Will the Member give way?

I am sorry. Were I not summing up, I would. If I did, I would have to give way to others, and I cannot do that.

We do not have parity with England, and everyone, especially Lord Kilclooney, should take that on board. Our main concern is young people who are leaving care. This is the Bill's Consideration Stage, and the Minister can table further amendments at Further Consideration Stage if she so wishes. I have made the arguments for removing clause 6, and other Members and I still want clause 6 removed for the reasons that we have given.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 47; Noes 24.

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 7 and 8. As the Assembly has already agreed that clause 6 should stand part of the Bill, I shall not be calling amendment No 2 and amendment No 3 to clause 9, as they were consequential to the removal of clause 6. Therefore, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the three remaining clauses.

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Social Security Bill: Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Social Security Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

State Pension Credit Bill: Accelerated Passage

The Minister for Social Development (Mr Dodds):

I beg to move

This Bill is an important piece of legislation. It will make provision for Northern Ireland to correspond to the social security provisions that are contained in the State Pension Credit Act 2002. As Members will be aware from the previous debate, there is a long-standing principle of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the fields of social security, pensions and child support.

People in Northern Ireland pay income tax and make National Insurance contributions at the same rate as those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I take the view that they are entitled to expect changes in the legislation elsewhere in the country to apply in Northern Ireland with minimal delay. The State Pension Credit Act received Royal Assent on 25 June 2002. The Department for Work and Pensions made Regulations on 11 July 2002 to allow for the early implementation of the proposals from October 2002. From October 2003, pension credit will replace the minimum income guarantee for those aged 60 and over.

For many pensioners who need it, pension credit will not only provide more money. There will also be a fairer system and the decent treatment that senior citizens deserve will be provided. Pension credit will differ from current pension provision in several ways. First, it will guarantee that no one over the age of 60 need live on less than £100 a week, or £154 a week in the case of couples. Secondly, people who qualify will receive a cash reward from the age of 65 for modest savings. Single people can benefit by up to £13·80 a week and couples by £18·60 a week. Thirdly, the rule that excludes pensioners with savings of £12,000 or more will be abolished.

Fourthly, from the age of 60, people will no longer have to report any savings that they have under £6,000. That means that 85% of pensioners who are entitled to the pension credit will not have to report savings. Fifthly, the way in which help is delivered to those aged 60 and over will be modernised, and the rules simplified. There will be a significant reduction in the information that pensioners must provide at the outset and over time as changes happen. That will enable pensioners to get what they are entitled to with much less intrusion and hassle.

From age 65, most pensioners will not have to report changes in income for fixed periods of five years. That will effectively abolish the old weekly means test. Approximately half of all people aged 60 and over in Northern Ireland, some 120,000 persons, will potentially gain as a result of the introduction of pension credit. On average, they stand to gain around £400 a year.

The aim of pension credit is to provide a way to help the least well off and to taper that help for pensioners further up the income distribution. The extent of the changes is such that it is necessary to put in place the required subordinate legislation this autumn to allow time for staff to be trained, and for systems and processes to be designed and implemented.

It will be necessary to begin to reassess the 75,000 minimum income guarantee cases before conversion to pension credit. In some cases, that will involve verification of matters such as age and savings. Moreover, the advance take-on of new claims will start in April 2003, when it is expected that there will be many thousands of cases to be assessed. If pension credit is not in place, pensioners here will face the possibility of not having access to the new pension credit and the more generous income and capital rules at the same time as their counterparts in Great Britain.

Therefore, for the reasons that I have given, I ask that the Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedures set out in Standing Order 40(4), so that we can bring Northern Ireland law on those matters into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom with a minimum of delay. To grant accelerated passage means that there will not be a formal Committee Stage, so I have discussed the provisions of the Bill with the Committee for Social Development. Members will, of course, be able to make their views known at the Consideration and Further Consideration Stages.

I explained to the House last week that the Committee for Social Development received written notification in August of the Minister's intention to seek accelerated passage for the Social Security Bill. In that correspondence, the Minister said that he also intended to seek accelerated passage for the State Pension Credit Bill. As I said to the House last week, the Minister agreed to attend a specially convened meeting of the Committee to explain the reasons for his request.

At that meeting, the Minister explained that the State Pension Credit Bill is considered to be a parity measure in that it replicates the State Pension Credit Act 2002 enacted at Westminster. The Minister stressed that the introduction of the legislation would offer more generous income and capital rules than those that apply in Northern Ireland at present.

