bombings that the IDB has had to go across the world and proclaim the message of job creation in Northern Ireland. Its task was made a very difficult one because of those years of murder and mayhem.

It is true that the report of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster highlights matters that have caused me concern for quite some time. The people of the Magherafelt and Cookstown areas have felt that the number of projects and real substantive jobs that they enjoyed was inadequate in comparison with the number that went to other areas. I know that many highlight the differences between east and west and that many say that that ought to be investigated. But I am not talking about that. I am speaking about the differences between jobs that are all west of the Bann. When I think of the jobs that are created west of the Bann and of the finance that is directed there, I cannot help but wonder at the massive difference in the amounts of money spent in one part of west of the Bann to the detriment of the rest of west of the Bann.

It amazes me that every time people talk about west of the Bann, they seem really only to be talking about a particular part of the city of Londonderry, and that is where all the money seems to be going. The Waterside area of that city and, of course, the rest of the west of the Province seem to be left out of any capital expenditure. Very few have been given the initiatives and the number of jobs that have gone into a particular part of the city of Londonderry, and that is wrong. When we talk about west of the Bann we are talking about more than the Bogside - other people happen to exist as well.

4.45 pm

There ought to be an investigation into why millions have gone into this one part. Why has so little gone into the remainder by comparison, especially when one realises the difference in the numbers of persons and the large geographical area in question. That is why many people in the Cookstown and Magherafelt areas feel deeply disgruntled and frustrated. It seems that this money, when it goes west of the Bann, goes in one direction. It is trundling over the Glenshane Pass and is not stopping in the areas about which I have spoken. It is heading straight to one particular area. In spite of all the money being pumped in to that area we are being told it has not affected the unemployment levels. Where is the money going?

There is an interesting fact in this report:

"It is clear that a substantial proportion of jobs promised were not in fact created and that a significant percentage of created jobs were of limited duration."

It seems to me that a large amount of money has been trundled into one area, and after the money has been received and the initial period is over, and they do not have to pay it back, that it is a case of 'Goodnight Irene'. They are ready for the next amount of money - but the jobs do not stay. There ought to be an investigation, and I would like to see the relevant Committee looking in detail at exactly how many of these companies have stayed.

Another investigation ought to be carried out. I remember the time when the Belfast Agreement was being sold. At that time I found getting to Belfast more difficult than ever before. I will tell you why. We never knew what road we would have to divert to, as there were so many lorries of money coming in through the airports and seaports. Announcements of these moneys and initiatives were made in order to buy off the people with the golden cord of the Belfast Agreement. It was the usual bluff and guff we have heard from the British Government since the process began. It is the re-circulation of the same money, but it rarely gets here. They re-circulate it by making an announcement that the money is coming in. However, they announce it again in a month's time, and then again in another month's time. I hope that some day the money will actually come.

It is sickening, because the people of Northern Ireland were sold a false story in the Belfast Agreement that if the people would buy into the system we would suddenly come into the Garden of Eden or the land of Canaan flowing with milk and honey.

According to the report it is clear that a substantial number of jobs promised were not in fact created. Therefore, I believe that we ought to see a more in-depth study of what has gone on in industrial development. I applaud the IDB for their successes - and make no mistake they have had successes under difficult circumstances - and I rejoice with those who have gained. Why should I not do so? They have been successful. However, I also believe that there needs to be a spreading of the cake throughout the area west of the Bann, as well as considering the east and west differential.

I trust that, after the debate has died down, in-depth studies will examine the channelling of finances in this Province because I believe that there are corrupt practices going on. Many people who funnel the money do not produce the goods. That does no good to those genuine business people who come in and provide excellent employment for the good people of Ulster.

Mrs Nelis:

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We do not need lectures here about violence or murder from the likes of McCrea. This is the man who stood with his arm around the late Billy Wright, whose stock-in-trade was murdering Catholics. We do not need him to lecture us about murder, he would know all about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Order. We will get absolutely nowhere if we are going to have this debate degenerate into calling each other murderers. Please let us make a vow not to go down this route at all. I call on Mrs Nelis to observe that.

Mrs Nelis:

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The report clearly -

Mr Morrow:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to point and address a Member by his surname? This is the first time it has happened, and you would need to make a ruling on this particular matter now.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I make that ruling. I made it, as you will recall, in another place, and that was observed. I call on Members, and Mrs Nelis in particular, to desist.

Rev Dr William McCrea:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that the old saying is that if you throw a stone in amongst a bundle of dogs, those that yelp the loudest have been hit?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

That is the kind of language that I have said must not be used in this Chamber, and I call on the Member to desist.

