Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 21 November 2000 (continued)
3.00 pm
It was always believed that if privatisation - which was the original intention - did not go through, trust port powers would be extended to the ports of Belfast, Londonderry and Warrenpoint. I regret that the work recommended in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee was not carried out. The reason for that was that it was not known whether or not the golden share would be legal under European law. That is understandable, and the Committee recognised that it might create a problem. That problem was always hanging over the Committee. The correct decision has been made. Trust powers should be extended; there is no other choice now.
There is a concentration on the interests of the trust ports. It would be remiss of me, as a representative of East Antrim, not to express concern that what happens with the port of Belfast, in particular, should not endanger the interests of the port of Larne, which is a private port. In recent months Stena has decided to relocate its conventional roll-on/roll-off ferries to Larne for the Stranraer route. That shows that while Belfast has a niche, Larne, as a roll-on/roll-off port, also has an important part to play in Northern Ireland's economy.
I am also concerned about the demise of the small commercial harbours, particularly Carrickfergus. I spent a long time trying to protect the interests of that port. It provided competition to Belfast, as its rates were lower. Therefore it brought competition. The port of Bangor has also closed and the port of Coleraine is on its last legs. At present, it is only dealing with a number of cargoes of scrap. Its future remains in the balance. Competition in Northern Ireland is reduced by the closure and disappearance of the other smaller ports.
All Members agree that the major asset of the Port of Belfast is land. It is vital that what the Assembly agrees is in the best economic interests of not only the people of Belfast but also the people of Northern Ireland. Harland & Wolff has designated an area of land for special development. Titanic Quarter will provide great opportunities for Belfast to create a major waterfront development. Northern Ireland's science park will be located there.
There is substantial interest, both in Northern Ireland and overseas, in the development of that site. There will be a full waterfront development, from the Odyssey to the 'Titanic' slipways. I watched a television documentary on Sunday about the 'Titanic' and the artefacts that have been recovered from it. The documentary concluded that Belfast should be the location for the display of those artefacts. That gives some encouragement to people like myself who support the development of maritime heritage in the Belfast area. In dealing with the question of extended trust powers we must look at the assets of Belfast Harbour Commissioners.
I was flabbergasted by last week's decision to overturn the payment of compensation to Harland & Wolff. I must question Global Marine's motivation in trying to bring about the demise of Harland & Wolff in Belfast. We are aware of Global Marine's activities in other parts of the world, and that must bring into question the company's very integrity. Wearing my enterprise, trade and investment hat, I sincerely hope that we can overcome those difficulties. The shipyard is a very integral and important part of the Belfast harbour site.
It is important for the Minister to take on board that there are a number of interests there, not just the Belfast Harbour Commissioners but also Belfast City Council, for example. I hope that all those interests are taken on board when plans come forward from the Department for Regional Development.
I am delighted to see Mr Roche here continuing his interest in Belfast harbour. Members may recall that he was a very active member of the Ad Hoc Committee, and he served on it with Sinn Féin. In fact, he chaired a meeting, and Sinn Féin members were present. Perhaps is a good sign that Mr Roche and his party members are here today. Maybe it is a sign that there is a realisation that if we are to have an inclusive and collective approach to important issues such as this they will have to take their responsibilities on board.
The trends in shipping are changing very much at the present time. As the Chairman of the Committee has stated, it is important for the ports to develop their own niche. I am delighted to see a growing number of cruise ships now visiting Lisahally port. There are other opportunities for development, and in Londonderry land is also the major asset. It is important that that is developed in the best interests of the people in the city.
There is urgency about reaching a decision on the Port of Belfast and also the other ports. I urge the Minister to recognise that.
With regard to the recommendations that will be coming forward soon, there is a recognition in Belfast, Londonderry and Warrenpoint that elected representatives must have an input so that these organisations are accountable. They may be autonomous, but by the same token elected representatives should have an input.
I will say no more than that, except once again to thank Mr Hay and his Colleagues for bringing the report forward. I look forward to the responses from the Minister, as there is an urgency to resolve this issue.
Mr Roche:
The key issue in the forthcoming legislation referred to in the motion is the future status of the Belfast port and how this might affect the other Northern Ireland ports.
In theory, there are two options available for the Port of Belfast, and they are set out in the Department for Regional Development's option paper of February 2000. The first is privatisation, and the second is that it be made a restructured trust port with extended powers. Although Belfast Harbour Commissioners have withdrawn their privatisation proposal, it is worth looking at this option in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the restructured trust port with extended powers option.
Both of these options should be considered against the background of the economic performance of the Belfast port during the 1990s. The key feature in the economic performance of the port during that time was the raised level of after-tax profit connected to capital expenditure of about £150 million. The after-tax profit seemed to have reached something of a plateau from the mid-1990s, and there cannot be an expectation of £75 million from the EU in the future. These considerations raised the crucial issue of how we will ensure the continued growth and commercial competitiveness of the Port of Belfast.
The Belfast Harbour Commissioners' response was to produce their proposals for the commercial privatisation of the port on the basis of a public-private partnership (PPP). Their core argument was that the PPP proposal would provide the port with greater commercial freedom and with crucial access to equity capital. The details of these proposals were submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on 30 March 1999. The Ad Hoc Committee reported on 22 July 1999, concluding that the transfer of the port to the private sector by means of flotation on the stock market was the best way forward while retaining the harbour estate in public ownership. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners responded with what has been termed an enhanced PPP proposal on 2 February 2000.