The Minister gave three main reasons in support of his case. He explained that, although the provisions in the Bill will not take effect until October 2003, it is necessary to introduce extensive subordinate legislation to give effect to the new law. The Minister also pointed to the need to make significant alterations to operating systems, especially the computer system, and to undertake substantial staff training programmes to ensure the smooth implementation of the new law. The Minister stressed that it was important to get the legislation onto the statute book promptly so that pensioners here can enjoy the benefits of the new pension credit arrangements at the same time as pensioners in Great Britain.

As Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, I assure the House that the Committee listened carefully to what the Minister had to say and welcomed his assurances that the Bill's provisions will be beneficial. It seems that the practical arrangements for the introduction of the new legislation are complex, and although I do not understand why accelerated passage is necessary to accommodate changes to the computer systems and to facilitate staff training, I acknowledge that the Department has a sizeable task ahead of it.

If the House agrees to grant the Bill accelerated passage, I hope that the Minister and the Department will use the time granted in an efficient way. It would be disappointing to hear at a later date that there were difficulties with putting in place the new arrangements and that the introduction of the new legislation had to be deferred. That will be especially true when Members come to consider the third main plank of the Minister's argument.

As with the Social Security Bill, the Committee accepts the Minister's contention that it is important to ensure that people in Northern Ireland benefit from the changes at the same time as they are introduced in Great Britain. It is hoped that, by October 2003, the law will be introduced, that transitions to the new arrangements will be seamless and that pensioners will not suffer any inconvenience.

At its meeting on 29 August, the Committee agreed not to register any objections in the debate to the Minister's request that the Bill be granted accelerated passage.

The Minister may have noticed in the media recently that attention has been drawn to the married woman's contribution to pensions, which was known as the "small stamp". However, that contribution has recently been wiped out, and many of the women who thought that they had been contributing towards their pension have been told that it is now irrelevant. Is there anything in the State Pension Credit Bill that will be of comfort to those women? There has been speculation that married women have lost out on their pensions.

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development for his remarks, and I am delighted with the Committee's approach to the issue. I was glad to be able to go to the Committee and explain the reasons for accelerated passage and to assure the Committee that I shall endeavour as far as possible to keep its members informed - personally and through officials - of parity issues as they arise at Westminster.

The State Pension Credit Bill does not address the issue that Ms McWilliams raised. I am happy to discuss it with her, but it is not relevant to the Bill's provisions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and the Assembly for your co-operation. I look forward to having the provisions implemented as quickly as possible and to meeting the deadline of October 2003 for the implementation of state pension credit in Northern Ireland in line with the provisions in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

The Bill will receive its Second Stage tomorrow, Tuesday 17 September 2002.

Review of Opportunities for
Public-Private Partnerships in Northern Ireland

The First Minister (Mr Trimble):

I beg to move

The consultation exercise was launched on 21 May and is due to conclude this Friday. It has been based on the report of the working group that was set up to review the opportunities for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Northern Ireland. The group's remit was to consider all funding opportunities to assist in addressing the major investment deficit in our public services.

We must take a strategic approach towards investment in order to maximise the return from the resources at our disposal as regards quality and level of service provision. The Executive's reinvestment and reform initiative offers an opportunity to accelerate investment in infrastructure and reform service provision.

Through it we can make a difference to the quality of our core infrastructure. A long-term strategic approach must replace the piecemeal ad hoc approach of previous years.

A key element of the initiative is the creation of a strategic investment body, and we will introduce legislation soon to establish it. The body should combine the best expertise from the public and private sectors. Given the current investment deficit and the ad hoc way in which the issues had previously been addressed, it is vital that strategic infrastructure investment be viewed in the long term. The strategic investment body will advise on the best use of the financing sources available to us from the public or private sector. It must have the necessary expertise and resources to serve the Executive's programme of strategic capital investment. We want to ensure that projects are taken forward by the most appropriate method. We want to achieve high-quality public services to maximise the return on our limited resources and encourage investment additional to that funded by the public purse.

The initiative also provides for the possibility of borrowing, and that would need to be paid for from local revenue sources. The option to borrow should provide a means by which we could accelerate capital investment. There are clearly important links with the review of rating, on which public consultation concludes today.

