Northern Ireland Assembly, 12 February 2001

139 contributions from 38 members. The official report.

Assembly Matters Sub Judice

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

During a debate on a motion moved by Mr Danny Kennedy on 30 January, a point of order was raised by Mr Ian Paisley Jnr concerning the conduct of debate as regards matters that are sub judice. Mr Paisley suggested that Madam Deputy Speaker’s ruling prevented Members from citing cases that were under discussion in another jurisdiction. Madam Deputy Speaker undertook to clarify the situation and to make a ruling on the matter.

I wish to make some general points on the conduct of debate. Quite apart from the sub judice rule in Standing Order 68, it is open to the Speaker, or a Deputy Speaker, in controlling a debate, to remind Members of the need for caution in making reference to specific individuals whose personal safety may be placed at risk. It is also the responsibility of the Chair to try to ensure that even where strongly held views are put forward in robust debate, it is done in a manner which maintains a measure of dignity.

As regards Mr Paisley’s specific point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker said that she made her ruling on 30 January in the interests of caution, and that she would judge each point as it arose. However, I wish to rule with some further clarity on Standing Order 68.

The sub judice rule provides that certain matters should not be referred to in a motion, debate or question. The scope of the Standing Order itself is fairly narrow. In particular, it does not apply to contemplated or hypothetical proceedings, nor does it apply to investigations. In criminal matters, the sub judice rule applies from the moment a person is charged until the verdict and sentence have been announced. The rule resumes when notice of appeal is given, and applies until the appeal has been decided. In civil matters, the sub judice rule applies from the time the case has been set down for trial, or otherwise brought before the court, until judgement is given.

The basis of the rule is the prevention of prejudice to the outcome of actual, as distinct from possible, criminal or civil proceedings. References to specific individuals who have not been charged, or who have already been sentenced, fall outside the scope of Standing Order 68. I consider that the sub judice rule applies to proceedings before the courts of Northern Ireland. In regard to criminal cases originating in Northern Ireland, appeal may be made to the House of Lords and beyond. Therefore, if a Northern Ireland criminal matter has been appealed to the House of Lords or to an international court, Standing Order 68 applies from the time notice of that appeal is given until the appeal has been decided.

I hope this clarifies the matter for the House.

Civic Forum Assembly Debate

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to the debate last Tuesday on a motion making arrangements for consulting the Civic Forum. In the course of that debate, Mr Peter Robinson made a number of allegations with regard to comments I had made on the procedures whereby we consulted the Civic Forum with regard to the motion put forward. In those comments, Mr Robinson referred to documents that he had on the matter, and I believe that you, Mr Speaker, asked him to forward those documents to you. I would like to ask if you have received any such documents. I also want to draw your attention to two documents that I have relating to this matter. The first is on Civic Forum paper, copies of which were sent to all members of the Civic Forum prior to its discussion on 20 December. It sets out the motion for arrangements with the Civic Forum, proposed by the Deputy First Minister and myself. The document concludes:

"If issues need to be addressed they can be discussed at the meeting of the Forum on 20 December."

The issues were discussed at the morning meeting of the Civic Forum on 20 December, which was attended by 20 members of the Forum. The issues were discussed further by the management committee of the Civic Forum on the afternoon of 20 December, and I have the minutes of that meeting. The relevant minute reads:

"The motion as it currently stands was discussed at a recent meeting…"

— that was the morning’s meeting —

"…and some changes were proposed … It was agreed that the motion as developed at the previous meeting should go forward to the Assembly."

The minutes set out the text of the motion, which is exactly the text considered by the Assembly last Tuesday. These documents show that I did not mislead the House and, furthermore, show that Mr Robinson was quite wrong in his allegations.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It would be helpful, and in order — although the two are not always the same — if the First Minister were to supply those papers to me. I have not been in a position to make any ruling in regard to the matter until now. I will study any papers provided and respond appropriately.

Assembly Matters Sub Judice

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

My comments relate to your earlier ruling relating to the overly cautious ruling made by Madam Deputy Speaker during the debate on the motion tabled by Mr Danny Kennedy. In my view, Madam Deputy Speaker’s ruling stymied part of that debate. If a similar motion were to be tabled by a Member, can we assume that it would be listed for an early hearing and debate so the matters which ought to have been heard during the course of the debate can be fully and properly explored and debated by the House.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

At times, the tendency of the Members is to be less than cautious, and the tendency of the Speaker is to be a little more than cautious. These are understandable failings on both sides. Whether a motion would actually be taken is a matter for the Business Committee, but I shall look at the question as to whether a motion may be tabled, and I will correspond with the Member on that matter.

Civic Forum Assembly Debate

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that a view expressed by an Assembly Committee could not be regarded as being the corporate view of the Assembly any more than a view expressed by a mere management committee of the Civic Forum could be considered as the view and decision of the whole Forum? This is what was alleged last Tuesday.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have already undertaken to consider all the papers that are provided to me in relation to this question. I will subsequently make a ruling.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Peter Robinson is quite wrong. He did not listen to what was said, either on Tuesday or today. The allegations that he made are completely wrong. I will leave him to read the minutes and the papers to see that. He can then come and apologise —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It would be quite wrong for this to become a matter of debate, rather than several points of order. There may also be a subsequent question which I shall wish to address, which is the availability to Members of the Assembly of relevant papers from the Civic Forum. That is a matter that I think would be proper for me to examine, aside from ruling on this particular point of order.

