I used to shy like a startled animal - I will leave it to Members to speculate as to the species - when I heard the word "bill". That was because of the flood of small brown-windowed envelopes that used to flood through my door, which haunted much of married life for me and Mary, and continues to do so well into our present decrepitude.

Now that the discerning electorate has transported me to this Utopia, I have come to realise that Bills can be good if we can come to terms with the contorted language that so often successfully conceals what they are about.

I never had the fiscal agility to deal competently with the bills that emanated from the outside world: I was putty in the hands of hire purchase and credit card companies. Therefore, I will not try to compete with the steering group that devised a new methodology for the distribution of grants to enable district councils to do positive things about economic development and public safety.

What do I know, when my knowledge is compared with the combined wisdom of several chief executives and finance officers of district councils; representatives from the Northern Ireland Audit Office; the Local Government Audit Office; the Equality Unit; the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; and the Department of the Environment? Therefore, I will leave it to the savants among us to say "bravo" or "boo" to the formula designed to measure the wealth of a council against its estimated needs and to comment, if they wish, on the financial complexities of the Bill.

I will limit myself to a few comments on the powers granted to, and the restrictions imposed on, councils with regard to actions and expenditure on economic development and community safety.

The Environment Committee has given qualified support to the proposed new formula, although I cannot imagine that there is a single council that believes its wealth base exceeds its needs. The formula will be queried thoroughly by councils that feel badly done by when the formula determines that the amount of the resources element payable to them is nil.

Clause 6 gives councils powers relating to the acquisition, retention, development, management and disposal of land. The explanatory and financial memorandum gives reassurances about the financial and equal opportunity effects of the Bill, human rights issues and the equality impact assessment. There is no mention in the Bill, or the memorandum, of the need for any measure adopted by councils to be compatible with the principles of sustainable development. We need reassurance on that.

Clause 6, subsection (4) states:

It would be important to have some idea of the type of directions that might be issued, and what recourse councils might have to satisfaction if they believe that such directions are unreasonable in their particular circumstances.

It is difficult to know what to say about the community safety element of the Bill. It is surprising - even amazing - that, despite our awful history, crime figures show that in general we are among the most law-abiding people in the world. However, many communities do not feel safe, and in some areas they have shocking reason not to.

It is horribly true also that certain organisations - some of whom claim to be working to implement the peace process - are exploiting community tensions and encouraging intercommunity violence. Everything possible must be done to create a situation where communities feel safe. It will not be easy to bring that about. It will require partnerships far more sophisticated and honest than some of the current arrangements. As an individual, and as a member of a party that, with tremendous difficulty, forced the concept of partnership on many reluctant people, that is important to me.

It is good that councils are not just willing, but anxious, to play their full part. However, we must be conscious of the difficulties. Research commissioned by the Criminal Justice Review came to the conclusion that there is a low level of awareness in local government, and among statutory, voluntary and community bodies about the concept of community safety. The general picture of community in Northern Ireland is of modest Government support, ad hoc initiatives, lack of awareness at local government and statutory levels, and poor inter-agency co-ordination. We can only hope that the Bill will do what it is supposed to do.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill. It is timely that it has come before the House in this way. Sinn Féin welcomes and supports, and will continue to encourage, the different approaches that can be taken to deal with public and community safety which are led by, and involve, the community. We need to ensure that there are provisions to deal with that.

New initiatives that might lead to that include community restorative justice, a befriending service for the elderly, youth outreach and the services of various other bodies that might come under the provisions of the Bill. The present structure gives the opportunity for councils to become involved and to create their own type of structure for handling such matters.

I hope that the Bill will give us that opportunity, and that it will not be as prescriptive as the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) scheme. The NIO has not yet indicated who will be involved in its envisaged community structure. Community participation is to be welcomed.

As regards the general grant, I must declare an interest as a district councillor in Dungannon, one of the areas affected by last year's proposed reduction in the general grant, which was reversed. I hope that under the new formula we will not face the danger of fluctuations because of the proposed Budget. If councils can rely on the formula and are not dependent on the Minister's Budget proposals or the allocation to Departments, they will know that they will receive the money and can plan ahead and deal with the issues that concern them.