We announced the reinvestment and reform initiative on 2 May and the initial allocations infrastructure projects on 2 July. The initial allocations will secure significant progress on projects including the regional cancer centre; the widening of the M1; improved investment in water, sewerage and road infrastructure and the replacement of 20% of mobile classrooms. The consultation exercise has been based on the Executive paper 'Financing our Future'.

The reinvestment and reform initiative changes the context within which policy on PPPs will be formulated. No single solution, be it borrowing, PPPs, or the more traditional public expenditure, can be hoped to meet our need alone. Different funding and procurement approaches should provide solutions in different circumstances. Dependence on routine public expenditure alone to fund infrastructure would make it much less likely that we could secure the range or quality of public services required.

Public-private partnerships are one option for helping us to deliver the reinvestment and reform initiative. We must also ensure that all our assets are put to best use. The initial Executive response to the PPP working group report noted that the group's findings were broadly consistent with the view set out in the July 2001 report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. Both reports stressed the need for an investment strategy, a central investment board and value for money. The Executive will consider those points in greater detail, and they could be brought to bear through the proposed strategic investment board.

The working group report includes a helpful analysis of the scale and nature of the investment deficit, its causes and how best to address them. The group estimated that £6 billion would be required over the next decade to cover our investment deficit. The working group developed a definition of public-private partnerships to suit our circumstances. It states:

That definition of public-private partnerships reflects its wide-ranging nature and its ability to encompass some potential PPP forms. It is important to emphasise that all types of PPP should be considered. There is scope for new thinking and untried models to be developed.

Public-private partnerships have been developed in some public sectors in Northern Ireland, particularly in health and education. Some 25 projects have been developed across several sectors to the value of nearly £190 million. A further 25 projects have been put out to tender and planning with an estimated capital value of £500 million. Earlier this year, I visited the new Balmoral High School, which is one of the projects that have been completed.

The headmaster told me that, although initially he had had considerable problems with this form of finance, he had had a greater input into the design of the school than he would have had under the normal public expenditure model.

One consequence of PPP development is that managerial problems have been shifted from teachers to the private body. It is commonly said that, in the past, head teachers spent 25% of their time on teaching and 75% on administration. The PPP approach has reversed those percentages; head teachers now spend only 25% of their time on management, without suffering any significant loss of managerial control. Those are just some examples of the benefits of PPP.

Whatever model is adopted, we are limited by the amount of funding that is available. The working group emphasised the crucial distinction between financing and funding of public services. Funding is defined as the source of public revenue to pay for the service, whereas financing is the means used to raise the capital needed for investment. The new borrowing power and PPPs represent alternative options for the financing and delivery of public services - not their funding. Whatever model is chosen to service our investment deficit, it must be paid for. None of the available methods is free; they all require a source of public funding.

In developing a policy framework, we must ensure that our available funds are efficiently and strategically invested to obtain best value for money. Increased investment must be balanced with optimum returns in order to ensure that we achieve the required quality of public services. As the working group's report emphasised, the level of available funding would have to increase significantly in order to provide the required level of public services and reduce the investment deficit.

Given the limitations of available infrastructure funding, we must look hard at all possible sources of ongoing funding for essential infrastructure, but we must also utilise the funds at our disposal to best effect.

The working group concluded that several benefits could be realised from PPP, but there are also several areas of concern. It is important that we recognise and address such concerns when developing our policy. Public-private partnerships are not a panacea for our financing and funding problems, but they can potentially improve efficiency, provide value for money in service delivery and secure lifetime asset maintenance. They also offer one way of achieving earlier service delivery.

Ultimately, we must recognise that PPPs should be chosen as a means of providing public services only where they offer better value for money than conventional procurement methods. The strategic investment board should have an important role to play in advising Departments of the most appropriate means by which to develop individual investment projects.

The Executive recognise the centrality and complexity of the issues of equality and public-sector employees. Those issues were addressed in the working group's review and in the subsequent consultation exercise. The Executive share those concerns and will address them when formulating policy in that area.

The consultation process lasted 18 weeks, which is longer than usual. We wanted to ensure that interested bodies and individuals were offered as much opportunity as possible to voice their opinions and concerns on the issue, and thus inform the policy process. We endeavoured to have a consultation process that was as proactive as possible. It encompassed debate in the Assembly and discussion with Committees, together with three public meetings that were attended by Ministers. The public meetings were well attended, and a wide range of views was expressed. The Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), among others, held seminars to discuss the report on PPPs. That supplemented the Executive-led discussions.