Mr Maskey:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I actually refrained from complaining to you on a point of order at the manner in which Mr McCrea, the former MP for mid-Ulster, lambasted my party colleagues because they did not want to engage in any kind of fractious or silly debate. I am just making that point. With all due respect, I think that you gave him too much licence in his earlier contribution.

Mrs Nelis:

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The report contained a very pertinent question, a LeasCheann Comhairle, and I think Mr Gardiner asked it. He asked what exactly a job promoted looked like? He asked the IDB that question, and we might ask the same question because we see so few of these promoted jobs.

This House cannot seriously try to defend the IDB's record on foot of this report by referring to a conflict of the past 30 years. Even if some did try, perhaps we should remind them that ceasefires have been in place for the past five years and that the IDB must surely go into the record books for its efforts during those past five years. In north and west Belfast they created two jobs in that space of time - two jobs in that unemployment black spot.

Despite reports from various economic forums, and using the various indices, the area I have mentioned remains one of the most impoverished areas in Europe. The IDB failed miserably in its responsibility to address that situation, and it should hang its head in shame over the announcement that it could create only two jobs. We are debating this motion because the Public Accounts Committee was very aware of the failures of the IDB to discharge its responsibilities.

In the Foyle constituency, for example, the IDB has reduced its support to client businesses by 14% in the past year. This comes at a time when Derry City Council clearly indicated in its economic strategy report that the constituency needs to create 12,000 jobs simply to bring it up to the Six County average. The Public Accounts Committee - and I assert this here today - is doing what it is appointed to do, namely make public bodies like the IDB accountable for their use of public money. The IDB has never truly been held to account for its stewardship of job promotion. The closure of its offices in Derry, the selling of its land bank and its fatalistic attitude towards the near extinction of the textile and other traditional industries, with some exceptions of course, were not matters that we, the elected representatives, were informed of or consulted about. Nor did these decisions, fundamental to job promotion west of the Bann, merit an explanation. I should indeed like to be able to say the IDB did a fine job, but I cannot see the evidence.

This morning I heard a Member use the words "creative accountancy" to describe a combination of efficiency and class distinction. We could be charitable and say that the IDB perhaps mismanaged its brief. I should be more inclined to say that its brief was much influenced by its total lack of interest in explaining why it wasted public money on firms and companies which, to put it mildly, ripped us all off. They certainly ripped the IDB off.

I wish to draw Members' attention to the fact that we may be about to be ripped off again since, as some Members mentioned this morning, some of these jobs promised by the IDB's call-centre clients are now being moved to England before they have even been established. Two hundred and fifty jobs will be lost, though we in the Foyle constituency were promised 650 call-centre jobs last year. We are told that they are in the pipeline, that there are some difficulties, but we have not seen them yet.

I wish to support this motion. I hope that people read the Public Accounts Committee's report. It is valuable teaching for us all, and I hope that the transparency and accountability it advocates will become the hallmarks of Members of this Assembly. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Beggs:

I am an Assembly Member for East Antrim, a constituency that takes in the borough of Carrickfergus, which has the fifth-highest unemployment rate of any council district in Northern Ireland, something which many people from the west of the Province appear to forget. As a matter of interest, it is also at present excluded from much of the IDB's financial support.

I am also a member of the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee, so to a certain extent I have an interest both in that side of things and in the wise investment of IDB funds in Northern Ireland. I welcome the monitoring of the IDB by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which, for everyone's information, actually took place in October 1998. Its initial report has been picked up by the Public Accounts Committee and highlighted at Westminster.

I too support much of the report's valid criticism of the IDB, in particular that which relates to the lack of value for money as a result of many of its decisions. However, I have several concerns about the motion before us today. As some Members have already said, there is an issue of protocol, since the matter has been investigated by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, whose procedures are currently ongoing. The Department has yet to make a response.

Secondly, we must take note of the fact that the report is only five-weeks old. What would be the point in the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee's producing a subsequent report on the issue? In my opinion, we must await a response from the Department. Thereafter, time will be required to establish whether the recommendations will be implemented. It is pointless for the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee to have an immediate investigation.

5.00 pm

The function of the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee is to examine areas of concern and to bring accounting officers and other civil servants to account before the Committee and the Northern Ireland public. Its duty is also to highlight issues of impropriety and thus bring improvements to the spending of public money. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee is in the process of doing this, and the Northern Ireland Audit Office will automatically follow up many of the recommendations in the original report as a matter of course.

There are several existing means by which the Assembly can continue to take an interest. Individual Members can put down questions for written or oral answer. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, to which the IDB is accountable, can deal with the issues in detail. If that fails, and the Northern Ireland Audit Office advises us that improvements have not been made, it can be brought before the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee. It would be inappropriate, to assume now that that is what will happen.