As the Minister said, the Bill will take account of TSN and will deal with socio-economic provision in a way that will benefit the community. However, the reduction that was proposed last year would have had a detrimental effect on all district councils. Any new proposals or powers to give or to restrict would be better framed in a comprehensive document dealt with under the terms of the review of public administration, rather than in isolation from it. I hope that this issue will be resolved with a view as to how it will be affected by the review of public administration, and that it will not become an obstacle to further review. We must examine how councils are funded, and we can do that only when we know what the structure of local government will be. As was the case with provision for economic development in district councils, what we are getting is an extension of powers to district councils without knowing what those councils are going to be or what local government structures will be.

I have reservations about the further extension of local government powers in relation to economic development, because few councils have taken up the 5p limit. We must examine how that economic development assistance is distributed. Would it be better distributed from a general Exchequer fund? Smaller amounts, generated at local council level, have no impact on the economic conditions of an area because they are distributed so finely. However, they do make an impact on the rates, because they are open-ended and can result in 10% increases. That will have a severe effect on what else councils can do.

There are pros and cons to the buying and selling of property and property development. I hope that it will lead to greater accountability, because councils are elected, as opposed to the quangos that have grown up around economic development, over which there is no control in relation to management and distribution of moneys. We must also be aware of TSN and equality legislation.

There are many complex issues, and we must re-examine them in the light of the review of public administration. However, there are also development opportunities for councils, such as the proposed broadband infrastructure, which could be of benefit to the economic prosperity of any district council area. That will need legislation, and this is one way to achieve that goal.

I am concerned that, as the Chairperson of the Environment Committee said, the Bill has been extended to cover other areas, but will not provide us with an opportunity to deal with the infrastructural neglect that has built up in district council areas through successive changes in local administrative structure.

Small areas of land, streets and structures in district council areas have been neglected for years, but no one is accountable for that. The Department for Regional Development is not accountable, and it does not have the authority or responsibility for bringing those areas up to standard. The district council cannot do that because it does not have provision for roads or infrastructure. Neglect continues in town centres and other areas. No one is responsible, but the Bill does not deal with that matter.

This could be a chance to clear up many problems that have been left behind from previous district councils in a way that would provide a better quality of life for people living in those circumstances. The Committee hopes that it can influence change when it deals with the Bill.

I welcome the lifting of the restrictions on councils promoting economic development. District councils should be the engines that drive economic development here. Responsibility for local government has been raised. Over the years, Members and councillors will admit that much more work has been thrown on district councils with few resources to do it, and that must be addressed.

I welcome the comments of the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, which will scrutinise the Bill. The Bill will introduce community safety partnerships, but there is confusion over the setting up of those partnerships because district policing partnerships will also be set up soon. There has been widespread debate in the community, and in some district councils, about how the two partnerships will sit side by side. The Policing Board has had lengthy discussions on their implications. The police will be involved in district policing partnerships, and they will also play a key role in community safety partnerships.

Members of the Policing Board have been trying to make sensible arguments to resolve the matter. For example, they have said that there should be one body rather than two bodies to deal with many of the same problems. They are also considering streamlining, but up until now that has fallen on deaf ears. The Policing Board has suggested that there may be a different way of setting up the safety partnerships so that they do not create problems for the policing partnerships.

Has the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) been consulted on the community safety partnerships? Its Members think that their burden will be greater because they will be responsible for the setting up and servicing of the policing partnerships.

They feel that this is an added burden, as they will also have to look seriously at being involved in setting up community safety partnerships.

It would be useful for the Committee to hear evidence from SOLACE, which represents town clerks and chief executives. The Committee for the Environment could play an important role in streamlining the setting up of the community safety partnerships. Town clerks and chief executives, as well as several councils, feel that there is a better way to set these up. None of us is against the principle; they are a good idea. However, there will be confusion when community safety partnerships are set up, as we are also going to have district policing partnerships.

The community safety partnerships model for Northern Ireland appears to more or less mirror arrangements elsewhere. The problem is that in England, Scotland and Wales they do not have responsibility for setting up district policing partnerships. Here that is added to district partnerships' responsibilities. The Minister should take up that issue, and if the Committee receives evidence from SOLACE, a clearer picture will emerge of how partnerships could be set up without creating a problem for either body.

I broadly welcome the provisions of the Bill. Given that the Bill refers much to Regulations that may be made, it is difficult to do more than give it a general welcome. The meat will be when we see the Regulations, and no doubt the Committee will have the pleasure of going through the details of those Regulations with officials in the coming weeks and months.