The key issues at stake in these proposals can be stated clearly without going into the minutiae of the proposals themselves. The proposals conceded the principle of privatisation as the best way of securing commercial freedom and of getting adequate access to financial capital. The proposals also recognised that privatisation would give rise to two fundamental problems.
Mr A Maginness:
Essentially, the Member is referring to the development of a privatisation policy in relation to the Port of Belfast. There are currently a few problems with that. First, the stock market does not favour the disposal of that type of asset. The type of finance that one could raise would be fairly limited and would come from the harbour commissioners. Secondly, there is the question of the golden share, which was supposed to guarantee the future of the harbour. That golden share has, in fact, been shown to be so ineffective that it is now redundant. The Port of Belfast would therefore be open to a predatory takeover, as have some of the other British ports.
Mr Roche:
I was outlining some of the main features of the privatisation proposal, in the context of considering and assessing the second option of Belfast's being made a restructured port with extended powers. I will be dealing with most of the points you have mentioned.
3.15 pm
The proposals recognise that privatisation would give rise to two fundamental problems. First, how can we create a safeguard against predatory takeover and thus protect local ownership of the port in the event of privatisation? Secondly, how can we create a safeguard against the speculative use of the landbank - by which I mean use of the landbank that would not contribute to economic activity in Northern Ireland? The issue is further exacerbated by the fact that, almost certainly, the port could not be successfully floated without the rental income. PricewaterhouseCoopers identified that matter in their options assessment as one of the basic weaknesses in the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.
The issues connected with privatisation were never successfully resolved. Leaving aside the problems associated with the use of a golden share to prevent a predatory takeover, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the basic reason why the problems of privatisation were not satisfactorily resolved was that, on the part of the Assembly, the will to do so did not exist. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended privatisation because, at the time, it seemed to be the only way to secure the £70 million for infrastructural development included in the Chancellor's statement of May 1998, not because of any commitment to privatisation per se.
The alternative to some form of privatisation is a restructured port with extended powers. That is option D in the Department for Regional Development's paper dated 4 February 2000. It is the favoured option of the Regional Development Committee and, almost certainly, the option that, subject to appraisal, will be included in the legislation.
There are two basic problems with the public ownership option. First, it is almost certainly the case that the extended powers option could not match privatisation in terms of commercial freedom and access to financial capital. Secondly, there is a lack of clarity about what is involved in the restructuring. To some extent, restructuring means the appropriation by the Government of the assets of the port as a means of raising revenue. Legislation could - I am not saying that it will - give the Government access to the cash reserves held by Belfast Harbour Commissioners, which represent about £21·8 million. Legislation could also transfer all or a portion of the non-port lands to an existing or new public body to generate Government revenue from the lease of such lands.
A restructured port with extended powers could represent the worst case option for two basic reasons. The option can not match privatisation in terms of commercial freedom and access to financial capital. Perhaps that should not be overstated, for the Belfast Harbour Commissioners now consider that, on such issues, the choice between privatisation and option D is marginal. That is at least debatable. More importantly, the restructuring option could degenerate into nothing more commendable than asset-stripping by the Government to meet the demand for expenditure on the institutions established by the Belfast Agreement. It is already apparent that the all-Ireland aspects of the Belfast Agreement are devouring millions of pounds without any proper - [Interruption] Do you find that amusing, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Please continue. What I find amusing or not amusing is none of your business.
Mr Roche:
That too is a debatable point.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
The Member should sit when I am on my feet. What I find amusing or not amusing in this House is not a debatable point. The Member should bear that in mind.
Mr S Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is permissible for people to smile?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
That is not a point of order.
Mr Roche:
It is another political stunt.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Roche:
I was not addressing you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Already the - [Interruption]
Mr S Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I will not take any further points of order.
Mr S Wilson:
Is it in order for the Member to address anyone other than through the Chair?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
The Member is quite correct.
Mr Roche:
It is already apparent that the all-Ireland aspects of the Belfast Agreement are devouring millions of pounds, without any proper economic appraisal of the opportunity cost of this political use of taxpayers' money. The legislation must not restructure the port in a manner that would effectively deprive it of the financial resources to sustain competitive commercial activity. That would ultimately create the conditions for Dublin to emerge as the dominant port on the island. That crucial consideration is reinforced by the fact that it is almost certainly the case that the Treasury would offset any revenue flows to Stormont resulting from restructuring.
Finally, it seems to me that a socialist mindset or ethos informs the wording of the motion. The idea that the Government could safeguard the future of the Northern Ireland trust ports is simply economic nonsense. The proper role for the Government is to contribute as far as possible to an open and level competitive playing field, within which it is up to the port's management and employees to safeguard the future of these crucial commercial enterprises. There is only one way to do this: by effectively competing in the market place. The Government must develop the option best suited to that fundamental commercial objective.
Mr Neeson intruded a political point into what, as I say, is an economic argument. The position of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party is absolutely straightforward. We will not participate in any Committees established to implement the Belfast Agreement. As for the Ad Hoc Committee, which was established to consider privatisation proposals for the Belfast port, once Sinn Féin was admitted to Government without decommissioning we drew the line at even participating in such a Committee -
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Roche, please speak to the motion.