I am concerned at the directive element in the motion. I ask Members to note that of the 18 reports that the House of Commons PAC has published this year, this is the first which applies specifically to Northern Ireland. What about 17 reports, published by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which require investigation by the Northern Ireland PAC? We have a responsibility to investigate those reports in detail, and to bring the accounting officers responsible to account. Road safety, suspected fraud in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and river pollution are issues, which have not been addressed in the past. It is improper at this time to give a directive on one particular issue. Time is required to see whether the advice will be taken and if there is any need for a subsequent report. It would not be putting the Northern Ireland PAC to best use by having it reinvestigate these issues now.

It is a surprise to see this motion coming from Sinn Féin. As other Assembly Members have said, the fact that terrorism has been going on in Northern Ireland makes this motion's coming from it hypocritical. I would appreciate the same amount of pressure and the same directive style coming from Sinn Féin/IRA to ensure that the so-called punishment attacks, mutilations and recent terrorist actions - the bomb in Ballymurphy, for instance - become things of the past. Whether Sinn Féin Members like it or not, such terrorist action make investment in West Belfast more difficult for the IDB to secure, and this is an important matter they should address in their constituencies.

I have sympathy with much of the content of the report. However, because I consider it inappropriate to investigate the issue again and to give a directive at this time, I will not be supporting the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

We have three more members to speak before the winding-up speeches by the Minister and Dr O'Hagan. I ask the three Members to limit themselves to seven minutes each.

Mr Maskey:

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make a couple of points, but I will be quite brief. I am not sponsoring this motion and I presume that the sponsor will deal with some of the questions raised. I am just curious. Does Mr Beggs, for example, accept that the lack of success that the IDB has apparently had in Carrickfergus, according to his statistics, is due to the endemic, systematic sectarian harassment of Catholics in that community? Or, is it a reflection of the lack of ability or success of the IDB? I am not sure. It is a question that he needs to answer since he asked one of a similar kind about my area. I am putting it in Mr Beggs's context.

Mr Beggs:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

It appears that the Member is not giving way.

Mr Maskey:

I have no problem about giving way to him at all.

Mr Beggs:

One of the reasons for the lack of investment by IDB in my area is the inappropriateness of its criteria for deciding where investment should be directed. Even though Carrickfergus has the fifth highest level of unemployment, it has been excluded from those criteria.

Mr Maskey:

Mr Beggs was justifying the IDB's lack of success in my constituency for the reasons that he gave. I am merely drawing his attention to difficulties in his constituency, which have or should have affected job creation and other developments there. It is futile to be throwing these kinds of allegations about. There are difficulties in his constituency, which he appears not to be able to address. Anyway that is another discussion.

I do accept that IDB has faced difficulties over a long number of years. I am certainly not here today to put a lot of those difficulties at the door of the Minister, Reg Empey, because he is only recently in post.

I welcome the motion. I do not accept, or even understand, the arguments that people are putting forward that because the Public Accounts Committee in the British Parliament is dealing with this we should not. If that is the case, we will not be dealing with a lot of issues here. Just because they have already been dealt with in London or are in the process of being dealt with there, should we pack up and go home? The motion is self-explanatory. It merely says that there is an issue which has been aired in the Public Accounts Committee's report, and Dr O'Hagan is asking the Assembly to continue taking an active interest in it.

I want to speak essentially for my constituency. The figures in the report show that in West Belfast there has been a net reduction in jobs in spite of all the money that has been spent by agencies, including the IDB. To try to evaluate this in the longer term, would it not be better if the IDB were to identify a budget for the various constituencies, building into that an identifiable element of targeting social need, which nobody ever seems to be able to quantify? I would like to see a budget which is identified, which is TSN proofed, which is related to the various industries and to deprivation, need and lack of employment opportunities, constituency by constituency. If possible, I would further like that money to be used by the IDB to work with local communities, district councils and local partnerships, et cetera, to try to develop and marry the various strategies to ensure that at least a portion of the IDB budget which has been allocated for constituencies is ring-fenced. A strategy should be developed in conjunction with the local communities, the success of which can eventually be evaluated. If people know the budget that is available to them, and are realistic with that budget, local strategies, working with the IDB and other Government Departments can give us a way forward.

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

Mr Morrow:

I will not be supporting this motion because there is a degree of mischievousness in it. If there is a perception abroad, which there is, that we cannot treat anything seriously that comes from the Sinn Féin/IRA Benches, it knows why that is the case.

I am not a great fan of the IDB and never have been. Indeed, the criticisms contained in the report are well-founded and need to be tackled and dealt with. Despite our best efforts, we were not able to move an amendment to this motion, but that is a matter for another place. I want to state quite categorically that - [Interruption]

Mr Maskey:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

It is obvious that the Member is not giving way.