The measures relating to the general grant are sufficiently opaque at this stage. It is hard to see what may be combined in the Regulations when they subsequently appear. It is surprising that the notes in the memorandum go into considerable depth on what the Regulations may cover, yet those Regulations have not been published. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister seems to have listened to some of the comments made by the Committee and others. In particular, I welcome the fact that under clause 2 (6) the Regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution rather than negative resolution. Perhaps that shows that the Department is now accepting a role for the Assembly. That is also the case in the community safety section. We should recognise and welcome that, but we should expect to see a great deal more detail and much more work done in Committee as the measures are dealt with.

The economic development power has day-to-day relevance, in a way that the formula for the general grant, for many, did not. I was somewhat surprised by Mr Molloy's remarks about being unhappy with the provision for economic development. There is an issue in that district councils can only complement the work of major agencies. However, on a small scale and at a local level, the work has been well complemented to date, and we perhaps have to be careful as to how exactly those functions are carried out. Some district councils have carried out innovative work, and more should be encouraged and supported.

Can the Minister tell me if the power to acquire land under clause 6 (2)(b) includes the power to vest land, and whether that is his intention? If it is not, can he indicate how he sees the question of vesting powers being a potential future development for district councils in this area? Can he explain how the Bill gives authority to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to issue directions to district councils, as stated in clause 6(4)? That appears to be contrary to provisions elsewhere in the Bill to ensure that the Assembly is fully consulted on the Regulations. Directions coming from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment would not appear to be as open and transparent a process as that relating to the Regulations being made under the Bill.

Mr Hay highlighted an important issue in relation to community safety. The general power to engage in community safety, in clause 7(1), will be welcomed almost universally in Northern Ireland. However, the circumstances in which the Minister may start to impose functions on district councils in clause 7(2) suggest a different method of moving forward. That is particularly relevant, given Mr Hay's complaints about how that may impact on district policing partnerships. Will the Minister tell us the circumstances that would lead to clause 7(2) becoming relevant and overriding the more generous and consultative provisions of clause 7(1)? I trust that he will be able to respond, if not today, then during the Committee's detailed scrutiny of that clause.

The Bill should be passed. However, whether it is appropriate for us to spend much time discussing the rating system when that system might be changed is another matter. The general grant formula is long overdue for reform, and we must move quickly on that.

I largely welcome the Second Stage of the Bill, particularly the clause on enhancing the role of district councils in economic development.

The Bill provides for the widening of district councils' role in local economic development and the promotion of local enterprise. It enhances greatly a council's ability to help local development, which is a good initiative. It is to be hoped that it will allow district councils to collaborate more with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in helping to promote local enterprise and create local jobs. That could prove beneficial in allowing district councils to be more effective, relevant and meaningful partners in promoting economic development.

Many local enterprise companies throughout Northern Ireland have been very successful in promoting the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector, and many district councils have been leading partners in helping those companies to realise job creation and promote local enterprise. Omagh District Council's successful Omagh Enterprise Company has created more than 200 jobs in the Gortrush industrial estate as a result of the increased potential for local economic development that arose from European funding.

There is genuine concern that community safety has been tagged on to the Bill, perhaps at the behest of the Northern Ireland Office, without due consideration of all the issues. Community safety provision is a radical development, and it is relevant to many of our communities, where there is a crying need for better safety. However, I caution against setting up community safety committees as substitutes for district policing partnerships.

The community safety initiative being promoted is based largely on a GB model. Councils in England, Scotland and Wales have been working on the issues for some time. They have been working solely in the community safety context. However, in Northern Ireland there is a new proposal policy initiative for district policing partnerships that does not exist anywhere else in the Western World. I am concerned, as are others, that imposing two new administrative policy mechanisms under the jurisdiction of district councils could create a bureaucratic nightmare for the management and servicing of both policy initiatives. Those of us who serve on the Policing Board, and who are sincere in trying to bring about better community-based policing, want to see district policing partnerships develop in order to deliver more effective policing in our communities.

That is one example of how the hand-me-down Great Britain model does not exactly suit our needs. I urge the Minister not to be steamrolled along a single track on that. We need further discussion about how district policing partnerships and community safety committees could be merged into a symbiotic policy initiative, which would prove much more beneficial to all communities.