The Executive encouraged all organisations and individuals who have an interest in the matter to respond. The review and the consultation involved a social partnership approach. Our policy-making process must be inclusive. Both the review and the consultation exercise included representation from the public, private, voluntary and trade union sectors, and their contribution will be invaluable in assisting the Executive to formulate their policy in that area. We are keen that Members' views should be brought to bear in formulating our policy framework. We realise the importance of the issue for the future provision of public services, and we are all aware of the current deficiencies in public service provisions. All of the options available, as expressed during the consultation and today's debate, will be considered when addressing the inadequacies. We welcome the opportunity for an informed debate on how best we can proceed to address the key issues - considering the options for public-private partnerships and how we might most effectively avail of them.

The views expressed today, and the responses to our consultation, will contribute to our work on a policy framework for public-private partnerships in the coming weeks.

I thank the Speaker's Office, staff and Members for their expressions of sympathy following my recent bereavement.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel welcomes today's debate on public-private partnerships (PPPs), and I thank the working group for the report that has led to this debate. The First Minister outlined in detail his response to the report and commented on the role that the Committee has played.

The Committee tabled a motion on 3 July 2001 on its report and the recommendations from its inquiry into the use of public-private partnerships. I recognise that the scope of the original debate has moved on, and since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement on the reinvestment and reform initiative in May 2002, it is now focused on public-private partnerships. Taking that into account, the Committee and I see this debate as an opportunity for the Assembly to consider the full range of procurement and financial options available to the Executive on the wider issues associated with whatever method is selected.

I wish to begin by pointing out some of the figures given to the Committee on the infrastructure and public service deficits. All Departments require funding of £4 billion to £7 billion for capital projects in the next ten years, depending on the range of proposals and whether they are accepted. The bulk of the deficit is in three Departments - Education, Regional Development and Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Those Departments have programmes to deliver the priority areas in the Programme for Government. Some £6·5 billion of the infrastructure and public service deficit lies there, and those Departments have a shortfall of £5 billion in their capital budgets over the next ten years as regards the projects identified as requiring capital investment.

Assuming that departmental capital budgets remain the same, the Department of Education will have £1 billion conventional public finance available to meet its assessed need of £2·1 billion over the next ten years. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will have £0·6 billion available to meet its assessed need of £2 billion over the next ten years, and the Department for Regional Development will have £1·8 billion available to meet its assessed need of £4·4 billion over the next ten years.

In May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a borrowing facility available in the reinvestment and reform initiative, and £125 million was made available for the financial years 2002-03 and 2003-04. It is worth taking into account that that is approximately one third of the underspend over the past year. The Executive used those resources, some of their own in the Executive programme fund for infrastructure, and underspend resources carried forward through end-year flexibility. In total, £270 million was allocated for capital projects in the next two years. Those allocations will advance other projects in the pecking order for consideration for funding.

The Committee is grateful to the Minister of Finance and Personnel for the early copy of the draft strategic investment and regeneration of sites Bill. The Committee notes that the Bill will be introduced by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and that the Committee of the Centre will undertake the Committee Stage. The Committee will want to consider the relationship between the strategic investment body, the procurement board and the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Committee will also want to be assured that the significant costs of those initiatives will represent good investment and value for money.

It is easy to advocate that we accelerate the capital investment programme. All Members would like that to happen. However, as the Minister said, infrastructure and better public services must be paid for. Many questions about that investment remain unanswered, and the Assembly faces many problems. Which projects will be selected? How will they be prioritised? How will they be financed? How will the financial options be funded? How will funding affect future resource position manoeuvrability? Is the project flow realistic and achievable by the construction industry? That matter was dealt with in the Committee's report. Will projects be properly managed, guided and monitored to ensure the efficient use of resources?

The Committee's report made several recommendations. It considered those issues during its inquiry into the use of public-private partnerships. It investigated a range of financial models, such as bonds and not-for-profit organisations. It also heard evidence from the advocates and opponents of public-private partnerships. The Committee concluded that the preferred financial option is public finance. However, it still sees a role for public-private partnerships in the right circumstances. It concluded that core needs had to be taken into account and that all contracts had to be properly investigated and fully secure.

