The underinvestment that we experience in our public services and infrastructure is also experienced across the water. I assumed that Members on the other side of the House would appreciate that fact even more than I. The main cause of underinvestment was the cutbacks that successive Conservative Governments imposed in the 1980s and the early 1990s. Therefore our deficit is not unique. Readers of the London newspapers will know of the significant deficit in transport, hospitals and schools across the water.

It is not a deficit that is unique to us. Of course, our irresponsibility - and I use the word "our" advisedly - meant that we contributed to that deficit, because significant public funds had to be diverted to compensating for the tragic loss of life and destruction of the past 20 years. We made our own particular contribution to that deficit. However, the deficit is there, and we must find a way out of it.

Assembly Member Hussey commented on the impact of the different forms of financing that are available to us. It is the private partner who must finance a public-private partnership, but that is his or her responsibility. The calculation of the financial cost is part of what must be assessed to determine whether the total cost will give us value for money. The unitary cost must be paid for each PPP project, but that does not include depreciation. However, if we borrow, depreciation costs are then counted against our departmental expenditure limit. We do not have to pay three or four times for the same thing, and it is important that Members appreciate that.

The Executive must ask how to achieve value for money from a particular project in the most cost-effective and efficient way, and find the answer. They should also ask what funding they should use to make particular projects possible. The Executive will answer those questions, and the answers will then be brought to the House so that Members know precisely what we are determining with respect to the expenditure burden. Nothing is free, as I said in my statement; all investment carries a cost. We carry the cost, and when I say "we" I mean everybody in Northern Ireland who contributes to the public purse, and, indeed, those outside Northern Ireland from whose contributions we draw.

We are guardians of that purse, and we must be prudent in making allocations from it. I trust that the decisions will be made prudently and that the projects will be those with which Members want us to proceed. The people of Northern Ireland want us to proceed with them sooner rather than later to make good that deficit. I must tell Mr Hussey that we are, in fact, where we are. We have no choice as to the position from which we start. [Interruption].

Order.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill: 
Second Stage

TOP

The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Rodgers):

I beg to move

Does the Minister wish to make any further comment?

The Bill seeks to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for their fur. This is not a welfare issue but one of public morality. Our belief is that fur farming should be banned because it is inconsistent with proper value and respect for animal life.

Although killing animals is not inherently right or wrong, animals should not be destroyed in the absence of sufficient public benefit justification. Rearing animals solely or primarily for slaughter for their fur fails this test, hence fur farming cannot be justified. Fur farming is distinct from food production. Although keeping an animal for food production is of sufficient public benefit to justify breeding for slaughter, that premise does not work for the practice of slaughtering animals for their fur.

I am not aware of any fur farming businesses in Northern Ireland; however, that does not mean that the Bill is not needed. Similar Bills to ban fur farming in England, Wales and Scotland will be enacted on 1 January 2003. In espousing the principles inherent in banning fur farming, it is important that the Bill becomes law here to prevent such businesses in the rest of the UK from seeking to relocate here.

The Bill is relatively short, and it may be helpful if I detail briefly the five main clauses. Clause 1 deals with offences and creates a primary offence of keeping animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur, or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. It also creates a secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur, or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. Both the primary and secondary offences are summary offences, for which the maximum penalty is £20,000.

Clause 2 deals with forfeiture orders and empowers the court to make an order for the forfeiture and destruction or other disposal of the animals in the event that a person is convicted of either the primary or secondary offence. Any person claiming to have an interest in the animals may appeal against the forfeiture order to the court. Clause 3 deals with the effect of a forfeiture order and provides a right of appeal for any person claiming to have an interest in animals that are the subject of a forfeiture order.

Clause 4 confers to officials authorised by the Department the power of entry and inspection to enable the gathering of evidence, and to anyone authorised by the courts the power to enter premises to carry out a forfeiture order. An offence of intentionally obstructing or delaying anyone in the exercise of his or her power is also created. Clause 5 provides for the Department to create a scheme to pay compensation to people who claim income losses as a result of the discontinuation of their business. Since there are not thought to be any fur farming businesses in Northern Ireland, that provision is unlikely to be invoked. However, it is included as a precaution to satisfy human rights requirements.

