Northern Ireland Assembly, 18 December 2000

121 contributions from 37 members. The official report.

Assembly: Unparliamentary Language and Personal Statements

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

At an earlier sitting of the Assembly the First Minister asked me to clarify those situations when I rule on parliamentary language and personal statements. Decisions on parliamentary language and personal statements are made under the guidance outlined in ‘Erskine May’. It may be helpful if I outline these principles in two particular areas.

If an unsubstantiated allegation of criminal behaviour is made in the course of other comments and about another Member, I shall regard it as unparliamentary language and treat it as such. If an unsubstantiated implication of criminal or similarly disreputable behaviour is made of another Member in the course of other comments, I shall — if requested — give the Member accused a brief opportunity to reply. However, on other matters that relate to unparliamentary language and to the circumstances of personal statements we shall continue to follow the guidance outlined in ‘Erskine May’.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it not be a good thing for the House to consult Standing Orders and make provision, as in ‘Erskine May’, for a personal statement from a Member who feels aggrieved?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Several Members have pointed out that Standing Orders are not as complete as they could be. Members holding such views should draw them to my attention or to the attention of the Committee on Procedures. If they are drawn to my attention I shall notify the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, Mr Conor Murphy. If they are drawn to the attention of the Committee on Procedures directly, I trust that it will deal with them appropriately and will bring them to the House for an appropriate decision.

Use of Assembly Telephone Numbers

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I drew your attention to the fact that a member of the Ulster Unionist party had used the telephone number of the House in a newspaper article. When will you be able to make a ruling on that?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I hope to make a ruling at the start of business tomorrow at 10.30 am.

Assembly Business

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

That this Assembly suspends Standing Order 10(2) and Standing Order 10(6) for Monday 18 December 2000.

Members will be aware that today is the culmination of many months’ work on the spending allocations for 2001-02 and on the indicative allocations for the following two years. I regret the timetable that we have had to adopt and I appreciate the difficulties that it has caused many people — not least the Committees, particularly the Finance and Personnel Committee. I am determined that better timetables and procedures will apply in future.

However, on this occasion and in these circumstances it has been necessary to eat into the Christmas recess to enable this debate to take place. This may be unsatisfactory, but it seems to me that the family-friendlier option is to conclude the debate today, as the alternative is a long debate tomorrow, which would be even less welcome.

For that reason I propose that we suspend Standing Orders to allow this important debate to continue after 6.00 pm if necessary.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received no requests to speak.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly suspends Standing Order 10(2) and Standing Order 10(6) for Monday 18 December 2000.

Budget (2001-02)

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to make some brief remarks on the conduct of the motion. First, in line with the decision made by the Assembly, there will be no limit on the length of the debate, save what seems reasonable to the Speaker. I trust that the Speaker will get a sense of Members’ feelings and of the stamina of the Minister who must respond at the end of it all.

That being the case, there will not be a specific time limit on Members’ interventions. We shall debate until 1.30 pm, suspend from 1.30 pm to 2.30 pm for lunch and resume at 2.30 pm with Question Time until 4.00 pm. We shall then resume the Budget debate and continue until its completion.

I have, however, been asked by the business managers to pay particular attention to Standing Order 17(7), which states that

"The Speaker, after having called the attention of the Assembly to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, may direct the Member to discontinue his/her speech".

Much will be said in the early part of the debate. I trust that Members who wish to intervene later will stay to listen to all those who speak at the earlier stage so that their interventions are not repetitious. I shall, in deference to the House and in particular to the business managers, pay particular attention as the debate continues to Standing Order 17(7).

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the programme of expenditure proposals for 2001-02 as set out in the Budget laid before the Assembly on 12 December 2000.

Today the Assembly will vote for the first time on a budget as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. Guided by the Programme for Government, the Executive have agreed their programme of expenditure proposals for 2001-02 and have made some revisions as a result of scrutiny by the Assembly and its Committees. We had less time for the procedure than we wished, but now is the time to take the next important step. It is my privilege, on behalf of the Executive, to ask the Assembly to approve the proposals that I introduced last week.

Approving the Budget is one of the Assembly’s most important responsibilities. It is essential that, after mature debate, we discharge that responsibility on behalf of all our people. This will be our biggest step in moving away from the patterns that we inherited a year ago. From today we shall be setting a new direction and providing resources for public services under the guidance and management of the new institutions; services that will be guided by our programmes and priorities and not by anyone else’s.

The Executive have set out their objectives in the draft Programme for Government, and the Budget allocations have been framed with these objectives in mind. We intend to make a difference, and this Budget will make that difference to the lives of thousands of our people. We have made extensive provision for the key services upon which we all depend. We have available a total increase in spending that allows for likely inflation of 5%. That is a real opportunity to do more and to make real improvements.

I am determined to avoid hype today because I recognise that we must deal with spending issues realistically. We must, however, make the most of the significant additional money that we have to spend, comparing this year with next. I can cite a few examples of how we intend to make the most of that money. We have made significant new provision for student support and for the introduction of free travel for the elderly. We have made provision for safer railways and new trains — at last. As a result of the spending plans more money will be spent on the Health Service to tackle pressing needs and problems. We are investing more in our schools and further education colleges, in buildings and, more importantly, in staff, because it is our priority to raise standards in education. There are significant increases in the budgets for agriculture, the environment and social development. These will fulfil the needs of key services and will also provide significant employment; they will help too in delivering these services. The Executive’s proposals are designed to make improvements in all spending programmes.

We have also struck out in new directions, most visibly through the creation of the five Executive programme funds. It has been argued that these funds have merely delayed the allocation of money to Departments. That is to miss the point. We are determined to break with the past practice of paying lip service to co-operation between Departments. The funds will play a key role in ensuring genuine co-operation.

Every budget must strike a balance between the desirable and the affordable, and the Executive have worked hard to achieve such a balance. A significant real increase in spending will enable us to provide many positive measures and to make some inroads into our inherited problems. However, our needs are so extensive that we cannot deal with all the problems and backlogs at once. The Executive formed a judgement on this balance. We believe that it achieves funding for some key actions that we regard as priorities and that it offers good provision for all the key services for which the Assembly is responsible.

Last year I said that setting a budget would entail change for us all. We would no longer be advocates for one issue, or for one issue at a time, but would have to judge all the issues. That is clear from today’s discussion.

I am pleased to tell the Assembly that Commissioner Barnier has today signed the European Union community support framework. That is another important step towards completing work on the new programmes. We are very grateful to the European Union for the special support that it has provided. The Peace II programme is a unique and tangible commitment by the European Union to underpin the Good Friday Agreement.

When I introduced the draft Budget in October I promised that the Executive would listen carefully to the points that emerged from the scrutiny of these proposals in the Assembly and in the wider community. The revised Budget is proof that this promise has been kept. We have strengthened spending in many important areas. Of course, we have not been able to do everything that was asked — there are simply insufficient resources for that. Nor must we imagine that new services come without cost. If we wish to do more we must will the means to do more. That is why the Executive have kept the proposed increase in the regional rate, unpopular though that may be. Many Members have said repeatedly that we face hard choices, and this is one from which the Executive have not shied. Raising extra money from the regional rate — from those who can afford to contribute to our services — is necessary to deliver the improvements in public services that we all need and want.

I look forward to a vigorous, but responsible, debate on the Budget. That is what the voters who sent us here want and what democracy demands. When the allocations have been set, key procedures of the Executive and the Assembly for controlling spending will be brought into operation. They are designed to ensure that the money is used as effectively as possible.

I want to stress again how strongly we are determined to achieve progress by working with the relevant Committees and by taking account of all the points raised by Members. Mr Speaker, I commend this Budget to the Assembly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Two amendments have been chosen and are on the Marshalled List. We shall now take the first amendment.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move the following amendment: At the end, add

"subject to a reduction of expenditure, as necessary, on the following spending areas —

North/South Body: Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights

North/South Body: Languages

North/South Body: Waterways Ireland

North/South Body: Trade and Business Development

North/South Body: Special EU Programmes

North/South Body: Food Safety Promotion

Tourism Company

North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat

Civic Forum —

in order to reduce the increase in the regional rate from 8% to the current level of inflation".

Mr Peter Robinson and I move the amendment on behalf of our party.

I listened very carefully — as did, I am sure, all Members — to the Minister’s latest statement; I have listened carefully in recent weeks to several of his statements in the House and in Committees. We are all agreed, as no doubt are all those who have seen the Finance and Personnel Committee’s report on the Budget process, that we have not been given enough time.

This must be corrected. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that in future (if the Assembly has a future) more time will be devoted to this important aspect of expenditure and government. It is unacceptable that Members should be presented with over £6 billion of expenditure in important areas in all Departments and be expected to deliberate, consult and decide on it in so short a time.

We complained in the past about direct rule Ministers’ lack of consultation. In future, it will be unacceptable for the Minister to introduce budgets in the same way as this year’s and for the reasons that he gave.

I urge the Minister to do what he can in conjunction with Her Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that the calculation of the Barnett formula is changed. I know that he is considering this and that there is a problem with how the Barnett formula is calculated — it does not meet the needs of this part of the United Kingdom. An adjustment to it would help to provide extra expenditure to meet many of the needs identified by the various Assembly Committees.

Departmental running costs are highlighted in the Finance and Personnel Committee’s report. The Minister will be aware that the Confederation of British Industry and Assembly Members have highlighted the large increases in departmental running costs between 2000-01 and 2001-02. This increase in bureaucracy and administration could be pruned to ensure that more money is spent on capital and on delivering services.

I hope that this issue will be dealt with in future and I am confident that, without even waiting until next year, some Ministers are already looking for ways to prune expenditure so that services can be improved. Of course, we must bear in mind that there has been an increase in administration under this system of government, and the Minister drew the Committee’s attention to this. The need to increase the number of Departments from six to 10 has resulted in departmental running costs of £26·1 million for this financial year and the same again for next year. Over £52 million is being spent simply to accommodate 10 Departments rather than six. At the time, many of us pointed out that some of the departmental divisions were not being made for practical, pragmatic reasons but rather to ensure that there were enough jobs for the boys and girls and to cover the various party political considerations.

This £52 million of taxpayers’ money, which could have been spent on delivering services, is being spent on administration, bureaucracy and red tape. Over a year and a half ago, leading members of the Ulster Unionist Party promised us that reduced spending on quangos and on other public bodies would create enormous savings that would compensate for the increased expenditure on administration. We have yet to see those enormous savings.

A review of public administration and of Departments has been announced. However, that announcement was not made to the House. We have no details of what the review will comprise, because, despite repeated requests, the Minister has never told the House what implications it will have. We learned of it in newspaper reports and at press conferences, but Members have yet to hear details of the review so that it can be subject to questions and debate. The sooner that is done the better.

I shall now deal with the subject matter of our amendment. Throughout the questions after the Minister presented the Budget, after he presented the revised Budget, and again during the debate on the Budget itself, we heard heated argument. The Minister has clearly heard the widespread concern in the community — concern that has been echoed in the House — at the scale of the increase in the regional rate proposed by him and by the Executive.

I note that Sinn Féin is also to move an amendment to reduce the regional rate. I am very interested to know whether Sinn Féin agreed to the increase in the regional rate and to the allocation to the Executive programme funds when these were being debated in the Executive. We did not. We come to this House with clean hands, so we have every right to move such an amendment. However, I want to hear from the Minister exactly where Sinn Féin stands on the issue.

The rates issue proves that the notion of collective responsibility in this system of government is what we have always said it is — a notion. It does not exist. Every Minister does his or her own thing, and if anyone needs more evidence of that let him look at today’s proceedings on a key issue of government. We heard from the Minister that the Budget is a milestone, a major step forward for the Assembly. Nevertheless, one of the parties in the Executive is to move an amendment to change fundamentally the Budget that it agreed with the other members of the Executive. Other parties certainly have some explaining to do when they attack us. After all, we do not go to the Executive; our hands are clean on this.

The Minister said that the fact that his promises had been kept was proof that he had listened very carefully to Members. He also said that these are our priorities and no one else’s. Clearly, he takes full responsibility for the 8% rise in the regional rate. The parties that support him on this also take full responsibility. Responsibility for that decision lies with no one else.

Last year the Minister said that he had decided to roll forward the uplift of 8% in the domestic regional rate that was assumed in the 1998 comprehensive spending review. At that time, it was generally accepted that there was very little time available and very little room for introducing radical change into any aspect of the Budget. For that reason, the Budget went through an accelerated procedure without any amendments being made to inherited policy. However, it was strongly suggested that in this financial year there would be an opportunity to make changes. In fact, on 17 October Mr Durkan reminded the House that his proposals were

"not a set of hand-me-down Budget proposals simply rolling forward the plans inherited from the period of direct rule".

That may be largely true, but not with regard to the regional rate. The 8% increase is precisely the increase that direct rule Ministers had planned; and precisely the increase that was implemented by direct rule Ministers in the previous two years.

These increases were bitterly criticised by many elected representatives, especially those in local councils throughout the Province, who have struggled to keep the district rate increases as close as possible to the rate of inflation. They saw their hard work cast aside when direct rule Ministers imposed swingeing increases far above the rate of inflation. Nonetheless, the Minister and the parties that support him in the Executive are introducing another swingeing increase that will add enormously to ratepayers’ household bills.

Rates apply to all whether they are on high, middle or low incomes; rates are not a progressive form of taxation. People who are struggling to make ends meet and people who are working to earn an income for their families will be hit year after year with massive increases in their rates bills. We have had these increases for the last two years. On page 3, paragraph 1.9 of the Budget statement one finds that this is not the end of the story. The Minister says that the spending proposals in the draft Budget require the domestic regional rate to be increased by 8% and the non-domestic regional rate by 6·6% in 2001-02. The Executive have confirmed these proposals for 2001-02, and I am interested to know whether all members of the Executive were in agreement, given Sinn Féin’s amendment.

The spending plans should make people across Northern Ireland sit up and take notice. For years we are to have an increase of 8%. For 2001-02 it is proposed to have an increase at more than twice the rate of inflation; and the spending plans for 2002-03 and 2003-04 require the domestic regional rate to be increased by — guess what? — 8% and the non-domestic regional rate by 5·5% in both years. If Mr Durkan and those parties that support him in the Executive have their way, ratepayers in Northern Ireland, whether they are on high, middle or low incomes, will face a rates increase of 8% every year for five years.

Is this acceptable? We recently had a debate in the House on increases in electricity prices, after Northern Ireland Electricity imposed an increase of 8%. Outrage, concern and alarm were expressed on all sides of the House at this increase, as it will result in consumers in Northern Ireland paying the highest electricity prices not just in the United Kingdom but in Europe. Nevertheless, the Minister comes here today on behalf of those parties that support him in the Executive to lay before the House a proposal that would increase the regional rate by an inflation-busting 8%. This is on top of what has already been done — and there are more plans in the pipeline.

This is simply unacceptable. Numerous studies have shown that people in Northern Ireland are generally less well off than people in other parts of the United Kingdom and that the gross weekly income in Northern Ireland is £100 less than the UK average. I did not hear that argument from the Minister. His only justification was that the proposed expenditure cannot be maintained if we do not set the rates increase at 8%.

That goes without saying. However, the question remains: why has he picked 8%? Is it a coincidence that that figure was proposed and implemented by direct rule Ministers? No doubt the Minister will argue that we are slightly better off than council taxpayers across the water. However, I have already pointed out that we in Northern Ireland pay disproportionately higher costs for many services and essential goods than people in the rest of the United Kingdom do.

Let us look at other issues. Northern Irish people pay more for fuel and transport than those in the rest of the UK and in the South, yet the Minister wants to add a massive increase in the regional rate to that burden. He is to some extent correct in saying that if we were to stick to the expenditure proposals in his Budget, he would have to increase the regional rate by 8%. Our amendment suggests a way in which he could obtain the necessary finance. In correspondence with the Finance and Personnel Committee, officials explained that if the increase in the regional rate were kept at 4%, revenue would be reduced by £8·9 million. If the increase were 6%, revenue would be reduced by £4·4 million. We have calculated that at a rate of inflation of 2·9% we would have to find approximately £12 million to reduce the increase in the regional rate from the proposed inflation-busting 8% to what I regard as a reasonable rate of increase — the rate of inflation.

Therefore we suggest that this money can be found by looking at the expenditure for the all-Ireland political dimension contained in Mr Durkan’s Budget. The increases outlined in his Budget are quite significant. For instance, the increase for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is from £400,000 to £600,000, an increase of almost 50%. The increase for the North/South language body is from £2·2 million to over £3·5 million, an increase of over 50%. Expenditure for Waterways Ireland rises from £1·3 million to £2·6 million, an increase of exactly 100%. Some £2·9 million is being spent on the trade and business development body, which was not originally included in the list of North/South implementation bodies. The money for the special EU programmes body rises from £300,000 to £600,000, an increase of 100%. Expenditure for the Food Safety Promotion Board rises by 50%, from £1 million to £1·5 million. In all, the total is £11·7 million.

Tourism, which was included by the Department and by the Minister in the list of North/South implementation bodies last year, has for some reason been omitted from this year’s list. Perhaps because its expenditure has risen from £0·5 million to £5·8 million. Therefore total expenditure when the secretariat costs of the North/South Ministerial Council have been included — and they come to well over £600,000 — approaches £20 million.

If the costs of the Civic Forum and the various other items designed to promote the political agenda of the Belfast Agreement are added, one can see where savings could be made. We have heard eloquent speeches from Members who believe that the regional rate should be reduced. Despite their eloquence, passion and argument, however, they failed to move an amendment. No doubt they will be pleased to support this amendment. I do not look in any particular direction when I say that, although I do look forward to hearing Mr Close.

In an attempt to pre-empt this argument, Mr Durkan said last week that none of the expenditure on North/South bodies and on the all-Ireland political dimension is new spending; that some of it had already occurred. I see that the First Minister has suddenly sprung to life and is nodding vigorously. Our amendment states that the expenditure should be taken from these bodies and put back into the pockets of Northern Ireland’s ratepayers. Essential work that is already under way should continue. That will be a matter for consideration for the Minister and for the Executive. However, if the Minister is trying to tell us that this will end work that is already going on, he is not speaking with any validity. Our amendment allows that necessary work to continue, while stripping away an all-Ireland dimension that was designed to promote a political agenda.

I am sure that the Minister — as the First Minster and others have tried to do — will say that in a budget of £6 billion the amount of money that we are discussing is very small; that it does not amount to much. They dismiss it as almost trivial. However, when we look for extra money to pay for essential services in various Departments we are told that hardly another penny can be squeezed out of the system. I remind the House that for every £1 million spent on advancing the all-Ireland political dimension of the Belfast Agreement, less money is returned to people through reductions in the regional rate. For every £1 million spent there are 200 fewer heart operations in Northern Ireland; 25 fewer homes built for the homeless; 300 fewer people with central heating in their homes; and 1,000 fewer adaptations are carried out in homes so that people with disabilities can live comfortably in the community. That is what we get for every £1 million. Think what the statistics would be if that were multiplied by the almost £20 million being spent to advance the political agenda of the all-Ireland "North/Southery" of the Belfast Agreement.

Others will want, no doubt, to add to and comment on what I have said. However, I want to commend this amendment to the House. Other aspects of the Budget concern us, and we shall raise them later in the debate. Members who genuinely desire to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are not penalised on top of the already high fuel and transport costs and the high and rising electricity and food costs can say to them today "We shall not penalise you further by raising your rates above the rate of inflation". Join with us in the Democratic Unionist Party in voting to have those rates reduced and in putting a stop to the North/South all-Ireland aspect of this Budget.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move the following amendment: At the end, add

"subject to a reduction of expenditure, as necessary, in the Executive programme funds to reduce the increase in the regional rate from 8% to the current level of inflation".

Nigel Dodds claimed that his party’s hands were clean; the truth is that its hands are wringing wet. Of course the DUP members of the Executive do not take their seats. However, after their Ministers have tried to get what they need for their Departments — and rightly so, for they represent everyone in the region not just their own party support — their Colleagues come here to attack everyone else. The Member for North Belfast, Mr Dodds, made a blatantly political speech that had nothing to do with the Budget, concentrating instead on the North/South Ministerial Council. That is a matter for the DUP, but I hope that this will expose the truth to everyone.

The DUP said nothing constructive. It says that we should remove everything from the North/South Ministerial Council, offering all the old chestnuts about cutting back on Government expenditure. However, it fails to suggest anything that might pass for a reasonable proposal. There is no acknowledgement that their Departments made considerable bids for funding for other projects; bids that they were unable to secure.

I move the amendment reluctantly, and it is with even greater reluctance that I suggest that the money be taken from the Executive programme funds. We regard it as a one-off means — for this year only — of reducing the rates increase. We are conscious that every Department made considerable bids for funding for much needed programmes that would benefit the whole community. We see the Executive programme funds as a means of drawing off money that has not yet been committed. I acknowledge that we could overload the programme funds so I move the amendment with great reluctance and stress that the measure should be for this year only.

The Minister readily acknowledged that circumstances beyond our control have ensured once again that we have only a relatively short time in which to scrutinise the Budget. My party appreciates the efforts of all the Ministers who have grappled daily with their departmental responsibilities while seeking to work together for the benefit of all Departments and all citizens. That important achievement should be welcomed.

I shall answer the question put by Nigel Dodds. My Colleagues were prepared to support the Budget in its entirety, including the rates increase; Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún were very supportive of the whole Budget. However, after wider consultation and consideration, our party finds itself unable to support an increase above the rate of inflation; that is reasonable. Despite the DUP’s jibes, the Executive will not collapse because the parties that worked on the Budget have differences of opinion. I must therefore disappoint the DUP: any party in the Executive can hold a position that is contrary to that of others without causing a collapse.

Last week I welcomed the statement from the Minister of Finance and Personnel. He identified the consistent underfunding and neglect on the part of previous Administrations. British Ministers, who had no mandate here, flew in and out, setting Budgets unaccountably and producing inadequate and often discriminatory funding packages. Last week the Minister acknowledged the problem caused by deficient spending over the years and the inadequacy of the Barnett formula. I welcomed his comments; they once again made it clear that the Executive must vigorously pursue the question of how we are funded under the Barnett formula.

Members who have worked on councils will understand why the regional rate increase was inserted into the Budget: it was an attempt to match all Departments’ funding demands. However, after consideration, it is our view that such an increase would be an unfair burden on some sectors in the community, particularly the retail sector. There is no doubt that the massive hike in the rates in recent years has been very damaging to small businesses. That is why we do not want to support a rates increase above the rate of inflation this year.

We take the view that such an increase conflicts with the commitments that many of us have, including all the members of the Executive, to support the arterial routes, small villages, rural communities and small businesses. We must remind ourselves that the Minister has already committed himself to conducting a further rates review. This move would be precipitous at present and damaging to small businesses.

We move the amendment reluctantly. We want to acknowledge publicly the Trojan efforts of Executive Ministers — those of them who work together — in squaring the circle of meeting funding demands. We all appreciate that it has been a very difficult task. In that spirit, I want to move the amendment.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It may be of some assistance to the House if I remind Members that under section 64(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 votes on the draft Budget require cross-community support. I simply draw that to the attention of the House.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s statement and praise the work that he has done in very difficult circumstances. We all know that it is the Minister that carries the can for the Budget when all is said and done. It is the Executive’s Budget — not just the Minister’s. There may be parts of it with which he disagrees.

The Minister has been very open with the Finance and Personnel Committee on all its requests for information. He is committed to ensuring that the Budget is representative of and committed to the various Departments; and to ensuring that it reflects as far as possible the views of the Finance and Personnel Committee. The Minister serves two Committees — the Executive Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee — and that must be difficult, particularly if he also has his own views.

The Finance and Personnel Committee sought views from all the departmental Committees on the provision for their respective Departments. All but two of them responded. It is important to say that there is collective responsibility on departmental Committees to work together in scrutinising the Budget in every possible way and in ensuring that the Finance and Personnel Committee produces a full report to advise the Minister.

The Finance and Personnel Committee arranged the substantive Budget debate, held on 14 November, during which Members had full opportunity to raise concerns about the allocations in the Budget proposals. After the debate, the Committee produced a report that summarised the written responses and the Budget debate. The report was passed to the Minister of Finance and Personnel on Friday 24 November, and a published version was available to Members a week later.

The report recommended that the Programme for Government and the Budget proposals should be among the first items of business brought to the Assembly by the Executive after the summer recess. This is important. Everybody has complained about not having had enough time to deal with the Budget or to scrutinise it properly. To rectify that, the programme should be introduced immediately after the summer recess. The Minister has acknowledged that this will be the target to work towards in future, and it is important that we reach that target.

An assessment of needs should be undertaken as a first step in demonstrating that the current application of the Barnett formula is inappropriate and unsuited to the special circumstances here. The Minister acknowledged last week that the Barnett formula does not target the social need that we are trying to deal with. It is not appropriate here. However, as he warned, it is also dangerous to throw the baby out with the bath water. We must look at what may be possible in the future and, to that end, the Finance and Personnel Committee asks the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Executive and the Assembly to develop a strategy to review the Barnett formula. It is not "the Barnett formula or nothing". There must be a mechanism. We would like to join with the Executive and with the other Committees to develop a strategy whereby we can approach the British Exchequer to ensure that we get a proper appropriation.

The Department should commission an urgent review of the structure and staffing of all Departments and the bodies for which they are responsible in order to achieve maximum efficiency in delivering public services in 2001-02. Although he did not fully commit himself, the Minister did respond. However, the restrictions on Departments and on budgets are essential to ensure that every penny of public money is used to maximum advantage. We ask for reassurance that the question of efficiency across all public services will be dealt with urgently.

The Minister should assess the departmental financial allocations in order to take full account of the objectives contained in the Programme for Government. Ministers consider the objectives, the requirements of new TSN and public safety to be of the utmost importance.

There will be a warm welcome for the additional money that the Minister put forward last week. Whoever delivers a Budget always says that no more money is available. However, we saw last week that more moneys were available. An extra £40 million was found through a review of how the Government deal with VAT returns. That review increased our spending power by £20 million. That must be welcomed, because several Departments benefited. There was an extra £7 million for health, £2 million for agriculture, £2 million for housing, £2 million for roads, and £1·3 million for education.

We must ensure that European funding is additional to the Budget, although there was a response with regard to additionality.

Every Department needs more money, and I am sure that none of the Committees will say that it has achieved all that it wanted. However, it is a major step forward, and we look forward to considering all of this again.

The Finance and Personnel Committee did not adopt a position with regard to the 8% regional rate rise. Had a vote been taken during the meetings and discussions, the Committee would have opposed the rise. It is important to note that.

All Departments should consult their Committees during the spring and early summer before finalising their budgetary requirements and submitting them for the consideration of the Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is important that all Ministers relate to their Committees to ensure inclusive discussions so that the Budget reflects as far as possible the requirements of Committees and Ministers. Ministers should regard Committees as a support, and Committees must be aware of what their Ministers demand from the Executive and must support them in those demands.

Those are the Committees’ concerns; Members may raise others. In a personal and political role and speaking as a party member and as a constituency representative, I feel that it is important to recognise the work done by the Minister.

It is a pity that the Assembly’s first Budget contains a proposal to raise the domestic regional rate by 8% and the non-domestic rate by 6·6%. The rates are an unfair system of taxation. A taxation system should be called a tax and not simply put on the rates. The rating system is a blunt instrument for collecting tax, because it hits households. It becomes a poll tax. We remember the poll tax campaign in England. Young people were forced off the electoral register because parents were losing housing benefit, and various structures had to be put in place to counteract that. The rates should be viewed as another poll tax that damages the whole community. We want young people to be involved in political structures: forcing them off the register will not encourage them.

The blunt nature of the rating system means that households are targeted rather than individuals. At least taxation across the board means that although taxpayers must pay a higher rate of tax, they can do so because they are earning. The Minister said that the rates rise would be directed at those who can afford to pay, but that is not the case. Many on the breadline will be pushed one way or another, and the rates rise will drive many small shops out of business. In some small towns and villages the rise in rates will lead to the closure of rural businesses. That is particularly important given the state of agriculture. The Executive and the Minister of Agriculture have told the House that a rural approach is needed. The situation will not be helped if small rural businesses close. In future, many households, particularly in rural areas, will be deprived. The rates rise will add to already high expenses.

The Minister will say that rates are lower here than in England, Scotland and Wales. However, the rates, especially the council rate, are different here because the situation is completely different. Councils in England, Scotland and Wales provide a full range of services; in some cases more services than the Assembly does. He is not comparing like with like.

I am sure that we shall be asked where the money will come from if the rates are not raised. As I said earlier, the VAT review has put an extra £40 million into the coffers. Even with last week’s additions, there is a difference of over £20 million. The amendment moved in the name of Mr Alex Maskey identifies that very clearly. Last week, an additional £9 million was put into the Executive programme funds. That, and the moneys in the Executive fund that have not been allocated to a Department, could be used to alleviate the rise in rates. We do not want to wipe the rates out; we merely want keep them in line with inflation.

Some Members have already covered part of the 8% rise in the regional rate that will raise an additional £12 million. The Executive have made too much of this figure and of raising the rates in this manner. The rating system is a blunt instrument for collecting taxes, and it should be re-examined. We do not have a balance sheet that sets out the consequences of not doing it or that explains why the domestic rates are rising by 8% and the non-domestic rates by 6·6%. We are told that this will also apply next year. Another 8% rise in the rates in twelve months’ time will cripple rural communities. We must look at that.

We are also asking those who were deprived of services and facilities in the past to pay again. The British exchequer underfunded infrastructure here for years. Those who were deprived, especially those west of the Bann who have no hospitals, services or infrastructure, are being asked to pay an 8% rise along with everyone else. We are punishing those who were punished in the past, and that is unfair.

We need a strategy for dealing with the Barnett formula. It is simply not good enough to say that the Barnett formula does not work and that we must deal with it. We need a strategy developed by the Executive, the Assembly and its Members to lobby the British Exchequer to ensure that more money is available.

First, we must lobby the British Exchequer for the peace money that we were promised would come from reductions in spending on security, the military and on policing. All that money should be available for other services. For years we were told that that was depriving people of services. The British Exchequer must turn the war chest into a "peace chest" to ensure that this money reaches the right places.

The Irish Government must pay towards their aspirations, because it is important — this is, after all, a transition period — to ask the Irish Government to pay into the Exchequer so that the Assembly receives money from them.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

Given that the Member’s party seems to have a direct line to the Irish Government, I wonder whether that suggestion has been made to them. How did they react when he suggested that they should "pay towards their aspirations"?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle, my party has put the point several times, and the Irish Government have responded. They have funded projects here that the British Government failed to pay for — for instance, Irish-medium schools and various cultural events that the British Government and the Unionist Party failed to recognise.

We should certainly ask the Irish Government to spread the Celtic Tiger right across the 32 counties of Ireland. Let them follow aspirations with commitment and finance. We shall certainly push that.

I shall deal with some of the specific issues and, for a moment, be a bit more parochial. Although the increase in money to the various Departments is welcome, more is needed. There should be an allocation for the acute services review, for instance. The review may shock us all by trying to reverse the imbalance in the hospital service between east and west of the Bann. If the South Tyrone Hospital is to reopen as an acute hospital, money will be needed. But from where? We must ensure that that happens.

If the acute services review is simply a whitewash it will have been a waste of time and money. I would like to see money allocated in the Budget. The British Government should be asked to pay. For years the Conservative Government — propped up by the Unionist Party — made cuts, closed hospitals and reduced services. It is now time for payback, and the British Government should correct the imbalance of the past to ensure that they live up to their commitments.