Mr Morrow:

I will not be supporting the motion, and I am not giving way to Mr Maskey - [Interruption]

In relation to the jibe, I did not support it. I do not support anything that comes from Sinn Féin/IRA. It is not up to me to decide what is kept off the Order Paper as far as the business of this Assembly is concerned. The Member knows that very well; he was there when the whole matter was discussed. If he wants to make a few silly, stupid jibes, that is a matter entirely for him.

For 30 years Northern Ireland has been subjected to a vicious and ruthless terror campaign, much of which has been waged against economic targets. While I feel that the IDB should be subjected to a root-and-branch overhaul, I would be foolhardy and irresponsible not to acknowledge that their task was made more difficult by groups like Sinn Féin/IRA and other terrorist organisations.

On reading the report it is clear that many of the jobs promised were never created and, indeed, that a large percentage of those that were created lasted only for a very short time. It is also alarming to note that not all the costs were incorporated into the cost-per-job calculation.

In addition, it is surprising, to say the least, that the IDB does not use the Internet to market Northern Ireland. Mr Sammy Wilson made reference to this earlier, and I find it incredible that in this day and age the IDB has not been told that the Internet exists. However, I am sure that when they read this report, they too will discover that there are other ways of marketing Northern Ireland which they have not pursued to date.

I certainly agree with my Colleague, Ian Paisley, when he cited the IRA; his criticism of Sinn Féin is well placed. I am not a fan of the IDB, and, having read the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report, I have to say that my feelings have not changed.

The IDB undoubtedly has an extremely difficult task in job creation and no one - and I include myself here - should underestimate that, but the litany of concerns expressed throughout the report cannot be ignored. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, will, no doubt, have given this report his careful consideration. Can this Assembly look forward to his considered response detailing what action he will be taking to ensure that such a report will not be necessary in the future? I hope that the Minister will take particular interest in the cost per job, which, though planned to be £37,900, was, in fact, £56,200. That is 50% more than the figure first suggested. I accept, of course, that the IDB is at the cutting edge of risk taking and is always going to be vulnerable to criticism, but I think it has to learn, if it has not done so already, that it is very easy to cut whangs off another man's leather, but while they are custodians of public funds, they should keep that very much to the fore.

Billy Hutchinson made an excellent point regarding job announcements. We often hear announcements about thousands of jobs, but do we ever see thousands of jobs being created? When you look at the fine print you discover that thousands dwindle to hundreds or, indeed, to around 50. We need jobs that support the job creation schemes, targeting real areas of social need. Rural constituencies, like mine, that have very high unemployment figures must be looked at more carefully in the future. Let us see a fairer distribution of job creation. I believe, like Mr McCrea, that Londonderry has had more than its fair share. Other areas of Northern Ireland must also get their fair share of job creation and have money spent on them.

Mr Shannon:

I am also unable to support the motion for one simple reason, and that is that the organisation proposing it is the same one that for 30 years, has subjected this country to all sorts of bombing, and as a result, our economy has been badly affected. That having been said, the IDB has not endeared itself to the people of the Province, and certainly not to the people of Strangford especially. The people of Northern Ireland have had to sit back and watch as the IDB has failed majestically to justify the amount of taxpayer money which was being spent on job creation to comparatively little effect.

5.15 pm

Events on the ground have had a major economic impact on areas of Northern Ireland during 30 years of a terrorism and bombing campaign. In Newtownards we had a bomb a few years ago that caused £5 million worth of damage. Where could we have invested £5 million in Newtownards? We could have opened further food-processing units to create employment; we could have used it to help the farming industry; we could have used it for the fishing industry; or we could have used it for the textile industry- all those industries that needed help. But, instead of being able to help them, the Government had to pay out £5 million plus to the people who had suffered as a result of the bomb; a bomb planted by the IRA; a bomb planted to destroy the economic life of the centre of Newtownards.

At the same time, over the last few years, the people of Strangford have had other large economic blackspots to contend with. The backbone of our rural economy is farming. It contributes a lot to the life of our constituency in both rural and urban areas. It has been devastated in recent years while a substantial part of the urban industry has been in textiles. Both industries, agriculture and textiles, are now under enormous pressure. The situation appears to be spiralling out of control, and we are now in the midst of a crisis, which will not only affect the individuals who have been told that they are to become redundant but will have an immensely negative impact upon the whole local economy.

Losses from the Bairdwear, Hawkes Bay and Lamont Holdings, (a Regency Spinners Group) have had a huge impact on the local economy. We have witnessed the loss of over 600 jobs within the clothing industry in the space of just a few months. From being a solid base for the industry, the Ards area now finds itself struggling to maintain any presence whatsoever.