However, the Committee also decided that public-private partnerships were not the only game in town. One of its recommendations in July 2001 was that a unified, service-wide investment strategy be established for financing and managing the infrastructure deficit. The Committee envisaged that expertise would be brought together to create a centre of excellence, which would ensure that contracts were fully investigated; that one Department would not overlap another; that each Department would not do its own thing; that a partnership would be established to ensure a long-term investment strategy, rather than simply the short-term secondment of civil servants from one branch to another; that the Minister would be given responsibilities for leading and delivering the investment strategy; and that a social partnership would be created to support it. The Committee also envisaged that it might be similar to that which exists in the South of Ireland, where trade unions play an important role in putting together a social partnership.

The working group will have an important role. The strategic investment body will have the role that is described in the report. Its job will be to ensure that public-private partnership contracts are put together properly. The Committee would welcome an explanation from the Minister of the relationship between the strategic investment body and the procurement board.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel will soon provide a substantial response to the Executive's consultation exercise. As the basis of its response, a detailed analysis has been carried out to compare the recommendations of the Committee's report that was published in July 2001 with those of the report of the public-private partnership working group, which was published in May 2002. The Committee will meet on 17 September 2002 to agree a formal response to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The public-private partnership working group has built upon the findings of the Committee's inquiry. Progress has been made in several areas, including the statement of principles and setting the future direction of PPPs.

When he launched the consultation process, 'Financing Our Future', in the Assembly on 21 May 2002, the Minister of Finance and Personnel correctly pointed out that the reinvestment and reform initiative, which was announced in May 2002, provides a new context for consultation. The draft Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill provides some detail of how the investment body will relate to Departments. That relationship will be key in the Executive's development of an effective investment strategy. The Committee is interested in hearing from the Minister whether the reinvestment and reform initiative will mean that less use is made of public-private partnerships and whether the low-cost loan from the Treasury will have any implications for the use of relative-cost private finance. The Committee's report recommended public finance as the best way to secure public administration. If new money is available more cheaply than are PPPs, will it be seriously considered?

The Committee has been disappointed by the slow progress in developing the high-level investment strategy that the strategic investment body took so long to set up. The need for an overarching investment strategy is all the more important given the new borrowing facility and the fact that there are now several games in town. Clarity is required as to the relationships between the Departments, the strategic investment body and the Department of Finance and Personnel, and their respective roles in relation to PPPs.

Although the Committee recommended that a Minister lead the investment strategy, it remains unclear where responsibility lies. It is important that one Minister or Department has an identified lead role so that everyone knows where they stand.

During the inquiry, the Committee found it difficult to determine evidence of value for money. That is not to say that there is no value for money, but it did not come out during the inquiry. There may be good projects that will deliver value for money in the long term - some of the contracts are still in the very early stages - but there may also be evidence to suggest that they will not.

Since the report in July 2001, Departments have retained their capital projects and pressed forward with their own PPP projects, without the significant degree of strategic oversight or planning from the centre, which was one of the inquiry's recommendations.

I will conclude with the main questions that the Committee for Finance and Personnel wants answered. What further detail is available on the reinvestment and reform initiative? What are its implications for funding from the departmental expenditure limit? When will a strategy embracing all the financial options be delivered? What are the relationships between the Departments, the strategic investment body and the procurement board? What are their respective roles as regards PPPs? Will responsibility for investment be delegated to a specific Minister? Do the Executive have further evidence of the value for money achieved by PPPs? Can some light be thrown on the capital resources currently held by Departments? What short-term capital expenditure plans and PPP plans do individual Departments hold, and how do they fit in to the strategic investment plan? Has any assessment been made of the longer-term funding implications of those projects?

I thank the Ministers for the debate. I urge the Committees to take on board the points that have been made and to consider how financing and funding decisions will impact on future Programmes for Government and Departments in the longer term.

Our main goal in this matter should be to attain social justice and sustainable development. Public services cannot be seen as a mere safety net. Rather, it must be accepted that a vibrant economy and a healthy society cannot be built unless we lay essential foundations. Investment of our shared resources will be of benefit to all.

Most Members will agree that the issue is not whether we need to find more money for public services, but how to find it. We must explore the options available to generate greater resources for social and economic development and seek to raise the bulk of the required resources through directing graded taxation. However, spreading society's financial burden fairly, according to means, is not an easy task. The limitations of political powers in the North mean that we cannot raise enough money in that manner.