The same holds for infrastructure, for rail and road services east and west of the Bann and for agriculture. We must ensure that there are services for rural communities. We must pay for those services, but we must also see a rebalancing of the finances that have been going east rather than west of the Bann in recent years.

We are candid in saying that the British Government must invest here to correct that imbalance. Their past neglect caused it, and through investment they must ensure that it never happens again. Go raibh maith agat.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

It is worth reiterating that this is an historic occasion. It is the first Budget and the first Programme for Government for Northern Ireland and by Northern Ireland people in almost three decades. In forming any Budget there is a danger that departmental inertia and political expediency will mean that we just roll forward existing allocations willy-nilly.

That said, this Budget contains valuable innovations and has resisted the danger of inertia and expediency. Three main innovations are to be welcomed. First, the Executive programme funds will ensure that our assent to the principle of joined-up Government is not nominal.

For the first time, public service agreements will be applied from London to public expenditure in Northern Ireland. Properly applied and scrutinised, they should ensure value for money. Today we are simply discussing cash inputs, but ultimately the public values what that money pays for and the good services that it delivers.

The third innovation in the Budget is solid investment in areas that could be foundations for future economic growth and social progress. Therefore I wish to return to the extra provision in last week’s statement and in the statement of the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment last Friday regarding student support. This is the first time that Members have been able to consider those provisions in detail.

The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee welcomes them as a good start to a continuing process of reform. Let us be clear about the central problem of student support. Lower-income social classes in Northern Ireland are approximately three fifths of the adult population; but they constitute barely a quarter of students in higher education. We must ensure that people of genuine ability do not miss out on a good education and on the chance of developing their potential because their families cannot afford to maintain them in further or higher education.

Nevertheless, there are many benefits in the extra support for students. Last week’s package goes some way towards the proposals in the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee’s report on the subject. It is hoped that there will be some grants, some removal of student tuition fees and some additional university and further education places in Northern Ireland. That may be seen as a clever piece of social inclusion.

There is still room in the Budget, as money becomes available through in-year monitoring, for necessary social inclusion spending from other Departments to help other socially disadvantaged groups apart from students. As ever, the devil will be in the detail of the students’ support package. The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee welcomes the ending of tuition fees for some further education courses — especially those dealing with perceived skills shortages — the Minister’s proposals may be open to challenge down the line owing to the perceived inequity and selectivity of support.

I agree with Dr Farren that skills shortages are an important, cross-cutting matter that should be dealt with. They will have implications for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, among others. Innovative policy should not be restrained by a straightjacket of excessive equality regulations. At the same time, since that Department has hitherto made so much of equality proofing, there is a danger of its being hoist by its own petard.

Last week the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment decided that the principle of tuition fees should be retained. I understand the logic of his argument. Nevertheless, there is solid evidence from England that the fees that students in higher and further education must pay may deter those from low-income backgrounds from studying. If the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment intends to keep fees for students from a higher income background, it should improve the information available so that it is clear that less than half of students will be paying part or full fees.

Unfortunately, the House may have to return to the question of tuition fees in further and higher education in two or three years’ time. After the next general election the new Government may back the Russell Group proposal by the perceived elite of English and Scottish universities that we move towards the American system of very high top-up fees for university students.

We shall cross that bridge if we come to it. For the time being, however, the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment proposals are a good start. They would give Northern Ireland a system of student support superior to England’s — particularly in further education — although probably less developed than the support available in Scotland. We do not yet know what will happen in Wales.

At least we can be satisfied that, in this area, devolution is making a valuable difference for all the people of Northern Ireland. I therefore support the motion and reject the two amendments.

Mr Maskey and Mr Molloy commented on the rates burden on business. We should be thankful that this could be evidence that Sinn Féin is at last throwing off Marx — Karl, not Groucho — and that there is evidence of a conversion towards the enterprise culture. That should be applauded.

With regard to the DUP’s amendment, it is of note that the six North/South implementation bodies employ about 300 people in Northern Ireland: more than 20,000 are employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That puts the implementation bodies into perspective. Most of those 300 people have been transferred from existing departmental activities. These activities would have happened anyway, and we would still have had to pay for them. Among these activities are the maintenance of canals and river banks and the upkeep of lighthouses. Those instances of all-Ireland co-operation date back to the 1950s for canals and to the 1890s for lighthouses. That is hardly a formidable challenge to United Kingdom sovereignty. Of course, some Members regard Lord Brookeborough or the British Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, as infamous Lundys. I support the motion.

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

There is much to be commended in the Budget proposals. The Minister has shown insight and fairness in dealing with the difficult task of allocating funds to areas of need and social deprivation. I hope, as the Minister said, that we are at the start of a journey to redress the underfunding that is the legacy of the direct rule years and to set realistic targets to redress the balance and to target social need.

It is very easy to advocate change when in opposition; it is not so easy, however, when one is in government. It is absurd for those who say that they want change and who are most vocal about the Executive programme now to oppose the mechanisms for change in the Budget. This is an Executive Budget, agreed collectively and implemented cross-departmentally. I appreciate that the Budget is not perfect, because needs will always outstrip the resources available. Nevertheless, the additional money available to schools, hospitals and agriculture is a testament to our intention to begin the process of change.

I am also sure that our senior citizens are grateful for the increased provision for free transport. Do those who object to the increase in the rates want to see a reduction at the expense of the most marginalised sections of our population?

The proposed overhaul of student finance cannot happen without additional funds. The proposals have already received support from Queen’s University Students’ Union, the University of Ulster and the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education. Queen’s University Students’ Union has stated its belief that Dr Farren has taken the first step towards striking the right balance. As a result of the changes almost three out of five students in higher education will pay no fees. The proposals must be seen for what they are — a positive move towards a more equitable distribution of funds that will promote wider access to education.

The promotion of interdepartmental co-ordination in dealing with various issues, particularly those affecting people with disabilities, is one of the most positive measures. It offers a more concerted way to alleviate difficulties and to promote the social inclusion of one of the most disadvantaged sections of our population. We should aim at providing better access to services and facilities for the disabled to bring it into line with the access enjoyed by the rest of society. The combined effort across Departments will improve access for people with disabilities to culture and leisure facilities and to social and work activities. That is a positive move towards inclusion.

An additional £1·3 million —7·2% — has been made available to education for 2001-02. The allocation for Northern Ireland, as for Scotland and Wales, is calculated using the Barnett formula, and the money goes into the block grant. The Barnett formula, which is based on population, awards only 3·3%. That is a shortfall of £7 million compared to the extra funds allocated in England. I hope that the Barnett formula will be revised to ensure that the allocation of funding comes into line with that in England.

The House is aware of the dreadful condition of schools. I welcome the extra moneys allocated to the improvement of schools, but it is only a drop in the ocean. It will take substantial investment to bring our schools — particularly our rural schools — up to modern standards. I hope that the Department will use some of the extra money for special needs provision and to improve literacy and numeracy, especially in schools in disadvantaged areas.

The targets defined in the Programme for Government must be regularly reviewed, and we must ensure that they are achievable. However, we cannot do anything without the adequate funding that will enable us to solve our problems. Funding for education is an investment in our future, and we must invest now, not merely to stop the system from deteriorating further but to develop a comprehensive and inclusive education system that will bring great benefits to our society now and in future.

The Budget is not perfect, but, as Dr Birnie said, we have, for the first time in three decades, the opportunity to make significant grass roots change in many disadvantaged areas. We should not remove additional funding that has already been allocated. If we did we would have to say to those who deserve help most "Sorry, but we cannot do any more for you". Therefore I support the motion, not the amendments.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is difficult for the Minister to take account of the competing demands from Ministers and of the views of the Assembly Committees and still put forward a universally acceptable Budget. The Minister has allocated funds to Departments fairly and equitably based on the needs of the community rather than on the wants of Ministers.

The Barnett formula has already been referred to, as has the subvention to Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom Exchequer. The House recognises that there must be a revision. Can the Minister tell us what type of revision is being sought and how it would be fairer to this part of the United Kingdom? Is there a strategy to allow us all to pursue a common goal?

At this stage it is worth pointing out that as the Budget flows from the Programme for Government it is necessary to express some disappointment in that Programme for Government. I know that Ministers will not have had much opportunity to acquaint themselves with all the minutiae of their Departments or to start thinking about how things could be done differently. There was not much new in the Programme for Government, and some innovation is required to put the Ulster thumbprint on the operation of devolution in Northern Ireland. An outside observer would not notice much difference between this Executive’s Programme for Government and that of the direct rulers.

Several Members have expressed opinions on the amendments. I recognise that there is a responsibility — indeed a legal requirement — on an amendment to allow the Budget to be balanced at the end of the exercise. That places a responsibility on individuals and has restrained some who simply want to reduce the regional rate and forget about everything else rather than look at how easy it might be. That they have not moved an amendment may mean that they could not do it, and that balancing the Budget requires people to find out whether savings made here could be made elsewhere to balance it.

We had no difficulty in carrying out that exercise. We have known for several years that the whole process is politically driven and that a great deal of Budget money is squandered merely to bolster the Republican agenda. That is the core of our amendment. Dr Birnie does not think these issues very important. They are important enough for all the Executive parties to go to court, such is their significance. Their importance lies in where they intend to lead this Province. However, I am sure that the Deputy Speaker will not allow me to go much further down that road in a Budget debate.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

I found the Sinn Féin/IRA amendment amazing. They sat around the table shoulder to shoulder with the Minister of Finance and Personnel discussing how best to make the allocations. No doubt, those discussions took place over many months in the Executive.

12.00

I have no doubt that all those present argued persuasively for their Departments’ allocations and that they studied the whole Budget; and that after long discussions the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health agreed with the Minister of Finance and Personnel and with their Colleagues on what should be presented to the Assembly. However, as soon as that was done their party moved an amendment to the Budget that they had agreed. I find that incomprehensible. You may attack us for not being at the Executive and for moving an amendment, but had we agreed a Budget with you I assure you that we would have stood by you in the Assembly.

We must reach some conclusions. Clearly there is a split in IRA/Sinn Féin. That can be dangerous enough, as you are probably aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is clear that the two Ministers are out of step with the rest of the party. The mover of their amendment said that the party had acted after further consideration. One might have thought that the "further consideration" would have taken place before they signed up to the Budget; but it appears that they do these things after the event. Having agreed to the proposals in the Budget, IRA/Sinn Féin decides that perhaps the electorate may not be so keen on a rates increase and so changes its mind. IRA/Sinn Féin is leading the Minister of Finance and Personnel to the end of the plank, and it will leave him there. Having stitched him up, it decides "This is not good politics for us; we shall go in a different direction".

Either their two Ministers do not have the brains of the rest of the party — in which case one must wonder why they were proposed for office — or their party considers them dispensable in pursuit of its real objective: popularity with its electorate. Their approach to the agreements that they make does little credit to any principle they may claim.

The Budget money required to keep the regional rate at the level of inflation is not significant. Therefore I am surprised that the Minister of Finance and Personnel could not accept the clear will of the Assembly and of the electorate to keep the regional rate at the level of inflation. The amount required for maintaining the regional rate at the level of inflation is much less than the amount that the Minister will have at the end of the financial year for slippage. Slippage will be about £40 million, or the "reduced requirements of Departments" as the Department of Finance and Personnel describes it. However, it is significantly more in each financial year than the amount that we are attempting to save. That puts it in perspective.

I want to discuss several areas, and it will become clear why I have chosen them as I go on. The first is free fares. I am not sure what point Ms Lewsley was trying to make when she asked whether the people who moved these amendments wanted to deprive the needy of free fares. Obviously, she has not looked at the Order Paper. Neither amendment proposes taking money from free fares. Indeed, both of them look for funding from a different area.

It is worth pointing out that Sinn Féin/IRA said that it tabled its amendment because the Executive programme funds have not yet been allocated. Of course they have been allocated; they are on page five of the Executive Budget programme. They may not have been allocated down to the last detail, but neither are any of the other headings.

Will they take the money from community regeneration, service modernisation or infrastructure renewal to save the £12 million? Will it be taken from funding for children? Will it be taken out of the mouths of children? They should have been upfront, as we have been, in telling people where they would take the money from. It is not enough to say "We shall take money from the Executive programme funds"; one must tell people exactly where one intends to take the money from and what work will not be done as a result.

I hope that the Assembly noted that the mover of the Sinn Féin/IRA amendment said that it was for this year only. He must want the regional rate to go up by 8% next year and by a further 8% the year after that, because that is what the indicative figures show. Our proposals will have life in them at the end of those 12 months and will be able to be carried forward into the following year, the year after and so on for ever. If that were the case, I would be happy.

The IRA/Sinn Féin amendment proposes taking money from areas of expenditure that are intended to put in place the very infrastructure that it demanded. IRA/Sinn Féin is attempting to bluff its constituents into believing that the money has been taken out of the pockets of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — the Executive programme funds. It would be taken from schemes that would benefit the constituents of every Member in the Chamber.

The proposal for free fares is strongly supported by the community, as has been shown in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ opinion poll. I announced my intention to establish free fares for older people when I moved to the Department for Regional Development last year and I am delighted that we have taken a significant step towards them. The scheme has several advantages. Among them is the social interaction that will flow from it for people who are largely confined not because they are unable to go out or because they have no one to visit but because they must make the unpalatable choice between eating and outings. This scheme will give them greater freedom to be more involved in the community that they have done so much to support.

However, it will only be of value to the whole community if there are improvements in transport, particularly in rural areas. When the test schemes were carried out in Castlereagh and in Newry and Mourne, I was struck by the difference between the two schemes. People in Newry and Mourne, where there is little rural transport, will derive less benefit from the scheme.

Therefore rather than say to Translink "The scale of economy is such that you should be able to do something for us to reduce the amounts", we should be saying "You must do something to improve rural services throughout Northern Ireland". I remember hearing Fermanagh councillors’ request for a bus service — never mind a better bus service — in their area. The benefits to Translink of free fares and the additional funding it will get must be paid back to the community, particularly the rural community. Further testing and phasing of the scheme may be necessary. That will be the joy of the Minister for Regional Development, but it will be necessary if we are to meet the time scales set out in the Minister’s statement.

I have twice attempted to get some clarification on the matter of roads. On both occasions the Minister was short of time. On the first occasion his statement in the Assembly limited his ability to respond; on the second in the Committee a whip was cracking in his ear and he had to come to the Assembly to speak in a debate. Now that he is in a more relaxed mood I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some answers.

There has been speculation about roads programmes and the capital funding available to them. The reality is that the Minister has put enough money into roads for the capital resources required so that all the schemes that have been announced can proceed, provided that that level is maintained for the next two years. Forget about inflationary increases; if that level is maintained for the next two years all those schemes can proceed. However, as the Minister and House know, these schemes take a long time to go through the statutory processes. They must go through the necessary vesting orders and through the tendering and construction processes. That takes two or three years, and to start a job in year one the necessary resources must be available — albeit indicatively — in years two and three before the contract can be signed. A Minister cannot say "On the basis of this year, I can proceed". A Minister must be sure that when he or she signs a contract the money will be available in years two and three.

This is a difficulty. The indicative figures show a reduction in the money that will be available for capital roads expenditure. That is shown, but it may not be the outcome because we have what are described as Executive programme funds. I listened to Dr Birnie extolling the Executive programme funds as I listened to the statement last week by the Minister of Finance and Personnel informing us of this great innovation.

I thought that all the funds in the Budget were for the Executive’s programme. What distinguishes these from others? Why have they been distinguished at all? We all know the reason. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister want to have some good news to announce from time to time. They want to take some of the good news away from Ministers — and they have attempted to do that frequently, as the Minister of Finance and Personnel will know — to announce it themselves — [Interruption.]

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Ministers should make announcements — it is their departmental responsibility. Ultimately, Ministers will have to fulfil commitments, and this will be done by the Departments. The Executive programme funds are simply a device to allow Ministers to announce some good news from time to time — although it could be something more sinister. It is to allow them to impose their political agenda on Departments and on the people.

Here is where I have real difficulty. I shall take the example of the Department for Regional Development as I know it best. When deciding to spend money on roads, I cannot say "I am the Member for East Belfast; East Belfast needs a new road around the harbour, so let us put our money in there". That would be entirely wrong. People might have done that in the past. However, one must have objective criteria; one must determine how one sets priorities. All Members think that the roads in their constituency should take priority, and I do not doubt their arguments, but we must have criteria when decisions are being made.

In taking decisions on roads we should consider the number of accidents, the volume of traffic using the road, the benefits to major hospitals and to schools along the route and the age and state of repair of the road. These are all objective criteria in determining priorities. That is what we do. A Department will set the objective criteria and prioritise its programme on them.

I shall take another example: the Toome bypass proposal was announced before the proposal for a road to Newry. As I expected, the Deputy First Minister argued the case with me for the Newry road in his constituency. I would have done exactly the same had I been Deputy First Minister. Objectively, however, I determined that the Toome bypass was more important.

Let us look at the new circumstances. Infrastructure expenditure is now contained in the programme funds. Will the Deputy First Minister prevail on the Executive by telling them that "Newry is the priority; its road must go ahead. We shall allocate the money out of the Executive programme funds"? In that case, despite objective criteria, the less urgent road would be given precedence over the more urgent. That cannot be right. It may even be legally suspect. The basis on which the Executive programme funds are allocated should be questioned and clarified.

I am delighted that money is available for the improvements outlined by the railway task force in A D Little’s report — vital work for the railway infrastructure. There is now a draft regional development plan. An important part of transport strategy is to encourage people to use public transport. When devolution was introduced I had no doubt that the railways were finished; railways in Northern Ireland would close — with the exception, perhaps, of the Belfast to Dublin line. That was the agenda. That has been reversed under devolution, but it can only continue to be reversed if the money is available. This Budget is a start.

I am delighted that there is an increase of £14·5 million in spending on water services. That will help to deal with the all the problems, including raising health standards, particularly in light of the cryptosporidium outbreak, which is much on our minds.

I commend the amendment moved by my Colleague, Mr Dodds. The amendment seeks to recognise that the regional rate is a significant burden on householders and on businesses. An increase of 8% — more than twice the rate of inflation — is unacceptable. I usually challenge people’s actions rather than question their motives. However, the motive here is fairly clear. The regional rate is being increased because ultimately the Assembly will not be blamed. The poor councillors will be blamed, since the rates bill comes from the council, does it not?

The Minister can increase the regional rate substantially, and the boys and girls in the councils will get a kicking for it from the electorate. No matter how prudent they might have been in their local authority — even if they have reduced their district rate — the Minister’s whopping 8% rise in the regional rate will remove any advantage, and councillors will get the blame.

The regional rate is merely an additional form of taxation. There was once a link with water services, and the public believed that it was paying for water and sewerage improvements. That is no longer the case as that link has been broken. This is the Durkan tax; it is direct taxation. We were not given tax-raising powers under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 but we have adopted them in the form of the regional rate. Business people in particular, who have great difficulties in making a living, must now deal with a significant increase in the regional rate.

There is no doubt about the community’s view on this increase. The Minister could have addressed it with very little difficulty. As he did not, we have taken from his Budget the most useless items of expenditure — the squandering and wasteful "North/Southery", the so-called Civic Forum and other elements that amount to about £20 million. He would have to take £12 million from this — his figures are not very precise — to reduce the regional rate to the rate of inflation.

He has rightly said that some of the work of the bodies that we named would be done anyway. We have left £8 million for this to be done in the relevant Departments. This amendment should commend itself to the Assembly, as I know it will commend itself to the public.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I draw attention to the fact that I am the first Member of the Opposition to speak this morning. All previous speakers have been from parties that are in the Executive. I have never seen so much wriggling, squirming and so many would-be Pontius Pilates. "This is not our document. Oh no, don’t blame us, don’t tarnish us with this". They have not dipped their hands in the bowl for ablution — they have immersed their whole bodies in search of salvation. However, it must be remembered that the Budget has been agreed by the Executive. Let everyone remember that the Executive consists of the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Can the Member please tell us when the Democratic Unionist Party agreed this Budget?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Those with ears, let them listen. I am stating — [Interruption.]

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Order. Members will address their remarks through the Speaker.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I have difficulty in getting my message across, but the members of the Northern Ireland Executive — and I shall repeat them in case there is any doubt — are the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. The public recognises and accepts that. To pretend otherwise is to treat the people of Northern Ireland with contempt. The people know for whom they voted and whom they put in the Executive, and the members of the Executive must accept that.

I should not criticise that. I am trying to win a case, and the case is that the regional rate should not be increased by 8%. Two parties of the Executive are already scrambling to get in behind this justifiable premise. They are even prepared to turn their backs on the Executive of which they are members and come scrambling over to the Opposition. Imagine if the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered his Budget only to find that his Colleagues had scrambled from the Government Benches to the other side of the House. Like Pontius Pilate, they do not want to touch his Budget. "That is not our Budget", they say, "Oh, no, no — save us from this terrible, terrible Budget".

When the Minister was speaking —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

You have stated your case.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

And I have a big case to state.

In his statement the Minister referred to the revisions that had taken place and he used the words "as a result of scrutiny". With the greatest respect, I must correct the Minister. No scrutiny of this Budget has taken place at any stage. Yes, there has been consultation, and, yes, there has been talk of scrutiny. However, scrutiny, as laid down in the Northern Ireland Act, means "close examination of", and there has not been that necessary close examination of either the draft or the revised Budget. Do we need proof of this? The proof is that two of the Statutory Committees did not even have time to submit a written response on the draft Budget to the Finance and Personnel Committee.

The Finance and Personnel Committee did not have sufficient time to do its sole job of advising the Minister of Finance and Personnel and of assisting him to introduce the Budget. That has given us a Budget that is in many respects shallow and superficial. As Dr Birnie said, it does not allow us to get behind the figures, and we are still being promised public service agreements in January.

We have not seen the public service agreements for setting targets and benchmarks for public expenditure and its results. That is a fundamental flaw. In many respects, our approach is a hand-me-down from previous regimes with some changes that I accept. Lack of time for proper scrutiny has resulted in the job’s not being done properly.

Mr Maskey’s contribution almost reduced me to tears. I visualise him, arm up his back in excruciating pain, moving his amendment to reject an 8% increase in the regional rate with great reluctance, in spite of his party’s being part and parcel of the Executive. I was nearly crying; I was reaching for my handkerchief. The Democratic Unionist Party once again moved an unadulteratedly party political amendment that was clearly calculated to cause as much damage as possible to the Good Friday Agreement. The DUP is consistent, I will give it that. The amendment calls for the removal of North/South institutions and of the Civic Forum. "Let power lie totally in the hands of politicians", says the DUP. Nevertheless, it says that it had to do this — for honourable reasons, of course, — to find the £8 million to £11 million.

I find it very strange that when the DUP studied the figures — and it obviously did because it was able to cost what it called "North/Southery" — it missed one glaring figure for the Departments for Regional and Social Development. It seems to have ignored the fact that between the draft Budget and the present one the departmental running costs for the Department for Regional Development have gone up by £2·1 million while those for the Department for Social Development have gone up by £6·3 million. That is a massive £8·4 million between the two Departments. As every 1% increase in the regional rate equates to almost £2·2 million, lo and behold, 4% has been diverted to these Departments.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am interested in the Member’s argument. If he feels so passionately about this matter why did he not move an amendment rather than lecture the rest of us? Could he not be bothered? Is rhetoric his only contribution?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The impatience of the Gentleman! This is only a preamble, yet his party is already jumping at me to hear why I did not move an amendment. Do not get excited; calm down. Some Members seem to forget that during the take-note debate of 14 November, I stated clearly that the Alliance Party would not support a Budget funded, even in part, by an 8% increase in the regional rate. We gave absolute responsibility to the Executive to do the decent thing and amend it. We hoped that the Executive would heed the views and concerns of Members, of the Finance and Personnel Committee, of local authorities and of the people.

To date, they have not done that. I would not usurp their authority. I am proud to be a Member of the Opposition, and it strikes me that many people and one or two parties in the Executive would like to join the Opposition. We shall consider their applications, but I question some Members’ behaviour. We may have to stand alone.

Why did we say that we would not support a Budget that was based on an increase of 8% in the regional rate? We did that for sound economic reasons but also for reasons of principle and consistency. It strikes me — and this has been brought home to me even more this morning — that inconsistency is one of the greatest scourges of politicians. We have the privilege of representing people. What do the people say? They say that some politicians will say one thing one day and do the opposite the next.

They promise the sun, the moon and the stars, but what do they deliver? Absolutely nothing. Politicians produce manifestos to fight an election. However, as soon as the election is over the manifestos are consigned to oblivion. They no longer matter, because the politicians are now in power.

On 14 November I pointed out that consistency was very important, and that we, along with councils and councillors throughout Northern Ireland (and over 60 Members of the House are also members of local authorities), had consistently opposed a large increase in the regional rate. On the same date I asked how anyone could possibly oppose a large increase in the regional rate when a member of a local authority but when in power ape the Tory overlords who foisted this on us for years. How can anyone do that and then face the electorate? For saying that, I was criticised and accused of being adversarial — note: adversarial. When I appealed to Members’ social consciences to recognise that increases in the regional rate and in Housing Executive rents that were above inflation would hit the poor (specifically pensioners) and would drag people into the poverty trap, I was accused of indulging in — wait for it — populist stunts. This quarter also accused me of being a poor mathematician and in the next breath accused me of being a magician — just like that.

What is the justification for these indefensible hikes in rent and rates? The justification is responsibility. Members of the Executive claim that they have such a responsibility. Some politicians will hide behind any fig leaf. Those of us not in the Northern Ireland Executive have no responsibility. We should sympathise with those in the Executive because they do. We poor people outside the Executive can indulge ourselves because we have no responsibility.

If being consistent, if having a social conscience, if protecting the poor, if democratically fighting for fairness is irresponsible, I stand guilty as charged. I shall submit to the people’s verdict; but of what shall I be accused? Shall I be accused of being populist? I remind those Members who say that I am a reject that this "reject" topped the poll in his constituency in the Assembly election. Members of the Gentleman’s own party stood in that election, so he should be very careful about the stones he is casting.

I appreciate that the Executive have a very difficult job to balance the books. I appreciate that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has limited resources. I repeat: money was available in the system to provide the services without an 8% increase in the regional rate. Eight million pounds or £9 million would reduce the increase to 4% and approximately £11 million would reduce it to 3%.

That is less than a fifth of 1% of the whole block. Therefore it comes down to priorities. I stress the importance of "bottom-up" economics. By removing people from the poverty trap we give them a sense of pride in society, and economic benefits will accrue. Large rent and rates increases are completely against that principle. They increase poverty; they drive more people into dependence on the state, and that results in an ever- increasing benefit culture.

Mr Cobain touched upon that on 14 November when he referred to the cynics who say that 80% of Housing Executive tenants would not have to pay the increase in rents because they receive housing benefit, which is not paid out of the Northern Ireland block.

Even a poor mathematician like myself recognises that all money comes from one cake — UK taxation — and the more that is spent on social benefits through the social security arm of UK taxation, the less will be available even for the Northern Ireland block grant. The same applies to the commercial sector. The more small retailers must pay in rent and rates, the less opportunity they have to grow. The regional rate, which is spread across Northern Ireland, constitutes approximately 66% of the entire rates bill.

The retail sector, particularly its service side, must grow. The Assembly should do its utmost to promote that growth rather than impede it. Large rates bills equal less employment. We must use any opportunity we have to increase employment in the service sector to catch up. I am thinking in particular of tourism. We must attract people to Northern Ireland; that will return the money by more than tenfold to the Exchequer or, I should say, to the Northern Ireland Executive.

I recently studied the family expenditure survey figures for Northern Ireland. They show that the average weekly income here is £102 a week less than in the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, we have the lowest average weekly income of all regions in the United Kingdom. I may be a poor mathematician, but most people will agree with me that the lower one’s average income, the less one has to spend.

People in Northern Ireland must spend 25% more on electricity, 20% more on clothing and footwear and 8% more on food than the average person in the rest of the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland therefore spend a disproportionate amount of their disposable income on the bare necessities.

In spite of that, the Northern Ireland Executive are proposing to add to that burden by increasing the regional rate by 8%. The Budget proposes that Housing Executive rents be raised by more than 2% above the rate of inflation, reducing our people’s disposable income. We spend about £12 a week less on leisure services than the rest of the United Kingdom.

If we are to get Northern Ireland’s economy right we cannot ignore those lessons, and it saddens me that so far the Executive have ignored them. The Minister compared our proposed increases with England’s. That misses the big picture, and we cannot afford to do that if we are to make the necessary changes to the Barnett formula, for example. These arguments must be presented to the House and to the Treasury. Need and relative incomes are fundamentals that cannot be ignored in any society.

The reallocations in the October monitoring round could have been used to mitigate the proposed increases in the rents and rates. The Minister assured us then that the 8% rise was needed to provide the services outlined in the November Budget. He also assured us that any reductions would inevitably lead to a reduction in services. However, at that time approximately £75 million was available for reallocation. Some people called it "easement". There was not one penny of easement for rent and ratepayers, despite pleas. It was a kick in the teeth for them.

The DUP pointed out that the 8% rise in the draft Budget was to be applicable for one year. This Budget tells us that it will roll on for another two years. That is a double kick in the teeth for rent and ratepayers. It is a clear demonstration that everyone’s pleas were ignored. They were not merely ignored, their noses were rubbed in it. I resent that. More could have been done.

Of the £75 million in the reallocation £20 million came from the sale of Housing Executive houses through receipts, and more could have been done for these people. Those receipts were not anticipated. They could have been used to reduce Housing Executive rents. Four million pounds in the reallocation came from the regional rate through the final allocation of end-year flexibility for 1999-2000. That should have been used to keep the regional rate at an acceptable level. However, that was not one of the Executive’s priorities. The Executive regarded the 8% as a sacred cow. They would not bleed that sacred cow; but they were prepared to bleed the poor. That is very wrong. It is unfair and it is a kick in the teeth for all of us, including local authorities, who urged that the regional rate be kept at acceptable levels.

My party did not move an amendment, nor have I any intention of doing so. This is a matter of principle. I will not play party political games with a Budget. I said that my party would vote against the Budget, and we will do that if the necessary changes are not made. It is not too late to do it, even at this eleventh hour. I appeal to the Executive and to the other parties to row in behind us and insist that this Budget be changed to accommodate a less than 8% increase in the regional rate. It can be done. It is the Executive’s duty to do this. We shall keep our promise and reject this Budget if those changes are not made.

Our reason for not moving an amendment is vitally important. This Budget is a key decision. With regard to key decisions, the Alliance Party is discriminated against because it does not describe itself tribally. In effect, our votes do not count, for we are described as neither Unionist nor Nationalist in the roll of honour. That is a travesty of justice, of the agreement and of the law. Even if we moved an amendment, it would not count. In that respect our votes are less than worthless. We will not be part of such a charade. I appeal to the better judgement of the Executive to change.

I want society to change. I want to cross bridges and divides rather than stick labels on people. However, if labels mean more, there is nothing I can do. You can vote against us and reject us and tell us that we do not count. You can put us, in many respects —

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The Member will address the Chair.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I am sorry.

We can be put in the same category as the rent and ratepayers, who can be trodden on.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

We discuss the Budget proposals against a backdrop of crises in nearly all Departments, particularly in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. At the same time, the Budget proposals allocate about £6 billion combined with an 8% increase in the regional rate.

