5.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to give an update on the timetable for the next round of allocations from the Executive programme funds.

(AQO 112/01)

The Executive plan to make allocations from the new directions, service modernisation and social inclusion funds in October 2001. It was previously decided that there would be no further allocations from the infrastructure and children's funds this year. The Executive have agreed that the voluntary and community sector should be able to bid for resources from the children's fund and will be consulting on the arrangements soon.

The Minister has almost confirmed the answer to my question. Will no further allocation be made from the children's fund or the Executive programme funds without consultation with the community and voluntary sector?

I am happy to confirm that there will be no further allocations from the children's fund without such consultations with the community and voluntary sector. That decision was reached following discussions with the major agencies that deal with children. The Executive are currently considering what arrangements should be introduced to enable the community and voluntary sector to bid directly for some of these funds, and we hope to consult on proposals and arrangements shortly.

6.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to advise on what actions he has taken to ensure wider consultation on the Budget process.

(AQO 113/01)

I made a statement to the Assembly on the Executive's position report on 19 June 2001. That set out a detailed timetable for the 2002-03 Budget process, including consultation arrangements leading to an Assembly vote in December.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and my Department have also circulated the position report to all consultees on our respective Departments' equality scheme lists. A further formal round of consultation will take place in the autumn on the Executive's proposals for the Programme for Government and the Budget, which on present plans will be announced to the Assembly next week.

Will the Minister tell us when the first meeting of the PPP and PFI review team will take place, as this appears to be an increasingly important element of our budgetary planning?

A high-level working group has been established to undertake the review of public-private partnerships in accordance with the objectives set out in the Programme for Government earlier this year. The first meeting of this group, which should include representatives from the public, private and voluntary sectors and the trade unions, will take place on 26 September 2001. It is planned that the group will conclude its deliberations by February 2002. The broad composition of the group and its remit are consistent with the open approach taken to budgetary matters.

7.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the financial value of contracts negotiated by the Government Purchasing Agency in the last financial year by Department, Next Steps agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

(AQO 67/01)

Due to the extent of detail needed to respond to the question, I have prepared a table that sets out the value of contracts awarded by the Government Purchasing Agency on behalf of Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. A copy of the table has been placed in the Assembly Library, and a copy has been sent to the Member. The largest entry, at £58 million, is for contracts from which all Departments call.

I appreciate that there was a great amount of detail and that perhaps a written question would have been better.

Given the substantial spending power of the Government Purchasing Agency, will the Minister give a commitment that that spending power will be used to help achieve the social and economic targets in the Programme for Government?

I confirm that that is my intention and the intention of the Executive, as shown in the commitment to the Programme for Government. I am in difficulty about how much more to say in response to this question without anticipating a subsequent question that will touch on the procurement review - and there will be consultation on proposals arising from that review. All Members will see that we are trying to reflect the considerations of the Member as well as trying to ensure that we guarantee better value for money.

8.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail what progress has been made in the procurement review.

(AQO 116/01)

The review implementation team has completed its work and presented its report. The Executive have agreed that the report should be released for public consultation and its public recommendations subjected to an equality impact assessment. The consultation period will last until 30 November. The Executive will then take final decisions with the benefit of the findings of the public consultation and the equality impact assessment. In the meantime, the Executive have decided that preparatory work should commence on the establishment of the procurement board and recruitment of the director for the central procurement body.

Will the Minister say again when the procurement review will be going out for consultation, as I did not hear him the last time, and will he say if there are any innovative suggestions in the report that will help to achieve the wider social and economic objectives of the Assembly Executive?

The Executive approved the publication of the document for consultation at their meeting last week. The document will be issues forthwith, and the consultation period will run until 30 November.

The team has made recommendations on furthering social, economic, and environmental objectives within procurement policy. Those recommendations include the initiation of a pilot scheme aimed at using public procurement contracts to assist unemployed people into work. The review team made 70 recommendations, on which the Executive would welcome comments.

9.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the progress made in achieving a derogation of the impending aggregates tax.

(AQO 26/01)

Last month, I met with representatives of the Quarry Products Association. They expressed concerns about the impact of the aggregates levy. My office is currently liaising with the Financial Secretary's office in the Treasury to arrange a meeting to discuss the adverse impact of the levy in Northern Ireland. Discussions between the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Administration continue at an official level, and the Northern Ireland Departments continue to liaise with each other on this important matter.

I welcome the Minister's answer and his comments on an issue that is particularly important to people in the North. The drafters have overlooked an inherent flaw in the legislation. Will the Minister comment on the fact that jobs and products will migrate south of the border from Fermanagh and Tyrone, making this legislation impossible to implement?