Councils have a major role to play in service-level agreements and in trying to deliver better community safety and community-based policing. I contend that the primary objective should be to try to get community-oriented policing within a safer environment in council areas. There is potential there if we work in a positive, constructive and imaginative way to bring about a model that is viable and can bring about tangible benefits. I urge the Minister and the Department to give due consideration to the complexities that two parallel structures might impose on councils. It would be futile to bring in two new structures - community safety committees and district policing partnerships - and expect council officials to manage and administer both of them.

I normally receive some warning about how many Members are left to speak. However, I got no such indication. If you allow me time to pull my papers together, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be ready soon.

There is no rush.

There is no rush, Mr Kennedy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you must be paying me back for not being on time for the debate.

I can assure you, Minister, that that is the last thing on my mind.

The House will believe you without a doubt.

I thank those Members who contributed to the debate. My surprise at being called so soon to make my winding-up speech meant that I needed a little preparation. However, I am ready.

I endorse Dr McCrea's comments and genuinely thank him for his co-operation on this matter. Officials have met with him often to discuss the issues that he has raised, and they will continue to do so. This is an important matter, and I will be mindful of the Committee's views and take them on board whenever possible.

Dr McCrea has said that he will pursue officials on the details of the Bill and that he will be thorough in his scrutiny of it. I have no doubt that he and the Committee will be. Indeed, Mr Ford said that too. I must not forget about Mr Ford, another valuable member of the Committee.

Dr McCrea raised the equality impact assessment and the concerns of the eastern area of the Province. A key element of the equality impact assessment is the weighted capitalisation formula, and this has been proofed for each of the nine equality categories. The Department is trying to ensure that the formula adjusts need to match wealth. An example of that is refuse collection. In a scarcely populated area a refuse lorry covers a large distance to collect a few bins. The council pays for that high overhead cost - and it is costs such as this that are being addressed. The overhead cost per bin is not as high in areas where there are many bins. All aspects of adjusting the actual population to the weighted population to see whether any councils require more grant aid have been appraised and will be taken into account. The deprivation indicators incorporated in the formula are the Noble indices of income.

I welcome the Chairperson's comments. If Members are unclear about the formula, or feel that it is either fair or unfair, they should contact officials who will explain it comprehensively. Sometimes ignorance, and I mean this in the best sense of the word, leads to a lack of understanding. If, or when, the Committee, or anyone, does not support what the Department is trying to do, a suggestion for improvement would be genuinely welcomed.

Arthur Doherty mentioned sustainable development, which is a thrust of the entire Administration. We are trying to ensure that economic well-being is distributed throughout Northern Ireland equitably while sustaining the environment. Part of the reason for a resources grant element is to provide a top-up to help people who are more disadvantaged than others. Through the grant, we are aiming for sustainable development throughout Northern Ireland - matching economic benefits with the necessary environmental protection.

Mr Molloy talked about dealing with a single agency and the importance of community participation. I agree - the community must participate. Mr Molloy said that he wanted much more opportunity for the community to become involved, that it should not just be a matter of dealing with the NIO. Those were his words, and I endorse them. The community safety partnership should involve the public, voluntary, private and community sectors to work in partnership to identify local problems and to devise action plans. Those are the key thrusts of community partnership.

Partnership members could include district councils; the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade; Translink; the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; the Department of the Environment; the Department for Regional Development; chambers of commerce; and various voluntary and community sectors. A plethora of participation is expected. I endorse community partnerships and hope that they will allay Mr Molloy's concerns.

Mr Molloy's second point concerned the formula for the resources element of the grant to district councils and how that would affect planning. The aim is to enable planning to take place. Although we cannot be sure about the actual amount that will be granted, the relationship based on the application of the formula will remain for three years and will be beneficial. Councils asked for the money to be paid monthly. That will happen from April 2003. We are trying to accommodate short-term and long-term planning through cash flow and projection using a formula based on a three-year cycle. We are trying to take those points on board.

Mr Molloy said that few councils avail of the 5p limit for promoting economic development. He also mentioned the review of public administration. The provision in clause 6 is set in the context of ongoing local government development. We do not wish to be prescriptive - we want to give councils flexibility. The fact that many councils have not availed of the existing allowance does not mean that it should not be provided.

With regard to the point raised by Mr Hayes and Mr Byrne about policing partnerships, it is for the NIO to decide the position on policing.