The case against the 8% increase has been made very substantively by the mover of the first amendment. It will fall heavily on the poor and will damage business, which is already suffering from the differential in fuel and electricity costs. At the same time it is being used to finance a combination of bureaucratic waste and a politically driven all-Ireland agenda. I say "politically driven" because the detail of this agenda has never been subject to any substantive economic evaluation. We do not know what return we shall get but we can be pretty sure that any possible returns that may accrue to this all-Ireland agenda will not offset the harmful effects of an entirely unwarranted — indeed, outrageous — increase in the regional rate this year and in future.

Several Departments face acute crises. This is combined with a very large distribution of money and an increase in the regional rate. However, one of the most striking features of this whole so-called Programme for Government is that there is no substantive immediate or medium- term policy justification upon which either the overall allocation of the money or its detailed use in the Departments could be argued. In other words, there is no innovative thinking in the Budget proposals.

There is nothing remotely resembling a grounding in policy. That would require detailed analysis of the crises facing each Department and an evaluation of the various options available to deal with them. Such considerations are entirely absent from this so-called Programme for Government. In other words, it is not a Programme for Government in any sense at all. Spending £6 billion and imposing an outrageous 8% increase in the regional rate with no substantive policy statement is merely throwing money at the problem.

There are two possible outcomes. Throwing money at a problem is unlikely to produce any result. It would be a waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

A good example is the recent proposals of the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. I have read these proposals very carefully, and the only way to make sense of them is to say that the Minister was caught between two constraints. He was caught between the commitments in his party’s manifesto and the Government’s being unable ever to finance student fees comprehensively again. This ragbag of proposals makes no sense. That does not surprise me, for I heard the same Minister on a recent ‘Seven Days’ programme not only professing his ignorance of elementary English literature but trying to turn his ignorance into an intellectual virtue. What else can one expect when such a man is in charge of a Department?

Why have the Executive not produced coherent policies to enable Members to evaluate the proposals reasonably and sensibly? It is because the Executive lacks any mechanisms for collective decision making. There is no collective responsibility in the Executive, and it is not surprising that their statements lack policy coherence.

The second amendment reflects the absence of any real policy coherence in the Executive. The second amendment opposes a decision reached by the Executive; yet it is being moved by a party that has two Members in the Executive, who, presumably, agreed it. That shows that decision making in the Executive is in chaos.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but, unfortunately, precisely the same is true of the first amendment, although I agree entirely with its substance. The first amendment opposes an 8% rate increase, but it was moved by a former Minister who made two Pledges of Office — first, to participate with Colleagues in preparing a Programme for Government; secondly, to support all decisions of the Executive and the Assembly. A Member is moving an amendment — and I agree with all his arguments — who agreed to give a blank cheque of approval to all the Executive’s decisions. He simply cannot mount any credible opposition to this process in general and to the decisions of the Executive in particular from such a position.

We are throwing £6 billion at our problems and imposing punitive economic measures, yet there is no collective responsibility and no coherent policies.

We are in this mess because people were appointed to the Executive regardless of their expertise.

For example, the Minister of Agriculture inherited a crisis in agriculture, many of the causes of which are beyond the Assembly’s control. That must be said. However, despite being presented with the opportunity to have the BSE ban lifted, she failed to seize it. Now, unfortunately, the BSE crisis in Europe is such that the ban is unlikely ever to be lifted.

The Minister has displayed marked incompetence in handling a portfolio. That also explains the incoherence of today’s document.

Every time the Minister of Health defends her policy in the media, she substitutes the word "clearly" for coherent argument. The word "clearly" — even if screeched at the top of one’s voice — is not a substitute for a coherent argument. That this individual repeatedly deploys this word, and various other rhetorical devices as substitutes for arguments, clearly demonstrates her inability to handle the portfolio that the d’Hondt system threw at her.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Will the Member return to the Budget shortly?

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall return to the Budget, and I admit that I was, perhaps with some justification, digressing slightly. The main issue is that several areas in Northern Ireland are in acute crisis. We have £6 billion to spend and we are deploying it blindly. Money is being thrown at problems; yet there is no coherent policy. Therefore we can expect little from this Budget — despite all the rhetoric that has been heaped upon it — to alleviate our real problems.

Billy Bell (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I support the Budget as, I hope, will the House. I speak as one who has neither desire nor design to be a candidate in the next Westminster election. Therefore I shall make no political points today, as it seems to me that there has been some electioneering going on.

I broadly support the Budget although I am concerned about the time allowed for consultation. I made those concerns known at the Finance and Personnel Committee. I am wearing a couple of hats today: I am the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which oversees Government spending and which attempts to ensure that waste is eliminated. I am also a local councillor and a member of the Northern Ireland Housing Council. I was formerly on the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I therefore have a particular interest in housing.

The Budget sets out to modernise our fiscal accountability. Linking spending allocations to clear targets for delivery will lead to greater efficiency and to better value for money.

I welcome the introduction of public service agreements; these will open up to detailed scrutiny each Department’s objectives and the means by which they will be achieved. Furthermore, I welcome the use of the principles of resource accounting in assessing public spending and the services delivered or results attained thereby. I hope that the work of the Public Accounts Committee will be made easier by those innovations. I am confident that local democratic control and scrutiny will lead to greater accountability in the management of our resources.

Housing is a particular interest of mine, and, frankly, I am disappointed that it has been given such low status in the Budget. In his statement of 12 December the Minister promised an additional £2 million for housing to deal with the difficulties of north Belfast. As I represented that area on Belfast City Council I welcome that. However, that allocation deals with a one-off situation and does not affect the overall housing plan for Northern Ireland.

Housing needs are changing. There are more one-parent families, single occupancy is growing and there has been a fall in household sizes. There has also been substantial growth in the number of privately owned homes, which has been partly caused by the sale of Housing Executive properties. I have supported such sales — and I shall continue to support them — but there is still a need for social housing. Lack of funding for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive could lead to important schemes to replace windows or kitchens being put on the back burner. I was heartened by the Minister’s assurance to Mr Leslie on 12 December that the Executive would pay due regard to the needs of all Departments in future monitoring rounds. I hope that housing will not be given a back seat in future rounds.

The demand for social housing is not being met. Government financial policies have led to annual cuts in funding for the Housing Executive. Although the housing associations do excellent work, it is necessary that the Housing Executive continues to provide housing as well as performing its strategic role. The Housing Executive should become a housing corporation, or a housing association with the powers of a housing corporation, so that it would have access to private and public funding. In his reply to my question the Minister said

"private finance initiatives and public and private partnerships is one important consideration that we have in mind." —[Hansard, 12 December 2000, p49]

That should be borne in mind, and the Housing Executive should be given access to private funding.

The annual shortfall in housing starts will be about 400. That figure is taken from ‘Review and Perspectives 2001-2004’, which concluded that there was a need for an annual social build programme of 2,100 dwellings. That is still 400 homes short of what is needed. Providing decent accommodation for all should be one of the Executive’s priorities, so that the good work of the Housing Executive over the past 30 years can be continued.

The Department of the Environment’s Planning Service is to receive a further £800,000 to accelerate the production of development plans, including the Belfast metropolitan plan. I welcome that move. As a councillor in Lisburn, I have watched the progress of the Lisburn area plan; its slowness has caused great frustration to countless people, including me. I am not sure that it is only a funding issue; the whole system must be overhauled. Anything that can speed up the provision of housing in Northern Ireland should be welcomed.

This is the first Northern Ireland Budget for many years that will receive full scrutiny, although I hope that we shall have more time for scrutiny in future. I welcome the Executive’s plans and look forward to many more Budgets that will lead to greater prosperity and a better life for all our people.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

The Minister must wonder what people will be for in his Budget, having listened all morning to what they are against. It is much easier to dwell on problems than to find solutions. I welcome the Budget and its focus on solutions although I have concerns about it.

The Minister has consulted from the outset, and that is important. Unfortunately, we do not know how productive the consultations were or what revisions were made between October and December as a result. The process has shown the way forward by giving Members an opportunity to make a contribution. It is also useful that the public — those who knew about the consultations — made its contribution. That the Civic Forum may in future have a say on how we spend our money is also to be welcomed.

Like other Members, I am concerned about the time scale. I am a member of two Committees, both of which had great difficulty in scrutinising the Budget properly. We need more audit trails, although the Minister cannot solely be blamed for a lack of them. In their absence, this devolved Assembly will be no different from what preceded it under the Northern Ireland Office. We must know where the money is going, how much is being spent and what is being purchased.

We do not have an audit trail for each Department. That is certainly true of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. To date, it has been difficult to get answers about what happens to money when it goes to boards and trusts. We must know which boards and trusts are spending money efficiently and effectively; whether they are robbing Peter to pay Paul and whether they are taking from one part of the health budget to cover a deficit in another.

I welcome such scrutiny, even though it has created difficulties. Nonetheless, it is important that Committees be given sufficient time to respond to the Budget in future. The Assembly requires a strategy for an audit trail, and that, as well as a call for a review of the Barnett formula, should be spelt out in future Budgets.

Expenditure can only be discussed in relation to income — how much money comes in and how much goes out. It has been difficult to follow the debates between October and December on the extra incoming funds and on how much will be spent in different quarters. The Executive programme funds have increased considerably. I would like to have seen a breakdown of where the increase came from. I have tried to follow that in the Budget to establish who got what money and from where. However, that has been a difficult road to follow.

Are the four parties in Government in favour of private finance initiatives (PFIs)? Is that how the Executive will seek finance in future? There is only one reference in the Budget to PFIs. On page 40, the paragraph entitled ‘Infrastructure Renewal’ states

"where appropriate related to the use of PFI/PP."

That is one tiny sub-clause on what has become an income generation mechanism for the public sector. I have enormous concerns about that. If it is not clearly spelt out, either in the Programme for Government or in the Budget, we shall be left to the devices of private developers.

There is at present a major contradiction. This is not joined-up government. The Department of Education sold a substantial piece of land in south Belfast to a private developer. It is currently the subject of a planning appeal, and the Department of the Environment has said that the Department of Education did not fulfil its function of carrying out a community impact study before selling the land. One section of the Department of Education was not talking to the other and decided that that land was surplus to its needs.

When did public land and open space that was a community facility become surplus to needs without the community’s being consulted? It has put a great deal of money into the hands of private developers and not into the hands of the public sector. That means short-term gain for long-term pain. Major areas of infrastructure are being mortgaged, and they will always have first call on the Budget because they will require money for maintenance or leasing before those parts of the education sector that have not adopted PFIs.

I want to hear a cohesive, co-ordinated response on the future decision on the finance of the public sector. Will a slice of it come from PFI, and what percentage will that be? If that is not the case — and there are still doubts — let us see what is. However, five words in the Budget on PFIs is not sufficient — especially when England and the devolved regions, Scotland and Wales, are raising concerns about them.

It is difficult to have an accountability mechanism addressed in the large funds of the Executive programme. The Budget states that the Assembly will be told in January who has had a call on them. However, as this is a Budget debate, I should like to know now where those funds are destined.

The Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment announced his own proposals. However, he told the Assembly that he will not know how many of those proposals will be implemented until the findings of the new direction fund have been agreed by his Executive Colleagues. The Minister has made public his proposals, yet we shall not know until January whether the Minister has been successful in bidding for some of them. We should debate whether the proposals would see the light of day.

I welcome the £6 million for the community regeneration fund this year — an increase of £3 million. The Minister knows of my concern about what is happening in the community sector. Peace I has run out, and it will be some time before Peace II is available. Can some of this "community regeneration" money be used to help the groups that must lay off workers?

I am glad that the children’s fund will be substantial. However, there is no commitment to the appointment of a children’s commissioner, which was part of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee’s recommendations on secure and residential accommodation. I welcome the thematic approach of the Programme for Government. The Committee felt that appointing a children’s commissioner, as other devolved regions have done, was an important part of joined-up government. It does not cost a great deal of money.

Unfortunately, a response from the Minister for Social Development informed us that we do not know how many children in Northern Ireland live in poverty. The Republic of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England know, but not Northern Ireland. They will simply take a proportion of low-income groups and of those on benefits from the family expenditure survey. As that does not give us a figure, how can we have social integration or an anti-poverty strategy? It is not called that, but the thematic approach of the Programme for Government is probably focusing on an anti-poverty strategy, and I look forward to its liaising with the Civic Forum.

It will be difficult to set aside the resources if we do not have the information in the first place — information is powerful. If we know how many people are living in poverty we shall know how much money is needed. It is not the Minister’s responsibility to produce such information, but he will find it hard to develop an anti-poverty strategy without the necessary information.

I note that the capital budget is decreasing rather than increasing in some Departments, particularly in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is shocking that the budget for hospitals and the building of hospitals will decrease over the next three years. It is not possible to have the determination of the acute hospitals review now, but we should be sufficiently flexible to know that we need these hospitals and that we need some new build.

I am particularly concerned about the judicial review on the Royal Victoria Hospital and Belfast City Hospital last week. We were promised a purpose-built women’s hospital for maternity services in the City Hospital. I visited the Royal Victoria Hospital last week and was shocked to see 17 women in a very small ward. I gave birth in that ward 15 years ago. There are now beds up the middle of the ward, and there is one bathroom for 17 women. We would probably see something similar if we visited other hospitals for new mothers. Maternity hospitals are closing down. Mr McGrady said that Downpatrick Maternity Hospital is also facing a crisis. What will happen if it closes? Are we sending more mothers to the Belfast hinterland?

We know that hospitals are closing. Belfast City Hospital accommodated 3,000 patients and there are now 6,000 patients on one site. We urgently need a new purpose-built hospital. There are no plans for one, and I cannot see where the money will come from. We have done a disservice and told people an untruth. They were promised a new hospital, but it is not in the Budget. I shall judge deeds not words. If the money has not been set aside, the hospital will not be built. That is a poor message after the court’s decision that the manner of the hospitals’ closure led to many questions being asked.

Ministers may bid for large sums of money. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety bid for £21 million for mental health and learning disability. She got £3 million — £1·5 million for mental health and £1·5 million for learning disability.

Our new Government and our new Assembly are sending out the message that the mental health needs of the entire country are worth £1·5 million over the next year. That falls far short of £21 million. We are not getting the medium-secure units so we continue to violate human rights legislation by sending those with mental illness to Scotland. They should be diverted from the criminal justice system. These are people with serious psychiatric needs, yet no medium-secure hospital will be built in Northern Ireland. Of course, we could sell the land at Knockbracken, which is owned by the Knockbracken Trust, and go down the private-finance road once again. We have already lost some of our public space and some beautiful land, which is now a rare commodity in Belfast. Again, the Budget does not provide for what is needed.

Mental health carers are enormously concerned that they must continue to pick up the pieces. CAUSE, a major carers’ group, recently sent a petition, which had been signed by all its members, desperately pleading for the money to empower them and those for whom they care and to free them from the stigma attached to mental illness. They are weary of living in isolation and urge that they be allowed a share of the support that is so openly given to other groups. They plead from their heart, as they cannot walk away from the responsibilities with which they must live every day. If those suffering from mental illness are to be moved out of long-stay hospitals, carers will increasingly have to look after them.

There was a debate in the Assembly last week on the protection of children. I am putting down a marker: we are not meeting our statutory responsibility, and the Assembly — and its Members — will be taken to court, as the Department was last week. Judicial review after judicial review will be carried out as we send our children to places that are inappropriate for their needs. There is a shortage of 115 places in residential care, and that is creating a crisis. Children are absconding from residential care. They come in the front door and go out the back. Over 69 of them were missing for over 24 hours in one board area alone. One child was missing for 69 days.

This cannot go on. After all, The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 is supposed to be progressive legislation. I have no doubt that in future the Minister may spend more time in court than in her Department if we do not set the necessary Budget resources aside for these places. If we do not meet our statutory responsibility we leave it to the courts and not to our Ministers to decide their governmental responsibilities.

I find myself, for a change, agreeing with the former Minister for Regional Development. I too believe that road developments should be based on criteria. When shall we see the draft regional development strategy? I hope that it comes before the Assembly by summer. We are, after all, spending £40 million on the M2 Westlink and the Dunmurry slip roads. Is this money being spent well? Why did we have a hugely expensive planning inquiry when there was supposed to be a draft strategy?

I would have assumed that the Government made decisions by deciding on a strategy, by making plans and putting them into action and budgeting accordingly. Instead, they are setting aside a large slice of the Budget to build a questionable infrastructure. Otherwise why hold a major planning inquiry before they have produced their development strategy?

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has one line in its Budget statement to cover all its responsibilities. If I ask my students to analyse a question I must give them information. We cannot analyse this Budget line. The word "victims" is not mentioned in the responsibilities. That is a very poor message on a day when we should be commending the Minister for completing what was no doubt an arduous task and for producing the Budget so quickly. This should be the last Budget to contain one line from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I support this Budget and I shall not be supporting either amendment. The regional rate concerns me. However, I believe that the Budget aims at promoting energy efficiency, improving housing conditions and helping small businesses. We must make a balanced judgement, and that judgement has come down in favour of the way forward with regard to all those matters.

Debate suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.31 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Many of the contributions this morning revealed a sense of newness and achievement at the presentation of a new Budget. Members called it the first independent Budget for Northern Ireland in thirty years. That is an overstatement: "independent" could be interpreted as meaning open-ended, but a budget is never open-ended. A budget is restricted, as any businessman or housewife will tell you, and is circumscribed by the amount of money available. In this case, income is restricted to the block grant and, to a lesser degree, the regional rate. No one gets everything, and priorities must be identified.

I listened with great interest to Members’ demands and their often justifiable criticism of the lack of provision for this, that or the other. No one proposed that taxes should be increased or other revenues sought to provide for those worthy endeavours. An increase across the board of 7·8% — or 5% in real spending terms — is no mean achievement.

The spread of funding across various actions illustrates the importance to Ministers of collegiality. Equally importantly, the Minister of Finance and Personnel has fully consulted the Assembly Committees and has made a significant response to their concerns where he could. He also made changes after consultation with the wider community. However, no budget can give everything to everybody; there is always a limit, and in this case the limit is the amount of money available. Obviously, some items have been highlighted, and quite rightly so. We have all welcomed the commitment to the student support review, particularly for those students whose parents are on low incomes. This clearly demonstrated a commitment to listen to the responses received after consultation from the recipients and the students’ unions. A greater partnership than the Executive is at work. There is a partnership between the Executive, the Assembly, the community and the vested interest in the community. That greater partnership is the most significant, and it is often overlooked although it has achieved a great deal in a very short time.

We may be committed to various causes, but our primary concern is of course our constituents and our constituency. This morning’s commitment to a general debate was very significant — although some were sidetracked into particulars. Nevertheless, the debate ranged widely and was very welcome.

There are some matters in the Budget that I wish to speak about. Much has been said about deprivation, and there are many mechanisms for dealing with it. One of the greatest problems is the imprecision of the indices of deprivation, which can allow the relative wealth of a surrounding area to cloak severe deprivation. The Minister has told us that these indices are being studied much more closely in order to provide more precise targeting in future.

A thread that unites all the parties in this Government is the democratic desire to address the urgent social problems in all our communities. Our discussions on the Budget in recent months — ministerial statements, draft Budgets and monetary funding discussions on how policies should be applied — have brought to light some alarming revelations of what took place during 30 years of direct rule. In all Departments there is an enormously worrying and sometimes frightening shortfall in the development of our social services and in the maintenance and improvement of our infrastructure.

It is not very glamorous to talk about roads, but past underinvestment has left them in a shocking state. Unfortunately, we shall be unable to fix them in one or even two budgets. Some of our sewerage and water systems are in the same horrendous state. They are totally antiquated. These facts were kept hidden from us — and I say that advisedly: they were kept hidden from us for years.

We can now compare the per capita spending on health and education in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, and it is obvious that there is a shortfall there too. Although the Minister cannot do it in this Budget, I urge him to amend the Barnett formula. Several Members called it the formula that dictates our revenue. During those negotiations, which I hope will take place in 2001, he should identify and quantify that shortfall and ask for it.

In the short term — five to 10 years — it is not possible for our community to finance what has been denied effective funding for the past 30 years. We simply cannot do that without going into the figures. If I am correct, we shall continue to fall further behind in the competition for an infrastructure that can support industry and in the competition for a social programme that will improve our educational and medical facilities.

Although several issues must be tackled urgently, for the moment I would like to digress into an industry that is very rarely spoken of, mainly because it affects only two constituencies, South Down and North Down. It is the fishing industry. A further reduction in the total allowable catch for the ensuing season of 2001 was recently announced. Most people probably did not read that. Some might have asked themselves what it means. It means that our fishing industry is on the verge of collapse. That is not a melodramatic statement. Every major whitefish species has been cut dramatically — from 44% to 27%, and now to 10%. Ironically, the only species the total allowable catch of which has increased is herring, at 40% and over. People no longer fish for herring. It is a dead industry. Those who could fish for herring in the past can no longer do so. The nets are not right and the boats are not right. Therefore it is not a panacea.

I have spoken to fishermen in my constituency. Many have received only three weeks’ wages since last August and they often fall outside the social security net. This is because they go to sea and may catch nothing; they have been working, but working for nought. The budget of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must be rescheduled in the coming months to deal with this serious matter. I shall leave the question of the funding required in other areas to other Members.

I am surprised that there have been so few amendments. Only two questions have been raised in the entire Budget. That is very heartening for everyone — especially for the Minister responsible. One would have expected hundreds of amendments. We have only two. This shows that every party in the House — whether part of the Executive or not, whether pro-agreement or anti-agreement — is fairly content with the proposed Budget. That augurs well for the future.

The amendment to withdraw funding from the North/ South bodies is transparently political and has very little to do with finances. The Assembly will treat it as such. I do not say that it is not a serious proposition — it is. It is the means by which the agreement could be destroyed. The intention behind the amendment was not to amend the Budget to get extra funds; the intention was to destroy one of the bedrock provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.

This is not a serious financial amendment, yet it is the only one from a major anti-agreement party. That is quite miraculous and I am very pleased about it. The other amendment concerning the regional rate increase of 8% was expected. Everyone would like the rates to be reduced and to pay less in taxes. However, no one will decide where the money will come from.

It is most surprising, given the collective responsibility of the Executive. I presume that the decisions on the funding from the block grant and on the regional rate were distributed and approved. A distribution cannot be approved without the approval of the receipt that provides for it. Therefore I assume that all parties were fully involved in agreeing the source of the revenue, followed by the distribution of that revenue to the various Departments.

The mover of the amendment did not give a very convincing reason why the two Departments primarily benefiting from the regional rate happened to be the Departments of Education and Health. However, if there were merit in the proposal that the regional rate should be reduced — and we would all love it to be reduced — one would have assumed that, being in the same party as the Ministers of Health and Education, the mover would have said that the extra money for those Departments could be withdrawn. He would be happy for it to be withdrawn and be pleased that there would be fewer services in health and education. I did not, however, hear that argument. It is as if there are two, or perhaps three, political parties under the same name supporting this amendment. When I heard the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee’s contribution — and, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, he was called to speak as the Chairperson — I thought it was a party political speech from beginning to end. Not only that, he was able by some mysterious means to assess the intent of a Committee that did not even vote on the matter. I would love to have such an understanding of any Committee that I served on; to be able to say "If my Committee took a decision it would decide thus". I have never in all my life been in that position and I admire a Chairperson who is. However, there is a serious point. The Chairperson was not conveying the corporate opinion of the Committee; he was merely making a subjective personal statement. That must be wrong, as a Committee Chairperson when addressing the Assembly in his capacity as Chairperson must express the opinion of his Committee.

There have been several astonishing contributions. We were told to put on our begging clothes, deepen our begging bowl and approach the British Government for more from the Exchequer. I support that argument. I have always supported that argument, and I found it very surprising from that quarter. I do not know about giving the argument some sort of rationale by throwing in "We shall approach the Irish Government as well with a different begging bowl, perhaps in punts". There was no serious debate about what was meant by the proposition to abolish the increase in the regional rate.

There is not a person in the Chamber or in the community who does not want to pay less tax. However, I bet that the shopkeepers, the farmers who are so badly off, the fishermen and housewives would be prepared to pay a few pounds extra in their rates this year to get a better education and a better health service. I am almost certain that they would be willing to make the sacrifice. I would not make the same mistake that I accuse another of making — that of making a subjective judgement. A poll in Great Britain (although it was not voted for) showed that people would be prepared to make a sacrifice to ensure additional funding for health and education.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

The Liberal Democrats suggested in their taxation proposals that an extra penny should be raised from income tax. They were accused of increasing the range of services on which this extra penny would be spent. Is the Member in danger of falling into the same trap? Is he not in danger of spending the £11 million or £12 million from this increase over and over again to improve health and education? Is he not being too ambitious in what he thinks the regional rate rise can pay for?

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The hon Member makes a strong point, and his question is almost self-explanatory. Although people did vote for it in an opinion poll, they did not follow this through by voting in the general election to implement a proposition that had been so widely supported.

The other matter raised was whether the rates increase is a kind of poll tax. There is no comparison between rates and the poll tax. They are entirely different in constituency, levy and circumstances. For the advancement of political posturing and to the disadvantage of the collegiate responsibility of the Executive, parties can play around with bits and pieces of the Budget.

It is astonishing, however, that there were only two amendments to a Budget of such size and change. That shows the extent of its support among all parties in the Chamber. Now that the diversions are over, we can deal with the serious matters in the Budget. I hope that the vote will have the support of the entire House and will enable the Minister to deal with some of the serious new issues.

I compliment not just the Minister responsible for the Budget but all the other Ministers — Sinn Féin, UUP, SDLP and the DUP from afar. They all made a magnificent contribution to the Budget. I have no doubt that the parties in the House will support their own Ministers, whose Departments will benefit from the Budget. If they do not support their own Ministers, they will show a lack confidence in them and in their ability to achieve a fair deal.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon Member. As a young boy, I sat in the Strangers’ Gallery, as it was called, and listened to a debate one night when Cahir Healy, a famous Nationalist, spoke. I remember one Member rising to congratulate him, saying that it was a pity that he was not a family doctor. His attitude reminded the Member of a good family doctor at the bedside who knew that he was well remembered in the patient’s will. That describes Mr McGrady, who speaks with a quiet confidence that nothing he says can be called into question. Poor miserable specimens that do not share the vast brainpower that divides his ears must be patted on the head and told "We shall give you a fool’s pardon". The people of Northern Ireland are not fools. The serious matter of the regional rate is something that we cannot ignore.

There is no use in telling us about the wonders of the Budget or about what Mr Durkan has done, or in saying that the only amendments are on the regional rate. This is the straw that will break the camel’s back. It is right for the House to be aware of this. Members may not like the wording of amendments. They may not even like amendments, but we live in a democracy. This is not a fascist dictatorship yet. We are entitled to bring forward our amendments and to have them discussed. However, some people thought that by mighty denunciation of individuals they could brush this matter under the carpet and safely put it away. However, that cannot be done.

Mr Close got very warmed up about this matter. I am glad that he is in the House now. He got very frustrated. He tried to put forward the strange thesis that if one was in a meeting and one disagreed with what the meeting did one was nevertheless responsible for its decision. That is a complete negation of democracy. I am a Member of this House. I will disagree with many of the things that it does, but this House does not bind me at all. I am free, so far, to express my views. My two Colleagues happen, by the vote of the people, to have been put into Government. They were put there not by the patronage of Westminster, Mandelson or Mo Mowlam, but by the votes of the people. These are votes that his party, by the way, did not get. His claim that my two Colleagues must be held responsible for this Budget is utter nonsense. I want to repudiate the misinformation, half-truths and bundle of misrepresentations thrown together in anger to throw mud at men who have made their position absolutely clear.

Then we had Mr Roche, who is now absent along with every member of his party. He described Mr Peter Robinson as a "hypocrite". I have the statement that Mr Peter Robinson made. I shall read it so that those who read the report of this debate will know exactly what Mr Robinson said on the occasion referred to by Mr Roche. Mr Robinson said:

"May I very briefly set the context which allows me to respond positively to your enquiry about my willingness to take office. Everyone here knows that I am one of the sternest opponents of the Belfast Agreement. I have consistently maintained that the purpose and the objective of the agreement is to have Northern Ireland absorbed into a united Ireland through developing all-Ireland institutions. I still believe that to be the process underlying it. Whether a Member or a Minister, as a convinced Unionist I shall use every ounce of the influence I possess to frustrate and thwart Northern Ireland’s being conveyed into a united Ireland."

Mr Roche, take note.

"My position, both in relation to the release of paramilitary prisoners and the destruction of the RUC through the apparatus devised by the Belfast Agreement, is on public record and is unchanged. Moreover, it remains for me a fundamental principle that only those who are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means are suitable partners in government. The call of my conscience and the commitments I have given to the people of Northern Ireland are unalterable. I oppose terrorism in all its forms and of every shade. Whether it be the murder of a friend or that of an odious adversary, I oppose it without qualification and without any mental reservation.

As far as my conduct as a prospective Minister may be an issue, I want to place firmly on the record my intention and disposition to be scrupulously fair in every respect, while exercising such responsibilities as may be in my charge. The religious conviction or political opinion of any person or group will form no part of the judgement I will make on any matter. I shall work for everyone in this community, seeking for them a better deal. I consider myself to be the servant of all and master of none. I accept the nomination and affirm the Pledge of Office as set out in Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998."

Of course, as Mr Peter Robinson’s nominator, I was told that this could not be done. I was also told that if I nominated Members for the seats that the people of Northern Ireland had in their gift and which they gave to the Democratic Unionist Party, we would be ousted by law. We also heard the threats of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, it was all vain talk because our lawyers were better than theirs — they told us the truth of the matter. These Members are still in the places of Government given to them by the votes of the people, rather than by patronage.

Mr Close stood for election to the Forum and lost. He had to sit as a nominated Member. After the Assembly elections he told us that he had topped the poll but he did not tell us about the other figures. If he had looked at the other figures he would have discovered that although he might have topped the poll, the other candidates, after their votes had been added up, were miles ahead of him.

The Alliance Party leader told us that at the European election I would be laid very low and that he would come forward with such a bounce that the Alliance Party would be said to have been born again. The same man went down to my constituency to do his canvassing. He stood and waited at The Pentagon for half an hour and no one spoke to him so he issued a statement to the press. He said that he had been in the centre of Ian Paisley’s constituency and that no one had broached him on the matter of opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Why was this the case? Because nobody spoke to him. It is wonderful that some people believe they know what people are thinking. The only solid way of knowing how people think at an election is to stand at the ballot box. Then one gets the answer — the real answer.

It is vital that the view that I express on behalf of my party be heard in the House, because this will be a very serious situation. One would have thought that after all that, Mr Close’s party would have moved a reasoned amendment; that he would have concentrated his great wisdom and powers on devising an amendment that might meet the need that he has in mind. However, no such amendment was produced. Our only means of expressing our views on that is to vote for the motion that will introduce the 8% increase in the regional rate.

There was legitimate criticism of Sinn Féin: it sat on the Executive Committee. Our Members never sit on the Executive Committee, yet Mr Close told us that they signed up to the Budget. They have never signed anything from that Committee and they never will.

They were pressurised. It is nice to know that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety can be pressurised. Their party then decided that it would not do for it not to take a stand on this issue, so it made a change.

I did not speak today as Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee; I intended to, but I did not because I had to deal with political points. It should not alarm Mr McGrady that this party is still against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, as indeed is the majority of the Unionist people. If Mr McGrady thinks that he has converted the natives, let us have a referendum tomorrow, and I shall abide by the result of it. But no, he does not want to see referenda; some people here do not want to see local government elections. Some of them dread Tony Blair’s going to the country too soon and would rather he delayed his application for a renewed mandate.