Mr C Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I notice that you did not bring Mr Neeson to book when he departed from the issue. It is unfair of you to bring my Colleague to order for departing from the motion when the matter was raised by Mr Neeson.
Mr Bradley:
I thank Mr Hay for introducing this timely motion. No doubt it will be welcomed in areas of the north-west and south-east. I would have been happier if the phrase "extension of trust status" had been included in the wording. However, I am satisfied that this requirement is the intention of the proposer. It goes without saying that I would be twice as content if the word "Warrenpoint" were included - but that is for another day.
Coming from Warrenpoint, I bring to the Assembly the concerns often expressed regarding the long-term future of the port there. I am speaking of a wide and varied section of people from the area, and further afield, who directly or indirectly earn a living from port-related employment. The success of Warrenpoint port is something that we are all very proud of in South Down. We look forward to the continuation of the important role that the port plays in the regional development of the area.
Warrenpoint is situated more or less halfway between the two largest ports in Ireland - namely, Dublin and Belfast. It will remain under constant pressure from the competition created in those larger ports, but there can be no complaint about that. The ports of Greenore and Drogheda are also growing, and that will create even more shipping competition along the eastern seaboard. However, the current problems are business-related. The custodians of our trust ports have adequately dealt with these situations in the past and, I have no doubt, will continue to do so in the future, provided that the level of support that they require from Government is urgently legislated for. I endorse the demand by the proposers of this motion that the Minister for Regional Development take the appropriate steps to safeguard the future of the trust ports in Northern Ireland.
I mentioned earlier the ongoing development of Belfast and other ports. It is the Minister's obligation that the Belfast port is not offered any unfair advantages at the expense of the smaller ports. I too served on the Ad Hoc Committee dealing with the future of the Belfast port. I agree with the Chairman's reminder that the Committee recommended that trust ports be given extended powers, and I recognise the danger for smaller ports if the port of Belfast were given any unfair business advantage in the future.
If the Minister and his officials support the Ad Hoc Committee's view, the views of those heard here today and the anticipated views of those yet to speak, concerning our small ports we can feel reasonably assured that those in a position of responsibility will never lose sight of the important role played by our regional ports.
I agree with Mr Hay that the smaller ports anxiously await the implementation of extended powers. That could, and should, be done despite the fact that the situation in Belfast remains unresolved. I support the motion, and I thank Mr Hay for bringing it to the Assembly.
Mr S Wilson:
The motion is timely. I wish Mr Roche would not leave, for I will want to say a word or two about him. Perhaps he will read it in Hansard. I would have liked to provoke him, but - ah well. I will do it in his absence anyway. I should have said so before he got past the door.
This issue has dragged on for some time. It is important that we reach a resolution for a number of reasons. The port of Belfast and the other ports mentioned earlier are important to local economies in the hinterland they serve. The present degree of uncertainty has been perpetuated because of difficulties in Belfast rather than in Londonderry, Warrenpoint and other such places in Northern Ireland.
It is important that we resolve the issue. I served on the Ad Hoc Committee, and it was made clear to the Committee that to safeguard trust ports in Northern Ireland it would be essential that they be given flexibility to deal in activities other than strictly the handling of cargo from ships. They would need the ability to diversify. The ports would also need to have much more financial freedom than at present. Under trust port status, it would not be possible for them to go into the market and borrow money.
Many suggestions were made as to how ports could obtain those powers. We have not yet reached the point where we can fully address those issues. That is an important point. The Minister must bring forward proposals fairly soon so that those issues can be addressed.
The wave of goodwill towards the requirements of a successful port ought not to hide the fact that trust ports have behaved in a way that is not advantageous to citizens in the areas that they are placed. Trust ports are autonomous bodies. They are not accountable to anybody. The commissioners are accountable only to themselves. It is true that the Harbour Commissioners in Belfast have run the port effectively and profitably. They have modernised it, and they have changed its emphasis by their hard work to get tour ships to come to Belfast.
3.30 pm
We must recognise that they have looked for new business opportunities. They have changed with the times. Nevertheless, there have been occasions when I believe that the unaccountable nature of trust ports has been disadvantageous. Decisions have been taken that have been detrimental to the city of Belfast and that have been opposed by nearly all the opinion-makers in Belfast.
I am thinking particularly of the D5 proposal. The council, Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce, the traders on arterial routes and even those concerned with planning policy were opposed to what they were doing. Their own harbour plan was opposed to what they were doing, yet they went ahead. They flew in the face of all those groups and pushed through something that happened to suit them because it fattened their balance sheet in the run-up to what they thought was going to be privatisation.
Regardless of what comes out of the Department, a situation like that should never be permitted again. There has to be accountability. Alban Maginness was right about that. What is to be done? We need to divorce the operation of the port from the scope - especially in Belfast - for the port or the Belfast Harbour Commissioners simply to act as developers. I do not believe that non-port-related land is essential to the successful operation of the port. I know that there are people in the Department who do not believe that. When the Ad Hoc Committee was taking evidence we sometimes wondered whether we were receiving evidence from the Department or from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, because their interests seemed to coincide so often.
I certainly do not believe the nonsense that we heard from Paddy Roche a moment ago. I want to emphasise Sean Neeson's point. Mr Roche and his party participated in a Committee of this Assembly before getting a belated bout of political conscience about it. It is interesting to see that, despite despising the great Satan, as epitomised by the Committees, Mr Roche has taken avid interest in the Regional Development Committee. He was able to quote liberally from its proceedings, reports and discussions. Perhaps his detached attitude towards the Committees shows that he has not been totally converted to the view that participation in Committees is such a bad idea.