BSE Tests

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has indicated that she wishes to make a statement in respect of results of BSE tests carried out by her Department.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Members will be aware that last Friday I released details of BSE tests that my Department recently carried out. My officials briefed the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on Friday. It is appropriate for me to provide the Assembly with the details, which I am happy to do.

Members will be aware that, with the full support of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland, I and my officials have been attempting to have the present ban on the export of Northern Ireland cattle and beef products relaxed. It became very clear to us that the European Commission and other member states would expect us to be able to demonstrate that we knew, as far as is humanly possible, the full extent of the incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland. That required us to carry out active surveillance for BSE, rather than relying on the disease being diagnosed and reported. My Department has only recently been in a position to do this, with the availability of a rapid mass screening test for BSE.

We therefore embarked on a round of testing aimed at high-risk cattle entering the over-30-months casualty cull in Northern Ireland. There are some 20,000 such casualty animals a year. I want to stress that as over-30-months animals, they do not enter the food chain. These animals are put down humanely on the farm. They are rendered and eventually incinerated. We took samples from 2,500 of these casualty animals during 2000, and the samples were tested as soon as my Department was in position to do the work. That was in the last few weeks.

As Members will now be aware, 54 of those tests for BSE proved positive, and, moreover, one animal appears to have been born after 1 August 1996, when the feed ban became fully effective. My officials are presently investigating that case further, although it has always been expected that there would be a few such cases. There has been one in GB. That means that BSE is more prevalent in older cattle than we had previously believed. It also means that the same may be true in other member states.

I hope that Members will forgive me if I stress several important points again, because it is vital that people do not misinterpret this. First, the cattle that were tested were from the category most at risk of BSE — older, sick or injured cattle. Secondly, as they were aged over 30 months, there was no question of their entering the food chain. All such cattle have been banned from the UK food chain since 1 August 1996. Thirdly, even though about one third of the animals tested were aged under four years at slaughter, none of them proved to be harbouring BSE. That vindicates the independent scientific advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) that the over-30-months scheme is an effective public health measure.

Where does this leave our bid to restore beef exports? Although it must still be our goal to get beef and cattle exports moving again, it must be recognised that until other member states report their cattle test results, we have no figures with which we can compare ours. It is such a comparison with the results of other member states that will form the basis for any case for the resumption of beef exports from Northern Ireland. However, other member states will not have reported all their results until later this year.

In conclusion, these figures are the result of a new mass screening test carried out on older, sick animals, which are in a very high-risk category and most likely to be harbouring BSE. There was absolutely no possibility of any of these animals getting into the food chain. No animal over two and a half years has gone into the food chain in Northern Ireland or Great Britain since 1996. We have the strictest controls in Europe. One third of those tested were under four years of age, and not one of those animals tested positive. This is further evidence to support the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee recommendations on the effectiveness of the over-30-months scheme as a measure to protect public health.

No comparison can be made with any other region or member state, as there are no comparable results of mass screening of this high-risk category. I hope that consumers and other member states will recognise that this exercise has given us a much better idea of the level of BSE in Northern Ireland cattle. It also demonstrates that it is present only in older cattle which are well beyond the 30-month age limit. Possession of this information can only help us to achieve our ultimate goal of eradicating BSE.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I want the Minister to reinforce this message to the media, because over the last few days, the situation has been misinterpreted. I fear that, in many cases, the key point is being missed. It is important that there be no scaremongering about BSE. We must approach this issue with a cool head and common sense. It remains the case that Northern Ireland beef is still the safest in Europe. The traceability scheme —

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

This is not the opportunity to make a statement, but to ask the Minister a question. Please come to a question soon.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I hope that the Minister will emphasise as much as possible that the safety of our beef industry is at stake. Over the weekend, the wrong message was given out by the media through a report that claimed that the youngest of these cattle was four and a half years old, and the oldest was 18.

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

Mr Savage, please come to your question.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

This is a very important point, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I ask the Minister to reinforce that message.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I am somewhat surprised that the Member is saying that the correct message has not gone out. Having carefully monitored all the media coverage, I know that there was just one unfortunate exception, and we are dealing with it. It was a misrepresentation of animals which were non-BSE. Aside from that one unfortunate exception, all the media coverage has interpreted the position as it is. I took great care to inform the media of the position, and I am pleased to say that the message has gone out that we have been responsible and open and that the precautions we have been taking have been seen to be working.

I also have to place on record my appreciation of the responsible manner in which the industry has acted. It has accepted that these tests are in the industry’s interests, as they will ensure that we eradicate this disease. With one unfortunate exception, media coverage of the issue has been extremely positive.