What better way is there of reducing people’s financial burden than by forgetting about Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights? As the Irish Government have taken over these matters, let them pay for them. He that lights the light, let him pay for the oil. That is not in the Scriptures. I do not want Mr McGrady to think that it is.

A North/South body for languages — as if we do not all understand one language. Even in this place they all understand English — [Interruption.]

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Even in the Dáil.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

And even the Dáil holds its debates in English; its letters are written mainly in English too.

The waterways of Ireland — well, we have plenty of water; the good Lord has seen to that in the last days, so we can do without interfering with the deity’s prerogative by helping to pay for waterways in Ireland.

Trade and business development North and South; special EU programmes — an economic union that has destroyed our farming industry and does not allow the farmers the right to buy grain to feed their animals on the world market. Getting into the world market today would lift a great load off the farming community.

The North/South Food Safety Promotion Body, the North/South Tourism Company; the North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat and — hold on to your seats — the Civic Forum. It would not matter if these things were buried this day in a Sadducee’s grave for all the difference they would make to this country. These things are not vital when the people of Northern Ireland are to be burdened with a rise in the regional rate. The House should say plainly to the Government and to those in power that we will not tolerate this terrible increase; that it will be a weight upon the shoulders of the people. It is very important that that be said.

Tomorrow my Committee will convene a special meeting to discuss the fisheries catastrophe, and I welcome Mr McGrady’s words on this matter. A very bad decision has been made. I shall say no more until we have all the facts. However, I do know that the Minister told the Committee that she was sure that other representatives from the United Kingdom would stand with her in her battle — they did not.

The Old Book says "Put not your trust in princes", and certainly the prince who came from Westminster was not to be trusted, because up to the last minute he was going to go the right way only to go the wrong way.

We must find a way to save our fisheries. It is vital to the livelihood of the people who for generations have lived off the sea. Astonishingly, the United Kingdom joined the European Union with the greatest possible asset — the seas around our coasts. And what happened? Edward Health, in his folly, handed over our assets. The Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr Fischler, who comes from Austria and who never sees the sea, tells us that this is good for the people of Northern Ireland, good for the people of Britain and good for the people of the seas — the seas that his Union stole from the people whose right it is to fish them.

The tragedy is that we shall have to have major decommissioning, but it could be worse than that: in the sorrows and sadness and tragedy of the moment too many men will leave the fishing industry. Even if there were a turnaround in fishing, these men would not be able to return to use their expertise to bring the industry back to life and viability.

I am sure that Mr McGrady knows that in Kilkeel many men who sailed the waters now break stones in the quarries. Like convicts, they have been sent to mine the stones. This is the death of our fishing industry. We must find a way to save it; we must do our utmost to alleviate the distress that false friends have brought and to undo the damage caused by those who did not make their stand for the people when they should have.

Why have we not tabled scores of amendments to this motion? Mr Durkan knows very well that this Budget has been rushed. He knows very well that the whole thing could have been stopped with one vote. But what about the hospitals? What about the schools? What about the roads? What about employment? What about new businesses in the pipeline? This was a price that my party would not pay, and although we were hammered and criticised we let this Budget go through because we had no viable option that was good for our Province.

Now we come to consider the Budget. No doubt many issues will arise in the coming months that were not envisaged when the Budget was drawn up. Many things will come to light and there will be many hard places along the road. Nonetheless, a sum of money has been delivered to us, and it is our business to see that it is spent in the best possible way, for the best possible ends, and distributed to the neediest of our people. However, that is a matter for another day and for another debate.

Tonight, however, I commend my party’s amendment. This issue must be highlighted, and if Mr Close felt the same he could have moved an amendment with no political tag attached. I am very glad that the Member for South Down has tagged our motion. I am glad that he recognises our uncompromising principles and that he accepts that we mean what we say and that we do what we say we shall do. The proposal to lay such a heavy burden on our people at this time is an outrageous one, and we must say so.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I congratulate the Minister on producing an historic Budget. It goes some way to redress the democratic deficit that has existed in this part of Ireland since partition. It is appropriate that a son of Doire Cholmcille — of Derry — should deliver the first Budget.

Much has been made of the amendment, but if ever anyone made a virtue out of cheap political opportunism it is the DUP, and that has been very evident today. Its amendment is not about rates or the abolition of rates; one need only read the seven references to North/South bodies to know that this is an attack on the Good Friday Agreement. It is a device used by the DUP not because it has a deep social interest in the effects of rates but for attacking the very premise on which the Good Friday Agreement was built. Seven times it mentions North/ South bodies.

We live on a small island, and I do not think that any Unionist, let alone Nationalist, businessman does not see the benefits of exploiting all the island’s potential for trade and business development. Hence the Trade and Business Development Body. We also have the Special EU Programmes Body and the Food Safety Promotion Board — there is no border for food safety. Those who know anything about tourism want to develop an all-Ireland tourism body because they recognise the potential in all-Ireland tourism.

The DUP’s amendment is more about exploiting cheap political opportunism than about the very sore issue of the rates. Sinn Féin’s Ministers do not run the party — there are no pontiffs in Sinn Féin. We leave the popes in Rome or in north Antrim. The two DUP members of the Executive have resiled from their Budget responsibilities. They want the best of both worlds. They want to stand outside the tent; yet they want to live in it. They want power without responsibility. They want the trappings of power without its responsibility and obligations. They have not returned their ministerial cars and they do not refuse their ministerial salaries and all the other perks that go with ministerial responsibility. "Do not ever ask us to take responsibility" is what they say. They want to follow their nice, comfortable, little middle track waving bye-bye to those who are carrying the responsibility for the process — [Interruption.]

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Order.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is OK, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Let them finish. I can wait. The economic advantages, a LeasCheann Comhairle, of an all-Ireland economy are obvious in agriculture, tourism, fisheries — and Ian Paisley Senior has just spoken about that — transport, roads, electricity, telecommunications and the harmonisation of taxes. We hear much from the DUP about fuel taxes, but it never attempts to promote harmonising these taxes. Fuel is just one example of the harmonisation of taxes.

Ask the people of Omagh, Derry or Fermanagh whether cross-border co-operation on health and education has potential advantages. Those who live there know of the advantages that can be provided in those matters.

This Budget has not fully explored the peace dividend. As I said at the outset, the Budget cannot and will not deal with all the neglect and deprivation that has existed in this part of Ireland for the past 30 years — and for the past 80 or 90 years. It makes no suggestions on how to deal with the dreadful poverty among young people, the old, students and the sick. These elements of the fabric of our society have been neglected in the past 30 years and they continue to be neglected.

The Budget does not and cannot deal with those wants and needs in our society, as the money is not available. Those who wish to stay outside and those who wish to force others outside should stop playing games with the Executive and should develop a strategy to rectify the economic imbalance, the political discrimination and the social and economic deprivation in society.

The Executive have a wonderful opportunity to set up an economic task force to project the additional moneys that will be needed to underpin the social and material infrastructure of our society for the next 10 or 15 years. There is no reason why we should not approach the Irish Government to ask them to assist us. We should not approach them with a begging bowl but with a proposition that if they have an interest in reunification with this part of our island they have an obligation to assist in that reunification. There is no reason why we should not ask them to provide subvention and to assist us by putting money into the infrastructure of this part of Ireland.

The British Government and the Dublin Government are the two sovereign Governments with ultimate responsibility for this part of our island. There is no reason why the British Government should not be compelled to make amends for the economic deprivation that they have caused. This deprivation has not existed merely since partition; it existed for several hundred years before partition. There is no reason why they cannot be asked to provide subvention to help to secure a more stable economic and social future for this part of Ireland.

There is an American dimension. Bill Clinton, among others, has spoken of the 40 million people of Irish descent who live in America. That is another area that we ought to investigate to see whether we can secure subvention for and investment in this part of Ireland. We recall how the Americans implemented the Marshall Plan, which played a major part in rescuing Europe from the economic desolation of the second world war, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

There is no reason for not going, like the Israelis, to America to launch a bond scheme. There is no reason for not, through the Executive, looking in a very imaginative way at launching a bond in America with the co-operation of the Irish and British Governments in an attempt to improve our financial situation over the next few years.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, these are matters that the Executive could profitably explore in future. It could deal with the very serious underfunding in all Departments in this part of Ireland — in health and education, for example. Consider the condition of the roads west of the Bann. It was once the case that travelling through Cavan one could tell who lived where by the state of the fields or how good the land was. If one travels west of the Bann one can pinpoint a green or orange area simply by the state of the roads.

These matters can and must be dealt with. I know that it is difficult and I congratulate Mr Durkan on this Budget. It cannot have been easy for him. However, in designing and structuring a budget within our financial parameters he has made a worthy first attempt.

We must look beyond the Barnett formula and beyond the technical formulations of the cold economic points that the Barnett formula tends to deal in. We must be adventurous and look beyond our own devices and our own shores.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I welcome the Budget. I must admit to feeling a frisson of excitement, for this is our first chance to have a serious debate on an important issue without a time limit.

Departmental running costs were mentioned earlier, and in many cases the increase is confusing. In his speech the Minister said that the Executive must make realistic provision for them and that departmental running costs were originally underestimated. It was a substantial underestimation, and these rises could be more easily understood were it not for the extensive use in most Departments of consultants, outside study teams and panels. Members will easily recall the acute hospitals review. The Department for Regional Development has made extensive use of outside management consultants on the port of Belfast; there is also a regional strategy panel. Outside consultants can be found in all Departments, and if they are deciding policy and strategy — which they are — the question arises of what the Departments are doing and why they need the extra money for doing less.

Today we are asked to agree a Budget and to comment on how well the Departments have planned for next year. How many Members have been able to see how well Departments have stewarded their funds in the past year? Members may be interested to know that the latest published figures for the Department of Health are for the year 1997-98. Questions about this will be met with the reply that the accounts for subsequent years have not yet been officially audited. How can Members properly decide how much money a Department requires and whether such funds are justified in light of the Department’s past performance if we are denied this information? The Minister of Finance and Personnel should consider this problem, because it will be a more serious factor in the next Budget.

Members will know that I am a member of the Regional Development Committee. For several weeks the Minister has been warning the Committee and the Assembly that road improvements announced by his predecessor are in jeopardy. I have here a letter — addressed to my Colleague, Mr Hussey, and dated last Wednesday — that says, quite clearly, that some schemes may have to be deferred. The latest figures from the Department on major roadworks over £1 million are therefore confusing. It is interesting that in 2000-01 £24 million was allocated. The projects over £1 million amount to a £7 million spend. I am not clear where the other £17 million or so has gone. Next year is even more interesting: £60 million has been allocated, but on the list is a £28 million spend; we seem to have lost or got confused about £32 million.

Do not forget that the Minister has said that he does not have the funds to start these road projects. He has made great play of that. Can the Minister of Finance and Personnel confirm that the Minister for Regional Development has been guaranteed 90% funding for projects in years two and three and that once the public service agreements are in place that will increase to 100% funding? I understand that the Minister has been told that the funding is available, yet he tells us that he does not have this funding and therefore will not start the projects that were listed for the Assembly last week. That is very confusing.

Of course, these figures do not take into account Executive funds, which in year one are £7 million, £40 million in year two and £100 million in year three for infrastructure funds. The Minister of Finance and Personnel told us last week that railways and roads are key areas of infrastructure that are eligible for bids under the Executive programme funds — supportive noises there from the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Could the Minister for Regional Development have been misleading the House on the availability of funds for his roads?

I was struck by and agree with Mr Peter Robinson’s statement on the railways — they were indeed heading for oblivion. It was heartening to hear him recognise the benefits of the Belfast Agreement and of devolution — brought about on behalf of the Unionist community by the Ulster Unionist Party, with no contribution, of course, from his own party. Perhaps it highlights the hypocrisy of some here. You have heard them today urge the Executive to do this or that. Is this the party that was going to bring the Assembly down and destroy it? Is this the party that sat last Friday with Sinn Féin in Belfast City Council and produced a full budget for the council? Amazing.

I am also a member of the Health Committee. The Minister of Finance and Personnel will be aware that the Health and Social Services Committee was unable to comment on the Budget. I mentioned the difficulty we experienced in obtaining figures. The NHS, despite valiant efforts on the part of its staff, is a disaster — £2·6 billion go in at one end while patients on trolleys and crises come out at the other. Funding is given to the boards; the boards allocate it to the trusts, and it sinks into the woodwork with a worsening output at the other end.

Are the Ministers of Health and Finance and Personnel not curious about where all this money goes? If ever there was a case for a public service agreement and a radical examination of the administrative system, it is in the Department of Health. I trust that by next year we shall know exactly what happens to the funding available to that Department.

I am struck by the opposition to the increase in the regional rate, which is in line with the Treasury’s advice, and by the number of councillors who have supported the amendments. Perhaps those Members who are also councillors should have informed the House of a potential conflict of interests. I support the substantive motion.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

We have heard a good deal about what is and what is not taking place in the Executive. I was pleased to hear the Minister describing the degree of co-operation between Ministers and Departments in drawing up the Budget.

First, I shall comment on the amendments, particularly the DUP’s. Anyone who has the remotest interest in tourism, trade, business, agriculture or health must vote against the DUP’s amendment. The only thing missing from its list is fresh air — we do not have control of that here yet, thank goodness.

I am as baffled as Mr McGrady by the Sinn Féin amendment; he could not understand why Sinn Féin should oppose its Ministers’ stance. Under the provisions of the Budget, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s expenditure is to rise by 7·6% while a 10% increase in funding for personal social services is provided for. The Sinn Féin Ministers will not welcome their party Colleagues’ amendment if it removes the 7·6% and 10% funding increases. Similarly, there is to be a 7·2% increase in funding for the Department of Education, the deduction of which Mr McGuinness would not welcome.

I am particularly interested in the Executive programme funds. I shall try to make my comments on this matter parochial rather than talk about billions of pounds. The Executive programme funds may soon be tested by the closure of the grazing lands in the Silent Valley as a result of a directive from the Minister of Health and an implementation of the ban by the Minister for Regional Development. After these had been closed, everyone ran to the Minister of Agriculture who, through no fault of her own, became the third Minister involved in the matter.

The loss experienced by farmers must be examined. This was not a one-off ban — it is to be repeated for the next three years until the new treatment plant at the Silent Valley reservoir is built. The Executive programme funds provide an opportunity for Ministers to discuss matters involving all Departments, and this is one case that meets those criteria.

Secondly, I welcome the £2 million for animal health. I have had a personal interest in this from the outset. I have never seen the sense in having two research centres and two different Governments working on animal health on the island of Ireland. Although there was some co-operation, it was not nearly enough. This £2 million will be welcome if it helps to reduce animal disease on the island of Ireland.

The third subject, which I shall discuss briefly, is the Executive’s decision to increase their contribution to the free travel scheme from 50% to 75%. I recently asked the Minister of Health and the Minister for Social Development whether their respective Departments could fund the programme. I was disappointed in their response. At that point it would have meant dividing the balance of 50% between them. I was very disappointed and concerned that neither Minister saw the benefit. They said that it was not part of their remit to facilitate senior citizens by contributing to the scheme. I ask them to reconsider that proposition because I firmly believe that it could be slotted into their Departments. It is only 25% now — 12·5% each. I believe that it would be difficult for them to refuse.

Finally, an additional £2 million has been provided for Mr Campbell today. It is a Christmas box that he could use well. I am being seasonal in one sense — he could use that £2 million for a road gritting scheme for rural areas. After all, main roads also go through rural areas. There have been no gritting schemes for 10 to 12 years, and matters would be improved if the £2 million were spent on such a scheme. I do not look for billions. Those are a few simple ideas. Perhaps I am being parochial but I would welcome their being encompassed in the Budget.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

First, I want to speak about some of the issues in the Budget in my role as Chairperson of the Environment Committee. I shall certainly let the House know when I am not speaking as that Committee’s Chairperson but on my own behalf as an elected representative.

As Chairperson of the Environment Committee I wish to comment on the Budget’s provision for the Department of the Environment. The Committee welcomed the increase of 12% in direct funding for the Department and the possibility of an additional 2·3% from the retention of receipts by the Environment and Heritage Service and the Planning Service. This has gone some way towards redressing the underfunding of important environmental and conservation work that has been undertaken in recent years. However, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that several Budget allocations still cause my Committee concern.

The Committee noted that a bid of £3·6 million for essential work on landscape protection and nature conservation was not met. Can the Minister tell the House what account was taken of the consequences of missing this bid when the allocation of funding to Departments was considered?

The Committee remains extremely concerned about the underfunding of historic buildings. The Committee welcomes the additional £1 million for this work, but I understand that this will not lift the moratorium. As a result, we shall lose funding that would be available from other sources. Will the Minister tell me what consideration was given to the effect that this may have on the built heritage? I hope that I do not have to remind the Minister or the Assembly that, like our landscape and natural heritage, once old buildings are lost they are lost for good, and we lose an important and irreplaceable part of our shared heritage and culture.

I trust that the Minister will agree that much of the Department of the Environment’s work has important implications for everyone in Northern Ireland. Many issues cut across Departments, particularly the waste management strategy. Much of the implementation work on this strategy will fall on district councils. They will not be able to meet the cost of the work without an increase in funding or an increase in rates. Many district councillors are deeply worried by the financial implications of the rates — the district rate in particular — and the burden on ratepayers.

Additional funds have been made available to local councils in Great Britain, but not here. Why not? How can we hope to meet the vital targets for waste reduction and recycling in the strategy if they are not backed by the necessary money?

If the Department of the Environment fails to meet its obligations under EC Directives because it does not have the resources, which Department will meet the cost of any infraction proceedings? Will the Department of the Environment have to bear the cost because it did not have the necessary resources to put the structures and systems in place to meet its international obligations? It would be totally wrong not to make money available to it.

My final observation as Chairperson of the Environment Committee is to note that the Budget figures for 2002-03 and 2003-04 are indicative and are rounded to the nearest £10 million. They show an increase of almost £10 million for the Department of the Environment for both years. The Environment Committee welcomes the increase for the Department. Can the Minister confirm that the Department will benefit from that extra £10 million? If not, can he tell the Environment Committee and the Assembly what the real increase will be for 2002-03 and 2003-04? This document clearly says that the figures will be rounded to the nearest £10 million. It shows £110 million for the Department of the Environment, so the nearest £10 million would be £120 million. That would be deeply appreciated by the Department.

I wish to discuss other matters, speaking as a Member of the Assembly. We have received different signals from around the House today. I heard the Sinn Féin/IRA Member for Mid Ulster, Mr John Kelly, welcome Mr Durkan’s motion. He differs from his party, because it did not welcome the motion but moved an amendment to it. I am not sure what is happening — is there another division in Sinn Féin/IRA? On one hand it wants to amend the motion; on the other it welcomes it. Those were Mr John Kelly’s opening words. I am sure that it charmed Mr Durkan’s ears when he heard that he was to be supported by Sinn Féin/IRA.

Mr John Kelly went on to say that the DUP wants the best of both worlds. That is interesting. The two Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers were at the Executive meetings; they were party to the discussions and they agreed the programme. They now find that their party has cut the feet from under them by making an amendment. They would accept the motion subject to a reduction of expenditure in the Executive programme funds in order to lower the increase in the regional rate from 8% to the current level of inflation.

What do they want? Does Sinn Féin/IRA want the best of both worlds so that it can pretend to ratepayers that somehow it robustly defended their interests in the Assembly? In the secret closets of the Executive meetings their Ministers raised their hands in agreement to it. There seems to be a disagreement. I know that other parties disagree; but in that party disagreeing can have serious consequences. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

In his defence of the Budget, the Minister said that an increase of 8% was justifiable because it would come from those who could afford to pay. I do not accept that. There is a major poverty trap in Northern Ireland that catches those whose wages are just above the minimum benefit level. They must pay for everything. It is they who cannot afford to pay. We find that instead of 2·9%, it will be 8%. This rate, as my hon Friend Mr Dodds said, is in line for several years to come — a constant 8%. Of course, there were howls of objections to that —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I draw the Member’s attention, and the attention of the House, to my injunction at the start of the debate. I trusted that when matters had been dealt with at substantial length earlier in the debate that Members would not repeat them. Many Members still wish to speak, and Members will have to be particularly creative and fascinating to get beyond 10 minutes before I call the next Member. If each Member takes even 10 minutes to speak, the debate will last for a very long time. I therefore ask Members not to exceed 10 minutes unless they are being particularly innovative in their ideas. I am listening acutely for that with all Members, not just with Dr McCrea.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I do not want to be treated differently from other Members. That rule of thumb has not been in use while I have been in the Chamber.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member has not been listening. At the start of the debate I said that I would not impose a time limit so that Members speaking at the start of the debate would have longer to speak. I wanted Members who spoke in the later part of the debate not to repeat what other Members had said earlier. For that reason, if the Member, as he will undoubtedly do, not only attends to what I say but to what I do with regard to other Members he will find equity.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker.

However, the 8% is at the heart of this issue and of the amendment, and I have not heard many Members deal with the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s statement on it. Very few have mentioned it or dealt with the claim that it will affect only those that can afford to pay. In fact, it will hurt those who are least able to carry the burden. In saying that, I am guided by the Minister’s statement. The burden is not placed upon those who can afford to pay the additional money; it is placed upon those who are in a very serious poverty trap. That is at the heart of the two amendments.

I hope that Members can speak to the amendments. The matter of the 8% is in both of them; it is topical, and rightly so. If there is a ruling that we do not deal with those matters, that we must deal with other matters, we shall have to consider carefully what we are supposed to say in the House.

Mr McFarland mentioned the budget for the Department for Regional Development and asked whether Mr Campbell was misleading the House. Mr McFarland knows that the Minister was not misleading the House. By making that cheap political point Mr McFarland may feel that he has done something in the debate to bring him some kudos. However, it is stupid and childish to talk about misleading the House on a very serious matter.

Getting money for the Province’s roads is a serious matter. Anyone who thinks that the money that the Minister has given is sufficient to repair the Province’s roads is mistaken. The Member must be in North Down and not in the rest of the country. The roads in Mid Ulster need a tremendous injection of finance. We want to ensure that we have enough money to build the Toome bypass and other vital roads in the area.

He also mentioned the Executive programme funds. People used to talk about "brown paper bags". Let us be frank: when people speak about Executive funding they mean the drip-feeding. When the Belfast Agreement gets into difficulties and the people do not see it as the way forward or do not agree with it, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister drip-feed another few million pounds into the community to keep the peasants quiet for another while.

Money for roads should go to the Department for Regional Development rather than into the central programme, where the Executive can interfere with a Department’s finances. The programme, which my hon Friend has laid out in the considered amendment and on which we have been upfront and open, states exactly where the money would come from. The sad reality is that the Alliance Party has no alternative and therefore could table no amendment. The DUP has tabled a clear and considered amendment, and I trust that the House will support it.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom roinnt pointí a dhéanamh sa díospóireacht seo gan athrá nó pointí a lua a luadh cheana féin ag Comhaltaí eile.

Sa chéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom labhairt i leith an leasaithe a cuireadh chun tosaigh in ainm mo pháirtí ag an Chomhalta ó Iarthar Bhéal Feirste, Alex Maskey. Is mian liom labhairt in éadan an mholta gur chóir an táille tís réigiúnach a mhéadú faoi 8% agus de réir sin sna blianta atá romhainn. Is mian liom fosta cur in éadan an mhéadaithe de 6·6% sa ráta tráchtála réigiúnach agus méaduithe níos lú, ach iad suntasach mar sin féin, sna blianta 2002-03 agus 2003-4.

Ar na pointí eile a ba mhaith liom béim a leagan orthu tá imthosca speisialta Chontae Thír Eoghain agus Chontae Fhear Manach, a bhfuil cur chuige cás faoi leith ag teastáil uatha; agus na buntáistí a bhaineas le comhchuibhiú uile- Éireann — go díreach, malairt an mhéid a bhí le rá ag an Uasal Nigel Dodds agus ag a Chomhghleacaithe sa DUP ní ba luaithe sa díospóireacht.

Cá bhfuil díbhinn na síochána a gealladh dúinn agus a hinseadh dúinn a steallfadh amach as coire Sheansailéir na Breataine?

I want to raise some points without being repetitive. I acknowledge the many good things in the Budget and commend the Minister and the Executive for their hard work. However, I want to argue in favour of the amendment moved by my party Colleague Mr Maskey. I want to oppose the recommendation that the domestic regional rate should be increased by 8% in 2001-02 and in subsequent years. I also want to oppose an increase of 6·6% in the non-domestic regional rate with lesser, but still significant, increases in subsequent years.

I shall briefly argue the special circumstances west of the Bann, of Counties Tyrone and Fermanagh in particular, which require a special-case approach and the merits of an all-Ireland harmonisation programme. In effect, the opposite of the case articulated by Mr Dodds and his DUP Colleagues.

Where is the much heralded peace dividend that we were told would flow abundantly from the British Chancellor’s coffers? Why should we oppose the increase in the regional rate? Because its impact would be much greater than the revenue it would raise. It is too much pain for too little gain. It amounts to double taxation and will have a crippling effect on already hard-pressed ratepayers, not least on those who are trying to make ends meet in small shops in towns such as Omagh, Strabane and Dungannon.

There is high feeling, anger and resentment among traders in Omagh, for example, at being rated out of business. They suffer when competing with large, out-of- town multi-outlet retailers. It is bad for the economies of small towns and rural communities.

Why should I plead a special case for west of the Bann? Because things are not equal. People there ask why they should be subject to the same percentage increase in their rates when they are wrestling with the consequences of decades of underinvestment, neglect and discrimination; when they have inadequate access to quality health services; and when motorways end at Dungannon and just beyond Antrim. Poor roads infrastructure is a major disincentive for tourists and potential investors.

Why should there be a uniform approach when uniformity does not exist, where service provision is not uniform, allocation of resources unequal, and where there is no level playing field? Inequality must be recognised and legislated for, even if that entails a two-tiered approach and some affirmative action or rebates for disadvantaged citizens and disadvantaged areas.

The Executive could enter into a public service agreement with citizens living in disadvantaged rural areas west of the Bann to correct the huge imbalance in resources and underdevelopment.

I shall not indulge in what the DUP calls "North/ Southery". It is sufficient to assert the strength of the economy in the rest of Ireland, and the DUP, whether it likes it or not, is swimming against a very strong economic and historical tide. Looking at tourism, agriculture, industrial development and the knowledge-based economy, one can see that money spent on North/South development is money well spent. It is a progressive move and a sound investment for the future.

The Ceann Comhairle’s invitation was to be innovative, and I shall be. One possible source of income has not dared to be spoken of today: the massive British military budget. Exact figures are difficult to unearth, but conservative estimates put the cost of maintaining Britain’s military garrison in Ireland at between £800 million and £1 billion per annum. I want to use a visual aid. It is a map of the Six Counties outlining the British military presence.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Visual aids of this kind are not in order.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I accept your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle, but I wish to point out that there are about 52 British military installations in the Greater Belfast area.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

What have military installations to do with the Budget? I was called to order a short time ago when I was speaking directly to the Budget, yet this person is completely out of line.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am waiting to hear the relevance, Mr McElduff.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Picking up on your invitation to be innovative and responding to Mr McCrea, I ask: where will the savings be made to generate the £20 million that would otherwise be raised by imposing an unduly high regional rate? Will it come from the British Exchequer’s savings or from the British war budget, which should be redirected in peacetime into a reconstruction budget?

A delegation from the Executive should meet the British Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and the Finance Minister in the rest of Ireland, Mr McCreevy, to ask where the much promised peace dividend is. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Whatever else I may say I can scarcely complain that the Member has not been innovative.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle — [Interruption.]

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it simply the advent of Christmas that makes so many people want camcorders?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I fear that the Member may need to avail himself of some of the classes that are springing up.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

I would like to speak in Ullans, the literary standard of Ulster-Scots, and then give a translation.

Preses o the Tolsel an forgaithert Memmers, anent the siller ploy o Govrenment, A maun ettil at pittin forrits whit the Ulster-Scotch residenters o this kintra maun an wad hae.

A heid-count daen wi McCann-Erickson speirin whit fek o fowk in Norlin Airlann thocht thairsells Ulster-Scotch cam up wi aboot 20%, an nummers mair nor that ledged thai war on for fendin an forderin the Ulster-Scotch leid.

Sic nummers maunnae be taen as the heicht, for mair an mair fowk is takkin tent o it, an a whein Ulster-Scotch fowkgates is on the rise. The Guideship Curn for a Siccar an Thegither Europe (OSCE), at a gaitherin o a collogue anent the fowk syde o its haundlin, gied grieance at

"belangin a minoritie leid wad be a bodie’s richt, an naebodie soud thole onie laich haundlin frae pittin sic richts forrits."

Weill, aiblins mair nor 100,000 fowk in Ulster caas thairsells Ulster-Scotch, but thai cannae thole sic laich haundlin for aye. The pit-doun o jonik for the Ulster-Scotch leid an fowkgates maun cum ti an end richt nou.

The mair the BBC disnae pit aneuch anent the Ulster- Scotch leid on, fowks is cryin oot for it. Tak the nicht o Ulster-Scotch on BBC 2. Mair nor 120,000 pair o een wes watchin it. Echt yeir haes gien witness ti an ower ocht waukenin o Ulster-Scotch fowkgates daeins, but for aw that, maist heid-yins haes turnt a blinnd ee ti the kintra hoachin wi it, an whyles thai winnae gie jonik nor kennin ti it ava.

At the hert o the new waukenin o Ulster-Scotch fowkgates is thaim as haes been forderin the leid. The haundlin gien ti the Ulster-Scotch lede kythes mair nor ocht the pit-douns — or the pit-affs — at this native heirskip leid o our ain fowk o Ulster haes been gart thole. The Meinistrie o Fowkgates, Airts an Aisedom is ower ocht — an mair nor maist ithers apairt frae the Meinistrie o Leir — gart mak a repone ti the new waukenin o the Ulster-Scotch leid, an the repone gien maun be frae the heichmaist staundarts o jonik.

Big merkers haes been pitten doun in Europe, staundarts the haundlin o the Ulster-Scotch leid maun be gaugit agin. The Meinistrie o Fowkgates, Airts an Aisedom maun tak tent o thir staundarts nou, for thai haud athort langilt Europe. For the Scotch leid, our day isnae juist for cummin. Our day is here thenou.

It raxes oot ti aw, no juist aboot our auldryfe heirskip, for it haes a leevin spairk forby an can tak ti a modren —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are not you and the rest of the House being discriminated against? When a Member speaks in the Irish language you have a simultaneous translation. However, when a Member exercises his right to speak in another language of his choice — and it is a right not a privilege — you are not provided with a simultaneous translation — unless you are a fluent Scotch-Irish speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

This big heid-yin can uise the Ulster- Scotch no tae bad — as onie a guid Ballymena man wad.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

Fair faw ye, Heid Billie.

It raxes oot ti aw, no juist aboot our auldryfe heirskip, for it haes a leevin spairk forby an can tak ti a modren, ventursum, ootgangin an inventive kintra. Here ye hae the genius o our heirskip o leid, a heirskip we maun fend, forder an wauken new, sae as awbodie apen ti our ain mither tung micht reap a hairst o blythsum leir.

Frae oot o aw this, A maun hae it pitten doun in the skreived raicord, sae as the Meinistrie o Fowkgates, Airts an Aisedom is in nae dout o the staundart at maun be uised for gaugin hou weill it haes wrocht for jonik anent our fowk richts.