The prime responsibility of district policing partnerships is to hold the police to account rather than to engage in service delivery. This role is supplementary and complementary to policing. The community safety partnership, however, brings communities together to do things for the good of the community. Its function is service delivery.

I thank Mr Ford for saying that he did not seek a detailed answer today, but hoped that it would come through Committee work. I endorse both statements - he will not receive a detailed answer today, and it will be done through Committee work. I have noted it, and I am glad that he accepts it. However, I shall sketch the probable situation. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may issue guidance to ensure a cohesive approach. The Department wants to ensure that economic development policy does not overlap and is consistent, and it will have an overarching brief.

With regard to vesting, powers for district councils are in the Local Government Act 1972 and must be adhered to. Mr Ford also mentioned clause 7, subsection (2) of the Bill. I am glad that the Alliance Party is concerned about rigour, imposition and discipline. With regard to clause 7, it is anticipated that councils will engage in community partnership for the very reasons I mentioned in response to Mr Molloy: namely, that involvement in community safety would benefit communities that are working together. However, clause 7, subsection (2) enables a Department to confer or impose on district councils any functions involved in community safety. I stress that any such conferral requires the full approval of the Assembly. The will of the Assembly may at some time dictate that it is obligatory for councils to seek involvement in community safety. In that regard, I stress - and it is in the Bill - that any aspect of that will be subject to affirmative resolution in the Assembly.

I have addressed all of the Members' comments as best I could. Any Member who feels uncertain or unclear about the Bill should not hesitate to contact officials. I look forward to further deliberations between my officials and the Assembly. Again, I request that comments or criticisms be constructive. Suggestions are invited, as we want to get this right.

I appreciate the Chairperson of the Environment Committee's point about adding time, and I ask for his good diligence in processing the Bill. The time for completion of the financial aspect is limited and, if possible, we would like everything done in good order. I thank him in advance for that.

The Department has responded to the representations that were made to it, and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill addresses the needs of the people in Northern Ireland.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister provide written answers to the Members' questions that he was unable to address today?

I advise the Minister to do so.

My officials will review the debate and address any pertinent points. That is what I intended to convey in response to Mr Ford's comment about receiving details in the future.

Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002

TOP

Mr Deputy Speaker:

A Statutory Rule that is subject to affirmative resolution becomes law once the Assembly approves it.

I beg to move

This is one of three similar Orders that relate to Northern Ireland's main commercial trust ports of Belfast, Londonderry and Warrenpoint. I will speak less about the Londonderry and Warrenpoint Orders because my comments on the first Order will address many of the broad issues. The Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 will provide limited additional powers to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, within the constraints of the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, while securing improvements in public accountability.

Three years ago, the Department completed a major review of public trust ports in Northern Ireland, which paralleled a similar exercise in Great Britain. The main findings of the Northern Ireland review reinforced the strategic importance of public trust ports to the local economy. However, it also identified a need to extend the powers of such ports and to ease the existing financial controls under which they operate to enable them to compete more effectively and to meet the challenges ahead.

In parallel with that, the review considered what steps should be taken to improve the public accountability of all Northern Ireland trust ports. Since then, several developments, such as the lengthy consideration of the options for the future of the Port of Belfast, and the Committee for Regional Development's inquiry into the Titanic Quarter leases, have influenced the legislative proposals that originated in the review. The Committee's recommendations have contributed much to the final shaping of the three Orders, particularly as regards the public accountability of all harbour commissioners.

The Belfast Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 consists of 11 articles and two Schedules. Article 3 sets out general powers and duties of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. It provides that the commissioners may take such steps, as they consider necessary or expedient, for the improvement, maintenance and management of the port and its facilities. Those include providing port facilities, constructing, demolishing and altering structures in the port, lending money, maintaining reserves, investing surpluses, and anything that is necessary or expedient to facilitate the proper upkeep or development of the harbour.

However, those powers must be exercised in connection with port operations and do not constitute general powers to lend money or invest sums in unconnected matters.

Article 4(1) empowers the commissioners to retain for such time as they see fit any land that they have acquired and to dispose of any of their land that is no longer required for the harbour undertaking. The commissioners are empowered to effect such disposal under terms and conditions that they think fit. However, article 4(2) has been included in the Order to safeguard the public interest. That will ensure that the commissioners' land disposal powers are exercised in accordance with the arrangements that the Department made and that they are set out in the memorandum of understanding that is already in place. Therefore, the Order will give legal force to that arrangement.