What about the land that has been set aside by the IDB for development in Newtownards and Strangford? Firstly, not enough land has been set aside for development. Secondly, the land that is set aside is owned by the IDB and some of it is on a hill. It is going to be very difficult to build a factory on a hill. It is going to be almost impossible to prepare that site, and what is the IDB doing today? It should be preparing the ground so that if any factories do want to come in, we will be in a position to react. The conduct of the IDB at best has been unprofessional and at worst downright discriminating.

Financially, the loss of 600 jobs can only have a devastating effect upon the local economy and, as a result, it is estimated that £6·5 million will be lost. The picture is the same right across Northern Ireland. From an internal point of view, part of the problem lies with the Robson index. There needs to be an urgent review of targeting social need as results do not appear to produce an accurate indication of social deprivation within any given area. There must be parity of social recognition between a disadvantaged person living in an area that is perceived to be affluent and a disadvantaged person in an area which is perceived to be disadvantaged.

Areas such as Ards and Strangford are perceived to be affluent, but one just has to look at the local housing estates to read a different story. The new system should be more effective at locating areas of social deprivation, but because this system will continue to work alongside local government and ward boundaries, a large number of areas in our constituency will continue to be ignored, being part of a ward which is perceived to be affluent when the reality is that a large proportion of that ward is anything but.

With the crisis in agriculture and the disintegration of the textile industry, unemployment figures for the borough are higher than the Northern Ireland average. I have heard some Members talking about unemployment today. Unemployment in our area is rising dramatically. Where the proportion of people claiming benefit is 5·7% in Northern Ireland as a whole, and 5·2% in the Belfast travel-to-work area, the figure for the Ards borough is 6·7%, a figure that does not even take into account the most recent redundancies within textiles. The final figure is believed to be around a staggering 9·6%.- almost 10% in the Ards borough perceived to be an affluent area, but is anything but. There must be flexibility in Government policy or this system of TSN will continue to punish the people of Ards. These figures hardly show that the Ards borough or Strangford is an affluent area, a place where job opportunities are available, where everything is going well.

Even though the IDB played an important role in securing the future of Northern Ireland Spinners Ltd in Killinchy, it is clear that they have not delivered on their obligations to the people and the economy of Northern Ireland. They have done people in Strangford and across this Province a great disservice. Great swaths of jobs have gone, with few subsequent options or opportunities being made available to those laid off. This dreadfully unsatisfactory situation cannot be allowed to continue. Change is urgently required. Resolute and necessary action must be taken in order to enhance and rebuild the economy of Northern Ireland.

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey):

It has already been acknowledged that I find myself in something of a dilemma this afternoon. On one hand, I welcome the interest of the Public Accounts Committees of the House of Commons and of the Assembly in the work of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in pursuit of better public services. On the other hand, with a memorandum of response to the Public Accounts Committee report not yet compiled, let alone agreed with the Department of Finance and Personnel and returned to the Committee, I am unable to enter fully into the debate or to inform Members as I would wish. I deeply regret this, because so many points have been made, and the debate has been of such a nature, that detailed answers are required.

It is not my intention to be discourteous to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, which has made it clear that there is a procedure laid down for such responses. They are to be made within eight weeks. At this stage, IDB and the Department of Finance and Personnel have not yet completed the compilation of a response, and I cannot anticipate that response. I certainly cannot give detailed answers until that response has been handed to the Public Accounts Committee. I hope hon Members do not expect me to put the House in that difficult position.

However, in the light of what has been said today, and without wishing to prejudice in any way the memorandum of response or to seem disrespectful to the Committee, I feel I must say something in general terms, if only to retain a sense of perspective.

The Public Accounts Committee report covers the period April 1988 to March 1997. As will be seen in due course when the IDB makes its response, much progress has been made since then. Secondly, the difficult political and economic climate in which the IDB operated throughout most of this period is a factor that has been acknowledged by the Committee. The IDB's approach to measuring the economic efficiency of new inward investment cases now mirrors that undertaken elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

The issue of jobs promoted was referred to on a number of occasions. It is a common means of measuring the performance of industrial development agencies throughout the United Kingdom. The actual rate of conversion to jobs created by IDB inward investments is 76%, which compares very favourably with Scotland and Wales. If Members refer to the report, they will see that this point is acknowledged.

Pay-outs on letters of offer are triggered by each company's performance in delivering agreed targets. There seems to be a perception that, just because a deal is struck on a certain number of jobs that are to be created, the money agreed is automatically paid over. That is not the case. The money is only paid over when certain targets are actually met. If they are not met, funds are not paid to the companies concerned.

Finally, the IDB has worked very hard to maximise job creation in TSN areas. Again, this has been acknowledged. I agree with Members who said that this in itself is a subject for debate. I hope shortly to come to comments made by individual Members, including Mr Shannon.

