Mr McHugh - and this also relates to Ms Morrice's question - raised the issue of distribution west of the Bann. As the Member knows, the Department has a number of targets. One of those is that 75% of first-time visits should be to New TSN areas. We slightly exceeded that target last year, with about 76% of first-time visits going to New TSN areas.

Where possible, we encourage companies to visit and to invest, and, as I have said many times before in the House, we do bring forward enhanced offers of assistance to companies that are prepared to invest in New TSN areas. On some occasions, companies will avail of those opportunities, but on other occasions they will refuse them point-blank. We cannot force companies - and the Member acknowledged this - to establish themselves in areas where they do not consider it to be in their interests to do so. We can encourage and persuade, but we cannot force.

The commitment to try to achieve distribution along these lines is undoubtedly there. The Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr McHugh) will be aware that I have been in that constituency on a number of occasions recently. I am aware of the difficulties, and I am aware of the feeling of isolation and the feeling that perhaps Belfast-based agencies do not care. However, I assure Mr McHugh that that is not the case: we do care; I care. There are commitments in the departmental plans, and I believe that it is for us to ensure that the agency is charged, when established, with achieving targets that are consistent with the Programme for Government objectives.

Mrs Courtney, uncharacteristically, encouraged me to ensure that additional investment went to Londonderry. I cannot imagine why that was so. It seems to come up frequently. On a serious note, there is a commitment that the new agency will have a regional dimension. That commitment has been made frequently in the House, and I reiterate it today. I cannot yet say precisely where the offices will be located, but there is a commitment to having a significant regional dimension.

For practical reasons, the Department must take some action to establish the shadow board and to appoint the chief executive. If we do not, it will be next year before the board has any statutory powers, and we cannot wait that long. Therefore the Department must take the lead and get a few things started. However, I want to consult with the shadow board, which I hope to appoint before long, so that it can have ownership of some of these policy issues.

I repeat that we are initially appointing a small shadow board because I did not wish to anticipate the decisions of the House or the Committees on the actual size of the board, which will be dealt with in the legislation. The intention is that when the legislation is passed, there will be a second tranche of appointments to the board to bring it up to its agreed final strength. People who applied for positions on the shadow board and who were not appointed will, if they so wish, be automatically re-entered for the second stage of the competition.

I place on record my thanks to my departmental staff, and in particular those in the restructuring branch, for the long hours and months - indeed, over a year's work - that have gone into this; it has been painstaking. There have been many hills and hollows to get over, but the realisation of our objectives is closer than ever before.

I hope that I have covered most of the points that were made. If I have failed to do so, we will pick them up later and contact Members with any points that were missed. The aim and objective of the Bill is not simply to shuffle the pack: it is not simply doing it for the sake of doing it.

The reason for the Bill is to ensure that a fresh look is brought to the economy. The current economy is different from the one that existed 30 years ago when some of those organisations were founded. The nature of business then was totally different from today. If we go back only five years, the extent to which the economy has changed is dramatic. The pace of events, globalisation, the move away from traditional industries, and the rise of Third-World countries with their low-labour-cost economies were not threats 20 or 30 years ago.

We are a very small region, and nobody owes Northern Ireland a living. Therefore we have to make sure that everything we do maximises the results and the cost- effectiveness of business. That will ensure that our economy can grow and strengthen itself. Several Members have identified structural weaknesses, but we have achieved great things in a short time. All of the agencies are entitled to receive their share of criticism. However, I would like to remind people that 20 or 30 years ago, when people were marketing Northern Ireland, the CNN image of this place was a war zone. People were knocking on doors and trying to sell Northern Ireland as a place for investment.

Since I started this job, it has never ceased to amaze me that we have such a resilient economy, although it has weaknesses. Scotland, Wales, the Republic and mainland Europe did not have to deal with the problem that we faced, which was a huge marketing disadvantage. We must understand the backdrop against which those who were charged with the job of trying to market this Province had to work. There are significant pockets of unemployment, but here we are today, enjoying the lowest rates of unemployment for generations. That is a tribute not only to the workforce and the businesspeople who have shown such resilience, but also to the agency and Department staff who attempted to maintain a degree of economic stability against a background that was anything but stable.

TOP

Budget (No 2) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Budget (No 2) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

TOP

Committee Business: Assembly Standing Orders

Is the motion moved or not moved?