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

Does the Minister agree that while the figures cause worry, they do not constitute any threat to public health and that the campaign to achieve low incidence will continue to emphasise the advanced testing procedures which make us the safest region in the European Union?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I totally agree that these figures have no implication whatsoever for public health. None of the animals which were found BSE positive in the rapid screening tests could have entered the food chain. Independent scientific advisers have assured us that animals under two and a half years of age are not a threat to public health once the specified risk material has been removed. That position has been reviewed and reiterated by the Food Standards Agency and by SEAC. Indeed, last week the European Commission repeated that animals under two and a half years of age are not a threat to public safety.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

Although it was important that the Minister fully informed the Assembly, it is nevertheless disappointing that the export of livestock has had a further setback. In response to widespread concerns, can the Minister confirm categorically that she made the appropriate representations to the Government of the Irish Republic? Has the Minister received assurances that no infected BSE livestock have been imported into Northern Ireland? If the Minister is not in a position to acquire low-incidence BSE, what is her alternative?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The implication of the question about the Republic of Ireland is unclear. The UK Government and I have informed the Commission of the results of our survey. Indeed, as a matter of courtesy, I have also informed the Government of the Republic of Ireland of those results. I am not sure what point Mr Kane was making. However, I can assure him that it is illegal for meat from any animal over two and a half years of age to enter the food chain in Northern Ireland. That remains the case for beef coming from any other part of Europe as well as from within Northern Ireland.

The second part of his question related to what I am going to do now. I am not going to lose my head. I am not going to be rushed into making any foolhardy decisions. I will be speaking to the Commission, to other European Ministers responsible for agriculture and to Nick Brown. I await the results of the testing which will be carried out across Europe this year, and I will assess the situation to gauge the best time for me to resume my proposals for low-incidence status. I have no intention of abandoning my campaign for low-incidence status.

In the meantime, we will proceed with the many other things which need to be done. For instance, improving the quality of our beef is crucial so that when the markets open up again, we will be in a position to move immediately and capitalise on that.

Therefore the beef quality initiative that was announced in the Budget, and for which I obtained £2 million, is going ahead, and I will do everything possible to ensure that the quality of our beef is improved and can compete with the best.

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

Several Members have indicated that they wish to ask questions. I ask Members and the Minister to keep their comments as brief as possible.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the efforts to have the ban lifted were made on a voluntary basis. Other countries are not required to fulfil the same criteria for animals of over 30 months until the end of 2001, which means that Northern Ireland will stand alone for some 10 months. Does this extinguish our efforts to have the ban lifted?

The Minister’s statement made reference to the incineration of animals, and the general public are concerned about where they are to be incinerated. I would like to know the Minister’s opinion on our hopes of having the ban lifted.

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

Minister, I am sure there was a question in there somewhere.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I think there were a few questions, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

I am not taking points of order at this stage, Mr Maskey.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Mr McHugh made reference to voluntary efforts. He seems to misunderstand the procedures for the rest of Europe. In 2000 a decision was taken in Europe that sample testing of casualty animals would begin on 1 January 2001. We made immediate preparations to bring in the casualty animals. Given that this testing was compulsory from 1 January, it was highly unlikely that, had we proceeded with proposals for the relaxation of the ban, the European Commission would have come to any conclusion until the results of our initial testing were available. Therefore we decided to proceed in order to be in a position to supply the results.

In December 2000, because of the BSE situation in Europe, the Commission decided that testing would start in Great Britain on 1 April 2001 and on 1 July in the rest of Europe. It is not true to say that we went ahead too early. The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee agreed that we were right to proceed when we did. When the other results come in we will be in a better position to assess the true picture across Europe.

I ask Mr McHugh and Members of the Assembly to consider the position we would be in now if we had proceeded with proposals for the removal of the ban before the results came in. We will get only one shot at this, and I want to make sure that we get it right.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I would like to thank the Minister and her administrative and professional officials for the way in which they have handled this issue since last week. Their openness contrasts well with the actions of the 1996 United Kingdom Government, which were so roundly criticised by the Phillips Report.

Can the Minister assure the Assembly that she will continue to emphasise the safety of Northern Ireland beef that is under 30 months and the fact that there is no danger whatsoever to public health? Last week’s information did not give that sort of assurance — quite the opposite. Will she also ensure that the new tests are conducted properly by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and that the results are publicised in the same open way?

Will she also use her influence to ensure that other member states do the same? And will she ensure that her officials remain vigilant when checking further beef imports, such as those discovered in Newry a couple of weeks ago?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I will try to remember all of the questions that Mr Ford asked. If I omit some, perhaps he will remind me.

First, I thank the Member for his remarks, which I appreciate, about the manner in which this has been dealt with. He asked about the new tests to be carried out. In the coming year we will now have to test all casualty and fallen animals. Moreover, all animals born between 1 August 1996 and 1 August 1997, not just casualty and fallen animals, that are entering the over-30-months scheme will have to be tested. The purpose of those tests is to see how effective the introduction of the ban on the meat and bonemeal has been, because the ban was introduced from that date. If that year-long period is tested, that will indicate whether the ban has been effective. Those tests will all have to be carried out during this year.