He said that the port could not possibly operate commercially unless it had the rental income from the non-port land and the assets contained in that land. He went on to say that to take that land away would be tantamount to asset-stripping, as part of a great conspiracy to make the port less able to compete with Dublin, so that we could have all-Ireland transport links. People accuse me of being paranoid and seeing conspiracies around every corner. That is one of the greatest and most outlandish conspiracy theories I have ever heard. It may well be that he has fallen under the spell of those in the Belfast Harbour Commission who would love that kind of nonsense to be believed.
The fact is that there is a port with assets of over £150 million. It has, more or less, a monopoly position - 60% of the trade in Northern Ireland, with an even higher percentage of the passenger trade.
It has profits of £8 million per year; a return of about 40% on turnover. Mr Roche is an economist, and he is telling us that a business with that kind of performance could not possibly raise money and would not be able to borrow money on the open market if the port were not given another thousand acres of development land. That does stretch credibility.
Mr Roche's explanation of why his party does not participate in Committees also stretches credibility - but this stretches it even further. One might believe his excuse for not participating in Committees if that were not put alongside the kind of fairy story he wants us to believe in relation to the port of Belfast and its ability to raise money.
The one issue that must be addressed is that non-port- related land cannot be left in the hands of a body not accountable to the Government and only accountable to itself. That is a not a commercial or economical pre- requisite for the successful running of the port in the future.
PricewaterhouseCoopers said something similar in their assessment. I know, from my involvement in Belfast City Council, that if you want consultants to give you a report which suits a certain outcome, you tell them the parameters you want them to work within at the start. All such reports must be viewed in that light. We should not leave objectivity aside when we look at reports, whether they are generated by the Assembly or by outside consultants. They always come with that health warning. Those are the issues the Minister and the Department must address when bringing forward a scheme to the Assembly.
The Assembly has given clear direction on two occasions: through the Ad Hoc Committee, and through the Regional Development Committee. On both occasions the message I am giving today has come clearly from those Committees: port activities must be divorced from non-port activities. Whether it be the option for a restructured port with extended powers or the Ad Hoc Committee's report, there has been an indication given on both occasions that the non-port related land should not be part of whatever structure is introduced for the port in future.
If you want real accountability for an important swath of development land in the heart of Belfast, that should be given to the one body which is elected on a four-year basis and which does have public accountability. Belfast City Council, through running two major industrial estates and by developing the gas works site and St George's Market in the heart of Belfast, has a proven track record.
The development of the non-port related land is one aspect that the Committee and the Minister ought to be considering when looking at the future of an important asset in the centre of the city.
Mr Byrne:
I congratulate Mr Hay and Mr Wells for moving this motion. The spirit of the motion is very much in line with the general thinking of the Assembly and certainly with that of the Regional Development Committee in that there is a desire to have extended trust port status for existing Northern Ireland trust ports.
As someone who lives in County Tyrone, I am concerned about the Derry port, as is Mr Hay. I see Derry port as a regional port, which serves the whole of the north-west of Ireland. If it had extended trust port powers, it would be in a better position to develop and contribute to greater economic development in the Derry city area.
Larne port is owned by a private company and is therefore largely in charge of its destiny. We can do little about that. Warrenpoint, like Derry, has a smaller port, and the harbour commissioners and the port users there would like extended trust port status so that the port could develop in the future and provide a greater range of services. Both Derry and Warrenpoint are, as Mr Maginness said earlier, niche ports serving local hinterlands - the north-west in Derry's case, and the south-east part of Northern Ireland in the case of Warrenpoint.
The future of the Belfast port is very much in question. As a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on that future, I agreed with the general sentiment that it is a large public asset in the heart of Belfast. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners have been very successful in the way in which they have managed the port and developed it over many years. There is a very large asset base, and industrial zones are attached to it on both the County Antrim and County Down sides. It therefore earns a good deal in rental income from that commercial land asset.
I am largely in agreement with Sammy Wilson that Belfast port and its harbour commissioners have a great deal of power and assets at the moment. We should congratulate them on how they have managed the port. They have accumulated cash reserves of at least £30 million, and the port is currently making £8 million profit annually. They should not be punished for that but we, as an Assembly, have a public remit on the future of that port. The associated lands in the Belfast harbour estate could be used for the wider development of Belfast on behalf of all of the people of Northern Ireland.
I am aware that people in Derry and Warrenpoint would be concerned about Belfast port's ability to offer keener prices and to engage in what is called predatory pricing if it were to have the luxury of enjoying all the rental income from the commercial properties. That would be unfair competition against Derry port and Warrenpoint. The Minister needs to consider that, when he considers the future arrangements for Belfast.
Ideally, we will bring forward legislation as soon as possible to enable Derry and Warrenpoint to proceed with development through extended trust port status. The development of the Belfast port will take more time, and we should not be rushed unnecessarily. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the port are not suffering unduly because of the delay, and it is important that we properly plan for the port's future. Belfast port is largely a municipally owned facility and Belfast Harbour Commissioners are expected to hold that in trust for all the people of Northern Ireland. I am in favour of a requirement for greater accountability from the harbour commissioners of Derry and Warrenpoint and, I hope, for the Port of Belfast too.