The Council o Europe’s Protocol Girdwark for the Beildin o Fowk Minorities hauds at a free an apen kintra, carefu o the richts o aw, maun tak respekfu tent o the fowk, kirk-gangin, heirskip an leid richts o awbodie at belangs an unner-lede o the kintra. An mair, Govrenment maun mak strecht an aisie the pads o fendin an forderin, sae as thaim as wad can kythe apenlie thair ain hert’s fowk leid.

For winnin ti siccan heich grund, indyte 2 o the protocol girdwark, airticle 4, pairt 2 gars thaim as unnerskreives the protocol ti —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member has now used fully half his 10 minutes. If the Minister of Finance and Personnel is to respond to him in a manner to his liking, the Member should provide the translation now.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

"tak on haund the daein o aw that is needit in ilka pairt o leevin, siller haundlin, fowk graith an residenter haundlin, politics an fowkgates, for fu an wrocht-oot jonik aqueisht thaim as belangs the hert leid o a minoritie o fowk, an thaim belangin the maist fek."

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is the translation of the English that I wanted.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, I wish to speak about the Budget with regard to the needs and aspirations of the Ulster-Scots community in Northern Ireland and in east Donegal.

The McCann-Erickson identity survey found that 22% to 23% of Ulster’s population are happy to describe themselves as Ulster-Scots, while more than 50% of those surveyed expressed a positive attitude towards the language in particular. These figures must be regarded as the baseline for Ulster-Scots, because a rising tide of interest and enthusiasm is spreading across Ulster-Scots cultural interests.

The Conference in the Human Dimension of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe resolved that

"to belong to a national minority is a matter of a person’s individual choice and no disadvantage may arise from the exercise of such a choice."

More than 100,000 people in Ulster chose to identify themselves as Ulster-Scots, but this minority is being disadvantaged and this discrimination must end now.

Although the BBC gives Ulster-Scots cultural interests only inadequate coverage, the Ulster-Scots night on BBC2 attracted an audience of more than 120,000. The last decade has seen a remarkable rise in interest in many Ulster-Scots cultural activities, but all this has taken place against a background of indifference, unfairness and outright discrimination.

The mainspring of the Ulster-Scots cultural renaissance is the Ulster-Scots language movement. The treatment afforded the Ulster-Scots illustrates graphically the discrimination and marginalisation to which the indigenous language of the Ulster people is subjected. It is vital that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure responds to the rising interest in the Ulster-Scots language in accordance with the principles of justice and equality.

Happily, we do not depend on local definitions of what may reasonably be thought to constitute fairness, justice and equality of treatment. Important markers laid down in Europe will establish a standard against which the treatment afforded to the Ulster-Scots language can be judged.

Ulster-Scots has Part II status in the European Charter; that means that it is recognised as a regional minority language. The Irish language enjoys Part III status. This must not be used to justify discrimination or inequality of treatment. The Ulster-Scots community is not asking for preferential treatment, but it insists on equality because it aspires to Part III status.

The Irish language benefited from a development programme wisely embarked upon by the de Valera Government. This development programme was ideologically driven. In contrast, we maintain that the Ulster-Scots movement is entirely apolitical. Nevertheless, we require a language development programme suitable for our specific regional needs and special circumstances. I welcome this opportunity to place before the House the undeniable claims of a people of genius, enterprise, industry, resilience and perseverance: the Ulster-Scots. They have often been inarticulate in the past but they have now found their voice through this Chamber and through the Ulster-Scots Agency of the North/South language body, tha Boord o Scotch, the establishment of which has at last created the conditions under which our community can grow strong.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Some said that we would never get this far. Well, here we are. We have a Government in place and a Programme for Government in the final stages of budgetary preparation. Sometimes we become too preoccupied with our internecine wranglings and miss the bigger picture. We have certainly made some progress.

The development of the Budget has suffered from pressures of time and change. Many of those pressures are a result of changing from the traditional approach to a more equitable modern one. This is typified by the creation of the Executive programme funds, a very imaginative and innovative set of ideas approved by all the Ministers in the Executive. The Sinn Féin amendment is therefore all the more bizarre and unbelievable. If this amendment were made, which areas of the Executive programme funds would survive? What would be reduced and what would be abolished? A party moving a competent and responsible amendment at this stage of a budget should be required to outline any affect it might have. Sinn Féin has not done so.

With a funding allocation of only £25 million in 2000-01, this amendment would wreck any chance the programme had of getting off the ground. We have heard about the many good things in the special funds.

It is important that we hear more about this amendment, although I do not see how we could accept such an amendment at this stage.

The DUP’s amendment has been accurately described as party political. I often think that our electorate is extraordinarily patient. What other electorate in the world would put up with the constant assault that the DUP has mounted on the overwhelming mandate given to the Good Friday Agreement, of which the cross-border bodies are an integral part? Its leader called today for a referendum and said that he would abide by the outcome. Why does he not abide by the other referendum on the Good Friday Agreement? Neither he nor his party has done so.

Interestingly, the special EU programmes also feature on the DUP hit list. The special EU programme provision is, of course, a cross-border programme — Peace II. Every party and almost every Member has supported not just its implementation but its early implementation according to need. Every party encouraged the establishment of the special European programme body to administer that fund. And — guess what? — the DUP has appointed a member to that board. It has appointed an Assembly Member — Mr William Hay from the constituency of Foyle — to that board, and I am glad to see him in the Chamber. No sensible Member could possibly support this kind of self-contradiction and inconsistency.

Having made those general points, I have been asked to express some concerns on behalf of the Committee that I chair. Although recognising the Minister’s difficulty in producing a sensible Budget — and that has been well achieved in the circumstances — we must put these concerns on record.

First, we were concerned because for several years the areas that comprise the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure have suffered disproportionate underfunding. There was therefore a strong argument for giving them special consideration. Unfortunately, only 25% of our additional bids were met.

Our concerns about the ability to buy out the commercial fishing nets around Northern Ireland’s coastline have already been referred to the Minister, and he knows our views.

We are also concerned that the arts bid has only been met in part. Obviously, we should have liked greater emphasis placed on that. Also — and this is a very interesting and important point — no funding was included in the Budget for safety improvements to motorcycle racing facilities. As Members will remember, that has been the subject of much debate in our Committee and in the Department. All Members believe that it must be attended to. Clearly, that has disappointed the Committee.

However, it would be ungracious of me not to recognise that there is more money for libraries and for the languages of the North/South cross-border body, and that will help enormously.

Considering our difficulties, the changes that we want to make and the innovations that we want to introduce, we have made a great start.

Members should not be disappointed if their demands are not satisfied in the first round. We shall go from strength to strength. Who would have believed five years ago that we would now be considering the final stages of a budget for the programme of a new Government for Northern Ireland? In five years’ time, how well honed will the new arrangements be? We shall be able to deal more efficiently with many of the problems raised today.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, I shall obey your injunction not to go over points that have already been made about the Budget and why the DUP moved its amendment. The arguments against the SDLP’s stealth tax have been well made.

I wish to deal with the points made by some of the other parties about our amendment. As usual, Mr Close brought a bit of life to the debate, although the arguments that he made were more or less dead. He opposed the amendment without moving one of his own. He said that he was being accused of taking a populist stance. No one could accuse the Alliance Party of being populist; "populist" implies that a party has a wee bit of support for its views.

Mr Close was also described as a magician, although he did not conjure up an amendment. Time and time again his party has lectured my party on being "negative" and on the need to offer an alternative. He was asked why he did not move an amendment, but no answer was forthcoming. I was intrigued by some of his reasoning: first he said that he could not move an amendment because the regional rate was a serious point of principle. Surely if the 8% increase in the regional rate were such a serious point of principle an alternative would have been offered. His fall-back position was that the voting system in the House was so rotten that it was not worth his while to move an amendment. His party supported that voting system. He objected — and I liked this bit — to his party’s being designated "Other". That intrigued me.

The Education Committee discussed a document on the viability of integrated schools. The Alliance Party’s submission described the present system of dividing people into Catholics and Protestants as unfair and called for a third category. What was that category to be called? Why "Other"! The Alliance Party objects to being called "Other" in the House and will not even table an amendment to the Budget because it is so indignant about it. However, it wants those attending integrated schools to be able to call themselves "Other". Mr Close said that he was sick of sectarian labels, although the Alliance Party’s proposal for integrated schools suggested that we could have "Others" from a predominantly Protestant background and "Others" from a predominantly Roman Catholic background.

This is the party that hates being labelled and that will not table an amendment because the voting system in the House labels it.

Even more intriguing was Sinn Féin’s position. It said that the DUP’s amendment was an assault on the Good Friday Agreement; that it was party political and an attack on "North/Southery". At least we were clear about what we were doing. Sinn Féin does not have a clue about what it is doing. We heard three or four speeches in the House today, some of which moved an amendment. Sinn Féin does not want the 8% increase. We then had a most articulate contribution from Mr John Kelly. If he had cut the "camcorder" out of it he would have halved his speech. In that highly articulate speech he actually welcomed the Budget. It seems that there are divisions in IRA/Sinn Féin. There are those who give "real" support to the Budget — the two Ministers, because they must have agreed to it; there are those who give "provisional" support to the Budget by giving it a qualified welcome; and there are those who give it "continuing" support, because they say they that they do not mind the 8%’s being imposed in future. They are in a bit of a tizzy about it.

I am glad that Mr Billy Bell is here. He was speaking at a difficult time. The Ulster Unionist Party’s contributions all had the common theme of supporting the Budget and of attacking the Departments held by DUP Ministers. Billy Bell had a difficult task. First, he was trying to defend the indefensible; secondly, he was trying to do it before dinner time. I wondered at one point whether it was William Bell or dinner bell, because everyone seemed to rise to leave as he was speaking.

I was amazed at the Ulster Unionist Party’s contributions; I am even more amazed that some contributions have not yet been made. There was certainly no vigorous defence of the Budget. Time and time again I have heard members of the Ulster Unionist Party speak about the iniquity of the regional rate. I have heard them in Belfast City Council. Some of them are Ministers who must have supported the Budget. They are not here. They spoke more eloquently and more robustly than ever I did in condemning the Labour Government for imposing the 8% increase in the regional rate. It used to be said that while we in the councils sought to keep rates within inflation, the direct rule Administration imposed high rates increases upon us. The same people now support that increase, but they are not in the House to explain themselves.

One Member who is not here — and I shall be interested to see how he votes — is Mr Cobain, the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee. He has spoken previously in the House in support of the poor. He has described this as a middle-class Budget for middle-class people. I should like to have heard his comments; I should like to know how he will vote.

Paddy Roche accused DUP Ministers of writing a blank cheque. We have a blank seat, as we usually do, in his case. He never comes to hear me upbraid him. Given his opposition to the Budget, will he be here to vote against it? That will probably be a signal for him to come in to do precisely that. He certainly did not get it right because he said that it was impossible for people who had taken ministerial positions to mount credible opposition, as they had to support the decisions of the Executive.

He usually reads from a prepared script, but today he tried to ad-lib. I am sure that you were pleased by that, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, in ad-libbing he missed the facts. If he had been reading from a prepared script or if he had looked at the Northern Ireland Act 1998 he would have seen that Ministers only have to operate in the Programme for Government when it has been agreed in the Executive Committee and authorised by the Assembly. No Minister is committed merely because it has gone through the Executive Committee, whether there was a DUP Minister present —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. A script is no guarantee of facts or accuracy. Time is passing. The Member will bring his remarks to a close.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Whether they were in the discussions on the Budget or outside, as our Ministers were, they are not committed. If Mr Roche shows his face for the vote, he will see how bound the DUP Ministers are by this Programme for Government and Budget proposals.

I shall sit down in a moment although I had a few things more to say. This amendment should have the support of the House. It should have the support of those in the Ulster Unionist Party who tell us that they have a social conscience. The money should be spent on the people who count rather than on "North/Southery".

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I should declare at the start of the debate that I am a councillor. I have no difficulty in differentiating between the work I do as a Member and what the Executive does. I had no part in what the Executive, in its wisdom, decided with regard to the Budget. Parts of it were, I am sure, not considered in the round. One of them is the rating system. Councillors are more acutely aware of that than anyone else.

The British Government should pay the extra money. It is a small amount, about £20 million. Someone said that it was insignificant; but it is significant to ratepayers and retailers in Fermanagh, where many are finding it difficult to survive. Some of the retailers may not be small, but they bear the major part of the 8% rise on top of annual increases.

Perhaps my own county is not in the same dire straits as some others that are trying to deal with the rise. Some areas will face much more than that this year and next year. It is unfair to burden ratepayers who cannot do anything about the predicament faced by business in their areas. Business is bad in some rural areas, and businesspeople are being asked to pay a significant amount of money. This Budget seems to depend on ratepayers paying such significant amounts.

We should have told the British Government to increase the block grant, which has been underfunded and reduced. We could raise the 8% here only to find that the British Government does not replace it in future and makes it a saving from the Exchequer. That is a possibility.

There is room for major savings in all Departments. It would not be hard to save £20 million. Farmers can see where major savings could be made in the expenses of Departments with which they are involved. The Barnett formula is another example. We must deal with people who talk about being treated equally. Unionists are not treated equally here, although they talk about equality with the rest of the UK, as they call it.

The British Government have saved billions of pounds from the conflict budget, yet they do not reinvest that money in an economy that they have ruined. Unionists can hardly regard that failure to reinvest as equal treatment.

Costs here are much higher than in England; electricity, for example, is much more expensive, and that affects people who must deal with cuts every day of the week. Those are our problems. We should not ask those people to come up with the money. It may be insignificant in the overall Exchequer funding from the British Government, but it is very significant locally.

The cross-border bodies are a vital part of the Good Friday Agreement. They are essential to the running of our island economy. Anyone with any business sense must admit that Ireland must be run as one island. Those who oppose it do so for purely political reasons; they know that it is not practical to work without cross-border co-operation.

An addition of £7·6 million has been made to the health budget. Will it be used to replace some of the gynaecological services that have been removed from the Erne Hospital? Other services, such as mental health day care, have been removed or are underfunded — not by very large amounts but by a few thousand. Many people depend on that, but the boards have not come up with it. The trusts blame the boards, but local people suffer because the money has not been drawn down. I seek the necessary extra funding.

Travel for the elderly is grand, but those in rural areas with very little rail or public transport will not gain by it. It suits cities, but we shall be asked to contribute to it without benefiting from it.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has received an extra £2 million for the LEADER programme and for disease control, both of which consist largely of administration. Its budget has been increased to £192 million, as well as £2 million and modulation money for farmers. What will the Department do with it all? How much of it is directed to Department administration rather than being drawn down to farmers? Farmers will have great difficulty in seeing its effect on farms.

The Budget does not provide for any of the schemes that we asked for: the environmental scheme, installation aid for young farmers, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development equality schemes, the vision groups and an increase in animal disease compensation. Although it may be necessary to help disease control at first, that budget would fall if effective disease control were achieved. How effective has the eradication of brucellosis or tuberculosis been if such increases are necessary? It is vital that these funds be properly and effectively used rather than exploited, which may happen.

The Department of Agriculture’s administration budget is being increased while many can no longer afford to remain in farming. That is indeed a stark contrast. Will the extra money be eaten up in administration; will nothing be directed to farmers? Modulation funding is farmers’ money, but they have no say in where it goes. They are asked to pay yet they get no return. It starts at 2·5% in the first year and increases to 4·5% year on year for the next two years, yet farmers have no say in where it goes.

The effect that the increase of the £26 million as well as the £7 million and the modulation money will have over the next two years is questionable. BSE is still mainly to blame for farmers’ predicament. They will not be allowed to use meat-and-bone meals, and that will create an extra expense for farms. They are not allowed to use it now in feeds because the United States used genetic modification in the production of soya, and retailers will no longer accept it. Therefore, farmers must look elsewhere. How can quality beef schemes be implemented, given the farmers’ situation? That will become clearer in the weeks to come.

The money that has been given to the electronic portal and to farm business development may benefit farmers, and I hope that it solves their problems. How much of the Budget has been designed to help farmers out of their difficulties — the stress and financial problems of having to go to the banks to restructure loans? The Budget must deal with that, but that may be the decision of individual Ministers and not of Mr Durkan.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I am sure you will be relieved that at this time of night I have thrown away the Irish and Ulster-Scots versions of my speech. However, you will not be surprised to know that I cannot miss the opportunity to start by discussing the regional rate.

I do not propose to repeat everything. Those of us in this corner of the Chamber who talk about the need for tax-varying powers are frequently criticised by Ministers who oppose that principle. However, even Sammy Wilson adopted Mr Close’s terminology and referred to the introduction of a "stealth tax". Of course, the major benefits are that, first, it is not seen and, secondly, if it is seen, the councils get the blame. I must warn the Minister that the councils are starting to fight back.

No doubt he has plenty to read: he may read the Derry papers but not necessarily the ‘Coleraine Chronicle’ every week. I draw his attention to an article in the edition of 21 November. A motion proposed by Alliance councillor Bill Matthews expressing concern at the rates rise and asking the council to write to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister was passed unanimously. Interestingly, among the councillors reported as having spoken on the issue was a Cllr Dallat, whom I see nodding to the Minister. [Interruption.]

DUP Members should wake up. They are a bit slow.

Cllr Dallat expressed some very interesting views, which I am sure Members wish to hear — they may inform SDLP Back-Benchers on the debate. To my knowledge, no correction was published in the edition of 28 November, so I presume that this is correct. Cllr John Dallat and Cllr Eamon Mullan agreed with the Alliance Party proposal. Cllr Dallat also reminded the council that this is a notional rise — 8% may not be the final figure. If we are worried about 8% it appears that there is a hotline straight from the council offices in Coleraine to the Department of Finance and Personnel in Bangor; it informs us that it will be March before we know the final figure. I hoped that the document the Minister presented to us and that we are debating today would give us the final figure.

The council unanimously accepted the Alliance Party’s position — a precedent I recommend to the Assembly on every occasion. Similarly, I was informed by the ‘Good Morning Ulster’ programme this morning that Mr Close was getting the credit for running a "one-man campaign" against excessive rises in the regional rate. It is clear from the reaction to it that the "one-man campaign" appears to have won the majority opinion in the Chamber. Clearly there is some unity on that point.

All this has happened because the regional rate rise was shoved through. It is the bluntest possible tax, unless the Minister is proposing to introduce the poll tax next year. All that has been gained is about £10 million for next year, a sum that will be well covered by the increases in departmental running costs across the 10 — or is it 11? — Departments. I can never remember which.

Indeed, it could be covered by what I understand to be a significant underspend in the Assembly’s running costs this year; money that can presumably be reallocated. It is time that the Minister told us whether he intends to play catch up with the council tax in England and Wales — or Yorkshire and Humberside, if those are the regions to which we are compared. If he does propose to play catch up, for how many years — not just the three years in this plan — must we have an excessive rise in the regional rate to facilitate it? Is that fair to those who are only slightly above the poverty line in Northern Ireland?

Free travel for pensioners also impinges on the rates. We used to complain in the bad old days of direct rule that Ministers made commitments while councils had the job of implementing them without the necessary funding. I suppose that we should be grateful for getting three quarters of the funding. However, the other 25% will lie as a charge upon the district rates. The Minister of the Environment has cut the district rate as part of his rates support grant, which is being funded by an increase in the regional rate. That is toytown economics — it does not add up.

Public service agreements were referred to but not dealt with. The Budget proposes including them for each Department. Obviously, we welcome the greater accountability in delivering Government services. However, it is a clear example of putting the cart before the horse. We ought to have had a Programme for Government first. We should have costed it, and then we could have had public service agreements followed by a budget. Instead, it is being driven in the wrong direction. In referring to "Departments" the statement is unclear whether it means the 10 statutory Departments or the 11 effective Departments — the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister seems to have an ever greater say. Will the agreements apply to the whole public sector? How will they be introduced? Into whose bailiwick will the enforcement of public service agreements fall? Are they a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel? Is the Minister of Finance and Personnel being put up to speak on them for the Executive when they are yet another matter being centralised in the economic policy unit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister?

Of course, there is talk there about value for money. We all know that we have limited resources — limited not least because of the refusal to consider tax-varying powers. We all know what has happened in Northern Ireland over recent years with the introduction of the private finance initiative (PFI) and the change to public- private partnerships (PPPs), which seem merely to change a few initials without changing the principles very much. The Minister is well aware from the Adjournment debate a few months ago that I do not entirely oppose the concept of PPPs. Indeed, I can see benefits for the Antrim town centre development.

However, it is time for the Executive to tell us their proposals on them. Will they repeat the disastrous mistakes made with PFI on aspects of public services that did not sit well with the private management of public services? I have in mind the kind of problems that have arisen in hospitals, and in the Health Service generally, in parts of Great Britain. Given the problems of funding Translink —the railways, Ulsterbus and Citybus — will there be a proposal to sell it off? Will the Executive tell us soon about the virtues of private profit in maintaining rail safety or will they wait until the Hatfield news fades a little?

It is time for the Executive to make proposals that are more than a pale imitation of Gordon Brown’s. For example, it could consider the proposal for a bonds issue; that is attracting considerable support with regard to the London tube. We should take a more imaginative look at leasing rather than accept the threat, which is implicit in how value for money is presented, that privatisation is the only option.

The proposed amendments, apart from adopting the Alliance Party’s views on regional rates, seem to have different flavours. The DUP amendment opposes North/ South bodies. Interestingly, it has also chosen to drag in the Civic Forum. It is unlikely to attract support from across the Assembly — and certainly not from my party — in its attempt to put its political point into the Budget.

Sinn Féin has chosen to attack the Executive programme funds.

That surprises me. We must take a more imaginative look at this, although not, I hope, as imaginative a look as Mr McElduff’s. The Executive programme funds are very different from the old direct rule proposals. They are an opportunity to make progress. Although it remains to be seen how well they work — they certainly do not attract carte blanche approval yet — they should at least be given a chance. We shall not support a proposal to remove money from the Executive programme funds as the only way of keeping the regional rate down.

Everyone knew from the beginning that the DUP would try to distance itself from the Executive as soon as it took its seats there. I find it bizarre that, although Sinn Féin participates fully in the Executive, its Members did their best to distance themselves from Executive policy.

On the whole, the Minister has got off lightly with his Budget proposals because of the proposed increase in public expenditure across the United Kingdom. This may have more to do with the prospects of a Westminster general election than with the needs of the Assembly. However, the Budget has demonstrated the failure of the Executive to set priorities. I did not support devolution merely to have a pale imitation of Gordon Brown’s policies implemented without real regard for our society’s needs. I certainly did not want a Budget that would lead to a sectarian dogfight. The Assembly should get away from such sectarianism and cheap motives. I appeal to Members to do the right thing and say "The Budget as it stands is not acceptable; it does not meet our constituents’ needs. It should be opposed".

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome Northern Ireland’s first Budget in 30 years. Local people are delivering a way forward in difficult times. The acid test of any legislative Assembly is its financial clout. Representative bodies are often judged by the potency of their spending power. The result of the Assembly’s spending power has been a concentration of much effective decision making in local hands.

However, one great question lies unresolved at the heart of Mr Durkan’s Budget. It is a question to which the Ulster Unionist Party would like an answer. I refer to the Barnett formula, which governs our relationship with the sovereign Parliament at Westminster or, more accurately, with the Treasury in Whitehall. The Treasury is known for its meanness; and the present incumbent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s office is noted for a canny approach to public spending characteristic of his Scottish prudence. Coincidentally, of course, this has resulted in a massive war chest, which the Labour Government will use through public spending to attract voters at the next general election.

It is time to deal with the Barnett formula properly, using all the emphasis that the Assembly can muster. I note that point 35 of the Minister’s statement on 12 December says

"The Executive remains determined to engage with the Treasury"

on the Barnett formula. Our approach must be more formal and more aggressive. The Assembly must formally address Her Majesty’s Government and the sovereign Parliament in Westminster, because they govern the relationship between the Assembly and the Executive and the Westminster Parliament and the Government of the day in the only issue that really matters — finance.

In the Minister’s statement of 12 December I read with mounting concern that the practical effects of the Barnett formula are on European Union funding. Only one European Union programme, Peace II, is outside the operation of the Barnett formula. This is the only money that we receive directly from Europe. In paragraph 14 of his statement last Monday the Minister detailed the extra financial burden that he must meet in order to deliver the contents of European Union programmes effectively and appropriately. There is an extra £15 million in 2000-01, an extra £20 million in 2001-02 and an extra £20 million in 2002-03. That is £55 million over the next three fiscal years. This should not be. Those community programmes were designed to meet identified needs.

Whitehall should not be pocketing the money for itself, yet that in effect is what is happening. The Minister agrees with this — he said as much in paragraphs 14, 34 and 35. Clearly, the operation of the Barnett formula irks him, as it does any right-thinking person. The Minister should tell us whether this European slippage is the only adverse effect of the Barnett formula. The key issue must be, of course, how much the loss of money through Barnett reduces our effective spending power.

Our approach to dealing with this matter should be formal rather than causal. The issues must be publicly and transparently aired. After all, Mr Blair’s Government often tells us of the need for transparency — let us now see some of it.

I wish to comment on the additional money, some £2 million above the figure given by the Minister in October, which is being allocated to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. In a statement on 12 March the Minister said that the money was to be used for animal health programmes. No one disputes the importance of those programmes, but, as I have said before and will say again, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is much too consumer- orientated — it should be more producer-orientated.

The additional money should be used to tackle the real drop in rural development spending that augments so many farm incomes. This is at a time when the incomes of farmers and fishermen are dropping steeply — a point I made in a debate on the agriculture industry two weeks ago.

Only last week we heard about the severe cuts in the fishing quotas. This is the latest serious blow to an industry already reeling from disasters. For every fisherman who works on a boat another five are employed elsewhere in the industry. We must have equity across the whole agriculture and fisheries sector. We must also do something about farm incomes.

The only subheadings in the Budget which I can see effecting farmers’ incomes are "Food & Farm Policy" and "Domestic Agriculture Policy". Together they represent about £55 million — only a quarter of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s total budget. That means that more than three quarters of the Department’s budget is being spent on administration and not directly on farmers’ incomes.

That is where the real crisis is. We must tackle new issues with new money and not continue to do more of the same. That is the essence of the proactivity spoken of in the agriculture motion unanimously agreed in the House on 5 December. Three things that people want are a reasonable education, a good job and to be able to own their own home. We politicians must create an environment where those things are possible. Farmers, farm workers and fishermen should not be excluded or ignored.

Section 2 on key Budget messages mentions an increase in health spending. We are all aware of the overcrowding in our hospitals and we are very lucky not to have been hit by an epidemic. Other important features are an increase of nearly 10% for agriculture and rural development, railways, provision for the first phase of the investment needed to make the network safe and action on vital environmental measures.

Those are only a few of them. I believe that the 8% increase can be spent wisely on important services that affect our everyday life, such as our hospitals and schools. I do not like the 8% increase; but if it can make a real difference where it matters it will be welcome. Those matters must be tackled. I hope that, as the Assembly makes progress and if the Budget is passed today, they will not be brushed under the carpet. They are real issues that affect us all.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

It is not every week that the Alliance Party in Coleraine has an initiative, so it would be remiss of me to ignore it. It does have occasional initiatives on money. The debate in Coleraine took place before the Minister of Finance and Personnel announced an extra £31·7 million for Departments to achieve goals that I passionately believe in — goals that Mr Ford and his Colleagues in the Alliance Party have no time for. It is a shame that the Alliance Party wants to turn its back on the socially deprived. Where is its vision for a future in which all people will be equal?

The Alliance Party motion was penned in one of the most affluent electoral wards in Coleraine, a town that also has the poorest electoral ward in Northern Ireland. On that matter, I rest my case without apology.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I certainly will not. I have long experience of that.

The proposals in the Budget reflect broad agreement — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker, you must control your party Colleagues.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member’s remark is wholly out of line. The Speaker is now outside party politics and has scrupulously maintained that position. He does not have any statements from inside or outside the Chamber to which other Members can refer, as has been the case here.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Mr Speaker, that was an historical reference. The proposals in the Budget reflect broad agreement among the main parties and reflect how the Assembly should spend its money over the next year. This is by any yardstick an historic occasion, as it represents the end of 30 years of direct rule and the disadvantages of absentee landlords. It also represents the beginning of direct accountability for how money is targeted, how it is spent and how waste can be avoided. I shall return to that when I speak in my role as Chairman of the Audit Committee.

There will be much disagreement, but that is in the nature of politics. Nevertheless, all Members must be honest with themselves and, more importantly, with the electorate in outlining where money can be saved if they believe that a particular Department should be prioritised. Last Friday, the Minister of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment, Dr Seán Farren, announced his proposals on fees and other aspects of support for part and full-time students in further and higher education.

The package received broad agreement from the Executive and general approval in the wider community. Some matters must be clarified over the next few weeks, and I have no doubt that they will be. However, when the Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment Committee discussed the package of reforms I was taken aback by a remark of a Sinn Féin member. He told us that he was not concerned about the views of his Colleagues in the Executive, Bairbre de Brún and Martin McGuinness, who helped to approve the package.

I do not mean to tell tales on the hon Member for Mid Ulster: he has already said that there are no pontiffs in Sinn Féin; nor do I wish to rubbish his independence as a Back-Bencher. I raise the matter to illustrate how strange it is to make demands that all of us could and would support in an ideal world but which cannot be delivered while funds are finite. In such circumstances it is right and proper that scarce resources be targeted at the socially disadvantaged. How can a budget ever be agreed if everyone does his own thing?

Although I do not share the political views of Minister de Brún or of Minister McGuinness, I am very concerned that they should have the resources to fund their Departments just as I want Dr Farren to have adequate funding for student finance. I hold the same view with regard to every other Minister, including the two absentee Ministers of the DUP. I take no pleasure in reading about Gregory Campbell’s being stuck in a snowstorm on the Glenshane Pass or stuck in a traffic jam in Toomebridge.

Returning to health and education, I do not want to see a repeat of an incident last week when one of my sick elderly constituents had to be transferred by private car from Altnagelvin Hospital to Coleraine Hospital because there was no ambulance.

I want to see an end to the serious problems of poor literacy and poor numeracy, which, according to the latest provisional figures, are getting worse. Can anyone justify the fact that one in four people leaves school with serious problems in reading and counting? I think not. Term workers in schools who are not paid during holidays and who cannot receive benefits face problems. I want to see those problems resolved. I want that section of support staff to enjoy stability so that the children who need them most are not disadvantaged.

When we make demands and roar from rooftops or from open-deck buses let us keep in mind that while resources are scarce we have a duty to target social need and to protect the rights of the poor. We also have a duty to view the big picture when the resources are not adequate to meet everyone’s demands. By and large, the Executive have done that in an equitable manner in spite of the unacceptable behaviour of the DUP, whose Ministers refuse to participate in the Executive. It seems strange — puzzling even — that any individual should abandon the principles of equality and targeting social need. I consider these principles to be much more important than any others that we may wish to see implemented when resources are more plentiful.

‘Making a difference’ is a fundamental theme of the Programme for Government to which the Executive are committed. That difference will be seen in the proposals contained in the Budget for the services for which the Executive and, ultimately, the Assembly are responsible as we decide upon the allocation of the resources available. That difference must be measured against new targeting social need (New TSN) and equality requirements, which are fundamental to the Good Friday Agreement. In practice, they oblige us to target the needs of the poor. In other words, the needs of the poor must have priority when we allocate funds.

We must also make our allocations with due regard to the equality provisions of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This means ensuring that we not only avoid discrimination on the grounds of religion, politics, gender, race or disability, but that we actively promote equality.