I hope that Members agree that the measures I have outlined should be implemented for the reasons given. I ask the Assembly to approve the Second Stage of the Bill and to support the motion that will allow it to progress to Committee Stage.

At its meeting on 10 May 2003, the Committee agreed that I should speak on its behalf in this debate. On 15 June, the Committee considered the results of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's consultation on the Bill. Members noted that there were few responses and that no dissenting views had been expressed on the principles of the Bill. More recently, the Committee had an opportunity to examine the draft Bill and its explanatory and financial memorandum. I thank the Minister for providing the Committee with that information so early.

The Committee will fulfil its obligation to carry out a detailed scrutiny of the Bill at the Committee Stage before making its final report. Members are concerned to establish the purpose of the Bill and its implications for other sectors of the agriculture industry. There are ethical and practical matters to be considered. For example, we must decide whether the Department is taking a moral stand against breeding animals for the value of their fur, or whether prohibition will be on welfare grounds. If the former is the case, how does this stand against breeding animals for slaughter for their meat, or is this legislation intended solely to close a loophole in the law in the UK? What are the implications for the UK when our neighbours in the EU have not taken a similar step towards animal welfare? Those issues were raised during our early discussions in the Committee, and they will be explored further at Committee Stage.

I also expect the Committee to look closely at the proposed compensation scheme for fur farmers who incur losses as a result of the ban, given that we are told that there are no known businesses of this nature currently operating in Northern Ireland.

In summary, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development looks forward to the opportunity not only to consider the purpose and possible impact of the Bill, but also to carry out a clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. I will conclude by saying that I was in a restaurant recently where one of the main courses on the menu was squirrel. These are examples of matters that we have to take on board.

I support the Bill. This is basically a morality issue; it is about cruelty to animals. Those animals' sole purpose in life should not be to provide somebody with a fur coat. I fully support the Bill purely on the morality issue, and given that cruelty to animals is not acceptable, and that this is an issue of morals, I hope that some legislation banning fox hunting will be brought forward in the future.

I totally and enthusiastically support the Bill. My wife will never wear a fur coat, and, quite frankly, no one with a fur coat will ever be welcome in my home.

Fur farming is a cruel, nasty and totally unnecessary process. Animals used to roaming in territories of up to 50 sq miles are taken, and bred, to be kept in cages measuring as little as 50 sq inches. They are then subjected to the most brutal death to simply appease the vanity of some narrow-minded women and, to some extent, men, who believe that wearing the fur of a dead animal on their back is fashionable. I find that morally obnoxious. If any Member of the House were to spend five minutes at one of the few remaining fur farms in the UK, they would be utterly appalled at what they would see. They would see animals chasing round and round small cages, being driven insane by the confines of their capture, and then being subjected to excruciatingly painful deaths so as to avoid any damage to the fur coat.

I am glad that, as a result of the work of organisations such as Lynx, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), public opinion has turned on this vile trade - to the extent that there will not be a need to pay compensation to any fur farmers in Northern Ireland because this practice has died out here. Sad to say, the last fur farm that I am aware of in Northern Ireland was in my constituency of South Down. It was in Ballynahinch, but I am glad to say that as a result of public opinion it has gone out of business.

This legislation is extremely enlightened. My understanding is that it is based upon equivalent law in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the fur farming trade has seen the writing on the wall. Agreement was reached between the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and the representative body of the fur farming trade that fur farming will be phased out by 2003. A compensation package agreeable to all has been put in place. That is good news. The fur farming trade will go out of this business without being out of pocket, and we will no longer have this so-called process of producing fur in the UK.

I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister. I would not at all want to stand in the way of this legislation. What is the situation in the Republic of Ireland? Could a situation arise in which this practice still continued in the Irish Republic and individuals circumvented the legislation by moving the process there?

Can I presume that any business that has already received compensation in other parts of the United Kingdom cannot move its operations temporarily to Northern Ireland to pick up a second tranche of compensation because the legislation here is several years behind that in the rest of the UK?

