It is clear that most Members agree with Dr Adamson that Gaelic, in common with Ulster Scots, is a key part of our linguistic heritage. These islands are blessed with a strong linguistic heritage and culture, and, as Dr Adamson said, it is important that we do not allow that to dry up. That is the focus of the work of Foras na Gaeilge, in respect of Gaelic. As far as the different nuances in Ulster Gaelic and other forms of Gaelic are concerned, Foras na Gaeilge must use its expertise to address that matter. The Gaelic language has been standardised since the 1930s, and that was important when formally teaching the language in schools. As we are now developing a new text, or reviewing the current text, there is an opportunity to take on board the points that have been raised.

The Minister has mentioned the recruitment process underway in Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch. Can he tell me when the new chief executive and the full complement of staff will be appointed? How will staffing levels in Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch compare with those of the Irish Language Agency?

The board is in the process of recruiting a full-time chief executive. It currently has a stand-in, temporary chief executive, Mr Stan Mallon, and I have no doubt that he is keeping the agency on the right track. The Ulster-Scots Agency is functioning well and has performed a number of important tasks, particularly with regard to cultural activities, linguistic development and education. In partnership with the University of Ulster, it opened the world's first Institute of Ulster- Scots Studies in January 2001.

The recruitment process is ongoing. I am not sure when a permanent chief executive will be appointed, but the agency is aware of the urgent need to make that appointment, and from that will flow a number of other matters, including the appointment of more full-time staff. The agency is required to draw up terms and conditions and job descriptions, and so on, and that will be a key role for the chief executive. However, it is important to stress that that has not arrested the development of the Ulster-Scots Agency, which is functioning well.

I welcome the Minister's statement. It has been said that it is 40 years since the last review of Irish grammar and spelling. The Minister may have answered this question, but are there proposals to do the same for Ulster Scots? The last thing we want is for it to be left behind in the development of dictionaries and terminologies. Is there a similar proposal for Ulster Scots?

I have already referred to the fact that the Ulster-Scots Agency is aware of the need to make progress with text and grammar. It is largely an oral tradition, although some of it has been written down. The agency is in the process of recording that oral tradition - formally writing it down and producing a text, grammar and dictionary. A mapping exercise is beginning, or will soon start, which will allow a text base to be developed for the first time. The agency is well aware of this, and it will be ongoing.

I thank the Minister for his statement and warmly welcome the official review of Irish grammar and spelling. I would like to see the appointment of more Irish language teachers and special language counsellors in Northern Ireland to assist young people seeking to learn Irish. I also ask that pressure be brought to bear on the BBC to enhance regional autonomy and promote the development of local writing and production, including those in Irish and Ulster Scots.

The appointment of Irish-language teachers is a matter more appropriate to the Department of Education, and the Member should address those concerns to that Department. I do not have any authority over the appointment of, or provision for, more teachers. The BBC is a reserved matter. However, it is important to say that there is an Irish language television and film production pilot at an advanced stage of development. The first course is expected to start in February 2002. That is one of the undertakings that we have given in the past, and work is ongoing. There is also the extension of TG4 to Northern Ireland, which is a reserved matter to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is to be welcomed that RTE will be available throughout Northern Ireland through satellite dishes, and that will assist somewhat the Member's concerns. The BBC is specifically a reserved matter, and questions about it should be addressed to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or to the BBC directly.

The Minister said that there is £10·5 million for Irish and £1·42 million for Ulster Scots. A recent BBC2 programme indicated that in the Irish programme only Northern Irish was being dealt with. Does this mean that, at present, four different kinds of Irish are being spoken in schools and other institutions? Will this lead to four different dictionaries of standard Irish? His report seems to be attempting to form or "hermaphroditise" the four existing trends in Irish into some form of standard that may be acceptable to none. Is the £10·5 million going to be wasted on this?