I assure Mr Ford that I will be as open and as transparent when those results come through as I have been with the recent ones. I will continue to make a point of assuring the public that the results of those tests have no public health implication because — and I have repeated this, as have other Members — none of those animals would have entered the food chain.

John Taylor (UUP, Strangford)

All information is useful, and we thank the Minister for the information she has given and, especially, for her response to it. First, will the Minister confirm, once again, that meat from animals under 30 months old in Northern Ireland is among the safest in Europe? Secondly, can she tell us when she expects Scotland, England and the Republic of Ireland to carry out tests similar to those described to us today? Thirdly, how confident is she that other European Union countries will carry out similar tests, since BSE has been somewhat hidden from the public in those countries?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

In relation to Northern Ireland beef being the safest, I can only repeat the Food Standards Agency’s view and that of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), an independent scientific advisory commission. The SEAC states, and has recently repeated its view, that animals under two and a half years — the only ones going into the food chain in Northern Ireland — are not a threat to public health, and, moreover, that the specified risk material is removed. That has been the case in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK since 1996. Some of those controls are only now being introduced in other European countries. Therefore in that sense we have been ahead with our strict controls.

In relation to the tests being carried out throughout the rest of Europe, and whether the rest of Europe will comply, this is something that we wish to see happen. That will be a matter for the Commission and for the food standards agencies. I would like to think that all other countries will be as open and transparent as we have been. In the end, the fact that we have been open and transparent will stand to us.

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

I too welcome the statement and the openness of its content. Last Friday at the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee meeting we heard from the Minister’s officials that some very old animals had been tested. Can the Minister confirm the age of the oldest animals that tested positive, and can she give us the age profile of the remainder?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The oldest animal to test positive in the recent survey was 14 years old, which is pretty old for a cow.

All the others, with one exception, were over four years of age. Many were in the five years to seven years of age category — far beyond the age when they would have entered the food chain. We are checking on one animal, born just after the introduction of the meat and bonemeal ban. None of the animals was under four years old.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

To help us to make sense of the statement and be clear about its content, can the Minister inform the House how many of the beasts tested were from the beef sector, and how many were from the dairy sector? In the cold light of day, no matter what spin she cares to put on this statement, this is a blow to the policy of achieving a reduction in BSE status, or having low-incidence BSE status introduced and having the beef export ban lifted. Can she now, on the fourth time of asking, confirm that she has an alternative way forward, one in which the beef sector can place confidence, so that we can proceed in a united way to get the agriculture sector out of the mess it is in?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

As regards the profile of the animals tested, 70% were from the dairy sector, and the remainder were from the beef sector; I will write to the Member with the exact figure.

I do not like the use of the word "spin". I have not been spinning, and I am sorry that the Member has used that word. A dangerous message would be going out of the House if there were any attempt by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland to spin the figures. If I were spinning the figures, I would not have given out those that I did last week.

I understand that this is disappointing news for the industry — and for us all. I thank most of the Members for the responsible way in which they have spoken today. Nevertheless, it is only a temporary setback. I intend to continue with my efforts, and those of my Department, to improve the quality of beef to ensure that when the markets are reopened, we are in a strong position to exploit them. I will continue to talk to my counterparts in the rest of Europe, including Nick Brown. I will have discussions with the European Commission and officials in Europe, and I will assess when the time is right for us to go forward with our attempt to get low-incidence status for Northern Ireland.

There may have been some implication in what Mr Paisley Jnr said that there has been an increase in BSE in Northern Ireland. There is no increase. We are now seeing the real picture as regards the older animals. We cannot compare this type of testing with that carried out before. This is a mass screening exercise. We do not now have more BSE than before. We have a clearer picture of the real incidence in the older animals. When the picture emerges across Europe, we will then be able to make the comparisons.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

The farming community has had to endure many setbacks as regards BSE. How do the Minister and her officials think that our current BSE status relates to the other member states, given that we are the first to carry out a mass screening test?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Last year 22 animals that were showing clinical signs of BSE were tested, and that compared very favourably with the rest of Europe.

In relation to the new mass screening test, it is not possible to make a comparison for the simple reason that the rest of Europe has not yet carried out — or certainly has not come forward with the results — of that type of new targeted mass screening.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

First, I want to say that I totally support local beef products and welcome the endorsement and the assurances of the safety of the product. I concur with Mr Paisley Jnr when he talked about the relevancy of distinguishing between the beef herd and the dairy herd. Can the Minister outline how that will be progressed?

The Minister said that she would not be rushed into making any decision and I read from her statement

"until other member states report the results from their cattle test results, we have no figures with which we can compare ours … other member states will not have reported all their results until later this year."

It was the way in which this announcement was made that produced the disappointing news for the industry. How much better it would have been if the results of our testing had come out together with those of the other member states. A true comparison could then have been given to the public, which would have been a good news story for our industry. Why was it not handled that way?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

As I have already explained, it was quite clear to me that given the fact that these tests had to be done, the Commission was not going to come to any conclusions on any proposals for low incidence in Northern Ireland until they had seen the results of the new mass screening test, and that is why we went ahead with the testing. Indeed, many Members would have advised me to go ahead even earlier. Having gone slightly ahead of the rest of Europe and having discovered these figures — which we were not in a position to know — it was right to put them in the public domain immediately. It would have been totally wrong to withhold them. I could not have stood over that. It is important that all of these figures be made available to the public and to the Commission as soon as they become known.

