Northern Ireland has a new power-sharing government. The 2007 elections saw the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) become Northern Ireland's largest party with 30.1% of the vote, followed by Sinn Fein with 26.2%. The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) picked up 15.2% of the vote and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) 14.9%. After decades of conflict and direct rule, Ian Paisley, the DUP's leader, and Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness took office last month as First and Deputy First Ministers.

Economics not guns

Few would argue that the political parties' position on the economy has not traditionally been at the top of the agenda for Northern Irish voters; guns, decommissioning, policing and early release of 'political' prisoners being some of the main concerns among voters. However, with the Assembly up and running and details of Gordon Brown's economic package beginning to emerge, many in the business community are now wondering where the parties stand on key economic issues.

Of particular interest is Northern Ireland's substantial infrastructure deficit and what plans the Executive may have for public-private partnerships (PPPs). Not least because it recently inherited a number of live PPP schemes, including: Workplace 2010 (the outsourcing of the civil service estate); Belfast Schools (a £500m strategic partnering scheme similar to Building Schools for the Future); and £800m worth of new hospital facilities in Enniskillen, Omagh and Belfast.

Ideology or pragmatism

In terms of political ideology, neither the DUP nor the UUP has any objection to PPPs and both support such schemes in certain circumstances – stressing the need to scrutinise each particular project on a case-by-case basis to ensure overall value for money. Sinn Fein and the SDLP, on the other hand, are opposed to PPPs and in policy terms aim to raise resources through direct taxation and deliver all public services from the public purse.

Ideology aside, however, all the parties have a pragmatic openness to finding the best way of funding much-needed improvements in public services and no one disputes that capital constraints may well dictate the need for private finance in certain sectors – as Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness found when, as
Minister for Education under the previous power-sharing government, he approved a number of PPP schemes. When, on affordability grounds, the question is PPP or nothing, the reality is that ideology sometimes has to take second place.

Shared concerns

The parties are largely united in their concerns about PPPs. Value for money and the terms of staff transfers are all key issues and mention has been made of issues surrounding the existing schemes at the Royal Victoria Hospital car park and Wellington College & Balmoral High School. No party claims to fully understand the complexities of PPPs or the various types, such as those involving no staff transfers or private finance. And all parties have expressed interest without scepticism in last year's National Audit Office statistics which showed that more than 70% of conventional schemes were late and over budget compared with around 22% of PPP schemes. Many politicians wonder why more is not being done to use this type of information to counterbalance the negative publicity on PPPs.

The Strategic Investment Board

All parties speak positively about the Strategic Investment Board's (SIB's) energy in driving matters forward, acknowledging the need for resources and expertise in the public sector.

The overriding question raised by all parties, however, is how the organisation's ability to do business will differ now that local ministers will be closer to the decision-making process. All parties perceive that the SIB's frustration at the lack of progress in certain areas has created a degree of tension within the system and feel more work is needed to bring key people along with SIB thinking into the future.

Hard work ahead

With devolution finally in place, the parties accept that there are now a lot of issues at play. Many politicians now need to make the jump from council business to Assembly business, develop further thinking on complex strategic and economic issues and work hard to address the likely left-right divide in topical issues such as water charges, where the parties disagree on whether users should be charged according to usage or earnings. The reality is that most Assembly members (including ministers) joined their respective parties because of their position on the peace process and not because they had left- or right-wing views on a range of economic issues. There is a risk, therefore, that some ministers' personal views do not necessarily sit comfortably with their party's official policy.

While there is hard work ahead, the parties all claim that working relationships are sound and point to the recent cross-party meetings on the economic package as an example of joined-up thinking. Joined-up or not, however, the DUP and Sinn Fein, as the two largest parties in the Assembly, know that they will shoulder much of the blame if Northern Ireland does not prosper.

Adrian Eakin leads L'Estrange & Brett's projects group in Belfast.