The DUP amendment is not worthy of serious debate and the Sinn Féin amendment is also disappointing. The Executive programme funds are a product of devolution. They allow us to get more out of the Government by making Departments more accountable for their expenditure and by forcing them to be more imaginative when they seek funding. The Executive programme funds are about giving back to the people what the Government have taken away in the past. These amendments are informed more by the writings of Robert Louis Stevenson’s ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ than by serious and responsible representative politics. One cannot accept power without accepting responsibility. It appears that Sinn Féin and the DUP want, just as the literary character did, to live one life inside Government and another outside it.

Mr Maskey proposed taking resources out of the Executive programme funds. He suggests that we remove resources designed to tackle social exclusion, to deal with the needs of our children, to regenerate rural and urban communities and to improve public services. I am not prepared to see priorities that have been neglected over 30 years of direct rule put on the back burner once again.

I could go on but I have made my point. There must be an holistic approach to the spending of scarce resources, and that means that not everyone will be happy. That does not mean, however, that improvements cannot be made, that better ways of delivering services cannot be found; that is the task of Assembly Members, individually and collectively. It does not mean that I do not aspire to the abolition of fees or that I cannot work towards that as an individual or collectively with other Members.

Finally, the Public Accounts Committee or the Audit Committee that I referred to earlier may have to ask for funds to finance extra scrutiny.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

It is interesting to follow Mr Dallat. He spent the first three or four minutes of his speech apologising for how he voted on the rates in the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee and in his local council. I hope that tonight, after one of our longest debates, he will know exactly how he is supposed to vote and will not make any mistakes for which he will later have to apologise. I also hope that he tells Dr Farren who Mr Robert Louis Stevenson is. In a recent radio interview the Minister seemed to be unaware of some of the literary giants to whom Mr Dallat referred.

Several Members are also members of local authorities. Whenever a council set a scrupulously low council rate it wrote to the relevant Minister asking him not to take advantage of that to strike a high regional rate. I understand that Mr Durkan, when a member of his local council, followed that practice. I hope that tonight he will hear the plea of the people and accept that we should not take advantage of low council rates to set a high regional rate. I support wholeheartedly the comments of my Colleagues, the Members for North Belfast, Mr Dodds, and East Belfast, Mr Peter Robinson, who moved the amendment. The amendment shows that some cuts could be made to the Budget to untie the Minister’s hands and to put the money into a better budget.

I also listened to the whingeing of several IRA/Sinn Féin Members; it serves absolutely no purpose. Mr John Kelly, the Member for Mid Ulster, opposed the DUP’s argument on "North/Southery" and our objections to spending money on the North/South bodies. Of course, Mr Kelly’s party and its other wing — the Provisional IRA — have for several years been engaged in cross- border activities. One of the most recent was blowing up the heart of Omagh, killing 29 people. On several other occasions the IRA executed people and fled across the border.

We must object to the bloodthirstiness at the heart of Sinn Féin’s cross-border policy. Its members read us a homily about supporting cross-border initiatives, although their party has used the border to hide from justice. That is a sick joke, and everyone will see through it. However, the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin Members caps it all. They are first in line with the begging bowl, asking for watchtowers to be ripped down and asking the British Government to stop spending on security for the people of Northern Ireland. Their hypocrisy is blatant.

The Budget is really all about who gets what and what they do with it. No one underestimates the difficulty of the Minister’s task, but it would be irresponsible to give him a lap of honour and to heap praise on him when there are still serious problems with his Budget.

The Budget has totally failed to stop the waste that lies at its own heart. We are all aware of the waste on the part of some Departments, namely Health and Education. We all know that every month the Health Minister wastes approximately £2,500 on completely unnecessary duplication and translation costs. We all received the Health Department’s ‘Building the Way Forward in Primary Care’ document this week; it had been translated and published in Irish. How much did that cost? How much more waste of resources will the Executive tolerate before they stop it at their own heart?

The same Minister wasted £3,300 on a non-existent cross-border meeting in Enniskillen; money should not have been wasted in such a manner. That Minister’s decision on maternity services is now subject to a judicial review; that is yet another waste of resources by her Department, for she took what was a blatantly political decision. Now she is wasting money on primary care publications.

This waste, this rottenness at the heart of government must be eradicated. It exposes Sinn Féin/ IRA’s real agenda in all this, and that agenda has nothing to do with contributing to the good government of Northern Ireland. It is about one thing and one thing only — bleeding Ulster dry, and if it can use the Government into which it has been put to achieve that, it will not hesitate to do so. All this condemns those who thought that it was a good idea to put these bloodsuckers into the Government of Northern Ireland.

The debate raises the issue of the structure of government, and to some degree the report of the draft Budget for 2001-02 deals with this. The structure of government means that the Minister’s hands, whether he likes it or not, are excessively tied. In many respects, this Government is a shambles. It is a shambles because there are too many Ministers, too many Departments and too much government, and for all the government that we have in this place there is very little legislation.

The DUP has shown that the structure of government lies at the heart of many of the Finance Minister’s problems. When the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister introduced proposals to increase government to its present overwhelming size, we said that it was a political decision to give jobs to the boys. We said that it was excessive and wasteful, and today we have been proved right. There are people on the other side of the House who agreed in principle with this massive government who now see the folly of their ways. I see that my Colleague from North Antrim, Mr Leslie, is here. I noticed in a local newspaper that he called for a review of the size of the parties. I welcome that; it shows that some people realise that government here is too big and must be reduced. He also says that the only thing in favour of the DUP Ministers’ non-attendance is that a Committee of 10 is probably easier to work than a Committee of 12. However, a Committee of five or six is considerably easier to work than a Committee of 10. It shows that this Government is excessive and that the Minister’s hands are tied with regard to his Budget.

I found the Committee Chairpersons’ comments in the report of the draft Budget very interesting — so much for a united approach. The Chairpersons of various Committees — and not just DUP Chairpersons, but Ulster Unionist, SDLP and Sinn Féin Chairpersons — all criticised the Budget proposals. The exceptions were the SDLP Chairperson of the Health Committee, who did not bother reporting to us for various reasons; and the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, Mr Cobain, who is too busy writing articles for the ‘Shankill Mirror’ to report his concerns on the matter.

Every one of them talked of excessive shortfall and of their acute disappointment in the Budget, which Dr Birnie mentioned, its inadequacy and its lack of provision for victims. That shows that the Budget and the House are by no means united.

Therefore we should have a cost-cutting exercise and we should endorse the DUP amendment.

I want very briefly to concentrate on the waste that lies at the heart of government because I think that this waste —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member will have to be brief as there is only one minute left.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I shall concentrate on a couple of points. Time and time again I have tried to plug the issue of waste by asking certain questions. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to spend £2,400 on the steering committee on cross-border rural development, although all its work could be adequately performed by her Department.

However, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s pièce de résistance must be its recent decision to spend money on a peace maze at Castlewellan. A peace maze is well and good, and it might even attract tourists — there is, of course, no business programme for that — but this project cost £138,000, 25% of which came directly from the Department of Agriculture. Indeed, her Department contributed the other 75% or £103,500.

This waste, and that which is replicated across all Departments —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The waste across all the Departments must be plugged. I appeal to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to deal with the question of waste when drawing up his next Budget. Only then shall we see a real and meaningful budget.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Budget and I acknowledge that it is a fairly substantial and generally good piece of work by the Executive. I congratulate the Executive and the Minister on their work.

However, as a member of the Social Development Committee I am extremely disappointed that the Department for Social Development failed to negotiate any substantive increase in its budgetary allocation.

Some departmental running costs are outrageous. Running the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, for example, accounts for 51·4% of the total expenditure, followed by the Department of the Environment. The Department for Social Development is not far behind. The Department’s central administration unit, the Child Support Agency and social security benefited most from additional cash.

Unfortunately, the community and voluntary sectors, which do sterling work in areas of great social need and which employ many people, have not received adequate funding. We must spend much more on these sectors to eradicate the differences between communities and to end discrimination rather than starve them of resources.

Many community workers deal with long-term unemployment or drug and alcohol abuse while giving advice and practical assistance to the most disadvantaged and marginalised people in our communities. The sector employs thousands who work in communities for local people, yet many have already lost their jobs because of a lack of gap funding. As more people are employed in the community and voluntary sectors than in the textiles industry, we should try to stabilise employment in order to give job security to them in carrying out this valuable work.

The regeneration of our towns and villages has also been a victim of this Budget — the yearly allocation for this has been slashed by 4·4%. In recent years millions of pounds of public and private money have been pumped into east Belfast through the Laganside project. It follows therefore that increased expenditure in towns and villages would be a more appropriate means of levelling the playing field. No public finance has been channelled into regeneration, and the effects can clearly be seen in parts of our cities and towns. A great deal of work has been done, particularly in areas that have suffered deprivation and neglect for generations.

However, I shall concentrate on the area that has suffered most in this Budget, and that is housing. I welcome the allocation of £3·5 million for disabled adaptations and accept that this will greatly alleviate suffering and improve the quality of life for many disabled and elderly people, some of whom have been waiting for over two years. However, this is not enough. The Housing Executive’s budget is being increased by 1·5%, although when inflation has been taken into account, there is actually a decrease.

Thousands of pounds are taken out of Housing Executive coffers every year in receipts from the sale of Housing Executive properties, leaving the Executive to pay interest for years on money that has long been returned to the British Exchequer.

This situation is not acceptable.

Furthermore, the Minister for Social Development proposes hiking Housing Executive rents by GDP plus 2%, despite the Committee’s rejecting this ludicrous plan. If the Minister were really trying to avoid increasing rents, surely he would have made a bid for additional resources and gone to the Executive to argue his case. Although the Minister has told us how many kitchen and bathroom adaptations could be made if this increase were approved, we have not heard how this would affect those who are on benefits. What are the implications for those Housing Executive tenants who cannot get work or who are not fit to take it? I fear that these increases would ensure that every Housing Executive tenant would be on benefits, resulting in Housing Executive estates all over the Six Counties becoming a dumping ground for those who cannot get work or who are not fit to work. Mixed tenure housing would be a thing of the past, and the many people who cannot afford to go out to work could expect to see out their days in poverty.

Why should young people who grow up on some of these estates strive to achieve anything at school if they are part of a culture that ensures they cannot afford to get a job when they leave? What shall we instil in future generations if they grow up believing that they will be dependent on benefits because the cost of living for those who work is too high? If the Minister insists on forcing these increases through, he will be making a mockery of targeting social need and will only highlight his lack of understanding of the needs of those who live in social housing.

In conclusion, I add my name to the list of those who are opposed to an increase in the regional rate. The pain involved is not worth the gain, and many small businesses will go to the wall, particularly in rural communities. The difference between the pound and the punt means that businesses in my constituency are already struggling to make a living, but this increase will ensure that towns such as Aughnacloy, Dungannon, Kinawley and Belleek will have to shut up shop and accept defeat. No representative of rural and border constituencies can allow this rate to go through unopposed.

I acknowledge the amendments tabled by the DUP and by own party. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker, I cannot talk while that rabble is making such a noise.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If Members wish to hold conversations, they should do so in the Members’ Lobby.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I was interested in what the Alliance Party had to say. Has it any practical suggestions to make on the differential? It is easy to criticise; we can, however, seek alternatives. We should insist that moneys be made available from the peace dividend and we should think of more imaginative ways of resourcing our necessary services. Why should the Dublin Government not be asked to contribute to health, to roads and to an infrastructure that is already desperately poor in certain areas? We will not resort to bleeding the disadvantaged dry; we will not fleece those who pay for services to which they no longer have access; we will not ask people who must travel over 30 miles to the nearest accident and emergency or maternity unit to pay an additional 8% on their rates bill. Go raibh maith agat.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Rev Dr Ian Paisley said this afternoon that this Budget should be spent

"in the best possible way, for the best possible ends, and distributed to the neediest of our people".

Dare I suggest that no one in the Assembly would oppose that? We all want the best possible way and the best possible ends to those most in need. That would be a good start.

I want to focus on road safety, as urgent measures are needed to improve it, and to improve it quickly. I appeal to all those Ministers into whose portfolio it falls. We need a major injection of funding to tackle the terror that stalks our roads, particularly at Christmas.

How many more mornings shall we wake to hear the tragic news of another death on our roads? These are young deaths, avoidable deaths. When shall we realise that more must be done?

Having studied the Budget and the Department of the Environment’s plans, I commend the decision to increase the road safety budget over the next four years. It will increase from approximately £4 million to £10 million by 2004. That is valuable; but it is not enough. It is not enough.

I also commend the Executive Committee’s decision to fund a recruitment drive to increase the number of road safety education officers. Come on! Road safety education officers are not enough. Just look at the death toll on our roads. We need much more. We must attack the cause of this scourge of modern society at its root and from every direction. We need a cross-departmental package. We must reduce speed limits, introduce more traffic-calming measures, especially in urban areas near primary schools and hospitals and in areas where children gather. The laws on speed limits and drink-driving must be applied more strictly. We must fund public transport. We have been speaking this afternoon about road improvements — and they are needed, in rural areas as well as in cities. However, to get people off the roads and into buses and trains increased funding of public transport is also needed, particularly for rail transport. That would reduce congestion and reduce the danger to pedestrians.

The Committees have highlighted the urgent need to reduce the overcrowding of children on buses. I do not have the exact figures to hand but I believe that 100 children may be transported on a 50-seater bus — without seat belts. We know what happens if we are stopped by the police and a child in the back of the car is not wearing a seat belt. However, we can cram our buses, which are not equipped with seat belts, full of schoolchildren and get away with it. What are we doing?

One vital issue that is probably not being tackled properly is the need for much more funding and more victims’ support groups to counsel the families of road death victims and the injured. Terrible trauma and tragedy are inflicted upon these families, and many have nowhere to go for the counselling that they need to bring them through the crisis.

These are areas where a whole package of measures could be put into place immediately. I know that Members are aware that the issue is topical. However, it is not just topical: it is a matter of life and death and must be dealt with urgently.

I want to consider the breakdown of funding in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Office has many responsibilities, but in the Budget allocation there is no mention of some of the important ones, such as the amount of money that will go to victims. That is number one.

Secondly, there are women’s issues. Do not forget that women’s centres are important for promoting lifelong learning, education and training. How much will go to them? Why has it not been broken down in the Budget?

Community relations is another. A famous gentleman, who was in the Province recently, said that peace is not a spectator sport. We have recognised that by urging more cross-community contact. Where is the money to support those grand words? Where is the money? I want to know.

One example that I always cite is integrated education, and I am glad that the Minister is present to hear this. How much more money do we need to promote the valuable cross-community work of integrated education? This morning there was a festival for integrated education in Irish-medium schools. That is valuable in bringing the matter to the fore, but I want money where mouths are. I want integrated education to be recognised as hugely important for the future of Northern Ireland, for peace building and for reconciliation.

I could mention many other topics such as industry and agriculture; I could mention marketing matters that must be dealt with. We must spend more on innovation, on energy efficiency, pollution control and waste. Where is the money to go into the things that Northern Ireland needs? However, I said that I would be brief and I shall finish there.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

I had intended to start by congratulating the Minister on making full use of the resources available to him. However, during the debate I have had something of a Damascus Road conversion. Listening to Mr John Kelly from Mid Ulster, I understood how lacking in innovation the Minister of Finance and Personnel had been. As well as looking for more money from the British Government, Mr Kelly said that we should speak to the Irish Government to find out how eager they are to fund reunification. If an approach were made to the Irish Government to put substantial funds into the Exchequer, perhaps we would see just how keen they really are beyond the rhetoric. We are also told of the great pool of money in Irish America.

Let us not leave the matter at that. We heard from Mr Kelly that we could perhaps trace Strongbow’s relatives to the root of Ireland’s historic problems and get them to finance the increases in the Budget. Let us not limit ourselves to the earth — the Executive could set aside a little bit of money for a satellite to go to far-flung galaxies that may be prepared to provide funding.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The relevance to the earthbound budget is increasingly distant. I ask the Member to stick to the earth, please.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

This is an historic day; that, however, is not necessarily a compliment. After all, the Battle of Hastings was an historic day, but depending on whether one was on the side of King Harold or King William it was either a good historic day or a bad one. The Administration’s key test will be the people of Northern Ireland; and the test of the Budget will be the system of government’s ability to change things for their good.

I want to return briefly to Mr Close’s remarks. He quite properly raised the question of the regional rate and its inequities, but his party’s position beggars belief. Mr Close told us to avoid being Pontius Pilate, but the Alliance position on the two amendments is precisely that. The position of Mr McGrady and others in supporting the increase in the regional rate is an honourable one. They said that we should either justify the increase or back one of the amendments or move an amendment of our own. However, to say "We do not like the regional rate, but we will not table an amendment to the Budget proposals" is the epitome of Pontius Pilate.

I should say, to give some comfort to the Alliance Party, that I watched a programme during the week in which the potential new Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who is racing ahead in the polls, is a member of a centrist group called New Alliance. I should point out, in case the Alliance Party gets too excited, that it was a work of fiction. Similarly, the Alliance proposals have been completely fictional, because they do not materialise at any stage.

On the whole, I welcome the Budget. Mark Durkan has done a fairly good job. In particular, I welcome the spending on health, education, and railways — which have been neglected by our society — and on transport for the elderly. I also welcome moneys going, albeit belatedly, towards student fees. However, having a good Budget that has been broadly welcomed does not mean that the Budget is perfect.

That brings me to the amendments. Although neither is perfect, both are an improvement, and consequently I shall be supporting them.

Much has been made of the regional rate, and it is a particularly iniquitous tax. The increase in the regional rate will hit many who can least afford it. It is not a progressive tax. Some of us belong to a party that does not believe in regional tax-varying powers. Indeed, one of the few good things in the agreement is the absence of tax-varying powers. Having ensured that tax-varying powers are not contained in the agreement, we should not let them in by the back door. If we are to have tax-varying powers such as the regional rate let us at least be honest about it. Let us not produce something that merely passes the buck — and the blame — to local government.

I can speak as one, to use Mr Close’s expression, "with clean hands". I have no connection with local government, and I am not a councillor trying to remove the burden from it.

What arguments were used in favour of this increase in rates? Mr McGrady told us that the £11 million or £12 million — that is what it will amount to — is needed for education and health. They are the sectors, it is claimed, that will be hit by refusing this increase in the regional rate. However, the regional rate is not directly targeted at any particular aspect of Government. Therefore it is nonsense to suggest that refusing the increase in the regional rate will affect education and health.

We are also told that reducing the regional rate increase to the level of inflation will somehow offend the Treasury so much that any argument on the Barnett formula will be rendered completely null and void. I could accept the merit in that argument if we were proposing a reduction in the regional rate or even suggesting that the regional rate remain at its present level. However, these amendments propose that the regional rate increase purely at the rate of inflation. By saving £11 million or £12 million, the Assembly does not damage its argument that we do not get an equitable deal from the Barnett formula. We must push for it. This is a matter in which the Assembly can be innovative and not simply copy direct rule.

I said that there were some flaws in the amendments. My only concern with the DUP amendment is whether we could raise all £12 million through the changes that it suggests. In favour of its amendment, I agree that there is a layer of fat in "North/Southery", particularly in the Civic Forum, which serves no useful purpose. Savings could be made there.

I turn to the Sinn Féin amendment. That party signed up to the Budget in the Executive and it can justifiably be accused of hypocrisy.

Its proposals are vague and are directed purely at the Executive programme funds. Nevertheless, if we are to take an innovative step to keep the regional rate down, changes must be made. However, where will the money come from?

Some suggested scaling down the British military budget. It is interesting that those who suggest this could reduce that budget by delivering decommissioning. Leaving that aside, were either of these amendments agreed, we would be unlikely to see either the North/South bodies or the Executive Budget completely destroyed, as Members of the Executive regard them as the sacred cows of this process. Were either of these amendments agreed, the money would mysteriously be found. In the various monitoring rounds we have seen savings of £40 million, £50 million, even £60 million being pulled out of the hat. Making either of these amendments will reduce some of the fat in the system.

For example, departmental running costs are projected to rise by 10%. If the increase in departmental running costs was pegged back to the rate of increase across the spend — 7·8% — we would generate more than enough money to keep the regional rate in line with inflation.

Money can be saved there, and the increase in the regional rate is iniquitous. We should take this opportunity to send the message that we are breaking with the past. We must stop the regional rate increase and reduce it to the rate of inflation.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members may be puzzled about why I have introduced several Members who are Committee Chairpersons or Deputy Chairpersons without giving that information. That is because I only call Members as Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson when they have said that they wish to speak in that capacity. Sometimes I do not have the information to hand; sometimes the Member chooses, although holding an office, not to speak in that capacity. I am aware that this has created a degree of uncertainty.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Budget for 2001-02 and on the public spending plans for the following two years. The Education Committee considered the draft budget for the Department of Education in detail and passed its comments on to the Minister. The Committee notes that, with regard to education, this Budget allows for little more than maintenance of current spending with uplift for inflation.

The education of our children and young people is important for a vibrant and growing economy. It is important that the Assembly, the Executive and the Minister of Finance and Personnel recognise that funding education is an investment in the future of Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Minister’s making an additional £1·3 million available for repairs to school buildings in his revised Budget. The Education Committee has heard at first hand of the appalling conditions in many of our schools and of the poor accommodation that pupils and teachers cope with every day. Those problems include lack of space, leaking roofs, unsafe windows and buildings, crumbling concrete and appalling personal conditions. These are all health risks. The Committee pressed for more money to tackle these problems.

We believe that every child deserves safe, appropriate and excellent educational facilities in which to learn. Although the extra money will be put to good use, it is not enough to improve the appalling conditions of the school estate. I hope that the Minister will take account of the representations made by the Education Committee and will include them in his spending plans for the next couple of years.

I welcome the consolidation of the March 2000 Budget addition of £15·2 million for schools. The Education Committee is holding detailed discussions with departmental officials about how the money available for schools should be allocated. However, the application of the Barnett formula has had a real effect on the allocation of money to schools and raises issues of equity. Applying that to the Chancellor’s announcement last July, the Department of Education received only 3·3 %, rather than the increase needed to match the amount given to schools in England. That was a shortfall of millions of pounds. As a result, schools in Northern Ireland rightly believe that they are being treated less favourably than schools in England. The Education Committee has major concerns about Northern Ireland not getting its fair share under this formula. We seek a commitment from the Minister that he and his Executive Colleagues will continue to press the issue hard with the Treasury to achieve a more equitable approach to the allocation of funding for education.

I also note that the allocation of the Executive programme funds will be considered early in the new year. Again, the Education Committee outlined detailed bids in its response to the draft Budget, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that account will be taken of those bids at the appropriate time.

The Minister — indeed all Members — will recall the debate of 28 November. Members endorsed the motion calling for the payment of a retainer fee for term-time only workers and actually commended the Education Committee’s proposal to provide money from the education budget to pay the salary costs incurred. I understand that the management of the education and library boards has put comprehensive draft proposals to the trades unions that represent term-time staff to resolve this long-standing issue. Those proposals will be subject to available moneys being found. Given that the Assembly endorsed the Education Committee’s call to provide additional funds, will the Minister give a commitment that the necessary additional funds will be made available in the education budget to ensure an early and equitable settlement to this long-running affair?

The Education Committee has held in-depth discussions with the Department on the draft Budget. We shall discuss with the Department how to make the best use of scarce resources to achieve value for money.

In doing so, the Committee will ensure sure that pupils, schoolteachers and principals see the real benefit of the available funding.

I also welcome the Minister’s statement of 12 December 2000 that in future the draft Budget will be presented earlier so that the scrutiny Committees can execute their statutory duties properly. I would like the Minister to deal with the points concerning term-time staff and the education budget as a whole.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have heard little today in the two amendments proposed by the DUP and Sinn Féin that leads me to believe that either could produce a worthwhile outcome. The Sinn Féin amendment refers, among other things, to how the rates burden is spread and its adverse effect on small businesses.

As a representative of a border constituency, I am aware that there is some unfairness in how rates are levied. The economy of border constituencies has suffered from currency differences, as everybody knows; yet, property owners in border areas must pay the same rates as property owners in areas where currency differences have little or no effect. According to the Sinn Féin amendment, rates could be reduced across the board. However, businesses in areas of economic decline would still pay the same rates as businesses in prosperous areas. The amendment makes no distinction between businesses that are doing well and businesses that are trading in very difficult circumstances. I am at a loss to see the fairness of this amendment.

If we are to have fairness — and it is important that we do — we must consider levying rates to take account of the economic climate in which trade and business operate. There are very wide variations in the economic climate of border towns and towns such as Bangor, Belfast or Ballymena. Will the rates review be effective in considering those issues, and will the Minister set out a timetable for completing the task?

Members referred to the rates burdens in rural areas. Shops and businesses in rural areas find rates a very heavy burden. In England, under a rural rates relief scheme, some businesses now benefit from rates rebates of up to 50%.

I call on the Minister to do the necessary preparatory work immediately to introduce a rates relief scheme for trade and businesses in rural areas of Northern Ireland.

The DUP amendment proposed that the North/South bodies be wound down to make savings. Waterways Ireland is located in Enniskillen and plans are now well advanced to build a new headquarters there and so create 70 new jobs for an area that sorely needs them. Several factories have closed in Fermanagh, and any attempt to restrict a job-creating initiative like this would be a disaster.

The potential impact of the all-Ireland tourism body cannot be overemphasised, especially in areas where tourism makes a significant contribution. Fermanagh is such an area. In 1999 tourism generated £20 million for the local economy. People in my constituency are looking forward to the increased benefits of an international marketing body working for the whole of Ireland. Under this arrangement all areas with tourism potential, from Belleek to Belfast, will have more resources at their disposal. The money that will be spent on marketing tourism in all parts of Ireland will be well above what Northern Ireland could afford on its own. I am certain that those who run hotels, bars, restaurants, caravan parks and cruiser-hire businesses will see no merit at all in the DUP’s amendment.

I also welcome the increased allocations across Government Departments, especially in the two areas in which I have a particular interest as a Committee member: health and education. The allocation for health is some way short of the Department’s initial bid; a shortfall that was further emphasised last week in a report that dealt with per capita spending in England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland we spend £875 per head compared with £927 in Wales and £1,056 in Scotland. There is a clear need for greater investment in the Health Service, and that has been evident from recent crises in bed shortages and in the treatment of fractures.

More detail is needed on how the Department’s resources are allocated. Mr McFarland referred to this problem, and it also came up last week during the debate on children’s services. How do allocated funds end up being used for unintended purposes as they make their way from the Department through the various authorities?

I want to comment on the withdrawal without warning of key services from some of our hospitals — the latest being the Erne hospital in Enniskillen. From now on it is essential that there be complete openness and transparency about the use of money as it filters down from the Department through the various health authorities. I ask the Minister whether the Department of Finance and Personnel will provide an audit trail in future so that the Assembly can follow what happens more closely.

I shall finish with a reference to the Executive programme funds. As Members know, these funds cover strategies to eradicate poverty and to support children in need and young people at risk and other initiatives to improve health and education in particular. Considerable funding will be directed towards those Departments with Sinn Féin Ministers. I am therefore astonished at the Sinn Féin amendment.

Ms Gildernew raised the important issue of support for the community and voluntary sectors, but in the Budget the greatest scope for improvement in that area comes from the Executive programme funds. If Ms Gildernew wishes to demonstrate genuine support — and I know that her feelings on the subject are genuine — it is difficult to see how she can support her party’s amendment.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I listened intently to the last Member. I am sure that Mr Lenin and Mr Stalin would have been proud of him: he creates more jobs by creating more bureaucracy. He thinks that making more jobs for civil servants is real job creation. However, it has been pointed out for years that Northern Ireland relies too heavily on the public service sector and that more opportunities should be created in manufacturing — real jobs showing real returns.

I do not wish to go over matters already dealt with by the mover of the amendment, Mr Dodds, other than to say that he outlined clearly and concisely how savings could be made so that we could avoid raising the rates by 8%.

I listened to the bluster of my Colleague from Lagan Valley, Mr Close, but I come from Lagan Valley and am well used to it — all sound and no substance. He did not move an amendment; but he could not support an amendment. If we were to follow Mr Close’s line we would have no money in our Budget. We would have no hospital beds and we would not be able to fix a pothole because we would not want to use the money in the Budget.

Mr Close’s policies would give us taxation without spending. I am well used to his policy of raising rates well above the rate of inflation. In Lisburn Borough Council he was always very keen to do that. I find that interesting.

It was amusing to hear Sinn Féin speak of a peace dividend. There has indeed been a lack of investment in hospitals, in the capital development of schools, in basic infrastructure and in roads and sewerage systems, but that is because each year the Government have had to siphon off so much money for the security budget and for compensation. Why? Primarily because of IRA terrorism and the damage it caused the economy.

Our schools, hospitals, roads and sewerage systems lag behind those in the rest of the United Kingdom because of the devastating effect that the IRA/Sinn Féin bombing campaign had on the Province. It is they who have taken money from the Province. It is they have taken it out of the hands of the people of Northern Ireland; money that has had to be used for rebuilding and redeveloping shops in Belfast city centre — shops that were blown up by that organisation.

I wish to raise some matters on the subject of agriculture before I speak about the Committee of the Centre. There is little in the proposals to develop agriculture’s infrastructure and there is little to benefit farmers. There is more about building Departments than about building the agricultural economy.

There was an extra £1 million in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s budget for capital expenditure on libraries. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the matter of library provision in Lisburn, as it has been outstanding for 25 years. I hope that he will stop pussyfooting around with private finance initiatives that he knows will not materialise and that he will put in place plans to give Lisburn the library that it deserves.

The Minister must find ways of dealing with waste in the 10 Departments and with the quangos that were supposed to cease when the 10 Departments were established. I do not know of one quango that has ceased since devolution.

The Committee of the Centre has studied the number of people employed in senior ranks in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. There is the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and seven under-secretaries. The cost of those under-secretaries — salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions — is £95,000 each a year.

There are also 14 under-secretaries costing £70,000 each a year. A further two under-secretaries at £70,000 each a year facilitate the two junior Ministers whom we do not need. No one seems to know what they do — they disappeared into Castle Buildings, and nobody ever hears of them. There are also a further 40 staff at grade 7 level, costing £50,000 each. That comes to roughly £4 million.

Of the Department’s £26 million spending, £4 million goes to senior staff; it is top-heavy and overloaded. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must deal with this. How can we take them seriously with such a staffing structure? They have yet to set out a corporate or business plan for their Department. That Department could not make a case for money for victims. The victims sought £500,000, which is not a great deal of money; they failed to get anything. In October they received £200,000 — a drop in the ocean.

In this era, electronic communications are the way ahead. "If you are not in, you cannot win"; and we must keep abreast of developments. Despite requests for £14·9 million to develop e-government and a second request for £900,000, nothing was received. The delay will cause Northern Ireland to lose out on savings that could be made through proper e-government. It will allow the digital divide to open and will result in different levels of access to government.

Shall we get the benefit of joined-up e-government? Shall we continue with disjointed expenditure and repeat examples of incompatible computer systems in different parts of government? Some parts of government operate Lotus, while others operate Microsoft. The two sections of staff cannot communicate with each other on the electronic system because their systems are incompatible. Why has that not been rectified? Why are we not making savings in that area?

I am concerned about the Executive programme funds. The Executive will have built up to £220 million by 2003-04. It worries me that the Executive are taking over so many areas. The Executive programme funds will have more money than the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. One wonders what agenda is behind this attempt to claw so much money into the Executive programme funds.