I strongly believe in balanced regional development across Northern Ireland. It is therefore very important that all of these commercial ports are enabled to continue to serve their hinterlands and to contribute, as Mr Wilson said, to local economic development.
3.45 pm
I congratulate the management and the harbour commissioners in Derry for the way in which they have expanded their facilities in recent times. Most recently, they have opened a wharf for fish processing, which should prove very successful. Secondly, they have developed a cruiser ship business, which has the potential to be very beneficial to the tourist industry in the north-west. In recent times, cruiser ships have also been operating in Belfast harbour, which is a very welcome development. It is important that the Minister come forward with the legislation to extend trust port status for Derry and Warrenpoint as soon as possible. It is also important that we deal with the Port of Belfast as quickly as possible.
The Minister for Regional Development (Mr Campbell):
I have listened with interest to Members' views on this subject. Before addressing the issues which have been raised, I will make a number of points to allay the concerns expressed about the interests of the smaller ports and Belfast harbour.
First, my Department's legislative proposals for trust ports are still at a preliminary stage. I have only recently written to the Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee to outline the proposed legislative programme which, I envisage, will extend over a number of years. The overall aim is to modernise our harbour legislation to better equip trust ports to compete and to meet the challenges of an increasingly competitive and fast changing industry. In seeking to do this, my intention is to widen their commercial powers and to ease the financial controls under which they are currently required to operate. At the same time, there is a strong case for taking steps to improve their public accountability - and I note the frequency with which that issue was raised during the debate.
In advancing this work and introducing legislative change, I want to maintain a level playing field, insofar as it is possible. In this context, while I recognise the considerable contribution which Belfast harbour makes to the local economy, I am equally keen to encourage the development of the smaller commercial trust ports of Warrenpoint, Londonderry, Coleraine and Larne. Each port has a unique role to play within the ports industry in Northern Ireland, and I am personally committed to doing what I can to enable them to realise their full potential.
No decision has yet been made on the future of Belfast harbour. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers on an economic appraisal of the various options under consideration is due to be published tomorrow. I have arranged for a presentation on the report's findings to be made to the Regional Development Committee, and I await that Committee's views before coming to a final decision on this important matter.
At a meeting with the Regional Development Committee earlier this month, I did, however, indicate that, for a number of reasons, I do not believe that the time is right to pursue the public/private partnership (PPP) option further. The market conditions are not conducive to a successful floatation. There is considerable political opposition on a local level to privatisation, and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners have recently withdrawn their PPP option in favour of the alternative option of a trust port with extended powers. During the summer the Regional Development Committee announced that it was looking favourably at the alternative option for Belfast harbour of a restructured port with extended powers. I have indicated to the Committee that, in principle, I agree with it on this matter.
The publication tomorrow of the report on the economic appraisal will obviously inform the considerations of the Committee and myself on this matter. However, much uncertainty still surrounds a number of aspects, not least the public expenditure treatment of any proceeds under the various options and the future classification of trust ports for public expenditure purposes, both here and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
For this reason, if restructuring proves to be the way forward for the Port of Belfast, it should be undertaken in a measured way. I have explained to Committee members that subject to their views, and taking into account the views of others, a phased approach would be sensible. Phase one would entail drafting suitable enabling legislation to permit the restructuring of the harbour estate. On the basis of the findings of the economic appraisal, I would see this mainly centring on the Harland & Wolff and Shorts core lands. Phase two would give effect to any restructuring and involve the transfer to the Government of the lands in question. This would obviously be influenced by advice from the Department of Finance and Personnel on the public expenditure implications of any associated rental income or any proceeds resulting from subsequent renegotiations of existing leases. The third phase would entail a periodic review of the PPP option.
I am reluctant to put a precise time scale on this. Clearly, much would depend on changing circumstances and on the market conditions prevailing at the time. As I have already said, greater public accountability will be a feature of my Department's legislative proposals, and this will apply to all of Northern Ireland's trust ports. I am strongly of the view that the granting of wider commercial powers for trust ports brings with it increased responsibility and the need to become more publicly accountable.
Once the future of Belfast harbour has been finally determined, and in advance of the necessary legislation's being put in place we could agree with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners that they undertake to consult with me on any plans for significant change in land use or planned disposal or reletting of harbour lands. In any event, I foresee a need for the harbour legislation to place a statutory duty on all trust ports to seek the approval of the Department in future for any of the circumstances to which I have referred. At the same time, I propose that the Assembly take a reserved power of direction to ensure that the public interest is fully safeguarded against their activities. Apart from this, I do not foresee the eventual decision on the future of the Port of Belfast having any material effect on the smaller trust ports. This of course assumes that the future of the Port of Belfast lies in the public sector for the time being, and I expect that to be so.
In conclusion, I wish to deal very briefly with some of the issues raised by Members in the course of the debate. Initially there was a query from Mr Hay regarding the extension of powers for the smaller ports holding up decisions that may pertain to them. The extended powers of the smaller ports will not be held up by the determining of the future of the Belfast port. I would like to reassure all of the smaller ports on that.
Mr Maginness raised the issue of extended powers for the smaller ports. I assure him that the Department intends to offer those ports the benefit of extended powers where appropriate.
Mr Neeson raised the review undertaken by a previous Minister. Unfortunately there is a convention whereby a report that was issued by a previous Administration is not available to subsequent Ministers. I am afraid that that covers Mr Neeson's point.