I have no wish to offer any arguments against some of the observations the Member has made. As a regional administration we are making the case that this tax does not meet the basic test of good taxation. Several factors applying to this region have not been properly taken into account, which means that this tax will have an adverse economic impact and a potentially perverse environmental impact.

Does the Minister accept that if this tax were to be implemented in the way currently being proposed, many quarries and quarry product manufacturers along the border could go out of business in the same way as the petrol filling stations have done over the past three or four years? Does he have a view on the recent comments of the European Commission official who said that he would like to see the United Kingdom reduce taxes that greatly distort trade along land borders?

The Administration are aware that the impact of the tax is not going to be useful or helpful. It will bear down particularly heavily on areas close to the border. That is an issue that we will continue to try to make clear to the Treasury. If there are any other counsels that can prevail with the Treasury, we would be happy to see them do so.

As Mr Leslie, Mr Poots and Mr Maskey are not present to table their questions, we will move to the next item of business. Time is up.

TOP

Titanic Quarter Leases

I beg to move

I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly in what I consider is an important debate on the Regional Development Committee's report on the Titanic Quarter leases. Let me say from the outset that this is a timely reminder of the need for public or semi-public bodies to be sensitive to public interest and, particularly, to the need for transparency in their business activities.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who gave evidence to the Committee for Regional Development during the course of its inquiry. In particular, I thank officials from the Department for Regional Development, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Harland & Wolff for their co-operation throughout. The Committee also received written submissions from interested bodies, for which it is grateful.

Before I outline the Committee's key findings, I will explain briefly why it considered this inquiry necessary. Following the announcement on 7 February 2001 by Harland & Wolff that Harland & Wolff Properties Ltd and Titanic Quarter Ltd had been purchased by Fred Olsen Energy, the Committee for Regional Development wrote to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners registering its concern about the lease arrangements. On 20 March an Ulster Television 'Insight' programme made several allegations about a secret deal being struck between the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Harland & Wolff. The Committee for Regional Development viewed these allegations very seriously. As a result, I, as Chairperson, wrote to the Harbour Commissioners seeking clarification on a number of points, in particular on the terms of this agreement and what additional revenue would be received by the Harbour Commissioners, who strenuously refuted the allegations.

Despite receiving some correspondence from the Harbour Commissioners, some important questions remained unanswered. As a consequence, and given the continued uncertainty around this matter, the Committee formally announced on 3 April 2001 that it would hold an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Titanic Quarter development agreement.

For the record, the intention to hold this inquiry was agreed unanimously by the Committee for Regional Development. Members recognised the social and economic importance of the Port of Belfast to all people in Northern Ireland. Members were also reminded that the Port of Belfast is publicly-owned land and that the Harbour Commissioners, as public appointees, are entrusted with the stewardship of the port and its lands to promote the maintenance, improvement and efficient operation of Belfast harbour. The Assembly, therefore, has a clear duty to safeguard the public interest and, in turn, expects those entrusted with the management of Belfast port to ensure public accountability and transparency in any transactions involving its future development.

I will now summarise the key findings of the Committee's inquiry into the Titanic Quarter leases. On the public availability of Titanic Quarter development plans, and based on the evidence provided to the Committee, the Committee concluded that all key facts about the negotiations and signing of the Titanic Quarter agreement were not in the public domain. While giving evidence to the Committee, an official from the Department for Regional Development stated that the Department was not aware of all the details, including the signing of the agreement on 20 December 2000. The Department was not aware that the agreement involved the consolidation of several leases into one and that leases would be allocated to developers on a site-by-site basis for periods of between 125 and 250 years. The Department had been informed that negotiations had been classed as commercial in confidence.

The Committee was also concerned that, despite an approach from the Department to the Harbour Commissioners on 7 February 2001 with regard to the details of the agreement, the Harbour Commissioners were somewhat dilatory in responding to the Department's request, taking approximately five weeks to do so.

It appears from the available evidence that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners became aware of their public accountability responsibilities only when the UTV 'Insight' programme was broadcast. The Committee for Regional Development concluded that had it not been for that television programme, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners might not have been so forthcoming in informing public representatives of their activities relating to the Titanic Quarter agreement.

During the inquiry, the Committee learned that while Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Harland & Wolff were negotiating the Titanic Quarter lease, the commissioners were also in discussion with the Department for Regional Development about a memorandum of understanding. The purpose of that memorandum was to provide the Department with greater involvement and consultation in any new leases or disposal of lands in the Belfast port, pending the introduction of the power of direction relating to the development of such lands.