The PAC report on inward investment raises important issues and will receive my full attention. Where there is room for improvement, I will ensure that progress is made. The IDB has an important role to play in helping to build the local economy, and I look forward to working with the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee and the Public Accounts Committee to maximise its effectiveness. I do not wish to get into a blow by blow account of every point in the report. A number of comments were made throughout the debate and I would like to refer now to some of those.

I begin by referring to the comments by the hon Member for North Antrim, Ian Paisley Jnr, when he specifically referred to the Moyle area of his constituency and what he considered to be an inadequate response by the IDB to the difficulties there. I am very much aware that Moyle has taken over from Strabane as the highest unemployment local council area in the Province. That is something I deeply regret. The hon Member for North Antrim will be aware that, in the short period since devolution has been restored, I have visited Moyle because of an unfortunate incident at the Giant's Causeway visitor centre. I believe there is considerable potential for employment, especially out of that tragedy, which has the potential for a significant investment.

The Member for East Antrim, Mr Neeson, made some remarks about 'Strategy 2010' and tax-raising and tax-varying powers. I know that he and his party have been advocates of this policy for a long time. While it is something that we will have to come to on another day, my concern is that tax-varying powers would equate to tax-raising powers, because the temptation to increase taxes for public expenditure would be inevitable. One needs to be very careful not to create a disincentive to investment, because the stresses and strains between demands for public expenditure and competitive rates will be very strong. As Members know, the Republic has attracted companies on the basis of a lower rate through its corporation tax. My concern would be that if we had tax-varying powers that were not corporation tax-varying powers, these would become tax increases and therefore a disincentive, doing the very opposite of what the Republic has been successful in doing by using its corporation tax variants.

A number of Members have referred to the circumstances that the IDB and, indeed, LEDU find themselves in with regard to the issues surrounding violence and disorder. Though he is not in the Chamber, the hon Member for North Belfast, Mr Hutchinson, seemed to make light of this, that it did not matter so much what the IRA or the Loyalists did. You cannot ignore these things. When I was Lord Mayor of Belfast I had visitors and potential investors in the parlour when the windows rattled, and I had to try to explain that to them. Nobody in their right mind could imagine that a terrorist war, which has waged for three decades, would not have any impact whatsoever on inward investment. It is absolute nonsense to suggest it. Most of today's investment is mobile and it can go anywhere. Nobody is going to be content to invest in an area which is patrolled by armoured cars, where buildings are surrounded by cages, and where people are constantly sweeping up the rubble and the glass and having to spend hours upon hours of management time on claims and trying to rebuild their businesses. So to say that this is of no account is patent nonsense. That would be obvious to anybody. A number of Members have made that point. I do not propose to refer to each one of them individually, but it is important that we understand that that has been a consistent factor.

5.30 pm

The other issue that must be understood is that the morale of the people who are going out to market and sell Northern Ireland, whether as a tourist or industrial destination, has to be taken into consideration. Whether we like it or not, the pattern in North America and other markets for years has been that whenever you say you are from Northern Ireland the people look at you and start to talk. What do they talk about? They do not start by talking about the Giant's Causeway or the great weather - they ask "Is the war on?" and enquire about people's safety. There are questions like that before one even gets to discuss the investments.

Thank God, I believe that that is changing. However, this report covers the period from 1988 onwards, and therefore covers some of the worst periods of the troubles. To imagine that this could have taken place without any reference to difficulties is clearly wrong. The hon Member for East Belfast, Mr Sammy Wilson, referred to the Internet. It may well be that that hon Member chooses to spend his time on the Internet on other matters, but I can assure him that the IDB is very much on the Internet. If I could tear him away from some of the other sites he might be visiting, I suggest that he visit the site because in January this year I launched an upgraded site for the IDB. It is a very good site, and I would commend it to Members. The hon Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also referred to it, and, if he chooses to look it up, he will find a very positive site there presenting a very positive image of Northern Ireland. Indeed, our Internet marketing is moving forward very strongly. There is a team in IDB House that takes this matter very seriously, and I believe that when the Member looks up the site he will be impressed by what he sees.

Mr Morrow:

I thank the Minister for giving way. We are simply quoting what is in the report. Is he telling us that the report is wrong? The report's authors say that they would like to introduce the IDB to the Internet. If the Minister is saying that that part is wrong, then we accept that. However, he would need to clarify that and correct the report if that is the case. Thank you.

Sir Reg Empey:

I do not want to get into a blow-by-blow account on the actual report, but I can assure the hon Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that there is an IDB Internet site. I have given him its address, and I suggest that he take up my suggestion to have look at it.

Mr Morrow:

I am happy to do that.

