Northern Ireland Assembly Tuesday 30 September 2008. Executive Committee Business: Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Lunn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the start of Question Time last Monday, Basil McCrea made a point of order about the selection of questions for Question Time. Correctly, you said that that issue was not the business of the Speaker’s Office. In his comments, Mr Basil McCrea queried the integrity of Assembly staff. He said: “We have been assured that the selection of questions is a random process. Clearly, it cannot be”. — [Official Report, Vol 33, No 3, p108, col 2]. He also said: “four, five or six of the first six questions are regularly asked by the party to which the responding Minister belongs. There is something not right. I am not saying that something is wrong, but something is not right.” — [Official Report, Vol 33, No 3, p108, col 2]. Assembly staff will be concerned about those comments. Did Mr Basil McCrea breach any of the rules of the House when he made those comments? Would it be appropriate to give him the opportunity in the House to retract his comments? If he was not accusing Assembly staff, who was he accusing? Mr Speaker: I accept the Member’s comments, and there are several issues to address. First, Mr Basil McCrea has already visited the Business Office and looked at the procedure that is used for selecting questions for Question Time. Secondly, I have examined his comments in the Hansard report, and Mr Basil McCrea has not broken any rules. However, I remind all Members to be careful about the language that they use in the House and not to identify officials from the Assembly or elsewhere. I repeat that the Speaker’s Office has no hand whatsoever in the random ballot for the selection of questions to the House. Ms Ní Chuilín: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I assume that the Business Office’s invitation to Whips to witness the selection process for questions, which was open to every party, still stands. Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for her point of order. I not only encourage Whips, but all Members, to visit the Business Office to see the procedure for selection of questions to the House. I hope that more Members will do so and will, therefore, have a better understanding of how questions to Ministers are selected. Pneumoconiosis, etc., Regulations 2008 The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): I beg to move That the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008, be affirmed. The regulations are made under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which provides lump-sum compensation payments to be made to sufferers of certain dust-related diseases or to the dependants of sufferers. The diseases that are covered by the Order can take a long time to develop and may not be diagnosed until 20 or 40 years, or even longer, after exposure. By that time, the employer who is responsible may no longer be in business, and sufferers and their dependants can experience great difficulty in obtaining civil compensation. The 1979 scheme was designed to assist employees who had little realistic chance of pursuing civil compensation through the courts because, for example, the former employer had ceased doing business. Mesothelioma, which is a fatal disease that is caused by exposure to asbestos, is one of several diseases that are covered by the 1979 scheme. It is a particularly unpleasant disease for which there is no known cure; a person’s life expectancy from the time that the disease is diagnosed can be short. In Northern Ireland, mesothelioma causes up to 50 deaths each year. Although the 1979 scheme has been beneficial, it covers only employees who are in receipt of industrial-injuries disablement benefit. Therefore, it cannot assist self-employed workers or people who have contracted mesothelioma from contact with the work clothes of a relative who worked with asbestos. That is one reason why I brought the Mesothelioma, etc., Bill before the Assembly in May 2007. I was pleased by the support for the Bill from all sides of the House. From 1 October 2008, the Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 breaks the link to workplace exposure to asbestos. The mesothelioma scheme provides for a lump-sum payment to be made to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma within a matter of weeks of diagnosis. In effect, that means that sufferers of mesothelioma will be eligible for payment, whether they are employees, self-employed or, indeed, have never worked, provided that they have not already received a compensation payment from another source — for example, through a civil claim under the 1979 scheme. In line with the 1979 scheme, the amount of money that is paid in a lump sum under the mesothelioma scheme is based on the person’s age at diagnosis. Those diagnosed with mesothelioma earlier in life will receive more. During the passage of the Mesothelioma, etc., Bill, it was estimated that the average payment under the scheme to sufferers, many of whom do not currently qualify for any compensation payments, would be in the region of £6,000. The introduction of a compensation-recovery process will meet the cost of the scheme. All mesothelioma and 1979-scheme payments are to be recovered from subsequent successful civil-compensation claims. Any moneys recovered will be ploughed back into the scheme, with the aim of funding higher payments in future. The scheme’s payment levels are set so that the overall expenditure matches the recoveries from civil compensation. My Department has worked closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to secure a pooling of funds. People in Northern Ireland will receive the same rate of payment as people in Great Britain, even though we are unable to recover sufficient money here to fund that higher rate. I am pleased to advise the House that sufferers in Northern Ireland will now receive, on average, a higher than originally estimated payment of £10,000. That is yet another example of the benefits of the parity arrangements. It is important that the Assembly affirm this piece of compassionate legislation. The mesothelioma scheme is to be self-financing; therefore, the level of payments will be determined by what can be afforded out of the recoveries from civil damages. The intention is that payments under the scheme will be increased over time, up to the same level as those payments made under the 1979 scheme, which currently average around £18,000. When that happens, a person with mesothelioma will receive the same amount, whether that is under the mesothelioma scheme or the 1979 scheme. The Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 provides that a person is not entitled to a payment under the mesothelioma scheme if he or she has received a payment under the 1979 scheme. However, until payments under both schemes reach the same levels, if a lump-sum payment has been made under the mesothelioma scheme, and it is subsequently discovered that a higher payment under the 1979 scheme is appropriate, the regulations provide for a balancing payment to be made. That ensures that no one who is entitled to a payment under the 1979 scheme is worse off because he or she has already received a payment under the mesothelioma scheme. The regulations will ensure that people will receive cash in the remaining months of their lives, and they will remove sufferers’ concern for their dependants’ future. It is a compassionate piece of legislation. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Simpson): The Committee considered the Department’s proposal to make the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 at its meeting on 26 June 2008 and considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 11 September 2008. As Members are aware, the Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 introduced a new compensation scheme for the sufferers, or the dependants of sufferers, of certain serious dust-related diseases. The Committee reviewed carefully the regulations that provide compensation for the tragic sufferers of those life-threatening diseases. Members will agree that although no amount of money can compensate for the misery and suffering that conditions such as pneumoconiosis cause, the amounts payable must offer some assistance to sufferers and their dependants. The regulations recognise that payments under the Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 are appropriate and allow for the reduction of certain other payments made under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. I assure Members that the Committee for Social Development considered the statutory rule fully and recommends that it be affirmed by the Assembly. 10.45 am Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I reiterate what other Members said. Given the nature of pneumonconiosis and mesothelioma, it is essential that proper and adequate legislation is introduced to help people who, unfortunately, suffer from those conditions. The legislation will adequately provide some help for those people. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Burns: I support the motion. I have great sympathy for people who suffer from any asbestos-related disease, such as mesothelioma. People who contract that disease, through no fault of their own, suffer so much, and that causes distress to their families. I also have sympathy for the wives and mothers of men who worked with asbestos and brought it home on their clothing; some of those people suffered as much from mesothelioma as the workers themselves. I am delighted that the regulations are being introduced. They afford sufferers a way in which to seek compensation quickly before they die, given that the time between diagnosis and death can be very short. Mr Armstrong: As a new member of the Committee for Social Development, I confess that I have not been privy to any of the Committee’s deliberations on the matter. It is my understanding that the measure is relatively uncontentious and reasonable and that it enjoys cross-party support. I support the motion. Ms Lo: Like other Members, I support the motion, and I thank the Minister for tabling it. Mesothelioma and other such diseases are horrible, and they cause a great deal of pain and suffering, not just for the employees who contract them, but for their families. This is a humane and compassionate piece of legislation that I am sure all Members will support fully. We want to provide some comfort to mesothelioma sufferers — and their families — during their last days. I am pleased to hear the Minister announce that compensation will increase from the initial estimate of £6,000 to £10,000. I hope that, in a few years’ time when the compensation scheme has grown, sufferers will receive the promised £18,000. In some way, that will help sufferers and their families. The Minister for Social Development: I am pleased with the consensus of support for the regulations from across the Chamber. I thank Mr Simpson and the Committee for Social Development for the positive way in which they have dealt with the regulations. In fact, all Members who spoke during the debate are members of the Committee for Social Development — Mr Brady, Mr Burns, Mr Armstrong, whom I welcome as a new member, and Ms Lo. All those Members made the principle point that it is important that we provide not only for the tragic people who suffered from mesothelioma as a result of their direct contact with asbestos, but for their wives and children. It is important that we provide for those people. Like Mr Simpson, I agree that nothing can account for the suffering and misery that are caused by that terrible disease. However, we should show, in some small measure, our compassion. I trust that I have dealt with all the issues that have been raised, but I think that we are all in agreement — we all want to ensure that if a payment is made under the new mesothelioma scheme, and it is subsequently discovered that a higher payment was appropriate under the 1979 scheme, a further payment can be made so that, overall, the claimant would receive the higher amount of money. The regulations make provision for a balancing payment to be made until such time as payments are equalised under both schemes. Although no amount of money will ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering, loss, bereavement and misery caused by mesothelioma, I believe that the new scheme will provide real and meaningful financial help at a time when it is needed most. I assure Members that I will urge my officials to expedite payments, because urgency and expedition is the order of the day when one is dealing with the suffering of so many people. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008, be affirmed. Public Accounts Committee Committee Reports Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 15 minutes to propose and 15 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes in which to speak. The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (Mr P Maskey): I beg to move That this Assembly takes note of the Public Accounts Committee First Composite Report (03/08/09R) and of the following Committee Reports: Report on the Upgrade of the Belfast to Bangor Railway Line (1/07R) Report on Outpatients: Missed Appointments and Cancelled Clinics (01/07/08R) Report on Springvale Educational Village Project (04/07/08R) Report on Northern Ireland’s Road Safety Strategy (05/07/08R) Report on the Transfer of Surplus Land in the PFI Education Pathfinder Projects (11/07/08R) Report on Tackling Public Sector Fraud (13/07/08R) Report on Use of Consultants (16/07/08R) Report on Job Evaluation in the Education and Library Boards (18/07/08R) Report on Excess Votes (Northern Ireland) (20/07/08R) Report on Northern Ireland Resource Accounts — Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Funds 2003-04 - 2006-07 (21/07/08R) Report into Older People and Domiciliary Care (24/07/08R) Further Report on the Use of Operating Theatres in the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services (25/07/08R) Report on Social Security Benefit Fraud and Error (26/07/08R) Report on Good Governance — Effective Relationships between Departments and their Arm’s Length Bodies (28/07/08R) Report on National Fraud Initiative (33/07/08R) Report on Northern Ireland Tourist Board — Contract to Manage the Trading Activities of Rural Cottage Holidays Limited (35/07/08R) Report on Hospitality Association of Northern Ireland: A Case Study in financial management and the public appointments process (36/07/08R) and the following Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda of Reply: The Upgrade of the Belfast to Bangor Railway Line (NIA 20/07-08) Outpatients: Missed Appointments and Cancelled Clinics (NIA 63/07-08) Springvale Educational Village Project (NIA 67/07-08) Northern Ireland’s Road Safety Strategy (NIA 71/07-08) The Transfer of Surplus Land in the PFI Education Pathfinder Projects (NIA 99/07-08) Tackling Public Sector Fraud (NIA 112/07-08) Job Evaluation in the Education and Library Boards (NIA125/07-08) Use of Consultants (NIA 127/07-08) Northern Ireland Resource Accounts — Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Funds 2003-04 — 2006-07 (NIA 136/07-08) Older People and Domiciliary Care (NIA 176/08-09) The Use of Operating Theatres in the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services (NIA 187/07-08) Social Security Benefit Fraud and Error (NIA 187/07-08) Good Governance — Effective Relationships between Departments and their Arm’s Length Bodies (NIA 209/07-08) Northern Ireland Tourist Board — Contract to Manage the Trading Activities of Rural Cottage Holidays Limited (NIA 16/07-08) Hospitality Association of Northern Ireland: A Case Study in the financial management and the public appointments process. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On 15 January 2002, Mr Billy Bell, the former Chairperson of the then Public Accounts Committee, moved the very first motion that asked the Assembly to take note of the works of the Public Accounts Committee. Today, I am pleased to do likewise. Members may be concerned that this is possibly the longest motion ever brought to the House, and will also be delighted to learn that I have insufficient time in which to speak on every report or memoranda of reply. I must leave that pleasure to other members of the Committee and other Members of the Chamber. However, it is important for me, as Chairperson of the Committee, to explain the role of the Public Accounts Committee and the contribution that it makes to a better and more efficient delivery of public services. The Public Accounts Committee is a standing Committee of the Assembly, established under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, with a relatively straightforward remit: “to consider accounts, and reports on accounts laid before the Assembly.” Those accounts are laid by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the head of the NI Audit Office. The Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of the Assembly and is responsible to the Assembly for the audit of central Government Departments and most of their sponsored bodies. In my short time as the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, having taken over from my party colleague John O’Dowd earlier this year, I have come to recognise, not only the excellent work that the Audit Office does, but the quality of support that the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff provide to the Public Accounts Committee — I thank him and his staff for that help. I also thank the Committee Clerk and his staff who work very hard in the background, week after week, making the deliberations of the members much easier, so go raibh maith agat to them. In his speech to the Confederation of British Industry on 13 September 2007, Peter Robinson, then Minister of Finance and Personnel, said: “We must also liberate those in the public sector who are being asked to play a role in assisting economic growth. There is an important scrutiny role for the Public Accounts Committee to play, but this must not stifle innovation or on occasion risk-taking.” I want to make it clear that the Committee welcomes innovation in the interests of efficiency. Departments must innovate if they are to deliver the improvements in services and efficiencies that we all want to see. The Committee, therefore, fully supports risk-taking in the public sector, provided — and this is an important qualification — that it is well thought through and well managed. I would now like to move on to talk briefly about some of the achievements of the Public Accounts Committee. Just last week, the Committee issued its first composite report on matters dealt with by correspondence. The matters related to reports produced by the Audit Office during the suspension of the Assembly and not reported on by the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster. The Committee covered such issues as incorrect claims for prescription charges and electronic libraries. I understand that copies of the Committee’s report were made available to all Members. We are fortunate that standards in the public sector here are high. Occasionally, issues have emerged that show that we cannot take our high standards for granted. The Committee has made it clear to the Audit Office that it will continue to give a high priority to dealing with cases of fraud or impropriety. We have already dealt with, and reported on, a number of such cases and incidents, which will always be on top of the Committee’s agenda as and when they arise. One such case, which happened to be in my constituency, was the Springvale Educational Village Project, which was promoted by the University of Ulster and the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education, now Belfast Metropolitan College. The Department for Employment and Learning was the main provider of funding, and the project was to build a main campus, an applied research centre and a community outreach centre at a cost of £71 million. However, only the community outreach centre, costing £4 million, was delivered. The Committee’s overall conclusion was that that project failed to deliver because the Department and the University of Ulster simply lost the goodwill to succeed, despite the enormous political goodwill shown towards the project. When the university’s concerns about governance and affordability emerged, it could have called on that goodwill, but chose not to. The Committee found it particularly disturbing that effectively the Department did nothing to try to save the project. The Committee had serious concerns about the quality of financial planning, management and control exercised by the project’s promoters. The project appraisal process was also inadequate. The Committee found that the university behaved deplorably in its relationships with the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education and the local communities. The Department appears to have acquiesced in that. There have been only limited tangible benefits from the project, and the current levels of deprivation in west and north Belfast are as high as when the project ceased in 2002. Some £3·6 million of direct funding was wasted, and a further substantial, but unquantifiable, sum was lost in respect of the enormous amount of time and effort that was devoted to the project by local communities and various Departments and agencies. In its memorandum of response in December 2007, the Department for Employment and Learning accepted the Committee’s recommendations and undertook to consider any potentially viable and sustainable development in order to provide new educational facilities on the Springvale site. That particular case and report typifies what has been the bread-and-butter work of the Public Accounts Committee. However, there is also an important balance to work yet to be done by the Committee. Alongside our investigations, which have highlighted weaknesses, failings and poor practice in the delivery of public services, the Committee has undertaken work that aims to identify and promote good practice. Where possible, that type of work will play a more significant role in the Committee’s workload. This is not a Committee that is deliberately seeking out errors and weaknesses. Instead, we believe that if the foundation for spending the public pound is based on sound governance, we will see fewer Springvale-type reports. It was with the goal of better governance in mind that the Committee produced its report on the governance of Departments’ arm’s-length bodies. There have been well-documented failings in governance of such bodies, failings that have had a substantial negative impact on public confidence as well as on the delivery of public services and value for money. In this context, I will mention the NI Events Company. I will not dwell too much on that matter today, but I want to assure the House that the Public Accounts Committee will return to the issue when investigations are completed. In that report, the Committee empathises with the need for Departments to ensure that there is a strong culture of accountability in their relationships with arm’s-length bodies. It is not sufficient simply to have the right structures of governance in place. Though important and necessary, good governance must be delivered in practice. The Committee’s recommendations were clear and practical, for Departments and for arm’s-length bodies. They covered issues such as the work of membership of audit committees, the scope for departmental representation on the boards of arm’s-length bodies, and the important role played by independent, non-executive board members. The Committee also highlighted the need for appropriate training of staff in Departments and in the arm’s-length bodies, and the need for robust internal audit and risk-management processes. I am pleased to inform Members that the response to the recommendations in the report was very positive, with all 17 being accepted. 11.00 am In recent years, progress has been made on the provision of guidance on good governance, but it is clear that the Department of Finance of Personnel (DFP) must play a more significant role in ensuring that such guidance is not only issued but implemented and that good practice is highlighted for others to follow. The message from the report is clear: to avoid the reoccurrence of costly failures that have resulted from poor governance, it is vital that good practice and lessons from failures are shared and adopted across the public sector. The Committee looks to DFP to demonstrate its commitment through its actions. I draw Members’ attention to the Committee’s innovative report on the fraud initiative — the NFI. The initiative is innovative in that it is the first time that the Committee produced a report that is not based on an Audit Office report. We produced that report because we felt that we had to show our support for and recommend participation in the fraud initiative. The NFI is based on data matching, which compares the extent to which computer records that are held by one body match those that are held by that or another body. Computerised data-matching techniques are then used to narrow the search for duplicate or fraudulent claims that are made to those bodies. A body that supplies data receives a report identifying instances of matching data in that body’s own records and in those of relevant organisations. Some 1,500 bodies participated in the most recent exercise. Overall, NFI has helped participants to detect fraud and overpayments in excess of £400 million. The result of the 2004-05 exercise identified over £111 million of fraud and error, and the indications are that the results of the most recent exercise will show a substantially higher amount. To date, participation of the Northern bodies has not been as extensive as that of those in Britain, but that is changing. The Serious Crime Act 2007 came into force on 6 April 2008, and under that Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General has been given powers to conduct data-matching exercises for the purposes of assisting in the prevention and detection of fraud. Anyone whose accounts are required for auditing by the Comptroller and Auditor General or by a local government auditor will be subject to mandatory participation in the data-matching exercise. The Act also includes provision for voluntary participation. Given that the Audit Office is required to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998, a code of practice sets out the responsibilities of the Comptroller and Auditor General and participating bodies, addressing such issues as governance arrangements, fair processing, quality of data, security arrangements and disclosure of data. The Audit Office plans to begin its first data-matching exercise, which, in practice, will be undertaken by the Audit Commission on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I should inform Members that in October 2008, the Assembly will take part in that exercise, and details of the Assembly secretariat and Members will be used in a national data-matching exercise. If anyone is doing anything that may be questionable, now is the time to do something about it. The Committee welcomes the close working relationship between DFP and the Audit Office in addressing fraud issues. DFP has highlighted to Departments that resources will have to be allocated to checking out matches that arise in that exercise. DFP has held conferences for public-sector bodies and has raised those issues at regular meetings with accounting officers and board members. The Committee views NFI as a key tool in the armoury against fraud and error. The potential savings are considerable, and added to those must be the potential savings that will be attained through discouragement of those who would want to defraud the system, knowing that they would be more likely than ever to be caught. The NFI is not only about fraud and error; it will identify incidences in which underpayments of benefits or other entitlements may have been made. That aspect of NFI is to be welcomed as much as its other elements, and it is equally important. I thank Members, and I look forward to hearing their contributions to the debate. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Speaker: Before I call the next Member to speak, I should point out that I am conscious that several Members have approached the Table to say that the five minutes that have been allocated are not enough for them to speak to the motion. All sides of the House should be aware that the Business Committee discusses motions and decides, on occasion, to allocate more time for particular debates. Despite that, Members normally have only five minutes in which to speak. The Business Committee unanimously agrees the timing of each motion. If Members feel strongly about a particular motion and need more time to speak, it is vital that they channel those issues through their Whips for discussion at future Business Committee meetings. Mr Shannon: Aa’d laek tae turn tae tha fraud in tha publick secter. Fraud isnae á victimless wrang as is sae aftin painted. Tha monies stolen fae tha publick secter purs in Norlin Airlan er á waest ó publick resources. This means poorer publick services an heigher than whuts needed taxes. Sae eech an invery yin ó us suffer at tha hans ó fraudsters. Although fraud in the public sector is often portrayed as a victimless crime, it is not. Money stolen from the public-sector purse in Northern Ireland is a massive waste of public resources and leads to poor public services and higher taxes. Therefore, we all suffer at the hands of fraudsters. Those reasons underline why public-sector fraud cannot be tolerated. Departments and the bodies that they support must demonstrate a zero-tolerance policy and tackle all forms of fraud aggressively. The Public Accounts Committee held several meetings on the issue of fraud, the first of which related to internal fraud in the accounts branch of the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland (OSNI), which, at that time, was an executive agency in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. OSNI is now part of the newly formed Land and Property Services; that may warrant a two-hour debate at a later date. The fraudster stole £70,690 in a five-year period between 1998 and 2003. The Committee discovered that the nature of the fraud was not particularly sophisticated and was, mainly, due to serious shortcomings in the control environment that included inadequate segregation of duties and supervision failures. The Public Accounts Committee submitted several recommendations that were accepted by the Department of Finance and Personnel. First, the Committee recommended that Departments establish mechanisms to ensure that the fraud forum’s advice and guidance are systematically circulated to all subsidiary bodies. Secondly, the Committee highlighted the need for the Department of Finance and Personnel to undertake a stocktaking exercise across the wider public sector to assess the availability of trained, front-line investigation staff and to devise a strategy to fill any skills gaps that are identified. Thirdly, the Committee recommended the need for greater emphasis on whistle-blowing in order to identify potential fraudulent activity, and the Department has initiated further work in that area. The review’s most significant impact will be the introduction of new data-sharing and data-matching powers provided under the Serious Crime Act 2007. The Committee asked to be consulted on the protocols for data matching and held a meeting in April 2008 that heard evidence from the Comptroller and Auditor General and Mr Peter Yetzes of the Audit Commission. In May 2008, the Committee published its report, and members understand that a data-matching exercise is under way. Incidentally, as a result of that report, the stolen £70,690 was returned to the Department. Given that our predecessors had examined road safety in 2000, the Public Accounts Committee was keen to continue that work. Poor driver behaviour is the main cause of collisions, and, therefore, the Committee focused on a range of measures to tackle that issue. During that session, a precedent was set; the PSNI accepted our invitation and explained its strategy to deter and detect those who endanger their own safety and that of other road users. The Committee highlighted the need to tighten existing regulations for motorcycle instructors and motorcyclist training, which were much less stringent than systems applied to learner drivers and driving instructors. The Committee underlined the need for urgent implementation of improvements because we discovered a 200% increase in motorcyclist numbers and a 50% increase in motorcyclist casualties in the past decade. That is a shocking statistic. In addition, with drivers in the 17- to 24-year-old age group accounting for a disproportionately high percentage of road casualties, we concluded that the review of the restricted-driver scheme and its speed limit of 45 mph — which was scheduled for 2003 — was long overdue. In tandem with that review, we urged the Department of the Environment to evaluate a range of initiatives that are used in other parts of the world — such as logbooks for learners and graduated driving licences for novice drivers — and assess their suitability as a means of reducing Northern Ireland’s unacceptably high casualty rates. The Committee was pleased to note the Department’s assurances that we will be kept abreast of relevant developments worldwide, with a view to introducing new initiatives in Northern Ireland where appropriate. The Committee also considered that it was imperative for the PSNI to improve its performance in the detection and processing of speeding offences. In conclusion, the Committee believes that it has made a number of important recommendations to encourage responsible Departments and agencies to be more ambitious and more innovative in their efforts to improve road safety in Northern Ireland. Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr Shannon: If that happens, we can take heart that the Committee played a direct and tangible role in making things better. Mr Beggs: At the outset, I stress that five minutes is not adequate time in which to deal with this issue. The Public Accounts Committee reports once a year to the Assembly on its work, so more than five minutes each should have been allocated to those Members who wish to speak. I pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee staff, who provide us with support and enable us to carry out our work. The Public Accounts Committee is different from other Assembly Committees because we are assisted by the multimillion pound Northern Ireland Audit Office and the expertise of its staff. Its reports provide a starting point for our work, and we are guided by it as we enter our deliberations. Another way in which the Committee is slightly different is that ordinary citizens are provided with a great deal of clarity when they listen to the outcomes of our work. That is because the Committee frequently investigates how money has been squandered and how lessons must be learned for the future so that better use is made of taxpayers’ money. As MLAs, we all receive stick about what we do up on the hill. When I refer to some of the issues that I have contributed to in the Public Accounts Committee, I feel that I have helped to make a difference by making better use of taxpayers’ money, rather than being a burden on taxpayers. Without devolution, we would not have the same degree of scrutiny. Past failings must be learned from so that they are not repeated. It has been a busy period as the Public Accounts Committee has met on a weekly basis, rather than on a fortnightly basis, as was previously the case. Some 18 reports have been scrutinised and completed during the period in question; it has been quite a busy time for Committee members and staff. It must be remembered that there was not the same level of scrutiny during direct rule. In Northern Ireland, there were no directly elected representatives who would be accountable to their electorate, and there was only a limited role for local government. A void existed because the Westminster Public Accounts Committee considered only one or two reports from Northern Ireland annually, because it also has to deal with the other parts of the United Kingdom. It is important that the work of the Public Accounts Committee is recognised, good practice is continued and lessons are learned. Given the limited speaking time that is available, I will comment briefly on two reports — ‘Outpatients: Missed Appointments and Cancelled Clinics’; and ‘Older People and Domiciliary Care’. Missed appointments cost the public purse a significant amount of money, as all the staff are present and the patient does not turn up. Alternatively, it is stressful for a patient to be invited to a clinic and to turn up, only for the appointment to be cancelled due to issues regarding the administration of the Health Service. In recent years, £259 million has been spent on secondary medical care and outpatient clinics. It is important that that money is well spent. During the course of our deliberations, the Committee noted that a significant number of those outpatient clinics were not being monitored as they were non-consultant-led and accurate data were not being compiled. Therefore, we recommended that trusts produce annual reports to analyse the root causes of cancellations and the demographics of non-attendance in order that further lessons might be learned and built on, and that was taken up in a memorandum of response. 11.15 am Given the difficulties that MLAs witness among their constituents, the subject of older people and domiciliary care is dear to us all. Recently, the matter became personal to me when my grandfather entered a period of ill health. It is important that we ensure that the best possible service is available. In the course of reviewing ‘Older People and Domiciliary Care’, the matter arose of the non-implementation of the fourth capitation formula review, which has adversely affected my constituents in East Antrim. Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr Dallat: It falls to me to deal with two types of consultants: those who manage our operating theatres, and the people who are sometimes accused of picking the brains of our best civil servants, putting that information in glossy folders, and sending us the bill. I will talk about the second group later. A key factor in the overall use of hospital resources in Northern Ireland is the extent to which hospital operating theatres are used and managed efficiently and effectively. Decisions about the use of operating theatres are directly related to the availability of hospital staff and beds and to the volume and nature of emergency cases. In July 2007, the Public Accounts Committee wrote to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety asking for an update on its progress in responding to the Committee’s previous inquiries. Subsequently, the Committee’s report focused on four main points: waiting lists and waiting times; spare capacity in operating theatres; the cancellation of operations; and computerised theatre-management information systems. Although we found that high waiting lists for operating theatres had been significantly reduced since the original report was published in 2005, planned theatre sessions still only account for two thirds of theatre capacity. Therefore, we called for further action to reduce theatre-usage downtime. We commended the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for using consultants to act privately to help to clear backlogs among those waiting for operations. In addition, we welcomed the Department’s assurance that appropriate costing methods would be used to ensure that the full cost of that activity would be recovered. Although we recognise that cancellations are sometimes unavoidable, we believe that the current 5% cancellation rate is far too high, a direct result of which is that £6·4 million of resources have been wasted or not used to best effect. I am sure that Members will agree that that is unacceptable. Finally, concerning hospital theatres, the computerised theatre-management information system was originally planned to come into operation in 2006. We are still waiting for it. Indeed, it will not be fully implemented until March 2009. That system will be crucial to the programme’s management. Turning to my second type of consultant, the Committee met on 16 November 2007 to consider the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on the use of external consultants by Northern Ireland Civil