Several key areas, including the Titanic Quarter, were excluded from the memorandum. There was a difference of opinion between the Department and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners as to who had requested those exclusions. After careful consideration of the evidence, the Committee concluded that it could not see any benefit for the Department in its requesting exclusions from the memorandum of understanding. The purpose of the agreement was to facilitate the Department's monitoring of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' activities in areas of major public interest, such as the Titanic Quarter. The Committee therefore concluded that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners could have been more open in their dealings and could have displayed greater public accountability.

In their evidence to the Committee for Regional Development, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners quoted commercial confidentiality as the reason why they did not inform the Department about the Titanic Quarter deal. They stated that Harland & Wolff had requested confidentiality. That, the commissioners stated, was a key factor in the amount of information that they made available.

The Belfast Harbour Commissioners confirmed Harland & Wolff's request for confidentiality in a letter dated 26 March 2001 to myself as Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development. The commissioners also informed the Minister for Regional Development of Harland & Wolff's request at a meeting on 22 March 2001.

However, Harland & Wolff stated that it was not opposed to making a public statement after the signing of the deal on 20 December 2000. Its representatives explained that there had been no pre-determined or conscious effort by Harland & Wolff to keep the details of the deal secret. To Harland & Wolff, the Titanic Quarter deal was primarily about enabling it to continue with its core business of shipbuilding. At the signing of the agreement, Harland & Wolff acknowledged that its representative had casually mentioned that he did not think that a press release was needed. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners agreed with that.

As further evidence to support its claims of not being involved in a secret deal, Harland & Wolff highlighted the statement by Fred Olsen Energy ASA to the Oslo Stock Exchange on 31 January 2001, which openly referred to the Titanic Quarter deal.

The Committee for Regional Development accepts that it is possible that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners might have misconstrued the comments of Harland & Wolff's representative at the meeting on 20 December 2001. However, the Committee believes that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners should have been proactive in seeking to publicise the deal in the interests of public openness and accountability, as well as the significant potential benefits that the deal would bring to the Northern Ireland economy.

It is important that the Assembly acknowledges the good work that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners have done over the years to ensure the commercial viability of the Port of Belfast, continually seeking to improve performance and profitability. I would not like anything that I say to take away from that achievement. I speak for everyone by recognising the economic importance of Belfast port and its lands to all the people of Northern Ireland. Apart from European funding, the Port of Belfast has never received public finance.

The Committee's concerns have focused on the level of public accountability of the Titanic Quarter transactions. It has not questioned the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' ability to manage a profitable and commercially viable port. However, the Committee and the Assembly are anxious to ensure that those entrusted with such a large public asset are aware of their need to consult all those with an interest in how that public asset is managed and developed.

During the time it has taken to bring this report to the Assembly, I am aware that a memorandum of understanding has been signed between the Department for Regional Development and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The commissioners have voluntarily and willingly signed this agreement, which now includes the Titanic Quarter area. This memorandum of understanding will ensure increased public accountability and scrutiny. The other recommendations of the Committee are to be implemented, and I am assured that similar problems can be avoided in the future.

It is important to bring this to Members' attention. In paragraph 52 of the report it says:

In many ways, that sums up what this report is about, and I commend it to the Assembly. This inquiry has served an important public purpose, which is to sensitise those in public roles and in the public sector to the need for accountability and transparency.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development has ably covered the key points in the report. The inquiry has cleared the air and improved relations between the Department, the Port of Belfast and the Assembly Committee. The report shows that Committees can be effective watchdogs. There is evidence, and not just from this inquiry, that some Departments and public bodies are using the commercial in confidence label to hide detail from public gaze.

The message that should be sent as a result of this report is that any public organisation, or any organisation receiving public funds, can expect enquiry into its affairs by the public representatives in the Assembly who have a responsibility to protect the public interest. Hiding behind the commercial in confidence label, except where it is legitimate so to do, should not be an option. I too commend the report to the Assembly.

It is difficult to know where to start with this debate. I agree with the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development that the Port of Belfast has been a success story. It is important that we, as public representatives, acknowledge that success and congratulate the people involved.

The Port of Belfast has been widely debated for years, as have many of the issues surrounding it. As long ago as 1997 we had reports from the Minister then responsible, Lord Dubs, on its privatisation. After devolution, on 29 November 1999, the Committee for Regional Development was given the task of looking at various matters in connection with the port. There were several options, and it is no secret that the Committee was heavily in favour of option D. This recommended the retention of the Port of Belfast as a trust port with extended powers. The Committee Chairperson referred to the memorandum of understanding, which is included in that.