I support the amendment of my Colleague Mr Dodds. He has identified waste in the Government. He has identified unnecessary spending, and the House would do well not to place the burden of that waste and unnecessary spending on businesses and on the ordinary man and woman in the street who will have to pay the extra tax.

It is unfair to call it the Durkan Tax: it is the Mowlam/ Durkan Tax. Mowlam proposed it and Durkan is imposing it. It is not a good tax, and I urge the House to support the amendment.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I reviewed the remarks that I made at the conclusion of the take-note debate on the Budget. It would be straightforward to read them again and save myself the trouble of having to make another speech, because the same points have been raised. Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel restrain himself from spending so long repeating those points? There may be some new ones for him to cover.

The Minister knows that I have consistently questioned the level of the rates and he also knows that I have consistently questioned him in the Finance and Personnel Committee on the total cost of government. There will inevitably be a j-curve — things will get worse before they get better. However, we must plan for the "getting better" in two or three years’ time. I therefore urge the Executive to put that nearer to the top of their agenda as they plan for the future.

All Government expenditure must be scrutinised by the Assembly to ensure value for money and to ensure that the public gets a good deal for the money that is being spent. That is particularly true for one lot of money that is directly contributed by people in Northern Ireland — the rates.

The Ulster Unionist Party has lobbied the Minister intensively on the housing budget and on housing improvements. We must be mindful that some of these measures appear to disadvantage people on low or no incomes. A stratum of people is not feeling the benefits of economic growth and falling unemployment, and it is incumbent on us to deal with their needs very specifically. In the July and October monitoring rounds it was clear that much of the extra money was generated by the sale of Housing Executive properties.

I remind the Minister that we are, in a sense, living off capital. We have disposed of a capital asset and we still have a debt on it that we must settle eventually. Meanwhile, our income to service that debt is being reduced by the depletion of the capital. By improving Housing Executive properties, we are reinvesting in that asset and improving its quality. That in turn should make it easier to achieve more sales.

The argument has been made that Northern Ireland pays less in rates than the rest of the United Kingdom. It should be borne in mind that the rest of the United Kingdom pays regional rates and water rates. So far, we have been spared domestic water rates, although businesses pay them. If this argument is to hold water, I look forward to the Minister’s undertaking an intensive exercise with Colleagues in Wales and in Scotland to formulate a review of the Barnett formula to present to the Treasury.

Sinn Féin’s amendment at least spreads the burden of finding the money evenly by targeting the Executive programme funds. However, the Sinn Féin Members who spoke seemed to take a different line. They did not want any reduction in money, but somebody else would have to come up with it — everybody but the people of Northern Ireland. We must stop looking to others to provide us with money. We should be looking forward to paying our own bills and to standing on our own two feet.

I was intrigued by some of Mr Molloy’s remarks; perhaps they give us an insight into an item in the next Sinn Féin election manifesto — the one for elections to the Dáil. I understand that his Colleague Mr Adams, among others, proposes to stand for them. When Mr Adams is targeting a seat in Donegal, will his manifesto include a commitment to ask the people of the Republic of Ireland to cough up another 4% of their rates? Will he ask them to give the money to the people of Northern Ireland to avoid an 8% increase in rates here?

It also seems curious that although Sinn Féin’s two Ministers were involved in devising and agreeing the Budget, their party has moved an amendment that fundamentally disagrees with some of its contents. It is completely inconsistent. They must take responsibility for popular and unpopular elements.

The DUP’s amendment was much more targeted at where the money would be deducted. It came as no surprise to these Benches that it looked towards the North/South bodies. We should remind ourselves about the selection of ministerial posts. DUP Members claim to be the most devout and evangelical defenders of the Union (despite agreeing with Sinn Féin that the North/ South bodies are a stepping stone to a united Ireland). However, when the d’Hondt formula was run, the DUP specifically avoided taking a position on these bodies.

It targeted instead two Departments with no cross-border bodies. How would DUP Members defend their Union by avoiding those Departments? It is curious that the DUP goes on and on about the problems in the agriculture industry and about what should be done about them; yet presented with two opportunities to take the Department of Agriculture, which contains a cross-border body, it seized neither.

As with the rates, and as with all Government expenditure, we must get value for money from the North/South bodies, and the tourism body stands out in that respect. If the tourism body works well, the £5·8 million will be well spent on behalf of Northern Ireland, but we must scrutinise this constantly and review how the money is spent to satisfy ourselves that we get good value for it.

We hear throughout these debates about deprived areas, which always seem to be along the border and always seem to be west of the Bann. Moyle district in my constituency has, sadly, the worst rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland. It is a deprived area not adjacent to the border with the Republic of Ireland; it is, however, adjacent to the border with Scotland. Is that sufficient to get it within the purview of the money that must always be spent on deprived border areas?

Reverting to the need for a review of the Barnett formula, I note that a recent audit identified social security fraud of more than £50 million. In Northern Ireland social security is administered by the Department for Social Development. Would it not be a good thing to root out social security fraud in order to reduce the money that we spend not just under this Budget but under any budget? That would strengthen our hand in negotiations with the Treasury for a review of the formula.

Finally, I must point out again that I am no fan of any form of taxation and no fan of the rates, but the figure that Mr Peter Robinson quoted of £12 million is the difference between 2·9% and 8·8%. If that is a correct figure, and there are roughly one million adults in Northern Ireland, it would be £1 a month on the present rates for every adult. It is not a king’s ransom, provided that we get good value from the money. I urge Members to reject the amendments and to support the Budget.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I rise to support the DUP amendment and also to highlight a couple of matters in the Budget. Leir an lairnin bes ae gait o leevin whaur the Ulster-Scots fowk, an in parteiclar thaim as taks ocht adae wi the leid, luiks for byordnar farin. For a guid whyle, the Ulster-Scots leid haes tholed mukkil mair skaith an backhaundin nor Erse Gaelic, an thon wey o gangin cannae be hauden on onie mair.

Education is one area in which the Ulster-Scots community, and in particular the Ulster-Scots language movement, calls for significant improvement. Historically, the Ulster-Scots language has suffered from much greater discrimination and marginalisation than Irish, and that is no longer acceptable.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s budget shows that funding for the North/South languages body will be increased in its first year; in the second year it will be increased by £1·2 million. Is this money being well spent? I suggest that it is not. Some of it will be spent on the Irish language TV channel. We are well aware of the numbers who watch it. It has some of the worst viewing figures in the whole of Ireland, in the whole of the United Kingdom and possibly in the whole of Europe.

A TV station in Antarctica might get fewer viewers, I suppose, but the Irish language channel wins the prize for having the fewest viewers in Ireland and the United Kingdom. If it were not for westerns and Premier League football, nobody would watch it.

There has not been parity for Ulster-Scots in education or in promoting the language in other ways. In the past few years, Irish language, culture and tradition has received £11 million, whereas Ulster-Scots has received £1·2 million. That highlights the lack of equality. Such parity is not apparent in the Budget, and the more we look at it, the more serious the problem appears. What criterion is used to justify promoting the Irish language above Ulster-Scots? Where is the fair play in the system? There is very little of it.

We do not need the North/South bodies; we should take away the budget of £3·5 million, proposed for 2001-02, and put it into something better. Members from our party have said that there is a great deal of waste in some of the Departments; we should look at that.

There is a marginal increase for fisheries, an increase so small that it could easily be missed. We realise the position that the fishing industry is in. The code of restrictions has hit the industry hard. Is there money in the Budget to address the problems of the fishing industry? I am thinking particularly of the villages of Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie — my own village — on the Ards Peninsula? Where is the help for the fishing industry? It cannot be provided from within the fisheries budget. That money is for improving harbour facilities in two or three areas.

There is talk of improving children’s services. There are many deficiencies in that part of the Budget. For example, there is not enough money for children with special needs and with disabilities. Where will the money come from? We understand that an extra £7 million is available, and we would like to see whether it will go towards those who are in most need. That is how it should have been. It is good to know that free travel for elderly people — a DUP initiative — is in the Budget, but it is disappointing that it will be 2002 before it happens.

We could save money by taking it away from the North/South bodies or the Civic Forum. All that money is being used for no purpose other than to promote a political viewpoint. We in the DUP want to see the money being well spent — on health, education, roads and those with special needs. That would be the wise way of spending the money, and I urge Members to support the DUP amendment.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. At the start of the debate, the Minister said that he was looking forward to what he hoped would be a constructive debate on the amendments. For the most part, that has been the case but, as usual, some Members could not contain themselves.

The purpose of today’s debate was to consider the draft Budget; it represents the Executive’s best guess. As the Minister said, there has not been enough time to consider the Budget fully, and I pay tribute again to the Ministers who are working hard, grappling with competing demands and doing their best for all the Departments. However, the purpose of today’s debate was to scrutinise the Budget and make any necessary amendments. That is why the draft Budget was published — for consultation.

If, as some Members suggested, we are to be beholden to what the Executive have agreed, Members might as well go home and forget about having a say in the matter. My party has clearly demonstrated that it is prepared to work hard in the Executive and the other institutions and will continue to do so. However, where we have a difference of opinion with the rest of the Executive, we will put it on the record and, as a party with its own mandate, we will pursue our aims in the best way that we can.

This morning I tried to put our amendment into a positive and constructive context, and I will continue to do that. I commended our amendment to the Assembly on the basis that there has been criticism and anxiety about the proposed rates increase, particularly in the small retail sector. The increase would impose an unfair burden on those least able to pay it, while whole swathes of the manufacturing industry would not have to pay a thing.

The DUP’s amendment — at least they had the courage to table one, unlike other people in the Chamber — is a party political stunt. Peter Robinson said — this is where he contradicted himself, so he might want to listen to what I say — that Sinn Féin’s amendment would take money from the Executive programme funds, which were all but allocated except for the minutiae, and that it would take money away from children’s programmes. He then said that the Executive programme funds only existed so that Trimble and Mallon could deliver good news stories. It cannot be both; it has to be one or the other. My party supports the notion of Executive programme funds and will continue to do so, because they represent an important way of making strategic interventions for infrastructure or other programmes that Members might support from time to time.

Mr Gallagher said that he could not understand why we were asking for a reduction in the rate increase. He suggested that we look at preparatory work on rates relief. I would support that, but if we did it without thinking it through or costing it, we would reduce the revenue that we would raise by the proposed increase.

Sinn Féin’s amendment is simple. To increase the rates by more than the rate of inflation will not realise the funds that the Executive need and will be an unfair burden on those who have to pay it. Our amendment would create a breathing-space, during which we could use some of the money from the Executive programme funds for a specific purpose. It would be a one-off and would give us the time to do what Mr Gallagher and others are suggesting. I make no apology for saying that the British Government — or indeed the Irish Government — have a responsibility to pay extra money into this part of Ireland.

I was especially annoyed and offended by Mr McGrady’s comments about the begging bowl. Perhaps Mr McGrady’s life is comfortable and things are OK for him. However, other people in his constituency do not consider it as begging to go to the Exchequer or the Irish Government for extra funding for services that we have been denied for many years because of discriminatory and neglectful policies. It was regrettable that Mr McGrady introduced that tone to the debate.

Sinn Féin will be constructive about the matter. This morning I paid tribute to the Ministers in the Executive who attend and work together. Where there is a difference of opinion, Sinn Féin will be consistent and will put that opinion to the Executive. If we feel that it is necessary, we will advance those arguments.

I am sure that there have been regular differences of opinion in the Executive. Why would there not be? There are at least three parties working together on the Executive who have different mandates and different manifesto positions. Therefore, it is appropriate and reasonable that there should occasionally be differences of opinion. If those people are committed to working with each other, rather than against each other, the good work that has been achieved by the Executive and all the other institutions will continue to be built upon.

It is important that Members argue about each other’s point of view, but it is silly to make crystal ball analyses of where one party or another might be. Mr Leslie should be more concerned about where his own party will be. His task in the months ahead is to establish his party as a credible force in the Executive. We support the Budget. We are trying to amend it, but we support the Budget as a whole, difficulties included. We also support the Programme for Government, which the Unionist Party is undermining by its activities. The Unionist Party would do well to analyse the Barnett formula. It is easy to dismiss the arguments and say that we should pay for ourselves: we have neither economic nor political sovereignty. Until we do — or are allowed to — we cannot expect to do all the things that we want to do.

We have a mandate and we have a manifesto that we will do our best to pursue. However, that manifesto commits us to work with the parties in the institutions. We will never be found wanting on that. The other parties should accept their responsibilities, rather than making cheap remarks.

I sit on the Committee with Mr Close. We have heard so much hot air and so much bubble from him about the rates, but he did not even table an amendment this morning. Perhaps we should not worry ourselves about that. Mr Close talks about a manifesto position, but the rate of increase in support for his party suggests that he will not have to worry about manifestos. We will leave that to the electorate.

I commend our amendment on the basis that it represents an opportunity to draw breath before we impose an unfair rates increase. It is very rare for rates to come down once they have gone up. Furthermore, there are commitments throughout the Programme for Government concerning reviews and re-examinations of the entire structure of Government and the various programmes. That gives us plenty of scope to increase the money available, even within the current grant. The amendment would allow us to draw breath and take stock before we impose an unfair burden on those who are least able to carry it.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I shall respond to some of the points that were made about our amendment. Mr Close suffered a fair amount of criticism in the debate — rightly so, in the opinion of virtually everyone in the House. I felt rather sorry for him, because all the bluster, passion and energy that he worked up could not disguise the fact that he slept in when it mattered most. He did not bother to put down an amendment. He waxed so lyrical on the issue, but it was all just empty rhetoric.

The Alliance Party recently produced an alternative Budget. As an alternative Government — I can see four of them sitting there — they had the wonderful idea of presenting a Budget. Today they have not produced a single alternative to the Minister’s Budget.

Mr Close stretches credulity when he suggests that simply voting against the Budget is sufficient compensation for failing totally to have put down any realistic alternative to it. Then he tells his party Colleagues and us that he looks forward to other parties joining him in lobbying against the increase in the regional rate. Next he will tell us that he is glad that the 190,000 or so people who voted for Dr Paisley are going to join the 14,000 people who voted for him in the European elections to fight in Europe for the farmers of Northern Ireland. The absolute audacity of the 2% party to my right lecturing others about joining them in lobbying really does beggar belief when it has not even had the sense or wit — or perhaps even the ability — to table an amendment to the Budget. Despite its pretence and spurious attempts during the debates on statements in the House to claim this issue as its own, it is the Democratic Unionist Party that raised the issue before the Alliance Party.

Do not get excited, there is more to come. Now I can see why you do not want anything to do with your former Colleagues, Mr Speaker, and why you were earlier at pains to distance yourself from any association with them. In the last major debate on the Budget, we had Mr Close admitting that all the quotations and points that he was going to make had already been made by those of us on this side of the House. So let us have a little bit of reality and common sense.

This morning Mr Close then told us that people were hand-wringing and scrambling to distance themselves from the decisions of the Executive. Clearly, there has been some running for cover on the parts of those who attended the Executive and who signed up to those decisions from which they now want to run away. We will let the two Sinn Féin Ministers hang out there to dry. We are not responsible for what they are doing. We will put a knife in their back — Sinn Féin can do what it likes in the Assembly.

As far as this party is concerned, we did not attend the Executive; we never gave our assent to this Budget; we never agreed to any increase in the regional rate. We have been totally consistent. However, Mr Close tells us that we are Members of the Executive and therefore, responsible. So, since he is a Member of this Assembly, if the Assembly votes this Budget through tonight, is he responsible?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I will be voting against it.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

He will be voting against it, just as we will be voting against it, just as we did not assent to the Budget in the first place. So at last the logic of the position dawns on Mr Close. I am so sorry that it has taken until 8.15 at night for that reality finally to dawn. But then, since he did miss the 9.30 deadline for tabling amendments this morning, we will allow him that bit of latitude.

Sinn Féin, in particular, agreed to this regional rate increase in the Executive and never raised any objection to it until today. Indeed, a previous contributor — the Member of Sinn Féin who was on the Finance and Personnel Committee when this issue was raised — described those of us who criticised the increase in the regional rate beyond the rate of inflation as having adopted a shallow approach. This was a shallow approach. He did not want to have any debate; he did not want to have any vote. He did not want the Committee to come out against the regional rate. Now he comes to the House and beats his chest because somehow his party is now against the regional rate, having supported it in the Executive, having omitted to speak out against it until now, and having refused to speak against it in the Committee — when he attended the Committee. I never see that particular Member there. He certainly did not fight. Calm down. Do not get excited.

This proves that what we have said all along about the nature of this system of government is true. There is no collective responsibility whatsoever. Every Minister does his or her own thing in his or her own Department. The Minister of Finance can come here and make proposals which can even be agreed in the Executive, but when it comes to the House, every party is free. Nobody is bound, and even Ministers can vote against what they agreed in the Executive.

We will wait and see if the two Ministers who supported this proposal in the Executive, but then had a rebellion on their hands in their Assembly party, will go into the Lobbies to vote against what was agreed in the Executive by the UUP, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. All these parties agreed in the Executive that the regional rate should increase by 8%. The people of Northern Ireland have already seen that rate increase by over 8% in the last two years.

Dr Birnie, in commenting on the DUP amendment, described the amount of money as being insignificant in the context of the overall Budget — that argument has been trotted out on a number of occasions. The people of Northern Ireland will regard as significant another 8% increase in the regional rate. They will regard as significant the expenditure of some £20 million, taking into account the all-Ireland tourism company, which was last year taken as part of the all-Ireland bodies. I have already outlined what that money could do to reduce the regional rate and, if the Executive were so minded, how that expenditure could alleviate a whole range of social needs. We are not dealing with trivial amounts of expenditure; this is real money. This issue affects people’s pockets and it deserves to be taken seriously.

We were also told that those who had been working within the Departments would simply be working under new bosses in the North/South implementation bodies. If that is the case, it is up to the Minister to decide where that necessary work should continue within the local Departments. In our amendment we have said that he should take sufficient amounts from the budgets of the North/South implementation bodies and the Secretariat of the North/South Ministerial Council and, if necessary, from the Civic Forum to pay for the reduction in the rate. That should leave him enough to get on with the necessary, day-to-day work within the Departments that employ those people.

Mr McGrady and others on the Nationalist side have berated us because they say we are acting against the Belfast Agreement. They are greatly surprised and shocked that we on this side of the House should be continuing our opposition to this aspect of the implementation of the Belfast Agreement. We make no apology for our stance — that is the basis on which we were elected and we will continue to take that stance in this House. Those who express surprise, shock and horror are perhaps surprised, shocked and horrified that there is at least one Unionist party in the House that does stand by its election manifesto commitments.

Mr McGrady had to admit that our amendment was a serious one and I give him credit for acknowledging that. He acknowledged more than his Colleague, Mr Dallat, who said that the amendment should not be taken seriously. Mr McGrady should have a word in Mr Dallat’s ear and let him know what an amendment is in parliamentary terms. I thank you for your assent to that, Eddie, well done. No doubt Mr Dallat will be going back to Coleraine Borough Council to explain why, having voted against an 8% regional rate increase, he is now in favour of it. He tells us it is because he has suddenly discovered that Mr Durkan found £31 million. If, next year, he has to come back and take some money away, he might be running back to the Council to reverse his vote.

Mr McGrady told us that the fact that there were only two amendments was an indication of most parties’ support for the Budget. Members will indicate their support for or rejection of the Budget when they vote. How we vote, rather than the number of amendments tabled, will determine whether there are people in the House who support the thrust of the Budget.

The Sinn Féin/IRA party has also tabled an amendment and it has described people as being opportunistic. What could be more opportunistic than to agree the motion in the Executive and to support it throughout, never opposing it in Committees, but then to call for a reduction in the regional rate at the last minute, in terms almost identical to our amendment. It is clear where the opportunism lies. I heard one contributor from that party talk about having sympathy for Mr Durkan. With friends like that in the Executive, he deserves every piece of sympathy he can get.

It was suggested that this should all be paid for out of Her Majesty’s Treasury. The interesting suggestion that Dublin should be asked to stump up as well, in addition to the taxpayers of Northern Ireland, was also mooted. Everybody should be asked to contribute, except those who were actually responsible over 30 years for most of the destruction, mayhem and economic deprivation in this country — IRA/Sinn Féin. They are the ones who brought many parts of this Province economically to its knees, and yet to listen to them, you would think that it was the fault of the British Government, the Unionists and everybody else. They are the ones who blew up factories and who murdered industrialists and employers. They are the ones who are responsible for much existing economic deprivation. [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Some people talked about perks of office. I remind this House and the people of Northern Ireland that we do not keep the perks of office for ourselves, be they the salaries of Ministers, Committee Chairmen or other office-holders in this House.

I have to correct the Member for South Down, Mr ONeill, who got up and refused, despite being told that his facts were wrong, to take a point of information. He accused the DUP of actually appointing an MLA, as he put it, to serve on the special North/South EU programmes body. In fact, he got that absolutely — [Interruption].

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

You are not listening.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

If you would please listen to what we are saying. He said that we had appointed a Member to this body; and yet we were totally opposed to it. We were suggesting that money be taken from it. Of course, he got that completely wrong. We are talking about the monitoring committees. People from all parties have been appointed to them. They are the transitional monitoring committee, the Peace II committee, and the overall structural funds monitoring committee. Today, however, we are dealing with the EU special programmes North/South implementation body. This is a completely different organisation on which, as I understand it, no MLA actually sits.

Perhaps Mr Durkan can again help his Friend understand that. One of the problems is that, having got it wrong, Mr ONeill is not now prepared to listen in order to learn something from it.

A number of contributors have outlined criticisms of the Budget, not only in relation to the regional rate. Some Members have been very vocal outside this House. Some have been very concerned about the social aspects of the Budget, and the harm that it might do to very socially deprived people. Where have they been today? When asked to give a response to the Finance and Personnel Committee as to how —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I will, Mr Speaker. Each departmental Committee was asked to give a view on the priorities for spending within the Budget. Every Committee Chairperson responded, except Mr Cobain of the Social Development Committee, who has been waxing lyrical about the issue. He could not be bothered to respond on behalf of his Committee, nor could the Health Committee, which has not made a contribution here today either. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Finally, there is no proposal, as was alleged by Ms Gildernew, to increase Housing Executive rents by GDP plus 2%. I am sure that all those who have opposed the rent increase of GDP plus 2% — and I see them all on the Ulster Unionist Benches in particular — will now come and join us in the Lobbies to vote against an even larger increase in the regional rate, which affects all households in Northern Ireland. We are determined that whether people are in social housing or in private housing, whether they are in industry or are shopkeepers, they should not be penalised by increases in rent or rates above the rate of inflation.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before I call the Minister to speak, I would like, on behalf of the House, to acknowledge the fact that this is probably our longest ever debate on any individual motion. That is characteristic of financial and Budget debates, but the Minister has done the House the courtesy of remaining here throughout the debate. I want to recognise that on behalf of the House.

Having made that peace with the Minister, I hope he will also take the length of the debate into account when considering the length of his winding-up speech.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Minister left for a few minutes. I hope it was water he was drinking and nothing stronger.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I hesitate to speculate on why the Minister might have left for a minute or two.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

To clarify the matter for Dr Paisley, it seems on these occasions we end up talking about water. My relationship with water, for the few minutes I was out, was not as a consumer.

When I opened the debate, I looked forward to a vigorous but responsible discussion of the Budget, and I believe we have achieved that goal in the debate. Members’ contributions have ranged widely. They put their points clearly and forcefully. I have carefully noted these points.

I want to emphasise that the Budget vote tonight addresses the full range of our responsibilities and our total budget of £5·7 billion. There has been a good deal of focus on increases, particularly on those since the draft Budget, but we should remember that tonight we are voting on the Budget as a whole. We have been able to increase spending on agriculture to £200 million, spending on health to £2·3 billion, spending on education to £1·3 billion and spending on regional development to £460 million. The debate touched on many aspects of these budgets. Substantial increases and opportunities paint the total picture of this first Budget under devolution.

I emphasise at the outset that we are determined to improve the transparency of the processes of planning, evaluation and audit. We need good public service agreements at the planning stage before, during and after expenditure. We also need better information under resource accounting and budgeting. Through our own Public Accounts Committee we need a stronger and more appropriate audit. There is considerable scope for Assembly Committees to examine these issues. This should begin as early as possible.

We must now move to the final act of this debate. First, I propose to deal with the amendments. Secondly, I will deal with some general points made by Members. Finally, if time will allow, I will deal with as many of Members’ specific questions as possible.

Mr Dodds proposed the first amendment on behalf of the DUP. It attempts to link cuts to the budgets of the North/South bodies to a reduction in the proposed increase in the regional rate. The amendment is designed to undermine the agreement and the basis of the institutional settlement.

It is facile to suggest there can be a reduction to the cost of the services assigned by agreement between the two Governments to these new bodies. The Northern contribution to their budgets in 2001-02 will be approximately £11·7 million. We are also proposing a major drive in the promotion of tourism through the new North/ South company which accounts for most of the £5·8 million we plan to spend on that area. Together with the small budgets for the North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat and the Civic Forum, the total for the function specified in the amendment is £18·5 million. Most of this spending relates to ongoing functions or arenas that make good commercial sense for the Northern Ireland economy.

One wonders if the proponents of the amendment are proposing that these services be cut. What do they say about food safety? What about the promotion of tourism — surely we all want our waterways to be developed? The fact is that there is no real substance to this amendment, beyond the politics and the procedural rectitude. We have an agreement, the North/South bodies are part of that agreement, and they will be properly funded.

The second amendment, introduced by Mr Maskey on behalf of Sinn Féin, also seeks to moderate the increase in the regional rate, this time by taking resources from the Executive programme funds. The Executive programme funds are central to the Budget and the Programme for Government. I re-emphasise that they constitute a new way of promoting the development, on a cross-cutting basis, of priorities set out in the Programme for Government. They will enable the Executive and the Assembly to make a real difference to the allocation of resources in the region.

I stress that in creating the draft Budget, the Executive was disappointed that it was possible to put just £16 million into the Executive programme funds for next year. We were glad to be able to supplement this with £9 million carried forward from the October monitoring round. This is because we want to make the best possible start to the work of the new funds, and to show strongly the devolution difference. The £25 million for the first year is essential if we are to make best use and lay the best plans for the more significant amounts of money that will come through in years two and three. The programme funds have to be allocated to services, and we will do this in the new year. The funds have been created as a response to our new circumstances. They are a positive and imaginative step forward, and they give us a means of showing, in important and effective ways, the devolution difference.

As has been pointed out, both amendments concern the regional rate. The Budget plans for 2001-02 are based on an assumed level of regional rate revenue of £334 million. To generate that revenue, it is estimated that regional rate increases of 8% in the domestic regional rate and 6·6 % in the non-domestic regional rate will be required next year. As I have already stated, the indicative allocations for 2002-03 and 2003-04 would imply further increases of 8% in the domestic regional rate and 5·5% in the non-domestic regional rate.

I have declared those planned increases on the basis of current figures, just as I openly stated the proposed increases in the regional rate, both domestic and non- domestic, in the draft Budget. It is certainly not a stealth tax. We have been upfront, the issue has been well debated, and everybody has centred on it, in one way or another. It is a bit odd that an increase that has been made in such a transparent way — albeit not necessarily universally popular — should be branded stealth tax.

These increases are necessary to fund spending in the priority areas identified in the Programme for Government and in various Committee contributions. As I have already made clear, we cannot on the one hand say that the Barnett formula does not provide sufficient resources and on the other hand fail to try to raise further resources from revenue here. That would leave us open to the charge that we expect our services to be paid for by taxpayers in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish Republic, and anywhere else, but that we do not seek funding from our own resources.

We must recognise some points about the regional rate. Ratepayers in Northern Ireland make a much smaller contribution to the cost of local services than their counterparts in Great Britain. On average we only pay half as much, and of course we do not face a separate and additional charge for water and sewerage services. Even when the lower level of household income here is taken into account — and many Members have rightly stressed that point — we are still making a smaller contribution.

It has been pointed out that increases in the regional rate will increase poverty. The housing benefit system does, of course, provide protection for the most needy in society. Overall, about 186,000 people — around 31% of all households — receive some assistance with rate bills through rate rebates. The worse off are completely protected. I recognise that there are deficiencies in the regional rate, and I have recognised those before in this Chamber and in discussion with the Finance and Personnel Committee. That is why I have announced a comprehensive review that will look at all aspects of this tax, including the nature and range of reliefs that are available.

The point has also been made that district councils are blamed unfairly for the regional rate. I agree that there must be clearer responsibility for the different components of the rates bill. We need to clarify the proportion of rates that will go to the district councils and how much will go to the services directly controlled by the Assembly.

At the outset, I said that the Executive accept responsibility for the rate increase as part of grown-up, realistic politics. I confirm that the Rates Collection Agency will take steps to distinguish between the regional and district rates in the rates bills for 2001-02 and in future years.

The supporters of the first amendment sought to make much of the continuation of the uplift in the regional rate going on from the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. Have they forgotten how strongly some argued for the continuation of the increases in water and sewerage spending, which had initially been linked — as they so often reminded us — to those rate increases? The Executive have confirmed those increases in water and sewerage spending.

I point out that, from time to time, I have been urged to link the regional rate to water and sewerage expenditure and turn it, in part, into a water rate levied on households. It would be a household tax similar in form to the regional rate. I hope that some consistency is shown by those who preach to others.

There were also concerns that the regional rate could become an issue akin to the poll tax. Apart from the unpopularity issue, I am at a loss to understand how this comparison is valid. Our rating system — with all its faults — is based on properties and households. It is not based on the taxation of individuals. We will need to look at the effects of the system on different types of households, including single householders, but I do not see any sign of such difficulties as the registration of individuals which the poll tax produced in England.

Mr Dodds indicated the opposition of Ministers to the increase in the regional rate. I am at a loss to recall the circumstances in which information including the proposals for the regional rate was circulated to all members of the Executive or when any representations came to me or to the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister in the terms suggested.

Mr Close suggested that we use in-year monitoring money to address increases in the regional rate. He misunderstands the nature of monitoring expenditure during the course of a year and planning expenditure for future years. In-year changes can rise or fall. This year’s pattern is not guaranteed and prudent planning is required. That means taking sensible decisions based on the information available at the time of each decision. It would be imprudent to anticipate that money might become available from end-year slippage or end-year flexibility. Our view is that it is better to take any benefits that come from emerging underspends as and when they might arise.

The regional rate will be finalised early in the new year. We will then need to set a final rate that will produce — on the best available information — the level of revenue that we adopt in this Budget. Members will recall that last February it was possible to reduce the percentage uplift in the non-domestic regional rate below that which I had indicated in the draft Budget statement last December because the forecast yield was slightly higher than previous forecasts. Therefore, we will keep this under review in the same way this year. The regional rate will be examined, but the job will be done properly. These amendments are not the proper way to proceed, and accordingly, I ask the Assembly to reject them.

I will now turn to some general points about the Budget raised by Members. Mr Dodds expressed concern about the adverse effects of the Barnett formula, as did Mr Maskey, Mr Molloy, Ms McWilliams and Ms Lewsley. As the debate went on, nearly every Member who made a contribution recognised the case in relation to the Barnett formula. The Executive have made clear its concern about the Barnett formula. That point has been stressed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, not just here but in other locations as well.