The money for the North/South Language Body that Mr Gibson referred to is a matter of record. The Ulster-Scots Agency and Irish language contribution by Foras na Gaeilge operate on an all- Ireland basis. However, it is important to note that 2002 shows a 12-fold increase in the funding for Ulster Scots compared to the level of funding prior to devolution three years ago, so there is a considerable increase in investment in that area.

As I have attempted to explain in previous answers, the Gaelic language is the responsibility of Foras na Gaeilge. It has been a standardised language since the 1930s. However, as Dr Adamson has said, there are various streams, of which Ulster Gaelic is one. However, there has been no suggestion of producing four dictionaries or of developing four languages with a text that is acceptable to no one.

There are small differences between the various forms of Irish Gaelic, and Ulster Gaelic and Munster Gaelic are interchangeable. Therefore, the Member should have no concerns that the Gaelic language might not be in good heart. Foras na Gaeilge is functioning well as the body that promotes the Irish language. It is not in the business of promoting four languages. It is in the business of promoting one language, which is Irish Gaelic.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Dr Adamson for his support for the campaign to preserve Tyrone Irish. Foras na Gaeilge should play a role in reprinting 'Scéalta Mhuintir Luinigh', the stories of the people of the Gaeltacht area of Tyrone, mainly Gortin and Greencastle.

Can the Minister elaborate on the progress report on Foras na Gaeilge by Ms Maighréad Uí Mhairtín? Where will the sub-office for the North be located, and when is it due to open. What are the proposed staffing levels, profile and visibility of the office? More interaction with the Irish language section of Foras na Gaeilge must be facilitated.

Finally, I welcome the lifting of the anti-democratic and illegal ban on Bairbre de Brún which prevented her from attending meetings.

Foras na Gaeilge has an office in Dublin and a sub-office in Belfast in a neutral location in the city centre. The Ulster-Scots Agency - which also has an office in Belfast - has found premises for a sub-office in Raphoe in County Donegal.

Foras na Gaeilge is recruiting a new chief executive, and it is anticipated that he or she will be in post in the near future, after which full-time staff will be recruited. I will write to the Member regarding staff numbers in Belfast and Dublin.

TOP

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Final Stage

I beg to move

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928 to extend the shooting season for partridge for commercial purposes and to relax the current restrictions on pest rabbits. The Bill was amended at Further Consideration Stage, so the Department of the Environment must ensure that the issue of permits to net hares from the wild for the purpose of coursing does not endanger the hare population in Northern Ireland or any part thereof. I am examining how to give effect to that amendment.

I want to refer briefly to the Irish hare. The Executive and I accept the amendment and acknowledge its conservation aspirations, but I must correct the impression given to the Assembly and others that I, or my Department, have failed to implement the species action plan for the conservation of the hare. The plan, produced by my Department in conjunction with our partners - the Ulster Wildlife Trust and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, among others - was informed by the research work partly funded by my Department and carried out by Prof Montgomery and Dr Dingerkus. There is nothing in their research to suggest that the trapping of hares for organised coursing is detrimental to our hare population. It is not, therefore, listed in the plan among the main causes of the decline in the Irish hare population.

It is widely accepted that the major factor affecting the status of the Irish hare is the loss of suitable habitat. That analysis is confirmed by the work of Prof Montgomery and Dr Dingerkus. It is also confirmed in the Northern Ireland countryside survey concluded by my Department during 2000, which indicates that suitable hare habitat has decreased significantly in the past 10 years.

To take account of the threat posed by loss of habitat, the Department is working in conjunction with the Ulster Wildlife Trust - our lead partner in the action plan to conserve the hare - and several measures are under way. A key action is the plan to update the survey of the hare population in Northern Ireland. That work was scheduled for 2001, but it could not be undertaken because of foot-and-mouth disease restrictions. I am pleased to say, however, that with the lifting of the restrictions, that work will now proceed. I hope to see the results by late summer.

In addition, work is already in hand to draw up habitat action plans, which are designed to maintain and improve many priority habitats that are important for Irish hares. Those habitats will also benefit from my proposals to strengthen the legislation and management arrangements for areas of special scientific interest, which I hope will take effect over the next two years, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation through the Assembly.