Mr Neeson also referred to Harland & Wolff and the Global Marine compensation issue. Of course, I have considerable sympathy with Harland & Wolff, but that is a matter for the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and his Department.
Mr Roche raised the matter of asset-stripping and the restructuring of the port. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to wait until tomorrow and the outcome of the economic appraisal. He also raised the issue of extended powers under restructuring not being able to match commercial freedom under privatisation. This may well be true, but I have already referred not only to the wider commercial freedom that extended powers will give but also to the fact that in a very critical area there are benefits from the extended powers option, in that it would increase the degree of public accountability that privatisation would not.
Mr Roche also referred to asset-stripping to raise proceeds. Another Member made similar comments, albeit in a somewhat bizarre fashion. Some of the lands under discussion have a major public interest dimension, so I do not see how this could be regarded as an asset-stripping exercise.
Mr Wilson raised the matter of public accountability. I hope that I have dealt with that comprehensively. He also referred to non-port-related land's not being essential to the operation of the port. This will be covered in considerable detail in tomorrow's economic appraisal, and members of the Regional Development Committee will have a full opportunity to deal with the issue.
I hope that I have dealt as fully as possible with the matters that Members have raised. I hope that, from what I have said, it is clear to Members that in advancing my legislative proposals, I am mindful of the interests of all Northern Ireland's ports and harbours, regardless of whether they are in the public or the private sector or of whether they are large or small.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
Mr Hay:
We have had a good, lively debate this afternoon, even if some people did go slightly off the mark. First, I have to thank the Minister for his commitments. It is important that we hear them in the House and for the Minister to assure us that it will be a level playing field, whether they be private ports, trust ports or smaller ports. He also made the important commitment that the new extended powers will not be held up.
I myself and the Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee have made the point that the people involved see the business they can generate as being the engine of the economies of their areas, whether Belfast, Warrenpoint or Londonderry.
4.00 pm
For a number of years, trust ports have wanted to become involved in other aspects of life in their areas. Sometimes there is a commercial venture in which they would like to get involved but find it difficult to do so at the time. Let us hope that when changes are made, trust ports throughout the Province will become catalysts of economic development and regeneration in their areas.
Another issue which featured strongly in the debate was the need for greater accountability. At present, there is little or no accountability in the structure of some trust ports. The extension of powers to trust ports' powers will be accompanied by greater accountability. Some Members highlighted the need to do the job properly, and that is important. Trust ports are close to getting the extra powers they need to operate more commercially, and it is important that our Committee, the Minister, the Department for Regional Development and the Assembly get those powers right.
Much hard work has been done by the Department in recent years, and that work has been vital in bringing us to the present stage. I pay tribute to those civil servants who worked extremely hard on complex legislation that, it is hoped, we will have in the near future. I also commend the Minister on his commitment to resolving the serious outstanding issues pertaining to Belfast. I hope that in trust ports throughout Northern Ireland the commissioners will operate collectively and support the Minister and the Department in their moves to make progress on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the intention of the Minister for Regional Development to provide legislation regarding trust port status, and calls upon the Minister to safeguard the future of Northern Ireland trust ports, including Londonderry, and especially the smaller ports, which will be affected by the announcement concerning the port of Belfast.
Security Forces Personnel: Compensation
Mr Deputy Speaker:
The time allocated for this debate is two hours. I will call Mr Danny Kennedy to speak for 10 minutes, followed by Mr Paisley Jnr, who will speak for seven minutes, and Mrs Nelis, who will also speak for seven minutes. I have been notified of 14 Members who wish to take part. After those speeches I will give the mover of each amendment five minutes, and the proposer 10 minutes to wind up. That seems a fair allocation of time.
Mr Kennedy:
I beg to move
That this Assembly welcomes the announcement, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 7 November 2000, of payments to RUC widows and the fund for injured police officers, retired officers and their families; and calls on the Secretary of State to provide the same level of assistance to Army/UDR/RIR widows, injured Army/UDR/RIR personnel, retired Army/UDR/RIR personnel and their families.
I would like to express my appreciation to the Business Committee for allowing this motion to come forward. I hope that many Members will participate in this important debate, or at least listen and, I hope, better inform themselves on the issue.
I accept the amendment in the name of the Member for North Antrim, Mr Paisley Jnr, and with his permission will have it included in the main text of the motion. Like him, I wish to place on record my appreciation and recognition of the service and sacrifice of members of the Prison Service who have also borne the brunt of Republican and Loyalist terrorism over the past 30 years.
I am unwilling to accept the amendment proposed by Mrs Nelis. The purpose of my motion is to highlight the inequity of the current compensation system for members of the security services and their families. If the hon Lady wishes to pursue the sentiments expressed in her amendment, she can table a motion for consideration by this Assembly.
Members will be aware that, as part of the Patten Report on policing in Northern Ireland, the Government asked Mr John Steele to bring forward proposals to establish a fund to meet the needs of injured or retired RUC and RUC reserve officers, their families and widows. Mr Steele published his report at the end of October. I commend the report to the House and pay tribute to John Steele for beginning the enormous task of recognising the service and sacrifice of members of the RUC and the RUC reserve. I trust that the Secretary of State will speedily and fully implement the recommendations of the Steele Report.