Not moved, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

We move to the next motion on the Order Paper.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I beg to move

On 23 April the Assembly agreed to suspend, until the summer recess, Standing Order 10(2), which sets the times of the Monday sittings as from 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. The purpose of the suspension was to give the Business Committee the freedom to set a later starting time for Monday sittings. This would allow parties time to consider the forthcoming week's business. When I introduced the motion I made the point that the 10.30 am start time did not allow parties sufficient time to hold meetings; neither did it provide them with the opportunity to discuss amendments to motions that had been tabled that morning.

In moving that motion, I explained that the Committee's research on Monday plenary timings showed that less than six hours were spent in plenary on Mondays. Those six hours were almost always interrupted by a lunch break that, until the 23 April, lasted on average 1 hour and 45 minutes. The research also showed that business often stopped before 6.00 pm. These conclusions led the Committee to believe that a start time of 12.00 pm would provide sufficient time on a Monday for the Assembly to conduct its business.

However, rather than make a permanent change, the Committee agreed that the new timings should be experimental until the summer recess, whereupon decisions on a permanent change could be taken. During the debate on the motion, several Members expressed concerns about the proposed new timings. They were concerned that the Business Committee would have less time for Monday's business, that the time for debate would be reduced and that Wednesday sittings might be needed in order to complete business. My response was to emphasise that a change would only become permanent if it proved beneficial to the Assembly.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, the Committee on Procedures has reviewed this experiment and is content that the change has been beneficial and that Members' concerns have proved unfounded. Members may be interested to note that of the six Monday sittings since the new start time of noon was introduced, only two have lasted until 6.00 pm; three have finished before 5.00 pm; there has been a lunch break during four of the sittings; and on two occasions the lunch break has lasted more than an hour. To date, it has not been necessary to sit on a Wednesday.

The Assembly is sitting this Wednesday, but not because of a lack of time on Monday. Rather, it is due to the requirements of the five-day rule for stages of legislation as set out in Standing Orders, and this Wednesday is the earliest date that three Bills on the Order Paper can have their Final Stage considered. In the light of the above facts, it is clear that Members' initial concerns on this proposal have not been realised. There has been sufficient time to consider Assembly business, and there have been no complaints to the Procedures Committee from the Business Committee about time pressures or about its being forced to curtail the time allocated to items of business. Similarly, there has been no adverse impact on the Assembly commitment to family-friendly policies as there has been no extension to plenary times on a Tuesday.

In conclusion, the Committee on Procedures believes this proposal is of benefit to the Assembly and supports the change to Standard Orders.

I beg to move

'Financial interest' means any registrable interest other than one falling within paragraph 26 or 27 of the Guide;

'Registrable interest' means any category of registrable interest falling within paragraphs 14 to 37 of the Guide."

The proposed amendment to Standing Order 64 will give effect to the principal recommendations of the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges entitled 'Inquiry into the Possible Appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards', which was considered and approved unanimously by the Assembly on 2 April 2001.

Also, the current Standing Order 64 does not conform fully to what is set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 43 of the 1998 Act states that Standing Orders shall provide for

Registrable interests are to be as defined in Standing Orders, and currently there is no such definition. The current Standing Order also mentions pecuniary interests. This is not defined, nor is it in the wording of the 1998 Act, which refers to financial interest. The Act says "as defined in standing orders".

The Assembly legal adviser has suggested that the definitions as set out in the 'Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members', which was approved by the Assembly on 14 December 1999, are sufficient. The proposed amendment to this Standing Order includes replacing the term "pecuniary interest" with "financial interest", defines the categories of registrable interests and financial interests and makes clear the responsibility of the Assembly Clerk of Standards for the compilation and publication of the Register of Members' Interests.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 are new to the Standing Order and give the Committee on Standards and Privileges the authority to make recommendations for sanctions and penalties to be imposed upon any Member of the Assembly against whom a complaint has been upheld. This is provided for in section 43(5) of the 1998 Act.

'Financial interest' means any registrable interest other than one falling within paragraph 26 or 27 of the Guide;

'Registrable interest' means any category of registrable interest falling within paragraphs 14 to 37 of the Guide."

I beg to move

(a) the Assembly so resolves; and

(b) the resolution is passed with the support of a number of Members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly."