I want to take the opportunity to thank Members for the extent of their interest in the Bill, particularly the support for the extension of the partridge-shooting season, which will be welcomed by country sports enthusiasts. That, together with the relaxation of controls on the shooting of pest rabbits, regulating what has been common practice for some time, demonstrates that Executive Ministers and the Assembly can and do respond to local needs and circumstances. I also want to thank the Committee for the Environment for its commitment and assistance and for its support of the Bill.

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. I apologise that Mr David Ford, a member of the Committee for the Environment, is unable to be present this morning. The Alliance Party believes that the amended Bill is a better Bill than that first produced by the Department. In part, that is because the Committee carried out a detailed examination of the Bill. It is also because of the amendment on the taking of hares, which Members, led by David Ford, forced on the Minister. That amendment means that Irish hares can no longer be taken by nets for coursing, unless the Department is satisfied that there is no threat to hares in Northern Ireland.

The Minister has promised action on the species action plan for the Irish hare. There is still a great deal to be done, both by his Department and other agencies, to improve the situation for hares. However, we can now rest assured that the Department will no longer be able to issue licences for the taking of Irish hares for coursing, since there is a clear threat to hares throughout Northern Ireland. The Bill is much improved as a result of those changes. My party and I, therefore, welcome the amended Bill.

I thank Mr McCarthy for his comments and his acceptance of what the Department is trying to do. I can assure him that the Department is very aware of all endangered species. The difficulty of trying to match hares - if I may say so in a somewhat lighter fashion - is that it will be difficult to throw salt on their tails to count them all.

The Ulster Wildlife Trust has convened a steering group. It is co-ordinating a work programme for the action plan, which contains several measures. These include the formulation and implementation of agriculture policies which benefit the habitat required by the Irish hare; a review of and, if necessary, an increase in the level of protection given to the Irish hare in the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985; an assurance that state- owned lands are managed, where possible, with a view to conservation of Irish hares and the establishment of hare sanctuaries; the development of a strategy for the conservation and monitoring of the Irish hare, which will include repeat surveys similar to the Northern Ireland hare survey, at intervals of three to five years, until 2010 to measure its success; the provision of advice to land managers and others on hare conservation; and the promotion of general research into the biology, ecology and population dynamics of the Irish hare.

TOP

Report of the Public Accounts Committee

I call the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr Billy Boyle.

Mr Bell.

My apologies.

The bells are not ringing today, I'm afraid.

I beg to move

I welcome the opportunity to debate, for the first time, the important work undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee since it was established in January 2000. I am pleased that the new Minister of Finance and Personnel, Dr Seán Farren, is here for the debate. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and hope that we can work together and continue to develop the excellent relationship that the Committee had established with his predecessor, Mr Mark Durkan, and his officials.

It is important that Members have a clear understanding of the role of the Public Accounts Committee. I also hope that by reviewing the published reports of the Committee we will be able to demonstrate to Members the relevance of the Committee's work to the overall objective of improving standards of administration and performance in Northern Ireland's Departments and agencies.

What is the Public Accounts Committee all about? Its role is set out in simple terms in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Act provides that the Committee's role is to consider accounts, and reports on accounts, laid before the Assembly by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.

I can understand how anyone reading this provision could easily come to the conclusion that the work of the Public Accounts Committee would consist of a series of meetings that would continually become bogged down in the study of a range of complex and detailed departmental accounts, and that little would be achieved. Such an assumption could not be further from the truth, and there are several reasons why that is so. First, we are fortunate that the Comptroller and Auditor General is the Assembly's independent auditor and an officer of the Assembly. He heads the Northern Ireland Audit Office and is responsible to the Assembly for the audit of central Government Departments and most of their sponsored bodies.