Finally - and the Minister may not be interested in answering this - I welcome the Bill as the first piece of genuine animal welfare legislation that she has advanced. Significant steps have been taken to alleviate suffering in the farming process. We have seen the abolition of stall-and-tether systems and the crate-rearing system for veal calves. The Minister must be aware that there are still one or two issues that cause enormous public concern in farming, even in Northern Ireland. The public is becoming more and more concerned about the way in which our animals are reared for food as well as for their pelts. She would certainly go down in history as having achieved major gains if she were to tackle these problems of animal welfare. All who have given any thought to this and who know what goes on in some farms will give her our total support.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This is an emotive Bill for some people. It is important that we scrutinise it, as we would any other, regardless of whether it seems that we should just pass it and implement it. There may be important points to be addressed that are not immediately obvious. That can be done at the Committee Stage and later.

The consultation has not drawn much interest, and there are particular reasons for that. We are led to believe that there is no fur farming in the Six Counties. We must also take into account the impact of there not being similar legislation in Europe. What is the situation in the South? What is the possibility of fur farms simply moving from one place to the other? The point about secondary compensation may well have to be considered.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee and the Minister have covered all the other points. In the consideration of moral issues, we have not properly looked at, or perhaps had access to, the principles of the Bill. We can do that later.

Some people might be afraid to bring in a total ban on anything, as that raises the question of where we could end up later. Could it be extended to other areas, such as animals for food and so on? The question always arises: what point will we reach in the future?

The Member opposite has covered the welfare of the animals involved in this trade. The public are totally against rearing animals for fur and slaughter only. There is no excuse or reason for it, and it has now become a big issue. Strong lobbies are fighting on these fronts and must be taken into account. They are fighting for an important cause. From that point of view, there are few who would oppose the Bill.

The point made about animals that are used to the wild being kept on fur farms is correct. Wild mink are not native to this country, and those that escape do enormous damage to wildlife in the countryside.

Lobbyists make many points about farming and other matters that are not accurate. There is a debate on penned calves, but as a farmer I know that calves can live quite happily in small pens, whereas other farm animals cannot. That is not taken into account by the lobbyists, and they use those points against farmers and others in the countryside.

The Minister should look at what happens elsewhere in the world, as we are in a global picture. What happens in the fur trade elsewhere, and have we any impact on that? Europe has not introduced legislation yet, but it may. What is the welfare standard in food production on farms outside Europe? Chicken processors here bring birds from countries outside Europe.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What has that to do with fur farming? Mr McHugh is making a speech about food coming in from outside Europe. We are debating the Second Stage of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.

Thank you for that point of order. There was a question on European Directives. Will Mr McHugh continue and keep to the point?

There are times when people may stray off the mark. However, points about fur farming bring in the arguments made by other lobbyists on agriculture issues. Fur farming could be called farming - the arguments are the same. If a ban on fur farming is introduced, that could have an impact on all other methods of farming in the future, including angling.

I will not debate the issue any further. I support the basic thrust of the Bill. The Committee and everyone else must get involved in the detail.

I want to assure Mr McHugh that women who wear fishnet tights have very little to do with the products of angling.

I support the Bill. I will make one comment. If this Bill is following legislation being introduced in January in Scotland, England and Wales, where there may be fur farms and where fur farmers may require compensation, and if the consultation process here shows that there are no fur farmers, why is there a clause in the Bill to pay compensation? Nobody needs it.

We have a devolved Assembly and devolved legislation that reflects the circumstances of Northern Ireland. We are giving the Committee extra work that is not required. There is a commitment under the human rights legislation that we do not do anything that would have a detrimental effect on people, but it does not make sense to have clauses to do with compensation that is not required.

I always have a wry smile on my face when I follow a Sinn Féin Member making a speech on welfare. I wish that Sinn Féin and the IRA had shown as much concern for the welfare of human beings over the last 30 years as they are showing for the welfare of animals.

Order.

That is a side issue. Unfortunately, it is not reflected in the Bill. The Bill raises some issues that the Minister may be able to explain to the House. The Bill has a clear objective, which is to prevent fur farming, and once it becomes an Act, those engaged in fur farming will be guilty of an offence and subject to a penalty.