In moving the motion, the Committee on Procedures is putting into effect the recommendations of a report, which was unanimously agreed by the Assembly on 2 April 2001, making provision for it to be the duty of the Committee on Standards and Privileges to oversee the work of the Assembly Clerk of Standards, examine the arrangements for the compilation, maintenance, accessibility and review of a Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest, consider specific matters relating to privilege referred to the Committee and any matters relating to the conduct of Members which are brought to the Committee's attention, make a report to the Assembly on any matter falling within this Standing Order and recommend to the Assembly that sanctions be applied to any Member who has failed to comply with or who has contravened any provision of this Standing Order.

In addition to implementing the recommendations of the Committee's report, the proposed Standing Order will also provide for the appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards to investigate and report on matters relating to Assembly Members and Assembly privilege. It sets out the matters which the commissioner may investigate, including alleged breach of privilege, complaints in relation to the declaration or registration of interests, alleged contravention of the Code of Conduct and the 'Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members'. It enables the commissioner to carry out his or her functions without being under the direction or control of the Assembly. A recommendation to the Assembly on sanctions against any Member will remain within the remit of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Finally, the Standing Order sets out the procedure for the dismissal of the commissioner. The requirement for any such resolution would require the support of a number of Members equal to at least two thirds of the total number of Assembly seats, that is, of 72 Members. That is the same as for the removal from office of the Comptroller and Auditor General as laid down in section 65(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I understand that further legal advice has led to an amendment to this motion being brought forward by the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. This Standing Order and Standing Order 64 are intended to ensure that we as Members are seen to behave with propriety. This is an important issue, and one which we, as Members, will be well aware is currently the cause of considerable public interest and concern.

I beg to move the following amendment:

As the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures said, the amendments to Standing Order 57 would provide the means to ensure implementation in principle of the recommendations of the first report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, inquiring into the possible appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards.

I support this motion, which will give effect to the Committee's recommendations on sanctions and privileges and will provide the enabling power for the Commissioner for Standards to investigate complaints made against Members of the Assembly. In supporting the motion, it has also become necessary for me to move an amendment to section 7 of the Standing Order.

Following last-minute legal advice, it has become apparent that a minor adjustment to section 7 is required in order to ensure that the terms of the Standing Order accurately reflect the role and responsibility of the Assembly if consideration is being given to the dismissal of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards. The intention of section 7 is to put in place a framework in which the Assembly shall determine that an Assembly Commissioner for Standards is to be dismissed. As currently drafted, however, there is an ambiguous reference to the dismissal process. My proposed amendment makes an adjustment to this wording and removes any ambiguity relating to the powers of the Assembly.

In moving this amendment, I want to emphasise, as Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, my broad support for the motion put down by Conor Murphy. I ask all Members to support the motion as amended because it will provide reassurance to the general public that Assembly Members perform their responsibility to the highest standard that they rightly expect.

I am grateful for the opportunity to query the reason for the amendment. One concern that I have is that it would remove any procedure that the Assembly would have to police the work of the commissioner. While the commissioner would carry out - and be expected to carry out - an important role, it would also be vital that he or she would be subject to some degree of control by the Assembly. I am at a loss to know why, as I understand the amendment, the Assembly may not dismiss a commissioner under any circumstances.

It seems I have the wrong end of the stick.

As I have said, the purpose of the amendment is to remove any ambiguity in the wording; that is the primary concern. The Assembly would make the decision about the removal of a commissioner, but it is the Assembly Commission that would carry out the work. Its aim is to remove the ambiguity of the process, rather than to create a further problem.

Mr Murphy, do you also want the opportunity to wind up?

No, Mr McClelland has answered Mr Kennedy's query.

Question That the amendment be made put and agreed to (with cross-community support).

(a) the Assembly so resolves; and

(b) the resolution is passed with the support of a number of Members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly."

TOP

Public-Private Partnerships

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I beg to move

Members will have received copies of the Committee for Finance and Personnel's report on the use of public- private partnerships (PPP) yesterday. The Committee's inquiry into PPP addresses an issue of critical importance. It is a key time in the debate on the role of the private sector in public services. The issues are vital and relevant to the Assembly, to the Executive and, most importantly, to the public at large.

We face a very serious problem in how we finance and procure major improvements to the public infrastructure. Finance will be needed over the coming years to fulfil the deficit. The shortfall runs into billions of pounds. It is estimated that health, education and housing need at least £850 million now. Water, roads and public transport will need about £4 billion over the next 10 to 20 years.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel confirmed the size of the problem we face. In his evidence to the Committee he said:

The Committee agreed that in pursuing its scrutiny and policy advice role, it needs to examine the extent of the deficit of investment in public services and infrastructure and the part that public-private partnerships might play in financing the deficit and improving services.