In performing this role, he provides independent assurance, information and advice to the Assembly on the proper accounting regularity and propriety of expenditure, revenue and assets, and on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which public sector bodies use their resources.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's independence is fully safeguarded in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Act made it clear that he would be totally independent in the exercise of his functions and could not

The importance of that provision cannot be overstated. I am sure that all Members will join me in paying tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor General for the important role that he has played as we have sought to come to terms with our new responsibilities under devolution.

It is also appropriate to place on record my thanks, and that of the Public Accounts Committee, to the Committee Clerk and the Assistant Clerk. The success of the Committee has been in no small measure due to the work that they have done.

A second reason that the work of the Public Accounts Committee is both interesting and productive is that it has concentrated on value-for-money reports, which the Northern Ireland Audit Office has produced, based on its assessment of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which public sector bodies use their resources. Usually, 10 to 12 such reports are produced annually. Members have often heard me say in the House and in the media that before devolution those reports were sent to Westminster to gather dust on its shelves. I have repeated that statement due to frustration; I think that all those important reports were not fully acted on during the past 30 years. Fortunately, with the advent of devolution, that situation has changed.

The Committee has been instrumental in bringing about that change. Shortly after its establishment, the Committee decided that all Audit Office value-for- money reports would be considered in detail. That consideration is carried out either by correspondence with the relevant accounting officers or by taking oral evidence from them in a public session. That approach has led to greater financial accountability to the Assembly, and has proved particularly effective.

A further reason for the Committee's continued success is the hard work and dedication of its members. I thank them all for their support. The Committee has been able to agree that party political issues should not come before the interests of the taxpayer. It is interesting to note that all the reports that we have produced have been unanimous. That is not because of fudges in the wording, conclusions or recommendations, but because we have been able to keep the interests of the taxpayer to the forefront of our deliberations.

The unanimity of our reports has meant that Departments and the Executive have been faced with conclusions that are difficult to ignore or avoid. I am pleased to say that the vast majority of our recommendations have been accepted and acted on.

When the Committee was set up in January 2000 it faced a formidable task. Mr David Davis, former Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, speaking during the debate on the Northern Ireland Bill in July 1998, said that

He also quoted the Rt Hon Member for Upper Bann, First Minister David Trimble, who described it as "ghastly". I hope that that assessment has changed as a result of the Committee's work.

I turn to the reports produced by the Committee. I shall deal first with the composite report published today, which represents a departure from the Committee's normal procedures and is a novel approach in the United Kingdom. It is usual when the reports are published for the relevant Departments to have two months to reply to the conclusions and recommendations in the form of a Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum of reply. That ensures that the reports are not subjected to knee-jerk reaction and that a considered response is given to the carefully drafted conclusions and recommendations. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to have a debate on a report in the Chamber before a formal reply had been published. That is not possible. However, the Committee has decided to deal with the eight topics solely on the basis of written evidence contained in the report. The process, therefore, has been completed and a Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum of reply is not required.

Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to go through all eight topics, but I would like to draw their attention to some issues that are raised in the report. Members will have noted on pages 8 and 9 of the composite report that the Committee has drawn attention to the loss of £2,161,000 in Vote 3, IDB Industrial Support and Regeneration account. The loss is due to the poor design and construction of a factory in Campsie industrial estate, Londonderry. That was largely due to the failure of the design consultants to make adequate provision in the design of the building for the internal controlled levels for temperature and humidity required to spin yarn. The IDB was required to carry out the remedial work at a cost of £3·5 million, but it could negotiate a settlement figure of only £1·35 million, which was set at the level of professional indemnity cover held by the design consultants. Further litigation would almost certainly have put the defendants out of business, with no guarantee of any greater sum of recovery.

The Committee expects lessons to be learnt from this case, especially the need for Departments to ensure that design consultants, architects and contractors have the appropriate level of insurance cover relevant to the value and complexity of the building to be constructed. I welcome the fact that the Department of Finance and Personnel has pointed that out to departmental finance officers.