The Committee became annoyed, to put it mildly, that, despite the memorandum of understanding having been discussed between the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the Department for Regional Development, three weeks prior to the publication of its findings on the future of the port Harland & Wolff announced on 7 February 2001 that Harland & Wolff Properties Ltd had been bought by Fred Olsen Energy.

That created major problems for the Committee as well as for the Department and the Minister. The Committee wrote to the Harbour Commissioners registering its concern about the lease arrangements and requesting additional information on the announcement, because there had been a major shift on what had been agreed to concerning the leases and lease agreements.

Titanic Quarter is an important development for Belfast and for the future structure and investment of the Port of Belfast, but it is also important for the future economic life of Northern Ireland as a whole, and that should be said publicly.

The problem was that the Committee found it difficult to get answers to several questions. For example, why did it take almost five weeks for the Harbour Commissioners to give us the relevant information? We found it difficult to get the commissioners to clarify some points, and even the Department found it difficult to get to the nub of the situation.

It was only after an Ulster Television (UTV) programme, on 20 March, that a fire was lit under the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. Had that programme not been screened, we would not have got the response that we needed from them. After the programme, a mountain of information came to the Department, the Minister and the Committee. The UTV programme certainly made the Harbour Commissioners more aware of their public responsibilities and accountability.

It is a tragedy that it took a UTV programme for the Committee members to get answers to the questions that we had been asking for five weeks. After the programme, the commissioners sought meetings with the Committee and with the Minister to reassure us all that everything that they had done was out in the open and that they had nothing to hide. Had the Committee got a response to its points much sooner, it would not have considered the situation to be as serious as it did.

Given those circumstances, it was right that the Committee decided to hold its inquiry. At the outset of that inquiry, the Chairperson was correct to say that it was not a witch-hunt, nor were the Belfast Harbour Commissioners or the Department on trial. The inquiry tried to get to the nub of the situation and of the secrecy surrounding the decision to develop the Titanic Quarter. It sought to find out why the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, and Harland & Wolff, did not keep the Minister informed.

The Deputy Chairperson referred to the issue of commercial confidence. However, when such a change affecting the lands at Titanic Quarter was being mooted, and when the commissioners knew that serious changes were to be made to the leases, they should at least have informed the Minister privately as to what they might be signing. Those were the issues of concern to the Committee.

We have all learned lessons from this. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners certainly realise that the Assembly and the Committee for Regional Development have laid down a marker. Irrespective of whether they felt, even after the signing on 20 December, that they could not say anything publicly about the matter, the Committee felt that the reasons given by the commissioners for not putting information into the public domain were not justified.

I hope, now that the memorandum of understanding between the Harbour Commissioners and the Department has been signed, that we will all move on from here.

The Port of Belfast has a huge part to play in the economic life of the city and of Northern Ireland as a whole. As members of the Regional Development Committee, as Assembly Members, and as public representatives, all we want is to make sure that the Port of Belfast succeeds in the future. I hope that we have all learned lessons from something that could have been avoided had there been greater accountability from people who should have known better.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Committee report is comprehensive, and the Chairperson has outlined the essential issues and the sequence of events that gave the Committee cause for concern when it called for the inquiry and during the evidence sessions.

Belfast port is a trust port, as are most of those in the North. Belfast Harbour Commissioners, as the port authority, are required to ensure the maintenance and effective operation of the Port of Belfast and to ensure that it is managed in the best interests of the public and other stakeholders.

The ports are an essential asset; they facilitate economic development in the entire region, and are therefore of significant public interest. However, as they are currently constituted, trust ports are not accountable to Government; they are autonomous. Therein lies the problem - bodies that exist to serve the public interest are not accountable to the public or to the Government.

The Regional Development Committee was tasked in November 1999 to look at the options for the future of Belfast port and others. It gave its response to the Minister at the end of February 2001. The Committee met several times with officials from the Department, the Minister and representatives from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The subject of discussion on those occasions was the future operation of the ports. In regard to the Port of Belfast, discussions focused on the potential use and development of non-port land and the means of ensuring its future viability and competitiveness.

The proposed memorandum of understanding between the Department and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners also formed part of the discussions, as did legislation that would enable the Department to direct the Belfast Harbour Commissioners in future business decisions in regard to the port.

During the discussions concerning the future of non-port lands, the Department for Regional Development - and therefore the Minister - and the Committee were not aware of the detail of agreement in relation to the future leases of the non-port land of Belfast port. We were discussing the future of the port while unbeknown to us arrangements were being made that would have a significant impact on the future use of non-port land.

That was not an example of accountability or transparency, in spite of the fact that Belfast Harbour Commissioners claimed to have fully informed the Department for Regional Development about the planned development of the Titanic Quarter.