I have explained the reason why we went ahead and why we went public with this, and it will now be a case of waiting until the other figures from Europe begin to emerge, which will be some time after 1 July this year.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Given that this is a relatively new test, how confident can the Minister be of its accuracy? Can the Minister indicate how many cattle were slaughtered in Northern Ireland for human consumption in 2000? Perhaps we can take the positive elements from this matter. The Minister mentioned that 2,500 animals were tested, and of those, 54 were positive. None of those animals was under four years old. Given the fact that there is now evidence that cattle are not contracting BSE under the age of four, should the Minister not consider upping the age of slaughter of cattle for human consumption to at least 36 months, rather than 30 months as it is now?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The number of cattle slaughtered in Northern Ireland for human consumption was 350,000. This new test has been approved by the European Commission. I understand that it is an accurate test, and we have to be guided by that.

With regard to the 30-month rule, the Food Standards Agency advises that it should stay. Therefore that will guide us. The priority is to ensure that we can stand over the safety of our beef. If the Food Standards Agency’s view is that beef under 30 months is the standard for safety, we will continue with that policy; it is what Europe requires.

If there was another question I will reply to it in writing.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Does the Minister agree that this is another example of Northern Ireland leading in health and safety and doing everything in its power to achieve that, as shown by the vision group’s findings with regard to England which came out at the end of last year?

Does the Minister also agree that the information we have on dead animals is not recorded by any other state? Northern Ireland is leading the way again. There are no figures for comparison with other countries. Therefore will the Minister agree that we need to examine the export of animals from other states which do not meet the same standards? Indeed, some states are not even thinking about the same criteria that we have introduced. Everybody appears to be trailing behind Northern Ireland. The same thing happened with pigs on the matter of stalls and tethers, when we took action before anyone else. Our farmers paid the price —

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

Again, Mr Armstrong, I think that there is a question in there.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

At the risk of repeating myself, our controls are, and have been, the strictest in Europe since 1996. I think that the question was about animals and meat coming here from other European countries. We must follow European rules. I repeat that it is illegal for meat from animals over two and a half years of age to be sold anywhere in Northern Ireland. Our controls are very strict in that regard. The inspection of, and controls on, meat going to slaughter in Northern Ireland are strict. Indeed, the strictness of those controls has been demonstrated recently by the effectiveness of our inspections.

It is difficult for me to know what the questions were. However, I believe that most of them have already been dealt with. The rest of Europe now has to abide by the same strict controls that we have had since 1996. From now on, the other European states will have to apply the controls that we have on meat and bonemeal and all of those things in animals under 30 months. However, the Member is right to say that we were ahead of the posse.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

The Minister said that this is not the end of her campaign to achieve low incidence. How does she propose to proceed?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

First, I will wait until the full picture emerges in the rest of Europe. In the meantime, I will continue the dialogue with the Commission, Nick Brown and other EU Agriculture Ministers. I will also continue to improve the quality of beef in Northern Ireland through the beef quality initiative. Indeed, I will continue to take decisions on the same basis as I did with the beef national envelope funds, which will provide as much assistance as possible to the farming community, particularly targeting those most in need.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the agriculture industry demands confidence, and that that is demanded equally by consumers. What programmes has the Minister considered to ensure that there is mass screening of all our livestock, or is she confident that BSE cannot be transferred at the incubation stage in animals under 30 months?

Is there scientific evidence to support the belief that incubation of BSE pre-30 months cannot be transferred into the human chain? If not, there will be doubts in the mind of every consumer.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I have already answered the question in relation to the programmes with which we will be proceeding. I refer the Member to my previous answer about the tests that will be carried out during the rest of the year on fallen and casualty animals and, particularly, on over-30-months animals born between 1 August 1996 and 1 August 1997.

With regard to the incubation of BSE or the threat to public health of animals in the under-30-months scheme, I understand that the reason for the Member’s question is to reassure people who may have doubts in their minds. I want to make it very clear that all the independent scientific advice available to me from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which is an independent scientific committee, the Food Standards Agency and the Commission indicates that animals under 30 months old with specified risk material, such as the brain and dorsal material, removed do not constitute a threat to public health. That has been reviewed and confirmed recently. I will continue to be guided by the scientists.

Maternal transmission is one way of transmitting disease, but that is covered by the offspring cull. However, I repeat that even in the case of maternal transmission, the fact remains that animals under 30 months old are considered by the independent scientific advisers not to be a threat to human health.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree that the last thing that our hard-pressed farmers need is a lack of confidence in beef by the consumer, and will she indicate what action she will take to ensure that consumer confidence remains?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Everything that I have done in the last week and, indeed, since the beginning of the year in relation to the tests that have been carried out should be a reassurance to the consumer that in Northern Ireland we are being open and transparent. We are taking all possible measures to eradicate the disease, and we are being guided strictly by our first priority — the protection of the public health. I will continue to be guided by the scientific advice and ensure that the strict controls that have always been present in Northern Ireland will continue to be in place. The first priority of my Department — and of the industry itself — is the protection of public health.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Why has the Minister’s Department carried out the tests 10 months ahead of the rest of Europe? Does she agree that the announcement should have been made in tandem with the other European member states?