Vote 4 on page 9 raises an important issue with regard to clawback arrangements as part of the privatisation of public assets. That issue was raised in the context of a shortfall in anticipated clawback as a result of disposals by Northern Ireland Electricity of part of its Danesfort headquarters and its shareholding in the ShopElectric retail chain of 34 shops. Northern Ireland Electricity calculated that the clawback due was £250,000, although the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment calculated the total amount due to be £6·8 million. Therefore, the matter is currently at arbitration.

The Committee attaches great importance to Departments and public bodies ensuring that they have effective arrangements for clawback and vigorously pursuing any sums due. The Committee has, therefore, asked to be updated when the arbitration process is complete. The Committee has also requested the Comptroller and Auditor General to review all other aspects of the follow-up to the 1994 report on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity and, if appropriate, to produce a further report.

I want to turn to some of the reports that the Committee has published over the past 18 months. The first report that we dealt with was on road safety in Northern Ireland. The Committee decided to put this issue to the top of its agenda because of the appalling road safety record here. Some of the key issues arising from the report were: the cost to the economy for road deaths and injury of £574 million - a staggering figure; the need for a comprehensive road safety plan that is driven strongly by a single lead organisation and for the plan to include clear and challenging targets - [Interruption].

I have sent someone to find out what is causing the background noise. This should not be happening while you are on your feet, Mr Bell, and I apologise.

Thank you for your concern, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a bit off-putting, but I do not attach any blame to you for that.

The Committee also wants to reduce significantly the gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in deaths and serious injury. The Department had proposed setting a target of a 20% reduction in casualty rates on our roads by 2010. However, given that the target reduction in Great Britain was 40% in the same period, we have insisted that the Department set a target that will reduce significantly the gap in road casualties between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have also insisted on better co-ordination, co-operation and planning between all the agencies involved in road safety, such as the Department of the Environment, the Department for Regional Development, Driver and Vehicle Licensing (NI), Driver and Vehicle Testing (NI), the Roads Service, the Court Service and the police.

We still have a long way to go to improve our road safety record. However, we are now moving in the right direction. I hope that the reduction of 24 in the number of fatalities on our roads during 2001 is an improvement that can be sustained.

I want to turn to fraud in the public sector. One of the most worrying issues to emerge in the course of our work is the scale on which fraud and suspected fraud exists in the public sector, a massive waste of scarce resources. Fraud exists throughout many Departments, and it seems to be tackled differently by each Department. The public sector must rise to the challenge and combat fraud.

Our first hearing on fraud involved three cases under the National Agricultural Support Scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The first two cases involved an over-declaration of land by the applicants and a subsequent over-claim of £105,793 for livestock subsidies. In both cases the police were unable to pursue a criminal prosecution because of serious shortcomings in the Department's system. The Committee was astonished to find that subsidies for grazing were being paid to Sir Thomas and Lady Dixon Park - subsidies that also covered the flower beds and car parks - to Annadale Embankment and to Dunmurry golf course.

Amazingly the maps used were up to 64 years old and led to the Department being unable to prosecute. The Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, or even Eason's bookshop, would have had more up-to-date information than that.

The third case relates to several claims made by the same family. It was suspected that livestock subsidies were being claimed for animals that came from a source outside Northern Ireland. This case highlighted the direct connection between fraud and animal health issues that became all too apparent with the subsequent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland. We had grave concerns that the controls in place did not detect fraud until 1999. The Department was, again, not able to prosecute - a common theme that we have heard from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, we were encouraged by the accounting officer's evidence that he operates zero tolerance of fraud. We will be keeping a watching brief in order to ensure that these words are translated into action.

I am endeavouring to keep to time, but the slight interruption put me off my stride a bit.

The period of direct rule did not best serve the people of Northern Ireland. During that period the creation of large, bureaucratic institutions meant that Government lost touch with the reality of people's everyday needs in relation to healthcare, education and many other services. We have also inherited a legacy of underfunding in many vital public services. My experience as Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee has given that belief a sharper focus.