I therefore commend the report's recommendations, particularly the recommendation that legislation be fast-tracked to give the Department the power of direction over key business activities of Belfast port.

I commend the memorandum of understanding, which will outline the responsibilities of each port authority and its accountability to the Department. I also commend the increased number of local representatives on harbour authorities.

The report's recommendations will ensure that the trust ports will remain viable and competitive. It will also ensure that the authorities are publicly accountable and that the ports are managed and operated in such a way that they serve the public interest. Go raibh maith agat.

I am not a member of the Committee for Regional Development, but I was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee that the Assembly established to deal with the privatisation. For many years, I have taken a deep interest in the operation of the Port of Belfast and other ports in Northern Ireland.

I share the concerns about the lack of openness in the way in which deals were done. However, I welcome the fact that there is now a memorandum of understanding between the commissioners and the Department for Regional Development. I also welcome the proposal that four locally elected representatives should serve on the board and that a representative from the Department for Regional Development will attend the board meetings.

Despite our reservations about the way in which the deal was done, we must look forward. The Titanic Quarter is one of the prime waterfront locations of Europe. I echo what William Hay said: it is of major significance to Belfast and the whole of Northern Ireland. We must acknowledge that when we consider the development of the site. There are many interested parties that must be involved in the development of the site. They include the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, Harland & Wolff - through Titanic Quarter Ltd - Belfast City Council, the Laganside Corporation, the Department for Regional Development, the Department of the Environment and others.

Members know that I have spoken with enthusiasm about the idea that Belfast should be the European City of Culture in 2008. The Titanic Quarter provides major opportunities to create the sort of developments that would reflect the city's position. Various draft development plans have been put forward over the years. We must get it right. The area should be developed as a major tourist and cultural location for Northern Ireland - from the Odyssey Arena to the slipways where the Titanic was built.

There is significant international interest in the development of the site. I remind Members of the impact of, for example, the development of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. That city was facing serious deprivation because of the decline of its industries, but it was revitalised. I see enormous potential.

I also welcome the fact that, as Mr McFarland said, the air has now been cleared.

It is important for all the partners who have an interest in this area, and for the Assembly, to move forward so that the Titanic Quarter can realise its full potential, not only for the citizens of Belfast but for all the people of Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee spoke about the difficulties the Department had in obtaining information from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The Committee had to cope with the same level of confusion. Since I joined the Committee in January 2000, very few meetings have gone by without some reference to the Port of Belfast or the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the jigsaw that is known as the Titanic Quarter leases.

My first impression was that many of those who were called to give evidence to the Committee, particularly people called to give evidence about the Titanic Quarter leases, were brief in their answers to questions and certainly did not volunteer any additional information. I can only attribute that to commercial confidentiality and perhaps to the degree of uncertainty that surrounded, and continues to surround, the future of the Committee and the Assembly. If a devolved Administration did not exist, the chances of any significant information regarding the Port of Belfast and the Titanic Quarter leases making its way into the public domain would be nil.

There was much confusion in the early stages of the inquiry. To this day, I doubt whether anyone could write a factual book on the subject. I agree with the statement in the report that the detailed written evidence given by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners about the development of the Titanic Quarter area provided what could be considered a breakthrough in the Committee's investigations. It certainly gave members a better insight into what had happened.

As the Chairperson has already said, there is a suggestion that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners have been successful in helping to make the Port of Belfast a commercial success, from which the economy of Northern Ireland has benefited. During the inquiry, the Committee was concerned about the lack of openness and transparency of the enterprise. Therefore, the statement by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners that they will undertake to examine their public accountability is welcomed.

Having referred to such matters as information in the public domain, accountability and commercial confidentiality, I welcome the Minister's view on the recommendations on page 5 of the report. Although that issue might be slightly removed from the Titanic Quarter saga, it has a similar significance. I am not deviating from the matter in hand; I am availing of an opportunity. Indeed, my question relates to section 52 of the report. What level of confidentiality is expected from locally elected representatives who will serve on the boards of trust ports? How much information should they present to the councils of which they are members? I apologise if I deviate slightly, but in the event of the Assembly not meeting for some time, and as those representatives will take up their positions, it is important to know what information we can expect to get back from them.

I am grateful to the Chairperson of the Committee, Alban Maginness, and his Deputy Chairperson, Alan McFarland. I am also grateful to the Committee Clerk and the Assistant Clerk for their guidance and expertise as we made our way through the mountain of paperwork and publications that related to the Port of Belfast and the Titanic Quarter leases. Now I can get rid of that four-foot-high pile of paper in my front room.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>