However, what is the principle behind the Bill? That is important, because, as Mr O'Connor said, the issue is purely one of morality. Is that the Bill's policy objective? Is there a moral principle against the raising of animals solely for their fur or skins? If the principle is one of animal welfare, the Bill goes beyond that. A prohibition on the raising of animals is not normally the way to deal with matters of animal welfare. One of my Colleagues mentioned stalls and tethers for pigs. Stalls and tethers were banned, but the raising and slaughtering of pigs was not banned. The Department dealt consistently and appropriately with animal welfare as a side issue, but the fundamental issue of raising an animal for its products has not been addressed.

Will the Member give way?

I shall not give way at this time. Is the Bill's objective a moral one? If so, I want the Minister to spell out that moral objective. It is important that the Government stand up and say that they have a moral objection to the raising of animals solely for their fur. If that is the Bill's intention, that is fair enough. That is open and honest and means that the Government are going to be consistent.

However, will they be consistent? To be consistent, to oppose the raising of an animal solely for its fur on moral grounds must mean that it is morally wrong to wear fur. If it is morally wrong to wear fur, we must wait for this Government to introduce another Bill that will ban the sale of fur. There must be consistency. If that is a policy of the Executive, there must be consistency across the Departments.

I do not oppose the Bill, but I do have a moral objection which is consistent. It is important that the Government are consistent, say that they are morally opposed and take all the steps that they should be taking. As it stands, the Bill does nothing but pander to a certain political lobby. That is wrong and unfair.

The Bill's objective is not consistent with European legislation. That amazes me, because the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is always trying, and is often forced, to be consistent with European legislation and practice. Let us look at the facts. Mr Wells asked whether a loophole in the legislation would enable someone to move to the Republic of Ireland to raise animals for their fur. The answer is "Yes". One can move to any country in the European Union, raise animals solely for their fur and sell them in the European Union.

My Colleagues may be interested to know that there are more than 6,000 fur farms in EU member states. There are 290 fur farms in EU-applicant countries - those countries that will soon be welcomed into the EU. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may be interested to know that there are 29,125 retail businesses across the EU engaged in selling fur. If there is to be a prohibition, let us deal with those issues. Some 164,000 people are employed full-time in the fur industry in Europe - it is a European industry.

The Government should recognise that in Europe the business is worth a great deal of money. It was worth over £4·7 million in the UK in 1999-2000, so it has to be worth considerably more in the rest of the European Union. The Government should be consistent, and they should spell out whether there is an alternative. The alternative may be to address the issue of animal welfare. That issue was addressed satisfactorily with regard to stalls and tethers for pigs, and it was addressed adequately with regard to raising hens for their eggs. If those matters were adequately addressed, can the Department satisfy its animal welfare objectives without banning a product? If it bans a product, it must ban not only the raising of it but the sale of it, or the Government will be being inconsistent.

I would like the Government to be consistent rather than say that they are simply against raising the animals. If you oppose raising animals for their fur, you have to oppose the sale of the fur. It would be highly inconsistent for a Member to say that he or she opposes the raising of an animal for its fur and then parade into the House in a fur coat. We should address that. My Colleague is itching to get to his feet, and I would like him to make his point before I address three of the clauses in the Bill.

I largely agree with what the Member has said, but I would like him to address two points. First, we are not dealing with a domesticated animal that has been bred for centuries to be kept in captivity - we are dealing with wild animals. We are talking about wild American mink that are incapable of adjusting to a domestic lifestyle. They are kept in extremely cramped conditions, which is cruel.

Secondly, these animals cause enormous damage to fisheries and wildlife when they escape from captivity. Departments in the rest of the United Kingdom have spent a fortune trying to eradicate mink from river systems. They are causing great ecological damage in Fermanagh, for example, and that is an unfortunate side effect of breeding mink for fur production. Species such as coypu and muskrat have also escaped and caused great damage to river systems in other parts of the United Kingdom. Does the Member accept that there is a good practical reason for discouraging fur farming in that we cannot afford to have any more escapes into the environment?

I appreciate the point, and my Colleague is being absolutely consistent. His opposition to fur farming is on moral grounds, and he is absolutely clear about that. Danny O'Connor said that his support for the Bill is on a moral objection. He said that this is purely a moral issue, and he is being absolutely consistent. However, I am worried that the Department is not doing likewise.