After Mr Steele's appointment, I received many representations concerning the omission of adequate compensation proposals for the many Army, Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) and Royal Irish Regiment (RIR) widows and families neglected over the years. Members will be aware that the security forces in my constituency of Newry and Armagh bore the brunt of a particularly vicious murder campaign by Republican terrorists. Many lives were cruelly taken, leaving young families devastated. I move this motion on their behalf, with the simple plea that the families of murdered or injured members of the security forces should be fairly treated.
Some Members might question why Army, UDR and RIR widows and families should receive the same compensation as members of the RUC or the RUC reserve. I strongly contend that attempting to differentiate the sacrifices of the security forces would be not only impossible but morally wrong. The bravery and sheer courage of the men and women of the security forces, who stood between this Province and anarchy, must never be forgotten and can never truly be repaid in monetary terms. The issue of proper recognition being afforded to security force victims over the past 30 years therefore arises.
In the process of preparing for today's debate in the Assembly, I spoke to a number of UDR and RIR widows and close relatives. I found their stories to be a very humbling experience indeed, and the grief that they had suffered through the loss of their loved ones was in many ways compounded by the pain they felt as they struggled, in many cases alone, to provide for their families. It would appear to them that they are, and were, abandoned by successive Governments.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to share with the House the many cases brought to my attention. I shall, however, use one as an example to illustrate the urgent need for action on this issue. It is the case of a woman who struggled to bring up four young children after the cruel murder of her husband in 1973. He was a part-time member of the UDR who had joined to help serve his community and country, not for any great financial benefit or reward. His death robbed his wife and her family of a husband and father, the sole wage earner and provider for that home. The little compensation paid in those early days only made a small contribution towards getting the house finished which the man had been building for his family. Years of grief and struggle followed, with only the help and great support of relatives and friends to assist that lady and her young family.
It is little wonder that people who have endured an experience of that nature are sceptical and resentful of the actions of a so-called grateful Government. It is clear that proper help and assistance has not been provided in the past, but that is no reason why shameful treatment of the security forces should be allowed to go unchallenged. When one compares the settlements paid over many years to terrorists or prisoners to the amounts of compensation paid to security force victims, it is clear that a very great wrong has been practised which must urgently be redressed.
Members will be aware of the ongoing assistance and funding provided to ex-prisoner groups by such organisations as the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Extern, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland will contrast this level of assistance with the neglect felt by the families of members of the security forces.
It is also interesting to contrast the compensation given to the families of those members of the Garda Síochána who lost their lives in the Irish Republic with that given to widows of security force personnel killed in Northern Ireland. Settlements in the Republic appear to have been substantially more generous. Her Majesty's Government should take careful note and apply the same criteria. I strongly believe that the Government have a bounden duty to provide proper compensation and ongoing financial support to the families of all security force personnel killed in Northern Ireland. I contend that the full range of security force services - the RUC, the RUC Reserve, the Army, the UDR, the RIR and prison officers - should be treated equally and with generosity.
In the light of the publication of the Steele Report, I believe that the Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have the opportunity to address this great issue. Equally importantly, they have an opportunity to prove to the people of Northern Ireland that they truly value the service and sacrifices of the men and women of the security forces.
I look forward to this debate and trust that Members will conduct it in a respectful and responsible manner. I commend the motion to the House.
4.15 pm
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I beg to move the following amendment: In line 6, after "personnel", insert
"injured Prison Service personnel, retired Prison Service personnel and widows of Prison Service personnel".
Last week this House remembered and respected, by the purchase of the poppy and its remembrance service, those people who sacrificed so much of their today so that we could have a tomorrow. It is unfortunate that an element in this community wishes to equate the so-called sacrifice of actual terrorists with the legitimate sacrifice of the state. I hope that during the course of this debate people who would attempt to make a political football of the issue of respect, recognition and remembrance will judge for themselves the disservice they are doing to the people who paid so much. I say that in all sincerity, in a week when we have people who want respect and recognition for certain sections of the community whenever those same people cannot condemn massive bomb findings in places like Derrylin.
Society will judge this House and politicians by how they treat the weak and vulnerable. We will be judged by society if we exclude from recognition, due respect and reward, those people who have sacrificed so much for this society. Like many, I am sceptical about the motivation behind the Government's announcement for a cash reward for members of the RUC, widows and those injured who have been serving members of the RUC. At a time of insult to the RUC, that force suddenly gets the George Cross and compensation payment proposals. Those rewards are mediocre and are a belated recognition for what they have done. I welcome them - but with that caveat.
It is time that the RUC, the Army, the UDR, the Royal Irish Regiment and, as my amendment to the motion states, the Prison Service were given the reward, respect and recognition that they deserve. I am only amending Mr Kennedy's motion because of that gap in it, and I am happy he has accepted my amendment. It was unintentional on his part. I have spoken to him about it, and I appreciate his accepting the amendment.
The Prison Service was employed to do a job under the most dangerous civil disturbances anywhere in Europe. They paid a price for that job, and we must reward them. The facts behind the Prison Service's sacrifice are that during the troubles 29 prison officers were murdered for doing their job - murdered by both sections of the community. They were so-called legitimate targets by certain sections of the community when, in reality, they were pawns in an appalling game of politics that saw out the hunger strike, the dirty protests and numerous other attempts to demean that service. Twenty-nine out of a maximum service personnel of 3,000 is a very high proportion. Therefore I ask this House to recognise that they are due compensation for their sacrifice also.