Secondly, can she give us a timescale as to when the statistics for the rest of Europe will be published? We want to see those. Thirdly, in the light of the announcement, will the Minister confirm what action her Department will take to be more proactive in promoting Northern Ireland beef as a top quality product that meets exceptional standards and is above that of all our competitors in the rest of Europe?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I think that Mr Shannon is under a misapprehension; I have already explained that we are not 10 months ahead of the rest of Europe. I have explained why we went ahead, and I do not want to reiterate that. We started these tests a few weeks ago, and Great Britain has to start them on 1 April — which is not very far away. The rest of Europe has to start them on 1 July. Therefore we are not 10 months ahead.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Ten months will have lapsed when the results are announced.

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

This is not an opportunity to cross-examine the Minister.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I am responding to the suggestion that we started 10 months ahead of the rest of Europe. We did not. The rest of Europe will start testing on 1 July. We started testing on 1 January and announced the results on 9 February. The results from the rest of Europe will emerge shortly after they begin testing.

I cannot speak for the rest of Europe; I can only speak for my Department, and I have already outlined the action that I will be taking. I am looking forward to the report of the vision group, which should be hoped, will be available in early March. I expect it will contain advice about proactive marketing and various initiatives that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development needs to take. The Department is already taking some of those initiatives with regard to beef quality to ensure that we are in a position to exploit the quality of our beef.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a wee bit reluctant to raise this matter, but I will do so, considering the issues I had to raise last week. I am concerned that the Deputy Speaker was unable to follow Gerry McHugh’s contribution and had to ask if it contained a question. The Minister knew immediately that there were at least two questions. I am concerned that the Deputy Speaker was unable to follow the conduct of business.

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

Order. I noted earlier that there was some difficulty in recognising questions. I said that Members should not make statements, which lead on to questions, when the Minister is making her statement. I have to listen very closely to what Members are saying to ensure that a question is being asked. There were two occasions from each side of the House when it was difficult to discern if there was a question. I hope that that resolves the problem.

Public Expenditure: December Monitoring

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will confirm some further decisions by the Executive as a result of the December public expenditure monitoring round for the financial year 2000-01. I have emphasised in previous statements on the monitoring of public expenditure that its primary purpose is to address emerging issues as a result of improved information on the estimates of requirements for expenditure and receipts by Departments.

The Executive are determined to look carefully at such issues and adjust bands where necessary. We need to look at what is in the public interest and how we can best pursue the priorities set out in the Programme for Government in what is usually a context of limited options in each monitoring exercise.

It is important that the points I will announce be set in a routine context, because the Executive want to deal with, and agree, those issues as a matter of routine procedure. That the Executive can deal in that way with important economic and social issues is as clear a statement as we could make of the significance of having these institutions and of the fact that we have an Executive that take account of evolving local issues and the concerns and aspirations expressed in the Chamber and in the wider community.

When I announced the outcome of the December monitoring round on 22 January, I explained that the Executive were giving further consideration to the deficits that have emerged in the Health Service trusts. Although I must ensure that procedures for financial control are being observed, it is also important to recognise that the problem of deficits in the Health Service is a symptom of much deeper problems in relation to funding, which we need to address.

The Executive will wish to examine issues in the resourcing of the Health Service to ensure that money is being used as effectively as possible. We need to examine our priorities in the light of the Programme for Government. We also want to carefully examine the relative levels of provision for health funding and other key services between here and England, Scotland and Wales, as we increasingly feel that the Barnett formula has worked against the interests of health and other programmes here.

With the agreement of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Economic Policy Unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I am today confirming that we are launching a joint review of the causes and consequences of the Health Service trust deficits. This will not be a punitive or hostile study. The Executive are determined to work constructively with Health Service management in the interests of all those in need of care and the wider community. We want to find ways to ensure that the financial management arrangements and the roles and responsibilities help everyone in this purpose and give them the kind of management information that will be of real help in this vital service.

We need to ensure that the problem of trust deficits does not recur. We need to match funding to need as far as we possibly can, but we also have to match spending to funding in order to respect the authority of the funder, which is now the Assembly. The steps that we are taking aim to fulfil both these objectives. Under the resource budgeting arrangements, which are due to take effect from 1 April, trust deficits will no longer be at one remove from the Department’s financial control totals as set by the Executive and the Assembly in the annual Budget exercises. The principle must remain that spending proposals are brought together by the Executive and presented to the Assembly but then reflected in Assembly votes of approval. This is a fundamental part of the democratic process, and we need to reinforce the arrangements in the Health Service in that important context.