Everybody is aware that Northern Ireland faces a huge infrastructure problem and needs to examine these issues. Even the most vocal critics of PPPs accept that we need to make significant improvements in roads, the transport system, hospitals, schools and college estates. Yet when we take our own resources into consideration, we simply do not have enough funds to address those issues in the traditional way. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that we need new approaches and ideas when considering our capital needs. In that context, the 'Financing Our Future' review must be welcomed. We must have mechanisms in place that can guarantee public benefit in terms of value for money, transparency and accountability. Such schemes must be compatible with our commitment to social justice and the targeting of social need.

There has been criticism of PPPs, and more will probably be expressed in this debate. It is proper to acknowledge that some of the fears are genuine and should be addressed. For instance, do workers face job insecurity after the establishment of a PPP? If so, we must take that on board and, if necessary, tighten legislation to protect workers. The stability and the future of public-sector employees must remain paramount, and I hope that that will be given priority.

Given that more than 20 PPP projects have been completed in Northern Ireland, it is now time to look closer to home and consider what can be learned from the achievements. Simply to examine the UK experience is not the most appropriate way of establishing which measures are necessary to achieve a successful outcome in Northern Ireland.

We must ensure that the private sector does not have undue influence in determining which projects are suitable for partnership financing. Government policy and strategy must remain in the hands of the public through their representatives, and not become subject to the needs of company shareholders.

The reinvestment and reform initiative seeks to establish a strategic investment body to examine strategic infrastructure and investment in Northern Ireland and to suggest innovative approaches to managing and financing the Executive's infrastructure programme.

We must develop ways of building innovative partnerships across society that can fund the necessary development. We must examine new and different public-private models as well as other alternatives, from Government bonds to options involving the voluntary sector and not-for-profit organisations. That would preclude concerns about benefits for shareholders, plough profits back into services and promote sustainability for provider organisations, many of which provide valuable services to the public.

New models of financing must genuinely lever in additional finances for public services, rather than merely substituting one mechanism for another without clear long-term benefits for the public. If PPPs are to work, they must not replace public spending but add to its capacity. We must seek to combine the best models of social partnership with the best models of financial partnership to deliver better public services to the whole community.

Much has been made of the changed environment since the last debate on the matter in July 2001, when the Committee for Finance and Personnel published its report on public-private partnerships. Much has changed - the reinvestment and reform initiative has been introduced, and proposals have been put forward to establish a strategic investment body. We have witnessed a poacher-turned-gamekeeper transformation. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee at that time, who shared the Committee's view, has now risen to become one of the people who will help to implement this. There are also the proposals in the 'Financing our Future' document.

However, while there have been changes at that level, much has remained the same. We are still faced with a large infrastructural deficit, which is as great as it was in July 2001. It is clear that although a range of options could be used to make good that deficit, PPPs have a large part to play. PPPs are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end to ensure that we get the best services. Some would argue that in our efforts to finance that massive infrastructural deficit, not enough is being done to reduce administration costs in Northern Ireland. Leaving that argument aside, it is important that we get the best value for money in our projects and that the right structures be in place.

In July 2001, the Committee for Finance and Personnel established a range of principles, structures and recommendations, which have remained - more or less - the same. Although it may not be appropriate to pat ourselves on the back, many of the principles established by the Committee are as relevant today as they were a year ago. However, the manner of their implementation has been a mixed bag. Today, we are at the interim stage, and we should therefore indicate what we wish to see emerging from the consultation and what should, ultimately, be carried forward by the strategic investment body. We are still at the recommendation stage.

There has been some movement, such as the public-private partnerships working group that has already been referred to. There has also been movement in setting out the principles of PPP projects; in technical guidance; on the public service comparator; and in the definition of PPPs. However, the Committee feels that progress has been slow in several areas. There were a couple of assumptions running through the Committee's recommendations. First, it was assumed that it is important that we learn from others. I appreciate that it is not simply a question of taking what has happened in England or the Republic of Ireland and transferring it to Northern Ireland. However, as I indicated at the time, a wise man learns from his mistakes: a wiser man learns from someone else's mistakes. It is important that we apply the lessons learned from what has taken place elsewhere, and that from the beginning, through the strategic investment body, we take the opportunity to get the structures right. That is vital.

One principal area of concern not properly answered was the recommendation that one Minister be given overall responsibility for driving the initiative. For example, the motion stands in the names of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I am sure that both Departments have valid reasons to do that, but it is not clear which Department will have responsibility for spearheading the initiative. It is vital that that point is clarified soon.