Of course, there is the Northern Ireland Prison Service Central Benevolent Fund, which was established to assist ex-Prison Service personnel. I pay due recognition to that voluntary body - and it is a voluntary body. It was established in 1982, and, through voluntary contributions and voluntary work, it tries to provide a service to 200 widows and more than 700 retired staff. It draws entirely from voluntary contributions, and that is not enough. It cannot be expected, on a voluntary basis, and through voluntary contributions, to meet the demands placed upon it.
The resources that these people have are a pittance in comparison to other benevolent funds. They need resources, and they deserve them. We must insist that the Government put them on a proper footing so that education, training and retraining bursaries can be provided for ex-service personnel and the needs of widows can be made.
The RUC benevolent fund - a very good fund - provides holidays for certain widows. The Northern Ireland Prison Service Central Benevolent Fund attempts to offer the same service. It also provides holidays for widows, but, because of its lack of funds, applicants have to pay a reduced rate. It is not fair to ask someone who has gone through the same suffering and the same sacrifice to pay more for similar benefits. We are asking a voluntary scheme to foot a massive bill, and that is unjust. These people made sacrifices on behalf of the state. They made those sacrifices in order to protect everyone - not only the people in this Chamber but everyone represented by them, whether they like it or not.
The Prison Service must therefore be added to this motion, and I am glad that it will be. Mr Kennedy has decided to accept my amendment. I hope that the fundamental injustice suffered by Prison Service personnel will also be recognised, as has the failure of the Government in the past to recognise the RIR, the UDR and the police.
Mrs Nelis:
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all the words after "Assembly" and add
"notes the statement of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 7 November 2000 regarding compensation payments and calls on him to provide the same level of assistance to all the victims, survivors and their families directly affected by the conflict here."
The motion before this House does not acknowledge that all victims, survivors and relatives of this long conflict are equal and should be treated equally. Instead, we have a motion that is nothing less than a squalid, sordid squabble among the agencies of the Crown and their camp followers to divide up the spoils of the illegal war declared by the British state on an Irish Nationalist population.
This motion should be seen for what it is, judging by the media reports and the list of amendments on behalf of the various agencies, as they all rushed to join Peter Mandelson's gravy train. British forces on this island - the RUC, the UDR, the RIR - all knew, when they joined these state agencies, of the risks involved. They were well paid for fighting Britain's dirty war in this country. The families of the civilians killed by those same forces did not know risks, but they are surely entitled at least to equality of treatment. It is entirely appropriate that our party table an amendment supporting the families and relatives of all victims of this conflict, rather than give any credibility to this motion.
The motion is nothing less than a sectarian exclusion order against the relatives of those murdered by the state. Our amendment notes the Secretary of State's announcement regarding compensation payments and calls on him to provide the same level of assistance to all victims, survivors and their families who have been directly affected by the conflict.
Our party's amendment acknowledges that, with regard to the loss of a loved one, all grief is the same. Such grief can never be compensated for by money or platitudes, nor can such monetary rewards acknowledge adequately the legacy of the past or help heal the wounds and divisions created by this conflict. This announcement by Peter Mandelson serves only to deepen divisions and put off for ever the need to reconcile those affected and afflicted by the trauma of the last 36 years. It legitimises some victims and demonises others. It reinforces the notion that the Secretary of State and the Minister are operating a hierarchy of victims, which was put in place, in the first instance, by the Bloomfield Report. Bloomfield's selective recognition and Mandelson's compensation awards to state agencies fail to recognise the hundreds of people murdered by those state agencies or the thousands injured - the vast majority of whom were Nationalists and Republicans. Peter Mandelson has failed utterly to understand or recognise the impact of his announcement on those families - the deep pain and hurt inflicted by his dismissal of Nationalist / Republican dead as having no significance. That is what his announcement really says.
However, it is not surprising that such an announcement indicates the sectarian and partisan nature of his stewardship and his amnesia over the RUC's role in the murder of many Catholic Nationalists. Their pain is no less acute than that of others, but that pain is not acknowledged. They are not seeking awards, merely equal treatment. The victims and survivors of state violence have found that, despite the recommendations of the Good Friday Agreement, they are continually marginalised, discriminated against and left out of the equation entirely. Peter Mandelson's golden handshake to the RUC has done nothing to lessen this perception. The league table of what constitutes a victim is measured by the Minister responsible for victims by the status of a person at the time of his death. It is further advanced by the unquestioning media. There is no doubt that in the minds of Mandelson and the motion's proposer, the victims of state forces and state- sponsored violence are of no importance in the wider schemes and political machinations of a Government that signed up to an agreement which states
"it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation."
According to Relatives for Justice, some of whom have joined us in the Gallery today, there has been no official recognition for the families of those killed and injured by RUC violence - something that has been exacerbated by Mandelson's refusal even to meet the relatives of those killed. Yesterday's announcement of £200,000 - [Interruption].
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mrs Nelis:
May I continue.
Yesterday's announcement of £200,000 for victims' groups, as compared to £11 million for RUC relatives, is an insult to the dead, the injured and those trying to rebuild their lives. It should have been an equal and inclusive package designed to meet the needs of everyone affected by the conflict. Instead, the victims and survivors of state violence find themselves sidelined once again in the face of an announcement which makes conflict resolution more difficult than ever.