Sir Reg Empey:

I appreciate that, and we will come back to it on another occasion. The hon Member for South Belfast, Dr McDonnell, talked about more risk taking, refocusing, and a more comprehensive debate. One of the criticisms I have of the motion is its timing, because we are in a position where, for parliamentary protocol reasons, I am replying in this debate with both hands tied behind my back; I regret that. The other matter is that the IDB and the Department of Finance and Personnel do not yet have their major piece of input in front of this Assembly. I know that Committees will want to engage in that, and that Members will want to have a full, free and open debate. I repeat that I do not intend to insult Members of Parliament and the Committee structure at Westminster, because I believe it would be a very short-term gain to do so.

Some people have perhaps misunderstood what has been happening, even in their own areas. Although this report is specifically about the IDB's performance, Members must remember that the largest performance and most significant number of jobs created are by the private sector and the public sector, in the natural course of events and under their own steam. IDB client companies and LEDU client companies only represent part of the economy. Not every company receives money and not every company asks for money. Indeed, the majority of companies do not do so. That, of course, is where most jobs are actually created.

Sir Reg Empey:

I want to refer to a number of points that were made by the hon Member for Mid Ulster, Mr McCrea, who, unfortunately, is not with us at the moment. He was very concerned that west of the Bann got a particularly raw deal and he claimed that a large part of the money was going into a particular part of one constituency. Indeed, listening to the complaints of the hon Member for Foyle, Mrs Nelis, you would think she did not get daylight up there. She should have known better because I sent her a reply to a written question recently. I have been looking at the Foyle constituency's slice of the cake in the five years from 1995/1996 onwards.

In 1995-96 the Foyle constituency's selective financial assistance from the Industrial Development Board (IDB) totalled almost £21 million, and that left Foyle in number two position in Northern Ireland. In 1996-97 it received £8·1 million, leaving it in eighth position. In 1997-98 it received £51·6 million, leaving it in first position. In 1998-99 it received £3·9 million, leaving it in eighth position. Last year it received £5·6 million, leaving it in fifth position. On average that puts it in the top quartile in every one of the last five years, and I do not consider that as paying scant regard to the area. In terms of Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) performance, it is averaging 7% over the last six years as well. In other words, it is very much on a par there as well.

In relation to what Mr McCrea was saying about his constituency, sadly, it did not receive any selective financial assistance from the IDB last year. But in 1995-96 it was in third position with £15 million; that dropped to £2·3 million in 1996-97; £1·3 million in both 1997-98 and 1998-99, and nothing in the last financial year. Therefore, he probably has a point about more recent years. But take some other constituencies, Strangford, for example, which in 1995 received nothing, in 1996 received £1·5 million, in 1997 £1·4 million, in 1998 £0·16 million, and last year just under a million. There are many other constituencies in weaker positions. In terms of LEDU -

Mr Tierney:

The Minister must look at the unemployment figures as well. Taking those into account, the Foyle Constituency's assistance level was one of the lowest.

Sir Reg Empey:

The impression was given clearly in the debate that there is considerable grievance that the Foyle Constituency is doing very badly out of all of this. I am simply saying that the arithmetic in front of me does not sustain that. That is the reality. It is there in black and white. Of course you must relate things to unemployment, as you do to a range of other matters too. This is because deprivation can take a range of forms. The point I am making is that it is perfectly clear that both LEDU and IDB recognise the difficulties that constituency has.

What people must remember about all of this is that the demand for selective financial assistance comes from companies. Projects and expansions have to be there and coming forward. The IDB cannot unilaterally produce a result and cede money going to a particular Constituency. It has to come from demand from particular companies, and I believe there has been a significant response over recent years in that Constituency. It is in the reply, which is in the public domain.

Mr Hussey:

I am sure the Minister will agree that the MP and MEP there probably did a lot of the good work in attracting business. It is a pity that the same Member of Parliament, prior to reorganisation, forgot that Strabane was part of his constituency.

Sir Reg Empey:

That is what you call an up-and-under. A former rugby commentator used to come out with that one. I take seriously the difficulties the hon Member has in his constituency, and he knows that I will see some of his Colleagues this week in regard to some of those matters. I visited the area when I was in this position the last time we had devolution, and I am conscious of the difficulties. Although this was an answer to a particular Member, it might be useful to have this set of statistics, broken down into district council areas, submitted and circulated to all Members. It would be a reference point, and it might be useful for Members to have a ready reckoner at their disposal so that they could refer to it and see how things are moving.

The Member for east Antrim, Mr Beggs, referred to the difficulties in his area, and I direct my response to him and Mr Shannon, from Strangford. North Down, Ards and Carrick have some of the highest male unemployment rates in the Province. There is a hidden problem in areas in the Greater Belfast commuter belt; a two-speed constituency is developing. There are those who are indigenous to the constituency, who work and live in it, and there are those who reside in the constituency but do not work in it, and I have noticed this particularly in the Strangford area.