As Members are aware, the memorandum of understanding on the Harland & Wolff lands issue has proved valuable recently. As a result of the existence of the memorandum of understanding, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' dealings have been seen to be open and transparent, and the public interest has been duly safeguarded through my Department's involvement.

Article 5(1) empowers the commissioners to

Those activities relate to harbour operations. Article 6(1) empowers the commissioners to borrow money on the security of their revenues and property. That brings the Port of Belfast into line with the situation that governs most major trust ports in Great Britain. Article 6(2) provides that the total amount of such borrowings must not exceed £45 million

That figure was determined after professional advice was taken, and is based on the port's profit-earning ratio. Article 6(4) makes it clear that such borrowings can be applied

That is designed to prevent the commissioners from borrowing for revenue purposes under that article.

In contrast, article 7(1) empowers the commissioners to borrow temporarily for three months, by way of overdraft or otherwise, such sums as they may require to meet their obligations or to discharge their functions under any legislation.

Article 8(1) empowers the commissioners to license pleasure craft to be let to the public for trade or business, or to be used for carrying passengers for hire in the Port of Belfast. There is also power for the commissioners to license the boatmen or those assisting in the charge or navigation of pleasure craft.

Article 8(2) states that the commissioners may grant such licences for such periods as they think fit and may suspend or revoke licences when necessary or desirable in the public interest. Articles 9(1) to 9(5) make several consequential amendments to earlier Belfast Harbour Acts, which will be required as a result of making this Order. Article 9(6) introduces schedule 1 - the commissioners' constitution - to the Order. That contains new provisions that relate to the constitution of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and their procedures and so forth. Schedule 1 re-enacts the existing constitution of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners but makes some important amendments. Paragraph 2(1) to schedule 1 states that the commissioners shall continue to be appointed by the head of the Department, who in this case is the Minister, but shall consist of not less than 10 and not more than 15 people. Paragraph 2(3)(a) requires that a commissioner

That has been increased from the previous three-year period to provide the Department with greater flexibility for succession planning and so forth.

Paragraph 3 states that up to four of the commissioners shall be members of Belfast City Council and shall be appointed by the Department after consultation with the council. They shall be eligible to serve for a period that is coterminous with their council membership.

Incidentally, I note that the Examiner of Statutory Rules, in his report, has drawn attention to the need to correct the spelling of "coterminous". I take responsibility for the idea, but not for the spelling in the Order. The Department has undertaken to make this amendment, and the others, as soon as possible.

The new constitution of the board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners provides for a significant increase in the number of elected representatives serving as commissioners. Previously, only one member of the council could be appointed to the board. The increase reflects one of the main recommendations in the Committee for Regional Development's report on the Titanic Quarter leases. Assuming that the Order meets with the Assembly's approval, the Department intends to secure the increase in the number of elected representatives as soon as is practicable.

Paragraph 5 applies section 18(2) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 to these appointments. It provides the Department with the power to remove, suspend, reappoint or reinstate commissioners. In my detailed consideration of the legislation, I gave considerable thought to the issue of the Department's power to remove or suspend board members. However, following legal advice, I concluded that it was unnecessary to make any additional provision in the legislation at present.

I also draw Members' attention to paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which sets out the experience required of persons who wish to be considered for appointment to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. At my request, this has been expanded to enable the Department to attract applicants with a wider range of interests when considering appointments to the board. I discussed the matter with the Committee because I had reached the conclusion that the narrow focus meant that it was almost impossible to appoint anyone who had not previously been a commissioner or who did not have direct interests in the harbour estate. Under the new provisions, relevant interests might include special knowledge of the local community area in which the port is located.

The Department intends to seek further nominations, with a view to filling these two important positions on the board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners as soon as the legislation is in place. Those positions will be additional to the three city council representatives.

Paragraph 7 provides the Department with new powers to appoint an official to attend meetings of the commissioners in an observation capacity. Any such official would not take part in the deliberations or decisions of the commissioners. This is a further measure to improve the public accountability of the trust ports, and it has been in operation on a voluntary basis for some time. I will review the arrangement once the number of elected representatives on each of the boards has been increased.