It is essential that we get the powers of the strategic investment body right from day one. Moreover, there is the matter of the relationship between the strategic investment body, public-private partnerships and the current procurement body. It is important that our structures and practices are correct. According to the evidence that the Committee received, everyone agrees that a strategic investment policy is necessary, and that a strategy must be in place to implement the policy. However, when the powers of the strategic investment body are determined, and proposals are in place for its practice, we shall be in a better position to judge whether that has been achieved.

Furthermore, in the light of the evidence received, and since Northern Ireland has always been behind the rest of the UK and other places, it will be especially important that an appropriate flow of deals is achieved as regards proposals on strategic investment and public-private partnerships. We must not have a situation in which so many projects come on to the market at the same time that companies are overwhelmed and are unable to deal with them, or that they come through so slowly that it will be uneconomical for local companies to bid for them. In such a situation, the level of expertise required for one project would mean that costs were not suitably apportioned among several projects. We must ensure that the balance is correct.

The strategic investment body will provide the opportunity to pool resources, especially those of the Civil Service, so that areas of expertise can be concentrated. A level of expertise will be developed, for example, in contracts, and we shall be able to learn from the range of projects available. A review of legislative powers will be necessary to ensure that no impediment to contracts is caused, for example, by the need for powers that do not already exist.

I am reluctant to comment further because the Committee for Finance and Personnel will make its full response available soon. Today's debate is on an interim level, and to ensure that the right conclusion is reached, the Executive must clarify a range of issues.

Such is the scale of investment needed, through public-private partnerships and other means, that if the issue is handled wrongly - and it is to be hoped that it will not be - the people of Northern Ireland will pay for our mistakes for generations to come. It is, therefore, vital that lessons are learned now; that, in the face of opposition, flesh is put on the bones of the strategic investment body; and that the initiative is got right at that stage.

I urge the Ministers responsible to consider the Committee's report and ensure that its proposals and recommendations are considered, so that the necessary lessons are learnt and they get it right from day one.

The Assembly last debated PPPs in July 2001 in response to a report by the Committee for Finance and Personnel. It is worth emphasising that the Committee made several important, pertinent and salient recommendations on the implementation and progress of PPPs. Today, we are debating a different report that does not take away from those recommendations. It builds on them and is a weightier report. It is not more important, and it does not point in a significantly different direction. It simply deals with the matter in a more colourful way.

It is to be regretted that, in the past fourteen and a half months, progress on PPPs has been slow, and that should be subject to criticism. Even after fourteen and a half months, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel has said, several significant questions have yet to be answered properly, and out in the big, bad world, the problems continue to increase.

In his introduction, the First Minister said that it is important to hear Members' views. With due respect to the First Minister, if he is looking for my views, I refer him to Hansard Volume 11, No 10, pages 399 to 401 of 3 July 2001. Those remain my views. I could waste the Assembly's time by regurgitating them but, because nothing has changed, I shall not. The Executive must accelerate the snail-like pace that they appear to have adopted. Our constituents do not want to see more reports. They want, and need, to see action, and that should not be interpreted as my saying that we should rush into PPPs willy-nilly. We cannot be accused of doing that.

The recommendations give the vital building blocks that must be put in place - they should have been put in place before now. However, when I read the report, I wonder whether even a strategic plan, upon which to build, exists, and therein lies my major criticism.

I hope that we shall get answers to those vital questions as a result of today's debate; who knows, the Minister might answer them in his summing up. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel concluded his summary by posing fundamental questions that must be addressed urgently. The Committee feels that, if we do not get answers to those questions, the matter must be driven forward, and one Minister must be given control of doing so strategically and positively. If that decision has not yet been made, we must ask where we are going.

I hope to lay to rest the myth, which can arise through debates such as this, that PPPs per se can solve the funding deficit. That is a load of rubbish: PPPs do not solve the funding deficit, and I am delighted to see the Minister of Finance and Personnel nodding in approval. The only way to solve a funding deficit is to increase revenue or reduce expenditure. Public-private partnerships are an alternative way to provide facilities.

Fourteen and a half months ago, several Members said that PPPs were not a panacea and were not the only show in town. In those fourteen and a half months, the reinvestment and reform initiative has clearly demonstrated that we should recognise that fact. Public money is the cheapest, and that must be borne in mind. If we decide to use the strategic investment board or other bodies, they must make clear decisions about the selection and prioritisation of the different deficits that must be funded, such as schools, roads, water, et cetera. We must see that prioritisation carried out, and we need it done yesterday. We certainly need it before another fourteen and a half months elapse.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>