Service Departments. Given the increasing level of consultancy spending by Departments — over £40 million annually — we were disappointed to discover that such expenditure has not always been well managed and that best practice has not been adhered to throughout the public sector. That is extremely annoying. Our report focused on the need to control and manage future consultancy expenditure through improved collaboration between Departments and through the increased use of collective purchasing power. In addition, we produced proposals to identify and meet skills gaps throughout the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Those approaches should contribute to reducing future consultancy expenditure. I believe that there are a lot of untapped skills in the Civil Service. The Committee is pleased that DFP will improve how it keeps records and monitors contracts. We also welcome DFP’s commitment to produce an annual report on the extent to which Departments comply with requirements to undertake business cases, to put contracts out to competitive tender, and to conduct post-project evaluations. The award of consultancy contracts must be open and transparent. The Committee welcomes the Department of Finance and Personnel’s agreement — given in response to our report — that perceptions of conflicts of interest must be eliminated. That is an area in which the Committee strongly endorses transparency. It is further welcomed that DFP will use databases to record assessments of consultants’ performances. Doing so will help to identify poorly performing consultants and, where appropriate, exclude them from future public-sector contracts. DFP’s overall response to the Public Accounts Committee’s report was very encouraging. I congratulate myself for finishing my contribution in five minutes. [Laughter.] Mr Lunn: I endorse the comments on the five-minute rule made by Members earlier in the debate. I have been asked to speak about ‘Report on Northern Ireland Tourist Board: Contract to Manage the Trading Activities of Rural Cottage Holidays Limited’. Although the relevant Committee session was good, it illustrated what could go wrong when a conflict of interest was not declared or properly managed. Good governance in public-sector bodies has been an important theme of the Committee’s work. The Public Accounts Committee and the public expect Government bodies to apply high standards to the administration of expenditure. Therefore, a failure to declare conflicts of interests undermines public confidence in the standards of public administration. The report states that achieving such standards should not be difficult; it is a basic principle of good public administration. The Rural Cottage Holidays case was one of a string of conflicts of interest with which the Committee has dealt; it proved an important case study, and provided valuable lessons in how to deal with such conflicts. Our report makes clear that it is fundamentally important that chief executives of public bodies provide clear leadership on ethical issues. Those chief executives must recognise the dangers of conflicts of interest and get to grips with them when they come to light. The Committee was often astounded by the failure of Departments or their sponsored bodies to properly deal with conflicts of interest. It appears that even such simple procedures can be made complicated. The Committee Chairperson and Mr Dallat have said that the debate will return to that issue. The Committee’s work on Rural Cottage Holidays showed the value of probing officials. It brought to light what can go wrong when the public sector dabbles in commercial activities. Onerous financial commitments remain because a small number of cottage owners secured a very good deal from the Tourist Board. The inquiry highlighted the dangers of being overly optimistic in assessing projects, and the importance of preparing an exit strategy for when things go wrong. The Committee has requested that it be kept advised by the Department on its progress towards ending this drain on taxpayers’ money. The Public Accounts Committee’s continued interest may help to secure a long-overdue conclusion to what turned out to be a bad use of public funds. I turn now to ‘Report on Job Evaluation in the Education and Library Boards’. The Public Accounts Committee decided to consider the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on the subject because it was a long-running scheme involving significant public funding, and which had a potential impact on front-line education services. The programme started in January 1995 and is still running. Originally introduced for all non-manual staff in the education and library boards, it was later extended to include all manual posts. At the time of the Public Accounts Committee’s report, it had cost at least £124 million, and it was estimated that a further £5 million would be needed to complete the exercise. By then, it will probably be time to start again. Among the main lessons identified in the Public Accounts Committee review was the need for strong project management from the outset, which should include clarity about the timescale of the process, the setting of target dates, ongoing monitoring, and regular reporting and feedback In its reply to the Committee, the Department of Education stated that it recognised fully that the effective management of projects was an essential element of resource control, and it confirmed that it has in place robust, proactive systems for project management, which include the establishment of agreed time frames and clear lines of responsibility. The Department also undertook to write to bodies that it sponsors to stress the need to have effective project-management structures in place, and it confirmed that the new education and skills authority will apply similar project-management disciplines. The Committee felt that there was no excuse for the Department of Education’s failure to put in place proper financial management measures at the start of the scheme. We sought assurances from the Department that, in future, the financial impact of major schemes will be properly assessed and planned. In response, the Department stated that it continues to apply and follow relevant DFP guidance and that that will ensure that, should any schemes be undertaken by either the Department or one of its sponsored bodies, the financial impact will be assessed and planned for right from the start. We regard that as a very satisfactory response. Given the scale of the job-evaluation exercise and the level of funding involved, the Committee was disappointed to find that the scheme was not linked to a proper efficiency process, as was originally intended. In response, the Department — Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to an end. Mr Lunn: I will stop there. Mr Craig: I wish to speak about the ‘Social Security Benefit Fraud and Error’ report. Members will be aware that the Committee has a particular interest in ensuring that fraud and financial error in public funds is tackled robustly and reduced. This year, the Committee probed those important issues during its investigation of the social security system. It was satisfying to hear from the heads of the Department for Social Development and the Social Security Agency that a strategy for tackling benefit fraud and error had been in place for some time and, more importantly, was having some success. However, the Committee was unable to accept the agency’s assertion that it will struggle to maintain, let alone improve on, the level of benefit fraud and error detection. I am sure that Members will agree that although the agency faces some major challenges, the overpayment of £60 million and the underpayment of £22 million to customers in the 2006-07 financial year showed a disappointingly high level of fraud and error in the system. The agency requires meaningful information about the levels of benefit fraud and error that exist. Indeed, the Committee, the House and the taxpayers expect it. The agency accepted a range of recommendations aimed at producing fuller analysis and reporting of information on fraud and error. Although the Committee recognises the complexity of the benefit system and the good work that is carried out by agency staff, it has sought further initiatives to strengthen training and support for front line staff to improve the accuracy and the standards of benefit processing. It is unacceptable that approximately £28 million — almost half the total sum lost as a result of fraud and error — is lost due to internal staff error. Customer error accounts for approximately £14 million of the total. That means that £18 million is lost as a result of fraud, and that amounts to just under 0·5% of the entire social security budget. Therefore, it is clear that serious issues must be dealt with, particularly in relation to staff awareness about how to deal with such problems. In response to that situation, the agency will target areas for improvement at both individual and organisational level. It will monitor the outcome of those initiatives in order to measure the effectiveness of its efforts. The Committee also made a wide range of recommendations aimed at maximising the use of scarce resources in fraud investigation. For example, targets and the performance measurement of investigation activity must be reviewed, and the number of sanctions for benefit fraud must be maximised. The type of fraud being committed must also be reviewed and analysed, and action plans drawn up to address those issues. Indeed, the agency has accepted the need for those improvements. 11.30 am The Committee’s report included 22 recommendations, and the response was largely positive with all recommendations except one being adopted. That exception related to addressing and publishing levels of fraud and error in each of the agency’s six districts. The Committee felt that that should form the basis for enabling better targeting of its counter-fraud and error-reduction activities. In the agency’s view, that would require a significant increase in resources and it felt that it would be better to develop its existing risk assessments to address the issue. That response was disappointing to say the least. The Committee remains of the view that information on the types of fraud, and where they occur, would help the agency to deploy its resources more effectively and enable it to demonstrate that it is doing so. The Committee expects tackling benefit fraud and error to remain a priority for the Department and the agency. Such a strategy is vital in ensuring that taxpayer’s money is not wasted and that those who are entitled to benefits get that to which they are entitled. Mr McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I have the same difficulty as other members of the Committee with respect to the five-minute time limit for the debate today. Therefore, I will move on quickly. My focus is the Committee’s investigation and subsequent ‘Report on the Upgrade of the Belfast to Bangor Railway Line’; the first report to be completed by the Committee following restoration. It was an important first for the Committee as it enabled the Assembly — through the members of the Committee — to hold senior officials to account for what was, by any standard, a poorly delivered project. It was a local project that would have, in all likelihood, fallen beneath the radar of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, from the outset, we were sending out a message that devolution was going to make Departments more accountable to its elected representatives. The Committee’s report highlighted a number of key failures in the management of the project by the Department for Regional Development and its arm’s-length body Translink. For example, we highlighted the lack of appropriate control and oversight by the Department. There was an overspend of almost £20 million on the project. In fact, the final spend was almost £34 million from an initial budget of £14·7 million. That overspend was caused by an inadequate initial economic appraisal that seriously underestimated the cost of delivery and specifications of the work that needed to be done. It was amplified by the Department’s failure to insist on a reappraisal when it became apparent that the budget would be exceeded. The project concerned the upgrading of a railway track that was approximately 11·5 miles long and which had 11 stations on it. The original specification expected trains to be able to travel at speeds of up to 90 mph, and that travelling time for commuters would be reduced by up to two minutes. That led one to ask whether it could ever have been achieved, and one can see that there were issues that the Assembly could bear down upon on behalf of the public purse and the public interest. In taking evidence, the Committee was very critical of Translink as it was clear that its governance arrangements operated way beyond normal public-sector controls. Furthermore, the Committee’s report identified an appalling lack of control by Translink of contract variations —that is, amendments to the scheme as it progressed — which was tantamount to giving the contractors a blank cheque. As a result of Translink’s poor management procedures, the public purse was made to bear excessive extra costs while the lead consultant on the project was allowed to walk away without any liability. More generally, accepted standards of corporate governance were not embedded or operating in Translink. The Committee also noted instances of excessive generosity following the retirement of a senior executive and raised concerns that board members had failed to exercise their function and responsibility in relation to the project. The Committee made a series of recommendations aimed at improving departmental control and oversight. Recommendations were also suggested to improve Translink’s ability to undertake and manage major capital investment projects and improve the effectiveness of its corporate governance arrangements. The Committee is pleased to note that the Department has accepted the recommendations and has made formal commitments to effect improvements in those important areas. Such commitments include closer scrutiny and more robust challenge of future economic appraisals emanating from Translink. I turn to the use of PFIs and, particularly, to the evidence session considering the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report, ‘Transfer of Surplus Land in the PFI Education Pathfinder Projects’. That session was important, not only because of the issue that was being dealt with, but because it was the first time that the Committee had held an evidence session in the local community. The session was convened at Wellington College, Belfast — one of the six education pathfinder projects — and the Committee appreciated the time and the effort that the school’s board of governors, principal, staff and pupils put into facilitating us. In 1999 and 2000, five contracts were let for six education pathfinder projects. A feature of those projects was the transfer of surplus land and buildings from the public sector to the PFI operator. Following negotiation, £23 million was agreed as the value for those assets. The Committee was particularly interested in the status of Balmoral High School, which was one of the six pathfinder schools. That school closed six years after its new premises were opened in 2002. With proper foresight, that project could, and should, have been avoided. Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close. Mr McLaughlin: I will indeed; I will leave it at that. Mr Wells: I share the frustration of many Members this morning at the short time that has been allocated to each Member who wishes to speak in the debate, but I accept the Speaker’s ruling that the matter should have been taken up with the Whips. In future, the Business Committee should divide the length of time allocated to a debate by the number of Members who wish to speak. I suspect that this morning’s debate will collapse quickly, but many Members will have wanted to have made more in-depth contributions on what are technical and lengthy documents. I have been on the Public Accounts Committee only long enough to attend a few meetings, so I will not pretend to be the great font of all knowledge on the reports that the Committee has issued. I am still finding my feet; I am a novice. In the past, I watched the great stalwarts of the Public Accounts Committee. Members will remember Seamus Close, a Member for Lagan Valley, who got uptight and angry about every penny that was spent wrongly; Jane Morrice from North Down; and, of course, Mr Dallat from East Londonderry. I watched, with interest, those three stalwarts of the Committee, and I have been impressed by the work that has been done up to now. It is hoped that my becoming a member of the Committee will not ruin its good work. I have also been impressed by the work of my colleague Simon Hamilton. The Committee is performing a useful role. However, I was naive when I joined it, because I wondered what else could remain to be done after the Committee had completed its hard work. After all, the Committee had brought Department after Department and agency after agency into the Senate Chamber, given them a roasting and sent them away with a flea in their ear. Surely the Departments and agencies had learnt their lesson; they would implement correct procedures and we would not have any further problems. How wrong I was. It reminds me of a friend that I had at Queen’s University, 30 years ago. I will call her Eileen, for the sake of argument. I lived on Elmwood Avenue, close to the Catholic chaplaincy. Every Saturday morning, I watched Eileen going to confession, and I wondered what happened when she got there. Eventually, curiosity got the better of me, and I stopped her one day and asked her what happened at confession. She told me that she went in and told the priest that she had smoked, drunk, chased men, disobeyed her parents and been lazy and slovenly, and then she asked for forgiveness. I said that that was great, but I wanted to know what happened next. She told me that she was granted absolution. Then I asked her what would happen next week, and she told me that she would go in and tell the priest that she had smoked, drunk, chased men and disobeyed her parents. To some extent, that is what happens with Departments — they come before the Public Accounts Committee and get a grilling; the Committee exposes their mistakes; the Departments go away in sackcloth and ashes; and, a few years later, they return before the Committee because they have done the same thing as they were doing five years earlier. They never learn their lessons. Why is this important? Mitchel McLaughlin has mentioned the Northern Ireland Railways contract for the Bangor to Belfast railway line — a project on which £20 million was wasted. For years, I have been campaigning for a Ballynahinch bypass. That £20 million would have built me two Ballynahinch bypasses, and left some change for the ribbon. Unfortunately, that money is out of the public budget for transport and it is gone for ever. That lesson should have been learnt, but I suspect that it will come up time and time again. We have seen the same problems crop up and the same issues remain unresolved, and they come back to haunt Departments. Such issues include the lack of accountability and the lack of control over arm’s-length bodies — and we saw that clearly with the Northern Ireland Events Company. I am glad that the former Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure Mr Poots brought that situation to heel immediately. There was a debacle with Rural Cottage Holidays Ltd, where the lack of control by arm’s-length bodies allowed that company to get away with what it wanted. I suspect that the Public Accounts Committee will have a lot of work to do over the next few years, and I look forward to that. I hope that we will reach the stage where lessons will be learnt and where we will not have to come before the Assembly. At least the Executive can say that little, if any, of the examples that were reported on happened during their watch. The situation will become more interesting as we bring our own Ministers before the Committee to justify their decisions while in office. I hope that that will be seldom, but I suspect that I will be wrong. Mr Burns: I will not dwell on any confessions. A Member: We would be here all day. [Laughter.] Mr Burns: I have not been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for very long, as I joined in March. However, since then few good-news stories have come before the Committee. I have been shocked by the mismanagement of public finances. I commend the work of the Public Accounts Committee for highlighting the waste of public-sector money. I am glad that the motion has been tabled, and I will talk briefly about some of the reports mentioned. The problem common to all the reports appears to be bad procurement, which leads me on to the subject of the Belfast to Bangor railway line, which was referred to by Mitchel McLaughlin and Jim Wells. I am a keen user of public transport, and I would like to see the railway line between Antrim and Lisburn reopened and, ideally, in public ownership. That railway line would service Belfast International Airport. However, we have to compete for the money for that line alongside the backdrop of what happened on the Belfast to Bangor railway line — and the report into the upgrade of that line makes for bad reading. The project was a disaster and ended up costing double the original estimate, with a massive overspend, bad management of wages, poor performance by consultants, a lack of written contracts and poor bookkeeping. At the end of the day, the people just walked away after overspending by millions of pounds. No money was ever recovered from the contractors who messed up the project and the intended benefits were never realised. The original specification of a 90 mph speed limit had to be reduced to 70 mph. However, no one was held accountable. Lessons must be learnt. People cannot come to the Public Accounts Committee with a project that will cost so many million pounds, start the project and then run short of money. Nevertheless, when such projects are started, they must be finished, and so contractors ask those in charge of Northern Ireland’s finances for another £10 million to finish their project because so much money has been spent already. A report will then come before the Public Accounts Committee. That is not good enough and falls far short of what should be happening. We should never get involved in a situation similar to that of the upgrade of the Belfast to Bangor railway line. 11.45 am In its ‘Report on Use of Consultants’, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted the spend on consultants, which has doubled to £42 million in the past five years. Indeed, Mr Dallat referred to the difference between medical consultants and those who send a bill for information that they have been given by civil servants. Money has been splashed about like water. Nobody is accountable — it is the land of the consultants and the reports. The findings of the ‘Report on Social Security Benefit Fraud and Error’ were also disappointing. The report indicated that levels of fraud and error were high. There have been both underpayments and overpayments, and half the overpayments were due to staff error. That means that people who are entitled to benefits, particularly the elderly, may not have been receiving their benefits. Other reports revealed the need for computer systems to be updated. The outdated systems that are currently in use are a recipe for disaster. I commend the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee for tabling the motion, and I am committed to the Committee’s work. Mr Hamilton: Until a few weeks ago, I had been a member of the Public Accounts Committee from its inception last year. Committee members and others may have thought that I would disappear but, to borrow a phrase, I “haven’t gone away, you know”. I thank both Chairpersons under whom I served during my time on the Committee. I also thank my former Committee colleagues, from all parties. I especially thank the Committee staff, who do an excellent job, and the staff of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, who are friends and colleagues of the Committee. It is a good Committee that works well, and its members — irrespective of their party affiliation in the Chamber — come together to deal impartially and dispassionately with the serious issues that face them. I enjoyed my time on the Committee. We undertook an extremely busy workload over those 18 months, and the numerous reports that are mentioned in the motion are evidence that the Committee’s busy workload will continue. Other Members who have spoken provided a flavour of some of the reports, which cover a broad range of themes including: conflicts of interest; fraud; gross overspends; and delivering better public services more efficiently. The Public Accounts Committee has made many — probably hundreds of — sensible recommendations. By and large, those recommendations are accepted by the relevant Departments, and I hope that lessons will be learned from that. It is difficult to gauge the success of the Committee at this stage; that will be judged later. I will not dwell on the details of the reports; I will leave that to current Committee members. The Public Accounts Committee has a very serious and important role to play, especially at a time of budgetary considerations and tight finances when everyone is seeking value for money. In the past 18 months, the Committee has had to deal with the mess that was left by direct rule. It is only now that attention is being given to the errors and faults of the period of devolution. Not for a second would I advocate the Public Accounts Committee’s future role being one that turns away from mistakes that have been made since devolution — far from it. It will always be essential to examine overspends, frauds, conflicts of interest and the improvement of service delivery. Those issues will always exist, and there will always be a need for the Public Accounts Committee to come down hard on whatever Department is making errors. The purpose of the Public Accounts Committee should always be to ensure that lessons are learned; the Committee should never dispense a kicking for kicking’s sake. Reflecting on my time on the Public Accounts Committee, the highlights were when the Committee was working in full flow. Mr Durkan: The Member suggests that the Public Accounts Committee should not indulge in blood sports with officials who appear before it. As well as insisting that the Public Accounts Committee retains its very strong role, a way to solve the problem that was highlighted by Mr Wells from South Down might be for the Public Accounts Committee to insist that a budget line be flagged for anything from one to five years. Then, when dealing with budgetary issues, the relevant departmental Committee would always know to ask whether an identified problem has been worked on. Generally, once the Public Accounts Committee has