Paragraph 10(2) deals with conflicts of interest, and has been expanded to make it clear that, where a conflict of interest is identified, the commissioner involved should withdraw from the meeting and take no further part in the discussions about the contract or transaction. This accords with actual practice in each boardroom at present. Apart from those provisions, the constitution and procedure of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners remains as set out in schedule 1 to the Belfast Harbour Acts (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 1979.

Article 10 provides for section 23 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to cease to have effect. I am sure that all Members are acquainted with that legislation. That section restricted the commissioners to granting leases on property for a maximum of three years.

Article 11 of the Order details the statutory provisions that are required to be repealed or revoked to the extent stated in column 3 of schedule 2 to the Order. Extensive consultation has taken place on the Order with the harbour authority and other interested parties, including the city council and the Committee for Regional Development. The Department has incorporated several changes at the suggestion of the Committee. I have the impression that there is widespread support for the proposals.

The Order will secure a modest increase in the commissioners' commercial powers, while providing for a significant number of measures to improve the organisation's public accountability. More extensive change is planned, but that will require primary legislation. To that end, I hope to publish a short harbours Bill later this year. In the meantime I commend the Belfast Harbour Order to the Assembly.

On behalf of the Committee for Regional Development I welcome and support this Order and the two further Orders that will be debated shortly. The Minister has explained carefully and clearly the reason for this legislation and has outlined the main powers of the Belfast Harbour Order. The Committee has considered the Order carefully and has agreed unanimously that it is a useful and helpful piece of secondary legislation. It is important that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners can carry out successfully their fiduciary responsibilities to ensure that Belfast and other trust ports are properly and profitably managed.

Many successful commercial ventures require substantial borrowing. The legislation will provide the commissioners with the scope to increase their borrowing for the development and modernisation of operations, subject to the regulation specified in the Order and the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

The Committee particularly welcomes the proposed increase in Belfast City Council's representation on the Belfast harbour board. Members will recall that increased representation of local councillors in each of the trust ports was one of the main recommendations to emerge from the Committee's public inquiry on the Titanic Quarter lease - the Minister has already referred to that. The Committee believes that this safeguard improves the public accountability of the trust port, which is important because the Order increases significantly the borrowing limits of the commissioners. The safeguard will also allow for close scrutiny of any commercial transactions to ensure that they are in line with the duties of the commissioners.

The Committee for Regional Development is also aware that public accountability has been reinforced by the memorandum of understanding agreed by the Department for Regional Development and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, which requires the commissioners to consult the Department about any proposed changes to land use. The Minister's statement earlier today on the proposed renegotiated lease for 80 acres of harbour land between Harland & Wolff and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners provides a clear example of the importance of the memorandum of understanding.

The need for clear and open public accountability cannot be understated. The fact that the Minister has made a statement to the House regarding the proposed land deal between Harland & Wolff and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners illustrates that he recognises the importance that the Assembly attaches to what is an important public asset to Northern Ireland. I do not apologise, therefore, for wishing to see that all our trust ports are scrutinised closely and properly to ensure that those entrusted with managing these valuable assets are acting in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.

The Committee for Regional Development believes that the public accountability of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners can be further enhanced. The Minister proposes to introduce a harbours Bill that will strengthen the Department's powers. There has been some slippage in introducing this legislation, and I ask the Minister to give that a high priority.

During the Committee's inquiry into the Titantic Quarter lease it was discovered that many trust ports in Britain are covered by a good governance guide - in other words a code of practice.

In its report to the Assembly, the Committee recommended that the Department should seek to introduce a similar guide. The Committee believed that this would provide a framework, setting out standards of independence, openness and accountability. The Committee also stated at that time that such a guide should specify clear procedures to ensure that both the Department and the Committee are kept informed of all key business activities.

I am aware that the Department has given a commitment to introduce a code of practice, and it would be useful if the Minister could advise whether that code is already in place, or when he expects it to be introduced. The code, along with the Belfast Harbour Order, the memorandum of understanding and the harbours Bill, will provide an effective and comprehensive framework for ensuring clear public accountability for the Port of Belfast and, indeed, all our trust ports.

I do not want to repeat the points that I have just made when considering the subsequent Orders that will come before the House; they will be taken as read in relation to the other Orders. I reiterate the Committee's support for these Orders.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>