I am convinced that the problems we face can be overcome, given that the key elements of local accountability have been greatly enhanced through devolved Government. I cannot emphasise that enough. The Public Accounts Committee will play an important role in ensuring that public sector bodies are fully accountable to the Assembly.

Thank you, Mr Bell. I apologise again for the distraction during your speech.

Before I refer to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, I wish to speak briefly in my capacity as Chairperson of the Audit Committee about that Committee's role in the oversight and ongoing scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Audit Office given that the Public Accounts Committee takes evidence on the basis of its reports.

The Audit Committee has access to the Audit Office's business plan and statement of accounts on an annual basis. We receive frequent updates on progress towards the planned targets and an opportunity to agree the estimates for annual expenditure from the Comptroller and Auditor General and members of his senior management team. My Committee prepares a report on this crucial area of work and lays it before the Assembly annually.

The size of the Comptroller and Auditor General's task is considerable. In 2001-02 it is estimated that his office will audit expenditure and revenue transactions totalling over £135 billion and assets and liabilities of over £49 billion. Analysing, certifying and reporting on these accounts is all part of the service provided to the Assembly by the Comptroller and Auditor General and his team. This comprehensive service is provided at a cost of under £5 million to the public. That represents excellent value for money.

I have been impressed by the professionalism and quality of the work carried out by the Northern Ireland Audit Office. I look forward to working with it in facing the challenges ahead arising from the proposed legislation on audit and accountability and the Sharman Report.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee I would like to mention our report on school inspection. In May 2001 the permanent secretary and senior officials from the Department of Education appeared before the Committee to examine the role of school inspections.

The purpose of the session was to consider how effective school inspections have been in ensuring good quality of school performance and, in particular, in assisting an improvement in standards in schools. I am especially concerned about the literacy and numeracy levels among young people, and I selected that session for comment, as school inspection is fundamental in highlighting the reasons for a school's performance level falling.

I asked the permanent secretary about the Department of Education's failure to achieve the English and mathematics targets for 11-year-olds at Key Stage 2 and 14-year-olds at Key Stage 3 which were proposed in its original literacy and numeracy strategy in 1997. Given that so many pupils leave school and seek work with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills, the Public Accounts Committee made it clear that the schools inspectorate, which visits schools regularly, should have been screaming from the rooftops at the lack of improvement in standards. The inspectorate should have been telling the Department that teachers do not have the resources or the back-up to ensure that the bottom 20% get a fair deal. Instead, it bullied good teachers and let the Department off the hook for years by remaining silent.

I expressed dismay that the Department appeared to have walked away from the original targets because they were difficult to achieve. It downgraded the Key Stage 2 English and Key Stage 3 mathematics targets. Moreover, the previous Programme for Government revealed that the Department had moved the goalposts of its original strategy from 2002 to 2004. Surely this must be the only area of government in which a new Executive is promising lower achievement than we had under direct rule?

With 250,000 people aged between 16 and 64 with serious literacy and numeracy problems, the Department is behaving like the proverbial ostrich by burying its head in the sand and pretending that nothing is wrong. Against that background it is alarming that, since its response to the Committee, the Department has reduced the Key Stage 3 targets for both English and mathematics yet again.

I want to make it clear that setting targets and then reducing them when they appear difficult to achieve is not a sensible way of managing the education system. With that sort of direction from the top, it is not our pupils who are failing the literacy and numeracy test; it is the Department.

The Public Accounts Committee has made it clear that it will continue to monitor progress in that area, as will the Education Committee, I am sure. It is vital that we hold the Department to account for effective management of the improvements to the education of young people, so that no child leaves school unable to read and write to an acceptable level. That is what equality is about; it is the foundation stone of the Assembly, and the Department has been found wanting by the Public Accounts Committee.

Referring to the composite report before the House, one area that caused me particular concern was the failure of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to follow proper purchasing procedures when awarding £3·9 million worth of printing contracts. The Committee noted that, when awarding the contracts, a £64,000 bid from W&G Baird Ltd had been accepted, although it was £12,350 higher than the lowest bid, which was £51,650.