The Executive have decided to inject £18 million of additional spending into the Health Service to address these deficits. At one stage the estimated requirement to address the deficits was £38 million. Since then the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have analysed the technical issues in more detail and reassessed the implications of aspects of the funding arrangements. Taking account of this work and the allocations agreed in the December monitoring round, it has been confirmed that the amount needed is now £18 million. By the nature of the issue this does not mean any new activity in that it is paying bills for activities and services that have already been carried out. However, it is important to avoid the constraints on services that would be necessary next year if the trusts had to deal with the deficits in the allocations provided in the Budget. We want the improvements planned in the Programme for Government to proceed, and this requires a resolution of the deficits.

However, the Executive are concerned to ensure that this injection of funding is distributed fairly and does not lead to any distortion in the distribution of resources or the way resources are planned and managed in the future. We welcome the full co-operation of the Health Service management in the forthcoming consultancy study. The results of the study and the action that we will take on foot of it will affect the view we take on future allocations to the Health Service as 2001-02 progresses and for the longer term.

The approach that we are taking represents a responsible and considered response to a difficult issue, but it is fundamentally one which will be of significant benefit, both in the short term and the long term, to the Health Service and hence to our people. In any society appropriate spending on health has to be a considerable priority. These allocations demonstrate clearly the Executive’s commitment in this context. The study that we are introducing will help management in the Health Service as well as the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Economic Policy Unit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to work together to ensure that whatever future levels of funding are available are used to best effect to promote the best interests of the health of the region.

Allocating £18 million that remained unallocated in the December monitoring round still leaves a further balance of £10 million. The Executive have carefully considered how best to use the remaining resources, which allow us to address three important issues. It was not possible to come to these before now, given the considerable uncertainty over the Health Service deficit figure, which has only now been resolved through the analytical work that I mentioned earlier.

In the draft Programme for Government the Executive committed themselves to bringing forward proposals to introduce free travel on public transport for older people. In December I said that the indicative allocations for 2002-03 included substantial funding towards the cost of introducing a free travel scheme for older people from April 2002. We estimate that the total cost of the scheme will be about £10 million a year.

The plans announced in December included £4 million in 2001-02 and £8 million in each of the following two years. Since then, there have been helpful discussions in a working group of officials, which has been exploring options and considering the best way forward. I am pleased to be able to confirm today, on behalf of the Executive, that it has been decided that an additional £3 million will be allocated to this in 2001-02 by carrying forward part of our room-to-manoeuvre funds. An additional £2 million a year will be provided in the following years. That will allow full funding of a scheme for free travel for older people, taking effect from 1 October 2001.

There is no requirement for funding or assistance from district councils. That fulfils an important pledge in the Programme for Government and shows that the Executive can work together to find resources to implement key policy initiatives. That marks a distinct difference from the approach taken under direct rule. The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be discussing the details of the scheme with Department for Regional Development officials as soon as possible to take that forward.

The question of the gap between the old and new rounds of EU structural funds has caused considerable concern to many people in the community. It has been put strongly to us that the uncertainty over the timing of the new round of funding is leading to job losses and a break in the progress of the Peace programme that could have been avoided. As some resources remained unallocated, I put proposals to the Executive to address this issue. Those have been agreed. So far in this financial year, the Executive have provided £9 million of additional spending for gap funding, including £4·5 million for projects which were part of the Peace I programme. Those amounts have gone some way to dealing with the problem in the financial year ending on 31 March. However, we have recognised the problems that remain, given that it will be some time into 2001-02 before the allocations from Peace II and other programmes become fully available. Further action is needed.

At its meeting on 8 February, the Executive agreed a new approach to this that should allow for both continuity and change. It is important to recognise that the new round of funding includes some material differences from the first round. It would not be appropriate to simply roll forward every group and project that received assistance under the old round into the new round.

The Executive have agreed that Departments should be authorised to make advance payments to projects where they judge that there is a strong likelihood that the project will be eligible for funding and successful in an application under the new round. That would be subject to the procedures of the monitoring committees and funding mechanisms, when they are in place. It is important that this anticipated drawing down of the new round of funding is managed carefully. However, it should provide the continuity and certainty that everyone needs.

Much work has gone into developing clear criteria for the Peace programme, including detailed discussion with the European Commission. The criteria must be applied carefully. They are available to all Departments and can be used to help to secure the best use of available funding.

We also need to bear in mind that existing projects should not be funded without regard to the need to hold resources for new projects, which will meet the Peace II criteria. We need continuity and change as we adapt to the new programme.

This approach involves Departments making considered judgements about what applications will, and will not, succeed in the new round of funding. The criteria will help in this regard. Additionally, some new money is being set aside to insure, by providing a safety net, against the risk that a Department may assist a project, which may not, in the end, prove eligible for funding under the new peace programme. We propose to allocate £2 million of the room-to-manoeuvre fund — which is available now — and carry that into 2001-02 within the Executive’s programme fund for social inclusion and community regeneration. The first call on this £2 million should happen when Departments make gap funding available in good faith, and on criteria which are as close as possible to those adopted in the new programmes, and where, ultimately, the project aided does not succeed under the new Peace programme.