prepared a report, everyone assumes that everything will be OK from that point on. Only when a significant problem emerges later do people realise that everything is not OK. The other scrutiny Committees should be vigilant and police their Departments to ensure that the lessons have been properly learnt and that any new procedures are being properly applied. Mr Speaker: The Member will have an extra minute. Mr Hamilton: I am certainly not advocating that the Public Accounts Committee engage in blood sports. Now that my good colleague Jim Wells is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am sure that blood sports are the last activities in which the Committee will engage. Mr Durkan makes a pertinent point; a much better relationship must evolve between the Public Accounts Committee, in carrying out its very important role, and the departmental scrutiny Committees. I do not wish to dwell on my next point, but I am a member of another Committee that is examining an issue that has led to, if not a tension, a realisation that Committees must establish a much better way of working with one another so that matters can be progressed. In that way, when the Public Accounts Committee finishes dealing with an issue and sets it aside, it will not be forgotten about. The Assembly must work towards that goal. I know, from my experience as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, that it can certainly be very entertaining when the sexy stuff emerges — the discovery of records in a skip somewhere, or the misuse and abuse of credit cards — but that does not necessarily lead to the Public Accounts Committee achieving its goals in the best way possible. Regardless of our perspective, we are all trying to build a new Northern Ireland. We are trying to rejuvenate our economy, reform our public services and deliver best value for money for everybody in our country. We cannot, on the one hand, expect innovation and new ideas from our officials, while, on the other hand, put them off striving for such innovation because of the threat of receiving a kicking from the Public Accounts Committee. Those are the sorts of issues that the Committee, and the Assembly as a whole, must resolve before deciding exactly how we should move forward. I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will continue to play a role in ensuring good value for money and better Government for the whole of Northern Ireland. Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Ms Purvis: I will focus on two reports, the first of which is the report on the Hospitality Association of Northern Ireland (HANI). That unique report focused on standards of financial management and control of a third-party organisation, namely HANI, and the weaknesses in the public-appointments system. The Committee’s overall conclusion was that that case stood out as a lesson in how not to manage a relationship with a third-party organisation, how not to operate the public-appointments process and how not to handle a major conflict of interest. We found an astonishing catalogue of shortcomings on the part of the two Departments involved; the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The Committee concluded that the public sector was more vulnerable to abuse than it should have been and that that situation must not be tolerated. There were widespread weaknesses in financial control within HANI, and the Department for Employment and Learning, as a primary provider of funding, was ultimately responsible for the proper stewardship of taxpayers’ money. We were astonished to find that senior departmental officials had judged the obtaining of false invoices by a HANI employee to be a case of mismanagement. Such behaviour is fraudulent and can only be intended to subvert the proper use of public funds. We were also disturbed to find that the same former HANI employee was subsequently appointed to seven public roles. Astonishingly, the Department also extended that employee’s term of office on one of its most prestigious boards. The Committee noted the extent to which many its key recommendations relating to public appointments had been identified by its sister Public Accounts Committee at Westminster in its report on the Emerging Business Trust. We have therefore concluded that the public sector has yet to grasp fully the importance of the ethical standards that those lessons are designed to reinforce. The former HANI employee was also involved in a major conflict of interest issue in the Events Company, a body sponsored by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The Committee found that the Department’s response to the issue was weak and ineffective. We were surprised to learn that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is not independent of the bodies that it regulates. The Committee believes strongly that it should be independent. Furthermore, we were concerned to learn that there are systemic weaknesses in the public-appointments system. That is unacceptable. The continuing perception of cronyism is not compatible with the structures being established under devolution. That is an enormous challenge for the Senior Civil Service, and the Committee expects it to act urgently to establish confidence in the system. I will now comment on the report on the Child Support Agency’s client funds accounts for 2003-04 to 2006-07. The agency’s failings have been well publicised over the years, but the Committee was surprised to learn the full extent of the problems. The agency’s accounts have, since the agency was set up in 1993, been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. One of the reasons for that ongoing qualification was that staff in the agency made many errors when first calculating the amount of child maintenance, and those errors accumulated as debt. The amounts owed were not paid, thus the figures in the accounts are incorrect. A further complication is that the agency’s IT system cannot produce an accurate list of who owes money and how much is owed. The Committee took a very critical view of that. Although the agency is dependent on its GB counterpart for IT, it was the Committee’s view that the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency still had a vital role to play in resolving the IT problems. The Committee was dismayed to learn that only one in three absent parents pays any money towards the upkeep of his or her children, and it was concerned about the effect that that was having on children’s lives. Child poverty is a major issue in Northern Ireland, and — shockingly — the total uncollected debts were continually rising and were in excess of £70 million. That was unacceptable to the Committee. The Committee’s view is that the agency must be faster and better at collecting money owed, and it could do more to recover money owed from people who do not pay any child maintenance. Indeed, the statistics regarding the amount of arrears collected and prosecutions for recovery of debts were disappointing, to say the least. Therefore, the Committee encouraged the agency to make more extensive use of its powers to recover money owed and to pursue any additional powers that will help to reduce the escalating levels of debt. Other issues included the high cost:collection ratio in comparison with GB. The Committee expects the Department to take forward our recommendations in the new child maintenance and enforcement division. Mr Adams: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ar dtús, gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Choiste. B’fhearr liom a bheith ag labhairt anseo inniu faoi ollscoil nua i mBéal Feirste thiar darbh ainm Springvale; sin an aisling a bhí ann ag an tús. Déanann an tuairisc seo cur síos ar chuid den fháth ar scriosadh an aisling sin. Beidh níos mó le rá faoi sin. The Public Accounts Committee’s report on the Springvale educational village project makes grim and depressing reading. It is an indictment of Government Departments and of the University of Ulster, and it points up the crucial lessons that must be learnt and acted on if similar debacles are to be avoided in the future. I commend the Committee for its work and for the way in which it has framed, clearly and concisely, its conclusions and recommendations. Regrettably, the experience of the Springvale educational village project smacks not only of incompetence but of discrimination against the working people of west and north Belfast. The greatest damage to the project was caused under a Minister from the Social Democratic and Labour Party during the previous power-sharing Executive. The Public Accounts Committee’s report confirms that the most senior civil servants in the Department for Employment and Learning knew, one year before its collapse, that the University of Ulster intended to renege on its commitments to the Springvale project. Therefore, the investment of millions of pounds of public money is wasted. That is of particular concern, given that the same civil servants who were pledging money to, and releasing finance for, the project were also undermining it. 12.00 noon Members will know that the Springvale project was formally launched 10 years ago this month, in September 1998. The then US President, Bill Clinton, his wife, now Senator Hillary Clinton, and the then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, came to the site on the Springfield Road to ceremonially turn the first sod. The promise made that day to the people of west and north Belfast — some of the most deprived communities in the whole of the Six Counties and in these islands — has never been honoured. The Public Accounts Committee said in its report that the Department for Employment and Learning: “failed in its role as Government’s representative on the Springvale project.” It continued: “The evidence clearly shows that the Department did not ensure that the project promoters had a firm grip on the viability of the project” and that it failed to communicate properly with local communities. The Committee concluded that the Department’s monitoring process was “clearly inadequate” and described its response to the University of Ulster’s decision to pull out of the project as “weak and ineffective”. It is not the first time that an opportunity to deliver measurable change to the lives of people most affected by conflict and by some of the most socially disadvantageous and structured discrimination has been spurned. The educational village concept was put together after lengthy consultation. It was a very democratic process, in which all sections of the local community came together to paint their vision of the joined-up approach that would give particularly disadvantaged people, such as women who had dropped out of learning, a bridge back into education. It is unacceptable that those proposals, which those communities helped to form, were sabotaged. The Springvale experience should never be repeated. If these institutions — I am mindful of the current difficulties — are to have any credibility whatsoever, they must deliver real and progressive change for all sections of our community, but particularly for those with the greatest need. In conclusion, I welcome the Public Accounts Committee’s call for the establishment of a significant educational facility at the Springvale site. Go raibh míle maith agat. The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds): This is my first Public Accounts Committee debate as Minister of Finance and Personnel; there have only been two in the history of devolution, so I am pleased to be able to respond to the debate. I have listened intently to the Members who have spoken in the debate and who have attended throughout and listened to other Members’ contributions. I have listened in particular to the members of the Public Accounts Committee, who spoke with knowledge and passion. I acknowledge the Committee’s hard work, which is evident from the increasing number of reports that it produces. I also acknowledge the hard work of those who have taken part in the Committee’s deliberations in the previous and current mandates, as well as its Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson. I wish to add my comments to those of Members who have commended the work that the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff in the Northern Ireland Audit Office undertook in supporting the Committee. I have heard it said that accounting officers consider an appearance before the Public Accounts Committee as their least favourite appointment of the year. I can understand why, having listened to the contributions that have been made today and having read the reports. Although it is sometimes an uncomfortable experience, it is right and proper that those responsible for spending taxpayers’ money be held accountable to the Assembly for the use of resources under their control. Scrutiny of public expenditure is in all our interests. Not only does it instil confidence in our system but it allows us to promote good practice in the management of public funds and to expose examples of the poor use of resources. It should not stop there, however. Billy Bell, who is a former Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, recognised that its role is retrospective. He said of his evidence sessions that, in many cases, the door had opened after the horse had bolted. However, although evidence sessions are a vital part of the Public Accounts Committee’s process, in that they rightly hold public servants to account, it is the Committee’s reports, which provide us with examples of good and bad practice, from which we must learn. An important part