That company is connected to the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, and in the light of that, the Committee requested further information to identify how many similar cases there were. In each case, the board was requested to state the amount of the company's bid and all lower bids, together with the reasons for rejecting the lower bids.

From the Northern Ireland Tourist Board's reply certain details emerged. Contracts awarded to W&G Baird Ltd without tendering, or where that company was the sole tenderer, amounted to £470,000·76. Contracts awarded where W&G Baird Ltd's tender was not the lowest tender amounted to £773,312; contracts awarded where W&G Baird Ltd was the lowest bidder amounted to £137,185.

The Committee considered the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's reply to be disturbing. It revealed the extent to which substantial print contracts were awarded to W&G Baird Ltd. I was appalled to see that nearly £500,000 of printing contracts had been awarded without any competition. A further £770,000 had been awarded to the company when it had not been the lowest bidder. The Committee's view is that the reasons cited for rejecting lower bids were not convincing.

In the light of those concerns, the Committee has asked for a further report in 12 months' time on all printing contracts awarded since April 2000, including full details of all bids received and the basis on which contracts were awarded. Of further concern was the fact that the Department did not accept that it was undesirable to make an appointment to the board of a public body in circumstances where there was potential for a serious conflict of interest - the respective appointee's company was carrying out substantial business with the public body.

The Committee recognised that board members who have a private sector background can bring valuable business skills to bear in the running of public bodies. It also recognised that experienced people in the hotel and catering industry should not be precluded from appointments to the board of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board because their business received grants from that organisation. However, the Committee considered there to be a clear distinction between that type of situation and making a board appointment in circumstances where the appointee's company is carrying out substantial commercial business with the public body. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board's failure to recognise that distinction smacks of extreme naivety. In the light of that, the Public Accounts Committee has recommended that guidelines on public appointments should be re-examined. The Committee will, of course, closely monitor developments in the Tourist Board for the foreseeable future.

I apologise to the Chamber for my absence at the start of the Chairperson's speech. I was detained in my constituency.

I pay tribute to the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr Billy Bell. He has dealt with every issue fairly and in a non-partisan way. However, I remind the House that he has a hard act to follow. The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee back in 1971 was a politician of considerable standing - none other than my party leader, Dr Paisley. I also fully endorse the tribute that Mr Bell paid to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. They have provided a valuable service to the Committee and to the Assembly.

In the 18 months in which the Committee has been fully operational, I have been impressed at the range of topics that it has covered, reaching across all Executive Departments. The Committee has dealt with topics as diverse as road safety, the services provided by the pathology laboratories in the Health Service and fleet management in the Northern Ireland Fire Authority. That has undoubtedly improved accountability to the taxpayer on how public money has been spent.

Before I deal with some specific issues I want to make it clear that the Committee does not scrutinise policy or the allocation of resources. Ministers and the Executive are accountable directly to the Assembly on those issues. I emphasise that the interest of the Committee is to ensure that the Departments and their agencies are operating in an efficient manner and that they obtain good value for the money and resources entrusted to them by the Assembly.

First, I will refer to the Committee's report on the Social Security Agency. The Committee was appalled at the enormous waste of public money by the Social Security Agency in its administration of income support benefit. This has been the sixth successive year in which the agency's accounts have been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, demonstrating a long- term failure to reach acceptable standards of administration.

Although the Committee knew of the inherent difficulties in administering income support payments it was shocked to learn that, despite previous undertakings to the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, one in eight income support awards was incorrect. That has led to an estimated 57 million errors - an increase by 36% on the 1999 position. Taking customer error and fraud together, the loss to the taxpayer has been a staggering £45 million. That is unacceptable.

Fraud, however, has not been limited to customers. The Committee was also informed of a fraud worth £250,000 involving a member of the agency's staff. That fraud was discovered only after a fire in a Belfast flat, when firemen found several payment books. The issue of fraud must be monitored closely.