The formula is now over 20 years old and has outlived its usefulness. We cannot accept that a formula, which is only based on population and ignores wider needs, is satisfactory for our funding requirements. Our views have been made known to Treasury Ministers and to others. By the time of the next UK spending review, we hope to have the basis of a new arrangement that suits our needs better, and is more acceptable to this Assembly’s Members. However, I do not wish the Assembly to believe that this will be a simple task. The formula is clearly well entrenched in the Treasury. Again, I stress that we will do ourselves no favour in this argument by avoiding resource decisions — difficult though they may be — that are within our remit, such as that on the regional rate.

Many Members, particularly Mr Dodds, Mr Molloy, Mr P Robinson, Mr Close, Mr B Bell and Ms McWilliams expressed disappointment about the restricted timetable for this Budget. I indicated before that the time available for consideration of this year’s Budget has been regrettably constrained. As the Assembly knows, there was a UK spending review during the year, and that meant that there was not a clear indication of the total resources available. As soon as possible thereafter, we moved to bring forward a draft Budget. Within the time that was available, I believe that all that was possible was done to facilitate meaningful consultation with the Assembly and outside groups.

All Departments have worked closely with their Committees, and I would like, once again, to record my own thanks to the Finance and Personnel Committee for facilitating the Budget debate in November and for its report to me.

We were also able to hold two conferences on the equality dimension of the Budget — one in Derry and one in Belfast. Over 100 groups were invited to these conferences, and the needs of minorities were met by providing summaries of the draft Budget in alternative formats. Next year the process can start earlier, thus giving more time for the Budget proposals to be scrutinised by the Assembly and accessed by wider community interests.

The issue of departmental running costs was raised by several Members. The Executive are committed to a full re-examination of Departments’ costs and those of the wider public sector. We face an enormous range of pressures on spending, and the efficient and economic use of resources must be promoted. It is important to note that the increase in costs between 2000-01 and 2001-02 — [Interruption.]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. While I understand that Members may want to have a brief and quiet word with each other from time to time, there is a constant hum of conversation, which is unfair to other Members and the Minister. If Members wish to have conversations, I ask them to go to the Members’ Lobby or somewhere close by. Please give the rest of the House and the Minister an opportunity.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why stop close by if you can go beyond the range of the Division Bell later?

It is important to note that the increase in costs shown in the Budget paper between 2000-01 and 2001-02 reflects the basic requirement to provide for the cost of employing staff to deliver services to the public. Also, the 2000-01 figures understated the actual level of spending, because they exclude the additions that the Executive agreed in July. The Executive have made realistic provision for the costs of Departments in 2001-02.

Once again we are in a position from which we cannot will the end — to provide good service to the public and to the Assembly — without willing the means. The truth is that the needs of the new institutions, including the needs of Committees, and the needs of many Members in relation to asking questions, have created a major increase in workload for Departments.

The creation of the new institutions results in a great increase in accountability, which is one of the most important steps away from the pattern of direct rule. That has a cost. We need to recognise that, though we also need to ensure restraint. I welcome Members’ consideration in that regard.

There were also a number of more specific questions raised during the debate. In particular, Mr Peter Robinson raised the matter of roads capital funding, and wondered if, on raising it for a third time, circumstances would allow me to answer. I can confirm that the Budget for 2001-02, which we are voting on this evening, contains all that the Department for Regional Development sought for roads capital expenditure.

I can also confirm that while the Chancellor’s initiative funding does decrease in subsequent years, the indicative allocations for 2002-03 and 2003-04 for mainstream roads capital funding provide for an uplift of over one third on the 2001-02 allocation. In addition, there are the substantial resources in the Executive infrastructure fund, through which the Department for Regional Development can bid for road schemes.

Mr McFarland questioned the approach to the planning of the Budgets for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The position is that the figures set out in the Budget are indicative and will need to be reviewed fully in the next Budget cycle. I have undertaken that there will be fuller scrutiny next year. It follows that there should be genuine scope for these plans to be revised next year, but the published figures, rounded to the nearest £10 million, show the basis on which we are currently planning.

Mr Dodds pointed to the increase in the figures for departmental running costs. We need to be careful when interpreting these figures. They now include the costs of running Welfare-to-Work programmes, which were previously accounted for separately. Also, it is wrong to assume that all increases in departmental running costs simply add to bureaucracy.

Large amounts of departmental running costs go towards providing services to the public. For example, in the Department for Social Development — one of the Departments that Mr Close was targeting in his remarks on departmental running costs — some £12·5 million of a rise of £18·6 million has been allocated for the implementation of the Welfare Modernisation Programme. That programme is designed to provide work for those who can work, and security for those who cannot.

In relation to the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, the allocation proposed includes an additional £2·25 million in 2001-02 to meet the cost of the PFI contract for the provision of IT services. That increase is required because provision was inadequate to meet existing demands for Phases I and II of the contract. In addition, Phase III has recently been negotiated to allow for a significant increase from 500 to 1,150 in the number of simultaneous system users. Those facilities are vital to the proper functioning of the Department and its jobcentre network.

Questions were raised about the peace dividend — the matter was raised first by Mr Molloy and followed up by other Members. Our Budget is quite separate from that of the NIO. We do not have to make any contribution to the cost of reforming the Police Service and the Prison Service. We are also protected from any pressures arising from the review of criminal justice or, indeed, any other aspect of NIO business. In short, it is unlikely that any available savings will fall to us during the period of this spending review.

Questions were also raised — again, the issue was first raised by Mr Molloy — about the acute services review, and why provision had not been made for this in the Budget. The independent review group, appointed by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and chaired by Maurice Hayes, is due to report by the end of February. After that there will be, as the Minister has indicated, wide public consultation.

We will need to carefully assess the cost of the emerging strategies to ensure that what we propose is affordable. The Budget allocations for 2002-03 and 2003-04 are indicative and we will have to decide how best to address the costs of the acute services strategy as part of next year’s Budget considerations.

Mr Molloy, Mr Gallagher and several other Members raised the issue of the rural community. There are significant increases in the Budget for agriculture and rural development. It is planned to provide £193 million, an increase of £28·7 million over 2000-01. Even allowing for distortions in animal disease compensation and considering that provision for less favoured areas (LFAs) is normally adjusted during the year, the increase for 2001-02 is £16·8 million, or 10·2%. That allocation will provide for, among other things, the introduction of a scrapie eradication programme, the launching of the beef quality initiative and business development and training. The allocation also includes £3·9 million for match funding relating to modulation.

Some Members appeared to suggest that those programmes are not directly benefiting farmers, and therefore do not count. I hazard to guess that if that money were not put into those schemes, members of the farming community would soon tell us of the importance of those schemes to their continued operation.

Mr B Bell, and other Members, raised the matter of housing funding. I assure him that the Executive do not regard housing as a low-priority matter and that the Housing Executive budget is not being cut. The Programme for Government contains the commitment to work to provide high quality and affordable social housing for those on low incomes. We spend two-and- a-half times more on housing than is spent in England. Therefore, on any objective basis, it continues to be given priority. For 2001-02 the Housing Executive budget is being increased by £6·5 million and the budget for housing associations will rise by £1·5 million. All told, housing funding will rise by 4·3%.

Members will be aware that in past monitoring rounds we have continued to respond to particular pressures in the housing programme. So long as resources are available in future monitoring rounds we will continue to respond to those pressures and ensure the best possible spend of the available money.

Mr Ford, among others, suggested that there is nothing new in the Programme for Government. On the contrary, there is much that is new. Local politicians have agreed on actions across a range of local public services that directly affect local people’s lives. Priorities have been set out for Northern Ireland’s future for which we will use the resources available to improve people’s health, education skills to create jobs, tackle disadvantage and protect the environment. We have set out challenges that need to be addressed.

The Programme for Government also explains the importance to Northern Ireland’s future of co-operation for mutual benefit — north and south, east and west, with Europe and America. In short, we are getting down to the business of improving the services to the community for which Ministers are responsibility.

Ms McWilliams asked when the regional development strategy would be published. The Programme for Government commits the Executive to agreeing a regional development strategy and seeking the Assembly’s agreement by spring 2001.

Ms McWilliams also claimed that the Executive have no information on the number of children living in poverty on which to base their spending plans. She rightly identified that as a matter for Mr Morrow.

However, although some information is available here on child poverty from the family expenditure survey, the main survey used in Great Britain for investigating poverty is not carried out in Northern Ireland. I am advised that the extension of the family resources survey to Northern Ireland is currently being considered.

Dr Birnie raised matters relating to student support concerning how the proposals address equal opportunities issues and how information flows can be improved. With regard to how the proposals address equal opportunities issues, the package of measures announced by Dr Farren is designed to ensure that more students from lower income backgrounds have access to further and higher education. These measures will open up access to further and higher education for many more people who would not have previously considered participation and, therefore, will help to promote much greater equality of opportunity.

On how information flows can be improved, I draw Members’ attention again to Dr Farren’s statement of last Friday. He announced that he asked officials to work with the education and library boards and student representatives to develop material for advice to potential students on financial matters. Ms McWilliams also raised the issue about the Department of Education and consultation before selling land in South Belfast. That sale was carried out as part of the provision of a new school for Wellington College, which is being provided under the private finance initiative.

During the bidding process the Belfast Education and Library Board negotiated a value-for-money deal with Northwin Construction Limited, which included the transfer of land at full market value. The board is not required to consult on the sale of the land, but I understand that the development of any surplus land at the school is subject to the normal planning procedures, and that is only right.

With regard to the use of private finance initiative solutions, we have to be receptive to new ways of securing the services that our community needs. These deals are looked at very carefully to ensure value for money.

Mr Roche asked, in certain terms, why the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development did not lift the ban on BSE when she had the opportunity. The Minister has never been in a position to lift the BSE ban in Northern Ireland. That ban was imposed by the European Union and can only be lifted by the European Union. The Minister has made every effort, since taking office, to have the ban in Northern Ireland removed or relaxed. However, the current climate relating to BSE across Europe makes it unwise to raise the case now. The Minister has made it abundantly clear that she will take the case forward as soon as the climate is right, and that commitment is clear cut.

Some concerns were also raised about the Health Service’s budget, including arrangements for funding the boards and trusts and, in particular, some Members followed up Ms McWilliams’s point on the whole notion of audit trails. No one can deny that the system for the management of boards and trusts is complex, yet it is essential that these organisations and structures are best suited to our needs.

Now that devolution has been achieved, there is a recognised need to consider the efficiency of all existing public administration structures. The Executive are committed to doing this through the Programme for Government. Ms McWilliams also queried the apparent reduction in the capital budget for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Budget contains revised figures for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s capital budget compared with the October draft. The revised figures do not alter the Department’s spending power.

Following the publication of the draft Budget some technical adjustments had to be made to facilitate the move to resource budgeting. These resulted in a shift of provision from capital to resource. This reflects more accurately the new resource budgeting classifications and does not affect the spending power on the ground. Since the draft Budget was announced, an additional £5 million has been allocated to the Department of Health’s capital budget in 2001-02. The Executive programme funds will offer further opportunities for capital expenditure.

The proposed closure of Downe Hospital was also raised. Generally, our hospitals serve much smaller populations than those elsewhere in the UK, and many are in need of modernization, as Members will agree. With expert staff so widely dispersed, the viability of some smaller hospitals has come into question. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety — [Interruption.]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Not content with disturbing the peace, some Members are disturbing the furniture as well. Please allow the Minister to speak.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In preparing its report, the review group appointed by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be expected to take into account the views of individuals, organizations and groups which have an interest or involvement in the provision of hospital services. We will need to develop a strategy for acute services, and that strategy will have to be costed, for consideration in next year’s Budget negotiations.

Ms McWilliams also raised the question of funding for provision for mental health and children. In 2001-02, there will be an additional £4 million to help address the gaps in community services to people with severe and enduring mental illnesses and learning disabilities; that should significantly reduce hospital admissions. An extra £3·5 million has been allocated in 2001-02, to facilitate the implementation of ‘Children Matter’ in areas such as learning care, adoptions, and preventive care services. Finally, the children’s fund will provide the Executive with a useful means of providing support for children in need and youth at risk. The Deputy First Minister has already said that consideration would be given to the proposal for a children’s commissioner, possibly funded out of Executive programme funds.

Provision for victims is a matter of considerable concern to the Executive Committee, particularly to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Their Department has specific responsibility for making sure that all Departments give due consideration to the needs of victims. The Executive aim to put a cross-departmental strategy in place, to ensure that high quality help and services are available to meet the needs of victims. The Executive have already agreed to provide £200,000 this year to get work under way to identify the needs of victims and raise public awareness of those needs. It is also anticipated that funding from the European Union’s Peace II programme will be available for a programme for victims. Once the strategy is in place and the Peace II position is clear, we will be better placed to identify the additional resources required.

I was asked, not least by Mr Roche, to confirm that the student support proposals were well thought through. Although the findings of the student support review are still under consideration, the Executive have taken the view that resources should be made available now to meet the most pressing needs. In the next few weeks, further proposals will be subject to policy appraisal and evaluation, to ensure that they are effective and can meet their objectives.

I was also asked how the Minister for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment could make an announcement on student support in advance of the decision on the allocation of the Executive programme funds. The position was set out clearly in my statement last week: the Executive have definitely agreed an allocation of £5 million for 2001-02, £7 million for 2002-03, and £8 million for 2003-04 for some key aspects of the review.

We have also set aside further money in the New Directions fund, which is our way of showing clearly that there is further provision available for aspects of the student support review after the details have been considered further by the Executive. The Executive’s decision on these resources, and on other aspects of the Executive programme funds, will be decided and announced in the new year.

Mr McGrady, Dr Paisley and Mr Shannon asked what could be done to assist the fishing industry. The Budget allocates £125,000 per annum to cover costs associated with the Cod Recovery Plan. In addition, the Minister announced her intention to formulate a scheme to assist the decommissioning of fishing vessels — you know why I took a gulp of water before I got to that word. The quota cuts made at the December meeting of the EU Fisheries Council now make this a top priority.

Dr Paisley commented that Bríd Rodgers was not supported by other UK agriculture Ministers on the issue of quota cuts. On the one hand, I welcome the fact that there was no attempt by the Chairman of the Committee to apportion blame. However, negotiating priorities are jointly determined by all the United Kingdom’s Ministers who are responsible for fisheries. I am glad that Dr Paisley appreciates that the Minister has done her best.

Mr McFarland raised the issue of health costs, which he said needed to be reviewed. There are many demands upon the health budget, and it has to respond to the increasing health demands of an ageing population, costs of modern medicine and greater public awareness and concern about heath issues. To deliver the necessary services to the public, the structure of boards and trusts must be best suited to our needs and that is relevant to the consideration of a wider public administration review.

Several Members have raised the issue of the projected increase in the Housing Executive rents. The discussions on the Budget have been based on the assumption that rents would increase by 2% more than the rate of inflation, which is forecast by the Treasury as being 2%. I have looked further at the cost implications of this and, following further scrutiny, it does appear that the difference between a real increase in line with inflation at the GDP deflator, plus 2%, would be £5 million — not the £7·8 million, which I reported last Tuesday. That figure was a revision of the £5·4 million I reported previous to that. I am saying this before anyone else might take the reins and try to do an announcement trail on this.

The final decision on the rent increase is a matter for the Minister for Social Development. The Executive are proposing a budget for the Housing Executive, which is £6·5 million higher than in 2000-01, and an increase of 5.3%. This funding more than reverses the £3 million reduction proposed by the Labour Government, which had been built in to the plans we inherited on devolution. I recognise, as many Members have stressed today and on other occasions, the strong concern to ensure that we carry through with proper investment in social housing, particularly in relation to the Housing Executive’s budget. I also recognise the particular pressures and challenges faced by the Housing Executive. We have tried before, in monitoring rounds this year, to make good those other pressures as they arise, as well as making this significant commitment to the annual Budget.

Several points were raised about the public service agreements and the regional rate. I think it was Mr Ford who alleged that, in relation to the regional rate, we are simply following a catch-up policy. The proposed increases on the regional rate are needed to generate the resources that the Executive deem necessary to deliver their priorities. The estimates of how great the increase in rate poundage should be will be kept under review. These increases will be adjusted if there is greater buoyancy than we have allowed for.

Public service agreements are vital to the effective and efficient pursuit of our objectives. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel have joint responsibility to work with Departments on developing public service agreements and policing them.

Mr Bradley raised points about our proposals for providing free travel for elderly people. As you will know, the Executive are committed to introducing free travel for older people in the Programme for Government. Provision of £4 million has been made in 2002-03 and 2003-04 to take this important new proposal forward, subject to a full policy appraisal.

Points were raised about finance for road gritting by Mr Bradley and Ms Morrice. The Budget contains provision to sustain the current programme of road gritting, however, prioritization within this programme is, of course, a matter for the Minister for Regional Development.

Rev Dr William McCrea, as Chairperson of the Environment Committee, raised a number of issues. He acknowledged the fact that the Environment and Heritage Service is enjoying an increase of over 30% more than the funding provided in the current year. This will allow for the first stage of a progressive implementation of European environmental legislation. We cannot do everything we wish to do immediately, especially when faced with a range of competing priorities. Nevertheless, I can assure the Member that a major part of the additional funding will help district councils meet the cost of their obligations under the waste management strategy, as has already been provided for in Great Britain.

I also note the reference to the moratorium on the historic building grant applications. In fact, the extra in-year allocations to this area should enable an earlier lifting of this moratorium, but the precise timing is a matter for the Minister of the Environment. Rev Dr William McCrea also mentioned the possibility of European infraction proceedings because of the backlog in implementing European legislation. The substantial increase in this area demonstrates the Executive’s determination to move quickly to eliminate the backlog. If, despite this evidence, infraction proceedings are taken, we will address the issue of any resulting costs at that time.

Issues were also raised about the overall underfunding, as it was put, of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Mr ONeill asked why no funding was provided to buy out commercial fishing nets or to improve safety in road racing. While I acknowledge that only 25% of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s bids for funding were met, all bids are considered according to relative priorities and not on the proportion of bids submitted by each Department. This year the Executive have recommended that the Department’s budget be increased by 7·8% compared to last year, and I should point out that this is the fourth highest increase proposed in the Budget. In addition to the Budget allocations, the Department will also have the opportunity to bid for funding under the Executive programme funds.

With regard to the buying out of commercial fishing nets, although the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure submitted a bid for funding, its policy in this area is still being developed. Until the policy is developed and evaluated, the Executive cannot consider allocating funds, as we are not yet able to determine a relative priority of the policy within the Programme for Government.

As far as improving safety in road racing is concerned, the Department is currently consulting with interested parties and has set up a working group to look at addressing the long-term safety of motorcycle racing on both road and track. Until the policy in this area has been developed and evaluated, the Executive are, again, unable to allocate funds.

Mr Close asked about receipts from the sale of Housing Executive houses. Additional receipts from all sources need to be looked at in the context of the most pressing needs across all our programmes.

It would not be sensible to assume that they should be allocated to the area from which they have arisen. Not all Departments have an equal ability to generate receipts. The present practice ensures that their needs can be taken into account when the allocation of additional receipts is considered.

Mr McHugh asked where the increase of £7 million — which was allocated to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety since the draft October Budget — will be spent. The capital budget for next year has been increased by £5 million, and an additional recurrent £2 million has been allocated to the acute services budget. The precise distribution will be determined by the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Mr McHugh raised an issue which had been mentioned earlier by Mr P Robinson. He said that free travel for the elderly would do little for those living in rural areas because they currently have few public transport services. As I said earlier, a policy appraisal of the proposal is awaited. The Executive will want the differential impact and benefits of free travel to be properly appraised.

Mr Savage and others expressed concerns about the effects of European Union funding. The Executive have to work within the total allocation of funding set by the Treasury. That includes the amounts available on a ring-fenced basis for the Peace II programme, for which we are especially grateful to the European Union. The Executive are able to work alongside the European Union on programmes such as community initiatives.

In these instances, and in aspects of transitional Objective 1 funding, we have decided to allocate additional funding within our departmental expenditure limit, because we can support those actions on their own merits. For example, the urban community initiative initiates actions that we support. Furthermore, we have provided for complimentary actions to be listed among the bids on the Executive programme funds.

Mr Paisley Jnr has challenged the costs arising from the structures of Government. This demonstrates a failure to recognise the sheer value of having a local administration. There are 11 Departments in the Assembly, and this structure makes for substantial scrutiny and accountability of the workings of Government. This is a major change for the better, by comparison with the restoration of direct rule, where we had no accountability at this level. Some of the more prolific questioners of that accountability should bear in mind that every activity in this Assembly, at both Committee and individual level, does have a bearing on departmental running costs and does bear down on other performance aspects.

We were also asked by Mr McHugh and Mr Poots about whether the allocation for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should be spent on administration costs, rather than on farmers. In the past, the Department has run capital grant schemes for farmers. However, the time is not appropriate to ask farmers to contribute further to such schemes. Instead, the Department aims to increase education and training, information technology, and to introduce a focus on quality competitiveness, such as in beef quality. To that end, the Budget provides for important work, including the launch of the beef quality initiative, business development, education and training for farmers, and the introduction of the scrapie eradication programme.

The £2 million per annum funding of the beef quality initiative is an example of a successful idea emerging from the expert vision group set up by Ms Rodgers to develop a strategic vision for the future development of the entire agri-food industry. With regard to Mr McHugh’s other queries, there is scope for an increase in administration to deliver all of the Department’s statutory obligations, including a satisfactory equality scheme.

On modulation, the Budget provides for farmers’ money to be matched pound for pound by the Treasury, which will bring more money into the Northern Ireland economy and to the agriculture industry as a whole. The Department will be consulting with farmers’ bodies about the use of modulation money and match funding for the 2003-04 period. Also, the payment of compensation is an important element in the control of animal disease, ensuring that farmers report outbreaks early so that effective remedial action can be taken.

Mr Savage asked what Ms Rodgers was doing about the crisis in farm incomes. The increase in the allocation to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development provides very substantive evidence of the Executive’s commitment to farming. There will also be significant funding allocated through European subsidies, which will be additional to this budget.

Mr Paisley Jnr queried waste, and pointed in particular to the £2,000 spent on a cross-border rural development group. I know that the Minister of Agriculture supports that proposal to build stronger rural communities on a cross-border basis. She also supports the proposal for the new peace maze in Northern Ireland, which is funded by the peace and reconciliation fund, because of its particularly strong cross-community appeal to young and old alike. She considers both to be valuable initiatives.

Mr Ford queried the indicative allocations in the Budget for free travel for the elderly and the question of the remainder falling on district councils. The estimated cost of existing half-fares scheme is £4 million. On that basis, the increased travel by the elderly due to the availability of free travel is likely to raise the full fare cost to £11 million. However, as I said before, a policy appraisal is awaited. A common feature of free travel schemes is that the operator should not be placed in a better position than he would have been had the scheme not existed. In other words, he should not gain because an empty seat is now occupied by someone travelling free. On that basis, the cost of free travel to the public purse is still far from clear. Against that background, the Executive have proposed that funding of twice the current level should be made available. The rest, if any, will come from district councils, based on an assessment of the benefit that their residents enjoy.

Mr Ford also asked about a public/private partnership for Translink. Obviously, that is initially a matter for the Department for Regional Development, but we must recognise that a single monopoly that is not exposed to competition is unlikely to provide the most efficient service delivery, and forthcoming European legislation could well force change. I am sure that, in scrutinizing proposals, the Department for Regional Development, the Executive and the Assembly will recognise the problems created by the highly fragmented railway privatization in Britain. I hope that Members are assured on that point.

Mr Dallat, among others, referred to problems with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Trust. The additional allocation of £1 million to the service’s budget in 2001-02 will fund the replacement of the existing vehicles, thereby contributing to the fleet’s modernization. The recently completed strategic review of the ambulance service highlighted a range of problems. We will need to consider carefully what options exist to address these. The outcome of the review into the acute hospital sector will also be relevant in defining future needs.

Ms Morrice commended the decision to fund recruitment of road safety education officers, increasing their number from 11 to 21, and more significant investment in road safety promotion issues. That investment has enabled the Department of Environment to reinforce its key road safety messages. More importantly perhaps, the Department of the Environment, in conjunction with others across Government, is currently preparing a new road safety strategic plan for the period 2001-10. A consultation document will be published shortly, and I am sure that what Ms Morrice properly calls "a life and death issue" will be fully and rigorously addressed in that review.

Ms Morrice also sought further information about the allocation of funding to victims, women’s issues and community relations. The Budget provides for the work of the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, and that includes funding for community relations, and the promotion of gender and equality issues. As I mentioned earlier, the draft Programme for Government aims to put in place a cross-departmental strategy to ensure that the needs of victims are properly met.

Mr Kennedy is anxious that we address the backlog of repairs to the school estate in future years and arrange retainer payments for term-time staff. The Executive recognise the importance of maintaining safe and appropriate school facilities, and has allocated an additional £10·5 million for that purpose this year. I assure the Assembly that the Executive will continue to address the inherited backlog in repairs when allocating Executive programme funds and constructing the Budget in future years.

Ms Gildernew asked about the impact of the reduction in urban regeneration and community development funding. While the mainstream funding is falling by £3·1 million as the 94/99 EU Single Programme comes to an end, there is an increase in EU Peace funding of £6·2 million. In addition, there will also be £6 million in the social inclusion community regeneration Executive programme funds if the Sinn Féin amendment does not succeed.

Ms Gildernew then went on to say that receipts from the sale of Housing Executive houses had been returned to the British Exchequer. In fact, all receipts from Housing Executive house sales have become available to spend in Northern Ireland, on housing or other programmes. Decisions on where that money should be allocated are taken by the Executive and ultimately by the Assembly.

Mr Poots commented on some aspects of the budget for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and laid particular emphasis on library capital works. Responsibility for determining which projects should be given priority within that budget lies with the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment on any particular library, much as Mr Poots might want me to do so.

Mr Weir suggested that the increase in the regional rate could be forgone simply by reducing departmental running costs. This relies on the assumption that departmental running costs are spent on bureaucracy. I emphasise that that is far from the case, as many front line public services, such as roads; water and sewerage; environmental services and the payment of benefits are met from these costs. It would be impossible to make the sort of reductions that are being called for without cutting back on these and other vital public services.

In revisiting some points that he had made in winding up the substantive debate on the draft Budget, Mr Leslie emphasised the benefits of housing investments. At present, sales of houses are running at record levels, and far from reducing investment in housing, the Budget produces a 4·2% increase next year in housing provision. We have already indicated our determination to ensure that our housing programme continues to target social need. Despite the comments from some Members, housing continues to be a priority for the Executive. We also have to make sure that we pursue that priority alongside the many other competing measures we are advocating. We will continue to keep that point and other matters under review as regards future budget rounds and monitoring rounds.

I have tried to cover most of the issues raised in this debate. Some points were more substantive than others. Any that I have not covered I will follow up by letter, regardless of how Members vote on either the amendments or the Budget.

I want to pay tribute to all the Members who participated in the debate. It has been a useful exercise and has demonstrated that this Assembly is functioning as an Assembly should. There has been the challenge of alternative perspectives. Different opinions have been aired. I did not come here with the expectation that the Budget would be a lap of honour, either for the Executive or myself.

Proposed amendments have focused on one particular aspect — the regional rate. Most of the offerings have tended either to indicate some approval and welcome of the increases that the Executive have been able to afford to various programmes, or to ask for more expenditure on others. I am at a loss to understand how we could meet all the demands and suggestions for even more expenditure, when we are also under pressure, through the proposed amendments in relation to the regional rate, to reduce the resources available to us. I have said previously how I liken these occasions to close encounters of the absurd kind. We have seen some of that again. We are being asked to reduce the resources available to us, and at the same time increase expenditure.

Nevertheless, I recognise that people have their own case to put and their own role to play. I have a particular role as the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and I hope to discharge that properly on behalf of, and on a good working basis with, all my ministerial colleagues.

I want, as some other Members did today, to pay tribute to all my ministerial Colleagues for the contribution that they have made to the first Budget round. They have all put forward good cases. They all made bids, as their respective departmental Committees know. Unfortunately, the Executive do not have the resources available to meet all of those bids, and that is why we have had to develop a budget exercise very much informed by the key priority setting of the Programme for Government. In paying tribute to my ministerial Colleagues, I want to pay tribute to all the other members of the Executive Committee who have deliberated on the Budget decisions with us. We have taken these decisions collectively. I pay tribute, in particular, to the work of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in overseeing and in sharing in, not just this Budget round, but also the important work on the Programme for Government.

I appreciate that Members are still saying that they would like to see more of the public service agreements before voting on the Budget. However, let us be clear — the public service agreements will be coming forward to the Assembly in detailed form in January. We cannot really do anything about those public service agreements until we have confirmed the Budget. Their finalisation will be on the basis of the Budget lines confirmed here, and will set things out in a more meaningful way than we have been able to do in the tables so far. Members have rightly said that some of the more meaningful detail is absent from the Budget at this stage. That more meaningful detail should be available and set out in the public service agreements, which will form part of a consolidated Programme for Government.

Hence, the requirement in the agreement for the Assembly to be able to vote on a Programme for Government that incorporates an agreed Budget will be fulfilled. This is an important stage in that process. We have a Budget that is derived from a Programme for Government. It is not the end of the process. Confirming the Budget will lead to the further elaboration of the Programme for Government and will fulfil the information needs that many Members have outlined.

I hope that Committee members will further pursue the details of the public service agreements and the valid concerns that they have indicated. Through the Committees, they can ensure the best use of resources. People should not wait for a flag to fall from me, or from the Department of Finance and Personnel, before they scrutinise those issues.

Tonight we must decide if we are to confirm the Budget for next year. Indicative figures, consistent with the priorities reflected in the Programme for Government, have been provided for the following two years. I ask the Assembly to reject these amendments. They would damage the Budget, and, specifically, its realisation of our commitments to North/South structures under the Good Friday Agreement, and to the key priorities set out by the Executive in the Programme for Government. Having rejected both amendments, I also ask the Assembly to strongly endorse our first Budget under devolution.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The amendments will be taken in the proper order — first, number 2, then number 1 — followed by the motion in the form then agreed. If the motion has not been amended, it will be taken as on the Order Paper. As I reminded the House at the start of the day, it is clear from section 64(2) of the Northern Ireland Act (1998) that votes on the draft Budget require cross-community support. Until now, in the case of all propositions requiring cross-community support it had to be clear that there were no votes against; otherwise the Chair has pressed the House for Division. However, at this late hour I am hesitant to put the House to unnecessary and time-consuming Divisions. If it appears absolutely clear to the Chair that a proposal has not achieved a cross-community vote, I will so declare following the collection of voices. However, if it is challenged in the normal way by restating, then I will call for a Division. If it is not necessary to have a Division, I will not press the House to do so. The matter is in the hands of Members.

Question

Question

The Assembly divided: Ayes 23; Noes 63.

Ayes

Unionist

Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.

Noes

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Bríd Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Other

Jane Morrice.

Total Votes 86 Total Ayes 22 ( 26.7%) Nationalist Votes 39 Nationalist Ayes 0 ( 0.0%) Unionist Votes 46 Unionist Ayes 23 ( 50.0%)

Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).

Main question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 62; Noes 26.

Ayes

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Bríd Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.

Other

Jane Morrice.

Noes

Unionist

Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.

Other

Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson.

Total Votes 88 Total Ayes 62 ( 70.5%) Nationalist Votes 37 Nationalist Ayes 37 ( 100.0%) Unionist Votes 46 Unionist Ayes 24 ( 52.2%)

Question accordingly agreed to (cross-community vote).

Resolved:

That this Assembly approves the programme of expenditure proposals for 2000-02 as set out in the Budget laid before the Assembly on 12 December 2000.

Adjourned at 10.10 pm.