The Committee began its inquiry in March. It has generated a great deal of interest from a wide range of people and organisations involved in the debate on PPP. We heard from people working locally, in Dublin, London and further afield. They came from hospitals, schools, trade unions, the academic world, international private sector companies and financial institutions, and local and central Government. Nearly 60 substantial papers were submitted, and the key people from those areas were questioned. We examined a range of PPP projects and their effect on users, their value for money, the effects of committing money over a long term, and the patterns and trends that are starting to emerge.

The Committee members spent many hours reading, hearing and analysing evidence. No one to whom we spoke was neutral. People were either enthusiastic or critical of PPP.

I want to thank publicly all those who contributed to the report. In particular, the Committee wants to express its appreciation of the work of the Assembly staff - the Clerks and various people who served the Committee, and the Hansard staff - and also to thank those who provided hospitality and helped during its visits to various locations.

The Committee agreed that, ideally, public finance is preferred for investment. It can be provided at lower interest rates than are generally available in private finance. Using public money ensures that responsibility for provision of public services remains firmly in the public sector.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel, and the Executive, must address the problems of the Barnett formula. That has contributed to underinvestment here. They must seek an increase in grants if public money is to be used to tacke the infrastructure deficit. We recognise that the Treasury is unlikely to meet all of the outstanding financial needs from increased public expenditure in the short term. If that turns out to be true, we must look at other sources of finance to help address the deficit. However, we must continue to lobby and ensure that we get a fair proportion.

The Committee heard evidence on the benefits of revenue and capital bonds, which were deemed a cheaper means of financing public sector projects than PPP. Representatives from the Department for Regional Development also discussed the possibility of a not-for- profit regional investment trust, financed by bonds. The Executive need to rigorously investigate these methods, and the Department of Finance and Personnel, in its own review, needs to clarify their suitability.

The Committee acknowledged that PPPs could be a valuable tool or means of investment if used in the right circumstances. Many of the witnesses, including users of PPPs, were enthusiastic about their benefits. However, other witnesses warned us of the dangers and disadvantages of PPPs, especially if they are used incorrectly. Members will be aware of the ongoing debate on the role of the private sector in public service provision. The Committee calls for caution to be taken in regard to PPP. Care needs to be taken in deciding how, where, and when this method is adopted. We should not blindly follow others down the PPP route.

A recent report by the Institute of Public Policy Research - 'Building Better Partnerships' - argues in favour of a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach to the use of the private sector in public service provision. It also calls for the reform of PPPs if the Government are to succeed in improving the quality of publicly funded services. Their views echo the Committee's own, and the report gives added weight to our conclusions and recommendations.

The Committee believes that the findings and recommendations of the inquiry will help to ensure that any decisions on PPP are properly taken and that due regard will be given to the overall investment needs of the public sector. More effective use of PPPs and other methods will accelerate investment in public sector infrastructure. This will improve the quality of our public services and economic development.

We discovered that a well-planned programme of PPP projects is being established in the education sector. I congratulate the Minister of Education, the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and their staff on their work in this field.

Nevertheless, we lag behind in other key areas. We need to quickly develop a co-ordinated investment strategy that establishes a sustained programme and flow of projects across administrative boundaries. There will be a need for effective leadership from the Assembly and the Executive, and for a commitment from everyone involved.

A key factor in developing the programme will be the demonstration of value for money throughout the life of each project. I emphasise that this must continue throughout the life of projects. The establishment of value for money will highlight the impact of long-term spending commitments on the Programme for Government and on the quality of public services. The establishment of value for money must involve much greater openness and public accountability in the decision-making process. This point was stressed by many witnesses, particularly trade union representatives.

Among our recommendations is the need to instil in the public a confidence that effective action is being taken to address the deficit. My Committee has made some important recommendations in its report. It is important that the Assembly and the Executive be seen to act quickly and decisively on these recommendations. The recommendations focus on the strategy and structures needed if the Assembly is to be assured that investment in the public sector infrastructure is being tackled effectively and that it will give the best possible value for money. We have learned several important lessons about PPP. The report gives examples of good practice that should be adopted by Departments when they are considering investment. I commend them to the Executive working group, which is reviewing PPP from a departmental perspective.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>