Of further concern to the Committee were those whose assessments for benefit were undervalued and those who are unaware that they are entitled to benefit. The Social Security Agency must do more to ensure that those individuals, who are among the most vulnerable members of society, receive their proper benefit entitlement.

The Committee acknowledged that many good staff, with a genuine interest in their customers, work in local social security offices. However, it is potentially demoralising to work in an environment in which the level of error is so high. The Committee therefore encouraged the Social Security Agency to make a conscious drive to improve the quality of service. That is undoubtedly necessary, as it is in the interests of staff and claimants.

As part of its report, the Committee expressed its strong concern about the enormous waste of public money - errors amounting to £57 million. That concern about waste has been one of the reasons behind the Social Security Fraud Bill, which is aimed at reducing losses by creating improved powers to obtain information and providing for the power to remove benefits from persistent offenders.

The Social Security Agency has agreed to give more attention to targeting those who fail to claim their full benefit entitlement. To this end, it has recently introduced for pensioners shorter claim forms, reduced from 40 pages to 10. The Committee has urged the agency to investigate the potentially significant level of fraud stemming from additional benefits - sometimes known as "passport" benefits - that are available to claimants, which flows from erroneous income support awards.

The second report that I want to deal with is on river pollution in Northern Ireland. That key area failed to gain the level of priority it deserved during direct rule. In the course of the Committee's review I was not surprised to find that the cross-departmental approach to tackling river pollution was both fragmented and lacking in cohesion.

One of our particular concerns was that the Department of the Environment's failure to introduce charges for industrial consent in 1992 - its original target date - meant that the taxpayer had to foot a £9 million bill for running the consent operation in the intervening period. Fewer than 50% of dischargers complied with the conditions of their consent. Furthermore, as part of the former Department of the Environment, Water Service itself was a major polluter, and its activities were not fully controlled. Also, the Department of the Environment had not started the consultation process to implement the regulations on farm pollution. We are convinced that those failings sent out an unfortunate message to polluters.

This issue has generated many complaints in my Upper Bann constituency, where the response of the agencies involved has been less than satisfactory. In one case I reported that an oil flow had caused serious pollution in a Portadown river. I was horrified to find that some eight weeks later the problem had not been resolved. That is clearly unacceptable, and the Department of the Environment must do much better.

Another area of concern was that Northern Ireland was - and still is - the only part of the British Isles without an independent environmental protection body. There is, for example, the Environment Agency of England and Wales, and Scotland has the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Real independence from Government will be essential if the public are to be confident that our environment is being properly safeguarded.

On a positive note, I am pleased to see that, following the Committee's report, the Department of the Environment has provided a progress report. Action has been taken to improve levels of compliance with industrial consents, and formal targets have been set. Consent charges are to be introduced in April 2002. Consultation is under way on the introduction of farm pollution regulations, and there has been an extension of controls over Water Service discharges. Information on the achievement of standards will be published, as we requested. However, I remain concerned that in Northern Ireland there remains a very low level of compliance with consents, and I hope that the actions taken will greatly improve the current arrangements.

I am fortunate to have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee. As a direct result of our activities we have made a positive contribution to enhancing the accountability of Northern Ireland Departments and agencies to local politicians and - most importantly - to the taxpayer. I pay tribute to the Committee's support staff, who have been of tremendous help throughout our deliberations and without whom it would not be possible to operate.

It is my intention to suspend until 2.00 pm. The Business Committee has allocated two hours to this debate and, while it is my fervent hope to allow everyone a full opportunity to speak, the timing is something that I must keep under review. We have only two hours.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. To guide Members who intend to speak, can you indicate whether speeches will have a time limit and, if so, what will that time limit be?

That is a matter that I must keep under review. At the moment, I do not intend to apply a time limit. I hope that in the first round, at least, Members will have as much time as they wish. However, I must continually review the list due to the number of people who wish to add their names to it. It is too early for me to impose a specific time limit. I am sorry that I cannot be more definitive, but the situation changes continually.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>