of the accountability process is the application of examples of good practice that are highlighted in the Committee’s reports, and the avoidance of examples of bad practice. My Department plays a key role in that process, and works closely with the Committee and the Audit Office. My Department seeks to help other Departments to improve their management and use of resources, and it circulates the Committee’s reports to accounting officers to promote good practice and to highlight lessons that should be applied across the public sector. An example of good practice is the Audit Office report ‘Good Governance — Effective Relationships between Departments and their Arm’s Length Bodies’ and the subsequent Committee report that Paul Maskey referred to when proposing the motion. The Audit Office highlighted several instances of good practice, and the Committee subsequently produced an excellent report with 17 recommendations, all of which were accepted. In recognition of the importance of that report and the important role of arm’s-length bodies within the public sector, my Department has created a team that is headed by a senior and experienced finance official. That team will initially work with the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure — and subsequently other Departments — to improve and embed best practice in the sponsorship and management of arm’s-length bodies. I assure the Committee that its report will feature heavily in that work. During his opening remarks at the first evidence session of the Public Accounts Committee after devolution in May 2007, the then Chairperson, John O’Dowd, said: “Our purpose is to ensure that public finances are spent wisely and properly, because those finances are limited.” Although that is indeed the role of the Committee, we are all responsible for ensuring that taxpayers’ money is used economically, efficiently and effectively, and that public services are delivered to a high standard. Since the last such debate in the House on the Committee’s reports, in January 2002, the landscape of public-service delivery — never mind the political landscape — has changed dramatically, not least through our reform agenda. That landscape will continue to change. We want to deliver modern and efficient public services for Northern Ireland and, in striving to do so, we must be innovative. If we continue to do the same things in the same ways, we will continue to get the same results — and that is not good enough. To make the progress that is required to improve our public services, our public servants must take risks and think outside the box. As Mr Hamilton said, public servants occasionally may not get it right. However, if public servants do not get it right, despite their good intentions, we should be measured in our response, rather than damning in our criticism. It is right and proper that we hold public servants to account, but we must also allow them some latitude to be innovative and to do things differently for the benefit of our public services. Therefore, I ask the Committee and the Audit Office to consider its reports and recommendations in that light. Rules and regulations are required to guide us, but they can stifle the very progress that we all desire if they become too numerous and too onerous. The Public Accounts Committee plays a vital role in the oversight of the public sector and the process of accountability, from the Northern Ireland Audit Office reports, to the evidence sessions, to the Public Accounts Committee’s reports, and, finally, to my responses through the memoranda of reply. All of those stages of the process form a very strong framework to ensure public accountability and share lessons that have been learned. My respect for the Committee and its work is not in question, but I ask it to accept that there will be times when I, and my ministerial colleagues, may not consider it appropriate to accept the recommendations that it makes in a report or to apply a control to the level of scrutiny that it suggests. In such circumstances, I shall consider my response carefully. I may not always be able to meet the Committee and, if it continues to have reservations in such situations, it may be appropriate for a matter to be considered further in the Chamber. All Members want modern and efficient public services in Northern Ireland, but the harsh reality is that public finances are tight, so we are all trying to do more with less. Therefore, further improvements in our public services must be funded, to some extent, by improvements in efficiency. Two important initiatives are helping us to do that. The first initiative is the work of the performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU) in the Department of Finance, which my predecessor established in 2007. As Members may be aware, PEDU has two main functions, the first of which is to examine the scope for Departments to deliver higher levels of cash, to tackle inefficiency and release resources for reinvestment, and to work with Departments on specific areas in order to ensure that resources deliver required outcomes. I am confident that, in the not too distant future, the fruits of that work will be seen in the form of increased efficiencies. The second main function is to achieve better financial management in the public sector. I commend the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Office for bringing financial-management issues, wherever they find them, to the fore. Virtually every decision that a public servant takes in a work context has a financial consequence. That is why a higher standard of financial management in the public sector is crucial, not just for accountants, but for all public servants. If high-quality public services that represent value for money are to be delivered, all public servants need the financial skills to do so. However, that does not mean that the employment of more accountants is all that is needed, although I am sure that we all agree that they are important. Although, in the dim and distant past, numbers may, too readily, have been left to the number crunchers, times have changed. In order to make improvements in financial management that will allow the delivery of services that taxpayers, rightly, expect, the Department seeks to embed the highest standards of effective financial management in the culture of public bodies. It must be ensured that from the accounting officer to the administrative officer, all public-sector workers are not only financially literate, but are also fully aware of the financial environment in which they operate and the responsibilities that that brings. Recently, my Department has worked with others in the public sector in order to elevate the profile of financial management. That has been done in several ways. One key element of that work has been to improve financial professionalism in public bodies. Every finance director in the 11 Departments is a qualified accountant and a member of the departmental board. I consider the development, support and encouragement of good financial-management practice in their Department to be a key role for all departmental finance directors. In parallel, the successful implementation of Account NI, a common account and financial-reporting solution for the Northern Ireland Civil Service in four — soon to be six — Departments, represents a major achievement for the Civil Service and will provide Departments and the Executive with financial information of significantly improved quality that is used to support decision-making. Every work decision has a financial consequence. It is, therefore, important that the Department strives to embed those standards throughout the entire public sector. I now want to respond to points that were made by Members during the debate, and to try to cover most of them in the time that remains. As well as the issue to which I referred, which was raised by the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee in his opening remarks, he also mentioned the Committee’s ‘First Composite Report On Issues Dealt With By Correspondence’. I was pleased to note that the Committee concluded that Departments had provided full information to support the recommendations in the reports that were the subject of its deliberations. Mr Maskey and Mr Adams referred to the Springvale educational village project. The Department for Employment and Learning’s role will be to insist that when a range of promoters co-operate on a project, all parties work in an open and transparent manner; departmental officials attend project board meetings for major or high-profile projects; and, where weaknesses are identified, departmental officials ensure that they are dealt with at an early stage. It is, therefore, absolutely vital that lessons are learned and that the Department for Employment and Learning takes forward the report’s recommendations. Mr Maskey also referred to the Committee’s report on the national fraud initiative. I want to commend the Committee for the public support that it has given to that initiative and the welcoming and positive nature of its report. The national fraud initiative is a key tool in the fight against fraud and error. It has been successful in the rest of the Untied Kingdom and is expected to be no less so in Northern Ireland. Mr Shannon raised the issue of tackling public-sector fraud generally. During the debate, he and other Members pointed out, rightly, that fraud robs us of the scarce resources that are needed to improve public services. There is already a strong anti-fraud culture in the public sector. Procedures and measures are in place that demonstrate to people who seek to defraud Government and the public that such action is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. 12.15 pm My Department will continue to work closely with others and with the Audit Office to ensure that a co-ordinated approach to fraud prevention and management is implemented across the Northern Ireland public sector. Mr Shannon also referred to the fraud in the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland (OSNI). Following that instance of fraud, all 43 internal audit recommendations were implemented by OSNI management and have been carried forward into the practice of Land and Property Services. Mr Shannon also referred to the Committee’s ‘Report on Northern Ireland’s Road Safety Strategy’. Since the publication of that report, a team has been set up within the Department of the Environment’s road safety division to prepare a new road safety strategy for publication in 2010. Mr Beggs referred to the Committee’s ‘Report on Outpatients: Missed Appointments and Cancelled Clinics’. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is taking appropriate action to ensure that all the Committee’s recommendations are fully implemented. That should ultimately lead to a shortening of waiting times for outpatient appointments, and that will be of benefit to a significant number of the people of Northern Ireland. Mr Beggs also referred to the Committee’s ‘Report into Older People and Domiciliary Care’. Again, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has made progress on the implementation of many of the Committee’s recommendations and plans to ensure full compliance with them in due course. Mr Dallat referred to the Committee’s ‘Further Report on the Use of Operating Theatres in the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services’. It is in the interests of us all that the most efficient use is made of operating theatres, and thereby a reduction in waiting lists may be achieved. The Committee has kept a watching brief on that issue. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has established key targets for both the use of operating theatres and the numbers of cancelled operations which, if achieved, will further benefit the citizens of Northern Ireland. Mr Dallat and Mr Burns referred to the Committee’s ‘Report on Use of Consultants’. That subject evokes much media coverage and comment, and I thank the Members for their comments on how we have approached that issue. It is important, because it relates to expenditure by all Departments. My Department has listened intently to the Committee and has conducted a significant amount of work to address the Committee’s concerns. Most significantly, for the financial year 2007-08 and onwards, all Departments are required to provide DFP with an annual report on their use of consultants, as Mr Dallat stated. Those reports will provide an overview of the nature and extent of consultancy expenditure for all Departments. It will allow my Department to analyse the information supplied and circulate the findings to Departments so that best practice can be shared. It will also allow my Department to address with the Department concerned any issue of non-compliance with procedures. Mr Lunn and Mr Wells referred to the Committee’s ‘Report on Northern Ireland Tourist Board – Contract to Manage the Trading Activities of Rural Cottage Holidays Limited’. One of the key issues in that report was the handling of conflicts of interest. I agree with the Committee’s central conclusion that the appropriate response to any potential conflicts of interest is that they should be identified, recorded and managed effectively. My Department will continue to ensure that the issue of conflicts of interest is given due attention in relevant training courses for public servants, and that will include specific references to the Committee’s reports where appropriate. Mr Lunn also referred to the Committee’s ‘Report on Job Evaluation in the Education and Library Boards’. I note that the Department of Education accepted the Committee’s recommendations and is implementing them. The Department has written to the chief executive designate of the education and skills authority to bring his attention to a number of the Committee’s recommendations. Mr Craig and Mr Burns referred to the Committee’s ‘Report on Social Security Benefit Fraud and Error’. The Department for Social Development’s key aim is to ensure that people who are properly entitled receive the correct benefit. From the response provided to the Committee’s report, I note that both the Department and the Social Security Agency are taking a number of steps to further minimise the incidents of fraud and error. It is absolutely vital that that matter is followed up and that we ensure that people get what they are entitled to, and that those who are not entitled to benefit do not receive it. Mr McLaughlin, Mr Wells and Mr Burns commented on ‘The Upgrade of the Belfast to Bangor Railway Line’ report; the Department for Regional Development has provided an update of the progress made on responses to the Committee’s recommendations. The update confirms that significant improvements have been made about the governance and control arrangements of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and Translink, which is welcome. Mr McLaughlin also referred to the Committee’s report, ‘The Transfer of Surplus Land in the PFI Education Pathfinder Projects’. The majority of recommendations emanating from that report were of a general nature, so my Department addressed them. After the publication of the Committee’s report and the memorandum of reply, my Department drew a number of the Committee’s recommendations to the attention of the other Departments. The key message is that, where public bodies decide to dispose of surplus assets, value for money must be clearly demonstrated as a prerequisite for DFP approval when required. I welcome Mr Wells’s joining the Committee. During his contribution, he mentioned someone whom he had met at university. When he said her name, I began to get extremely worried as to whom he was referring. [Laughter.] He said that she went to a priest to ask for forgiveness for smoking, drinking and behaving in a slovenly way, and for chasing after this, that and the other. However, he said that, after she was granted absolution, she reverted back to her bad ways. I did not think that the Civil Service had descended to those levels. I realise that Mr Wells used that only as an example of some people’s recurrent and repetitive behaviour. I welcome his remarks, and I look forward to his contribution, through the Committee, and his engagement on issues with the Department. Dawn Purvis raised some issues regarding the Hospitality Association of Northern Ireland. We all agree that proper controls must be put in place to protect public money. That should be agreed at the start of any financial relationship with a third-sector organisation to ensure the most effective balance of risk is struck between the funding body and the third-sector organisation. She also referred to the Committee’s report, ‘Northern Ireland Resource Accounts: Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Funds 2003-04–2006-07’. Since the report was published, the Child Maintenance Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, which places greater emphasis on stronger and more effective enforcement, has been enacted. I have tried to cover most of the important points that were raised during the debate. I too would have preferred if Members had been allowed more time in which speak. However, that is not a matter for the Speaker or me to address. I look forward to continued work with the Committee in the months ahead. The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee: I will not need the full 15 minutes in which to speak, because the Minster has fully summarised what Members said during the debate. It is not worth repeating those contributions. I thank all those Committee members and Assembly Members who contributed to the debate. I also thank the Minister for his contribution and response. Of the Members who spoke during the debate, 10 are Committee members. Committee membership changed recently, which is perhaps the reason that George Robinson did not contribute. He joined the Committee only recently, attending his first meeting last week. Therefore, at this stage, he is still getting to grips with the Committee’s work. I thank the Committee members for their contributions. I found the debate helpful and positive, and I look forward to building on the strong links that have already been established with the Minister’s Department. I also mention the excellent work of the Treasury officer of accounts and thank his staff, because they act as our principal contacts with DFP. Jim Shannon spoke about the Committee’s report on the road safety strategy. He brought us on the road to an interesting debate. We covered many issues, including the Committee’s report, ‘The Upgrade of the Belfast to Bangor Railway Line’, about which Mitchel McLaughlin raised considerable concerns with the Committee. That issue was highlighted on two other occasions during the debate. Thomas Burns said that there are no good-news stories in his area and that he was shocked about the issues raised in the Public Accounts Committee’s reports. I have only been on the Committee for a number of months; but as regards good-news stories, the Public Accounts Committee looks at bad practice in the past and hopes that that will be turned into the good-news story of the future. That is the importance of the Public Accounts Committee. It is our wish to turn bad-news stories and bad practice into good-news stories and good practice. We can joke about what Mr Wells said about confession — I do not know whether Jim Wells went to confession or not, but someone behind me asked what penance he would have received if he did. Maybe he could tell us at a Committee meeting. We look forward to hearing what penance he received. Mr Shannon: It is the Public Accounts Committee. The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee: Maybe that is exactly what it is — you have been landed with us instead, Jim. Simon Hamilton said that he has not gone away, and the Committee appreciates his contribution to today’s debate. Overall, today’s remarks have been very encouraging. I believe that the debate has served several purposes: the principal reason for the motion was to demonstrate to the House and reassure Members that the Public Accounts Committee is working very hard to do what it has been doing, and should be doing, on behalf of the Assembly Members. The Committee has not been found wanting when it has come to investigating instances in which public funds have not been spent as well as they could have been. Today, the House has heard how the Committee addressed difficult issues such as the use of consultants, older people and domiciliary care, and social-security fraud and error. Members have had the opportunity to comment on our performance. However, the Public Accounts Committee does not want to be seen solely as a Committee that seeks out and criticises inadequacies in the management of public expenditure — some may say that that is too easy. We want to offer positive advice through considered recommendations. I hope that the debate shows that the Public Accounts Committee’s focus is shifting towards the scrutiny of governance issues. That is the way forward as regards real effectiveness, and if lessons are learned from that, then fewer accounting officers will be coming before the Public Accounts Committee to explain why their delivery did not match their plans. On that point, I return to the Minister for Finance and Personnel’s comments about Public Accounts Committee’s reports. The Committee’s reports will not stifle the work of any Departments — the reports need to be produced, and Departments need to learn from them. Mr Adams spoke about the Springvale site, and the Minister acknowledged that there are very important issues to be learned from that report, as well as from some of the other reports. We can all learn from the reports that have been published by the Public Accounts Committee up to now. As the Minister said, we can ensure that mistakes are not repeated. In some areas, like west and north Belfast, it is too late, because the projects have already been scuppered. That is an issue which must be addressed — I look forward to that. Jim Wells asked how we go forward. I think it is important that we look at departmental progress 12 months after the publication of reports to see which recommendations they have accepted, and where that has taken us. It is important that these reports are not just left on the shelf, where nobody will take encouragement from them. It is of utmost importance that we learn from the reports, and the Public Accounts Committee will be looking to see which recommendations have been implemented by Departments. Sometimes, Members may question the effectiveness of working in Committees. However, sometimes small things show that Members do make a difference. I recently read an article in the September edition of ‘Agenda NI’ by Brian Clerkin. He wrote about the new emphasis on accountability that is now being demanded by the Public Accounts Committee. Mr Clerkin went on to write that every accounting officer, audit committee and every head of internal audit in every public body should make sure that they read all Public Accounts Committee reports and recommendations. He suggested that a nominated member of the management team should be made responsible for disseminating the key points to the relevant managers in the organisation, and that the points raised by the Public Accounts Committee should be tested against the organisation’s risk register at both corporate and operational levels. I urge Members, particularly the Minister, to read the article, bearing in mind that if those outside the public service can recognise how the reports of the Public Accounts Committee need to be used, then there can be no excuse for those inside the public service failing to do so. I hope that the witnesses who have come before the Committee have found us to be challenging but fair, and determined but understanding. Finally, I wish to say to those who will appear before the Committee in the future that we do not seek headlines through sensationalism or unfair criticism. If witnesses cannot convince us, please do not try to confuse us. I ask them to ensure that they are fully briefed, because the Committee will be. I ask them to ensure that their responses are clear and concise. If they help us to find the problems, we will help them to find the solutions. Go raibh míle maith agat. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly takes note of the Public Accounts Committee First Composite Report (03/08/09R) and of the following Committee Reports: Report on the Upgrade of the Belfast to Bangor Railway Line (1/07R) Report on Outpatients: Missed Appointments and Cancelled Clinics (01/07/08R) Report on Springvale Educational Village Project (04/07/08R) Report on Northern Ireland’s Road Safety Strategy (05/07/08R) Report on the Transfer of Surplus Land in the PFI Education Pathfinder Projects (11/07/08R) Report on Tackling Public Sector Fraud (13/07/08R) Report on Use of Consultants (16/07/08R) Report on Job Evaluation in the Education and Library Boards (18/07/08R) Report on Excess Votes (Northern Ireland) (20/07/08R) Report on Northern Ireland Resource Accounts — Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Funds 2003-04 - 2006-07 (21/07/08R) Report into Older People and Domiciliary Care (24/07/08R) Further Report on the Use of Operating Theatres in the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services (25/07/08R) Report on Social Security Benefit Fraud and Error (26/07/08R) Report on Good Governance — Effective Relationships between Departments and their Arm’s Length Bodies (28/07/08R) Report on National Fraud Initiative (33/07/08R) Report on Northern Ireland Tourist Board — Contract to Manage the Trading Activities of Rural Cottage Holidays Limited (35/07/08R) Report on Hospitality Association of Northern Ireland: A Case Study in financial management and the public appointments process (36/07/08R) and the following Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda of Reply: The Upgrade of the Belfast to Bangor Railway Line (NIA 20/07-08) Outpatients: Missed Appointments and Cancelled Clinics (NIA 63/07-08) Springvale Educational Village Project (NIA 67/07-08) Northern Ireland’s Road Safety Strategy (NIA 71/07-08) The Transfer of Surplus Land in the PFI Education Pathfinder Projects (NIA 99/07-08) Tackling Public Sector Fraud (NIA 112/07-08) Job Evaluation in the Education and Library Boards (NIA125/07-08) Use of Consultants (NIA 127/07-08) Northern Ireland Resource Accounts — Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Funds 2003-04 - 2006-07 (NIA 136/07-08) Older People and Domiciliary Care (NIA 176/08-09) The Use of Operating Theatres in the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services (NIA 187/07-08) Social Security Benefit Fraud and Error (NIA 187/07-08) Good Governance — Effective Relationships between Departments and their Arm’s Length Bodies (NIA 209/07-08) Northern Ireland Tourist Board — Contract to Manage the Trading Activities of Rural Cottage Holidays Limited (NIA 16/07-08) Hospitality Association of Northern Ireland: A Case Study in the financial management and the public appointments process. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm. |