Mr Wells raised the point about the side effects, and I agree. If there is a pest, there must be pest control. However, the method of eradicating the pest may be crueller than raising it and then killing it under controlled circumstances on a fur farm. I agree that the consequences that he has spelt out are pretty devastating, having a large impact on the environment, and that they would, therefore, cause more moral objections for him and the people whom he speaks for on this.

Clause 1 on offences relating to fur farming states that a person will be guilty of an offence if he keeps animals solely or primarily for the distribution of their fur. If he is caught doing that, the fine will be £20,000 - the cost of two fur coats. Perhaps the Department should consider whether that is an adequate penalty. I do not know the level of the fine in the rest of the United Kingdom, but that issue should be addressed. Price was not one of the reasons for Mr Wells not buying his wife a fur coat, but he does know that they are very expensive. However, I do not think that the cost of two fur coats is an adequate fine.

With regard to clause 5, is compensation for existing businesses time-barred? As the Bill goes through Committee Stage, can someone set up a fur farm and receive compensation when it is closed down? Ms McWilliams raised the point that if clause 5 does not have to be included, why is it there? The clause opens the door for the legislation to be abused, and the Department should address that effectively. If we are sure that there are no businesses in Northern Ireland that should be compensated, why does the draft legislation include a compensatory clause? I hope that the Minister will reflect on those points.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, of which I am a Member, is looking at the Bill. The Committee has invited all the interested parties to make their points, and I look forward to hearing the points that the British Fur Trade Association will make in defence of its industry. I also look forward to hearing the opposition's case. It is important that we get a balance of opinion before we support something solely for emotional reasons and when there is no back-up from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Indeed, the Government, if they are to be consistent, should support all Departments.

I am grateful for Members' comments. It is not possible to cover all the issues in the time available. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that I shall not be confined to five minutes when some Members spoke for around 15 minutes.

I remind Members that there is a Business Committee meeting at 12.30 pm. However, we shall allow the Minister to speak until then.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask only for the same treatment as everyone else in the House.

It will not be possible to cover everything in detail; however, I shall try to answer the more substantive issues. In reply to Mr Savage, the low level of response was not our fault - we consulted more than 80 bodies. On Friday, officials will discuss with the Committee many of the other points that were made; I covered some already in my opening statement. Mr Wells mentioned the situation in the Republic of Ireland. There are some fur farming businesses there and, as far as we are aware, the authorities in the Republic have no plans to prohibit fur farming. I share the Member's concerns for general animal welfare and shall continue to take steps to deal with particular aspects of that insofar as that is possible.

Mr McHugh raised the issue of Northern Ireland's fur farms moving to the Republic. As I have said, I am not aware that there are any here, and we cannot influence what happens in the Republic - our concern is to stop fur farming in Northern Ireland. He also expressed unease about total bans. I agree, and I try to use powers to ban activities judiciously and only when necessary.

In response to Ms McWilliams, the clause on compensation is necessary. It is required to ensure that the Bill complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Ms McWilliams will note that there is no detail about compensation. It is only an enabling clause in case compensation is necessary.

Had Mr Paisley Jnr been present during my initial statement, he would know that I made it clear that this is not a welfare issue, but one of public morality. Our belief is that fur farming should be banned because it is not consistent with proper value and respect for animal life. I advise the Member to read the rest of my statement. He will then understand that I was absolutely consistent, open and frank about why the Bill was introduced. I was amused to hear him talk about banning fur coats and so on. Any action that is taken must be balanced. One person's morality is not necessarily another's. For example, some people would ban swimming and the use of swings on Sunday. I do not think that morals should be imposed.

I believe that the Bill I have introduced has public support. It is clear from cross-party remarks today that fur farming should be banned because it is immoral and unacceptable. As for concerns about consistency with other countries, I remind the House that some countries have a practice of cutting off people's hands because they steal things. I hope that the Member does not suggest that we should adopt that practice.

A ban on fur sales from abroad was also suggested. Northern Ireland must honour its obligations under international agreements that were designed to ensure that countries have the right to trade freely. An import ban on fur products would have an adverse impact on our trading partners, many of whom are dependent on exports for jobs and do not necessarily share our cultural and ethical outlook.