I visited Strangford as a result of the crisis in the textile industry to liase with the borough council over their difficulties in that regard, and it was obvious that many of the staple industries (agriculture, fishing and textiles) have been taking a hammering, but because there is a growing proportion of the population in those districts - and this applies equally in North Down - of those who reside in the constituency but do not live in it, that disguises the underlying difficulties in the economy in those two areas. A lot of that also applies to the constituency of East Antrim. When we look at the Robson index and the indices of deprivation, we see that this is one of the pockets of deprivation that are located in the middle of areas of apparent affluence.

When we come to deal with the new TSN issue these are matters we will have to address and be honest about. Instead of taking the global statistics, which can be misleading, we must remember that it does not matter where a person is, if that person is in a situation where he is being deprived and has no opportunities or skills, then we are tasked to do our best to provide him with opportunities. It does not matter whether he is in Upper Malone or in any other ward, everybody should have an equal opportunity to improve and get themselves out of a particular difficulty. That is not going to be done simply by using a blunt instrument such as some of the statistical methods that are currently at our disposal. But perhaps that is a debate for another day.

For reasons that I have made clear, I have not been able to be as responsive to the matters referred to during the debate in respect of the IDB's performance, and I apologise for that. I hope we will return to this in the next session when we will have had the opportunity to go through the report with the clear advantage of a response from the IDB and DFP and with the knowledge of the considered position of the Public Accounts Committee in London. The reasons I have stipulated together with the matters referred to by the hon Member for Lagan Valley, Mr Bell, mean that I am therefore unable to support this motion.

Dr O'Hagan:

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First, I would like to share the Minister's hope that we will return to this debate during the next session. I would like to thank the people who contributed and who made serious and sensible contributions to the debate. There are a number of issues the first of which is the timing and tabling of the motion. I welcome the Speaker's ruling that this was a competent motion, which we were perfectly entitled to debate in the Assembly.

5.45 pm

The reason the motion was put down, as I said in my opening speech, was that the Assembly is going into recess and this is too important an issue to be left until September. As Esmond Birnie said, this debate can be used to flag up a number of issues regarding the IDB.

Turning to some of the comments made, I am disappointed that the Chairman of our Public Accounts Committee intends to wait for the procedure to go through Westminster. The wording of the motion was chosen carefully in the light of the recommendation from the Select Committee at Westminster to our Public Accounts Committee asking it to keep a watching brief on the matter. That recommendation still stands and is very pertinent.

Some good comments were made, and overall people showed serious concern about the performance and activities of the IDB. The concern is mainly about the figures for job creation and job promotion, the lack of accountability and the lack of response to Committees, such as that at Westminster, but it also centres around the lack of adherence to equality issues and TSN.

I was glad to hear John Dallat say that he is on the Auditor General's committee. He said that the Auditor General is not only capable but willing to deal with this and other issues and that our Public Accounts Committee has a critical role to play.

Some very sensible comments were made, and I was glad to hear that contributors like Ian Paisley Jnr agreed that this was an indictment of the failure of the IDB and a catalogue of shame. Unfortunately, Mr Paisley, along with other Members of his party, then reverted to type and came out with comments that were typical of the DUP - for his information I have read the report, and that is why the motion is worded as it is.

With regard to the other comments about my part in putting down the motion, I would remind some parties that they have sailed very close to the wind. I need only mention the DUP's involvement with Ulster Resistance and its support for the Orange Order and others in their attempts to bring this place to a standstill. Given that economic development was linked to political stability, it might be helpful if Mr Paisley and Mr Wilson's Colleagues took their seats in the Executive and projected a more positive image. The DUP's response to the motion was interesting. It shows its difficulty in dealing with sensible and normal motions - the DUP always has to bring everything back to the confrontational politics with which it is most comfortable.

As time goes on, the stresses and strains in that party will increase as normal politics begin to bed down. By way of a reminder to that party, and to the other people who questioned our putting this motion down, my party and I are here because of an electoral mandate. We are entitled to be here, and we are entitled to bring forward and debate areas of concern, and that is something my Colleagues and I will continue to do.

In winding up, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am pleased that he said that he will be giving the Public Accounts Committee's report his full attention. Perhaps he will reply by way of a written answer to my question.

We were talking about statistics and I think it is true that you can have "lies, damned lies and statistics". How much of the overall IDB budget is spent east of the Bann and how much is spent west of the Bann? I am glad that these issues were raised. They are very serious issues. The IDB has been in existence since 1982 and there has been little accountability and I think that it is important that the Assembly begins to take control of issues such as the IDB. I am glad that this motion was made and I urge people to support it. Go raibh maith agat.

Question put and negatived.

The sitting was suspended at 5.50 pm.

<< Prev