The Government disapprove of fur imports, but they cannot control production of fur abroad. However, they are controlling production within their own sphere of influence. That is why Northern Ireland should set an example and ban fur production. Austria has led the way, and Scotland, Wales and England have followed suit.

I have been asked why I have introduced the measure, when other member states have not. Our treatment of fur farming is a matter for those countries to consider. Several member states share Northern Ireland's views on fur farming and the moral issue of how animals are treated and whether they are killed unnecessarily. The Government are taking action to apply consistency across the United Kingdom, and I imagine Mr Paisley would approve.

The fine of £20,000 is also imposed in the rest of the United Kingdom. As to its severity - I suspect that the price paid for fur coats is not the same as the price paid to the farmer, so £20,000 is a substantial fine for a farmer.

Mr Paisley and others raised the issue of farms moving South. The Department will not license any fur farming in Northern Ireland while the Bill is going through.

I will write to Members about any points that I have not covered. I thank them for their contributions.

I thank the Minister for drawing her remarks to a close exactly on time.

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill: Second Stage

TOP

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey):

I beg to move

The Bill delivers on the Department's commitment to keep the legal framework for business in Northern Ireland at the forefront of international best practice by giving firms an additional choice of business vehicle - the limited liability partnership (LLP) - within which to conduct their corporate affairs. The introduction of the LLP is a significant development in partnership law because it offers firms the ability to incorporate with limited liability while organising themselves as partnerships rather than companies.

The Bill intends that an LLP will be subject to broadly the same requirements as a limited company. As a separate legal entity, an LLP will be able to enter into contracts, hold property and continue to exist despite any change in membership. Partnership law will not, in general, apply to an LLP, with the exception of taxation. The decision to become an LLP will be taken voluntarily by partnerships and will be based on commercial considerations.

My Department has estimated that, for a medium-sized firm with an annual turnover of £13 million, the LLP start-up costs will be £8,670, with annual recurring costs of £8,520. Although the costs are in line with those in Great Britain, it is worth noting that by making the LLP available in Northern Ireland, local firms that might have otherwise located offshore to enjoy the benefits of LLP status will avoid paying the additional costs involved.

The Bill is a significant modernising measure. There has been no fundamental change to partnership law in Northern Ireland since the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. Members will undoubtedly agree that modernisation to reflect the realities and pressures of today's business climate is long overdue.

The growing number of professional partnerships exposed to litigation has highlighted a weakness in the traditional partnership, where an individual partner's personal assets are potentially at risk because of the actions of an unknown partner. The Bill will rectify that weakness by combining limited liability with the internal flexibility of a partnership. It seeks to protect the personal assets of members of an LLP where the individual is not at fault. However, the assets of the LLP itself will be at risk if improper behaviour occurs, as will the assets of the negligent partner.

In recent years, the number of partnerships in Northern Ireland has increased to approximately 13,400. They encompass the full spectrum of business and industry sectors, as well as professionals such as solicitors and accountants. The growth and success of those partnerships is potentially hampered by unlimited liability, which puts the personal assets of each partner at risk as a result of liability incurred by one of them. The fear of losing personal assets as a result of a partner's actions is a particular disincentive to professional partnerships. In addition, as firms expand their services and multidisciplinary partnerships become more widely used, the traditional argument that partners should take responsibility for one another's work has less force.

The Bill has four main benefits for partnerships. First, the limited liability vehicle redistributes the risk to protect partners in a firm who have no direct responsibility for a claim against their firm caused by the action of a partner, thus reducing the risk of a non-negligent partner's assets.

Secondly, at present local firms do not have the option of registering as an LLP in Northern Ireland. It is, however, open to such firms to register in Great Britain or under similar regimes in offshore locations such as Jersey or the United States to gain limited liability status. Such moves are potentially detrimental to the Northern Ireland economy. The Bill, therefore, ensures that Northern Ireland firms have the option of enjoying the benefits of limited liability partnership status by registering in Northern Ireland rather than in other jurisdictions. That is of particular value to professional partnerships, which might otherwise be tempted to incorporate outside Northern Ireland.

Thirdly, as well as modernising partnership association by introducing limited liability, the Bill provides an added benefit. The redistribution of risk as a result of limited liability partnership status is likely to help those firms that have difficulty in recruiting potential partners, who may be deterred by the risk associated with the traditional form of partnership.

Finally, the legislation will maintain Northern Ireland's reputation as an attractive location for business, allowing local firms to operate competitively with their overseas counterparts. The Bill might encourage new firms, which might otherwise have chosen overseas jurisdictions, to register as limited liability partnerships in Northern Ireland.

Moreover, the Bill delivers on my Department's commitment to develop a modern, regulatory framework that promotes fairness and protects the public from improper business practice. That is achieved by the provision of legal protection for members of the public who deal with this new form of partnership by requiring public disclosure of information about the limited liability partnership, especially about its finances, and by introducing insolvency safeguards. Public disclosure about the firm will help third parties to reach informed decisions about dealing with individual limited liability partnerships.

Regulations to follow the Bill will include provision for members of a limited liability partnership to be sued for wrongful or fraudulent trading; for disqualification of individuals from membership of a limited liability partnership and from trading as company directors.

My Department consulted widely on the Bill and all respondents endorsed its general principles, welcoming the legislation's extension of the choice of vehicles for business. Endorsement of the Bill by women entrepreneurs was especially noteworthy. The extended choice of business vehicle and limited liability have the potential to contribute to the economic development of Northern Ireland. Similar policies encouraged women to start up businesses in the United States. Consultees also welcomed the proposed safeguards, disclosures and registration arrangements for limited liability partnerships.

In conclusion, the introduction of the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill makes local firms more attractive to potential new partners, ensures that they retain their international competitiveness and that Northern Ireland remains a fair place in which to do business.

Go raibh maith agat. The legislation will be beneficial, especially for small businesses. It will afford greater flexibility and will modernise the whole system.

Were representations made by consumer organisations during the consultation process? It may be more difficult to obtain compensation from a limited liability partnership than under the current arrangements. Is that a potential problem for consumers?

Business organisations and other groups were consulted, under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It was a public consultation, conducted under the usual conditions. The proposals received complete support and there were no negative comments.

The current position on consumer protection is that partnerships are not obliged to publish their accounts. Although we want to limit the liability of individual partners, a consequence of that protection is that partnerships will have to publish their accounts in the same way as limited companies. Therefore, interested persons will be able to access the accounts of a partnership from Companies Registry.

A professional practice of consultants or accountants can comprise 100 partners based in different towns or jurisdictions. Partners are jointly and severally liable for the mistakes of other partners, even though they may have no knowledge of them. The Limited Liability Partnerships Bill will allow partners to avail of the same provisions as limited companies. Therefore, unless a partner is deemed to have acted fraudulently or improperly, as is the case with company directors, there is a limit to the liabilities that he or she must face.

To protect the consumer and anyone who trades with such a partnership, the price of limited liability is that the partnership must publish its accounts annually. The ability to prosecute or disqualify partners or company directors is unchanged. Those provisions offset any risks faced by those who deal with partnerships.

The Member for Upper Bann, Dr O'Hagan, referred to a concern voiced by many people. If a partner is granted limited liability, it may put the consumer at greater risk. Although limited liability partnerships in Northern Ireland will be obliged to publish their accounts, those on mainland Europe may not be. However, I am satisfied that given that partnerships have grown, it is unfair to expect a partner in a large practice to know what another partner is doing in an office in a different county or city. Members must bear in mind that the current law dates back to 1907, when such practice was not envisaged.

The Bill is a modern tool designed to get the best of both worlds by encouraging partnerships and incorporation in Northern Ireland. The consumer, and those who will trade with limited liability partnerships, will enjoy the same protections as those who trade with limited companies. As the new regulations will demonstrate, members of the limited liability partnerships will be liable to the rigour of the law, including disqualification and prosecution.

Ad Hoc Committee on the Proposal for a
Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002

TOP

Resolved:

The Proposal for a Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 referred by the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, and to submit a report to the Assembly by 2 July 2002.

Composition: UUP 2
SDLP 2
DUP 2
SF 2

Other Parties 3

Quorum: The quorum shall be five.

Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be
such as the Committee shall determine.
- [Ms McWilliams]

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>