There remain substantial resources to be drawn under the Peace I programme. My Department will be actively working with relevant Departments and the Special EU Programmes Body to ensure the best use of these resources and to help with the problems of continuity from Peace I to the new programme. Meetings have been arranged with the main Departments concerned to reinforce the importance of this task and to help to take it forward. We need to maximise the benefit of Peace I money and ensure that it fulfils the key objectives set for the programme in order to pave the way for Peace II as well as possible.

This approach should serve to resolve the problem of gap funding, which has been a difficult issue for the voluntary and community sectors over the past months, and it should leave no remaining cause for uncertainty. The Departments concerned will be able to fund projects that are likely to succeed under Peace II. The Executive are also setting aside £2 million to provide a safety net so that if Departments need additional spending power, for the purposes of the new programmes, it will be available. This will be carried forward from 2000-01 to 2001-02 in the Executive’s social inclusion fund.

In some cases, it will be necessary to adopt an exit strategy for funding because some projects are not likely to come forward under the Peace II programme. This is an important aspect of the shift of emphasis which the Executive have agreed with the European Commission and the two Governments in relation to the Peace II programme, and it is part of adopting what is a different context from that of the original Peace programme.

During questions on the draft Budget statement in October 2000 I made it clear that we would continue to keep the forecast level of rate revenue under review. As was the case for the current year, I undertook that I would make use of any emerging additional revenue to help to keep down the increases in the rate requirements as far as possible. I am pleased to announce that because of the strong continued growth in valuations of domestic property there is some scope to adjust the domestic regional rate increase. The latest revenue forecast is £2 million higher than we assumed in December. The Executive have, therefore, decided to accept my proposal to reduce the increase from 8% to 7%. Because of the growth in the revenue base it does not mean foregoing revenue, but it will be of some benefit to the ratepayers.

The Executive’s approach to the domestic rate continues to take account of the realities that we have to face, namely that the levels of local revenue per household raised here are markedly below those raised in England, Scotland and Wales. Foregoing revenue would risk foregoing some of our key arguments in the case that we must put to the Treasury on the Barnett formula.

Turning to the non-domestic regional rate, the position is somewhat different. Given the effects of the proposed uplift of 6·6% in the non-domestic regional rate for 2001-02, I asked for more detailed work to be done on comparisons with England on the non-domestic rate. This has confirmed that the non-domestic regional rate here is not out of line with that in England. This strongly suggests that if we had a lower uplift in the non-domestic regional rate than was planned in December, this would not undermine the case that we need to put to the Treasury regarding the Barnett issue.

Now that the figures for the Health Service have been confirmed, we have some additional spending power in 2000-01 which could be carried forward into 2001-02 to replace an element of regional rate revenue. This would make it possible to reduce the uplift in the non-domestic regional rate from 6·6% to 3·3%.

On the evidence available, it seems fair that for 2001-02, the non-domestic sector should face a rates uplift that is broadly in line with the rate of inflation, especially now that we have found a way to do this without detriment to our overall spending levels, which would have been the case had we rushed into this issue in either December or January. The amount required is £5 million.

This is good news for the business sector and will not undermine the case that we need to make to the Treasury on the Barnett issue. We must look carefully at the impact of the rating system system, on business as well as on individuals and households, as part of the review of rating policy, which I will be referring shortly to the Finance and Personnel Committee. The Executive are determined to find solutions through the review that can make the best use of whatever resources are available and which are in the widest possible interest.

The proposals for the now reduced uplifts in the domestic and non-domestic regional rates will be introduced to the Assembly in the form of the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001, which is due for consideration in March.

The four measures that I have announced on behalf of the Executive represent clear and decisive action on the part of the Executive in key areas. This has been made possible through routine, straightforward financial management and by facing up to the difficult issues with proper regard for prudence, sensible planning and the needs and aspirations of the community.

We have acted to ensure that the health deficit issue is fully addressed through immediate funding and a study to ensure that the circumstances are properly understood and that the health trusts and boards can make changes in management arrangements, which will ensure a better planning process and avoid deficits in the future.

We have acted to introduce free travel for older people more quickly and in a more straightforward way than was possible in the context of the December Budget.

We have found a way through the problem of gap funding, which means that eligible voluntary and community groups will be able to make appropriate plans to secure the way ahead, in conjunction with Departments, by making progress towards Peace II on a workable basis.

We have acted to contain the increase in the regional rates without compromising the key issues that we all face in seeking additional resources from the Treasury. We can reduce the domestic increase from 8% to 7% without a loss in revenue because valuations have increased slightly faster than we were expecting. For that reason we have acted to bring down the increase for the non-domestic sector from 6·6% to 3·3%, which will be of significant benefit to local businesses.

These measures show the Executive at work. They show our determination to work in the interests of all in our community and across the full range of functions for which we are responsible. I hope the Assembly will join with me in supporting these four proposals, particularly in the political context which has made them possible.

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

Order. Members, before we proceed may I remind you that several people have indicated that they want to ask questions. For that reason, I ask you, and the Minister, to be as brief as possible.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome this important statement from the Minister. It shows that changes can be brought about by negotiation and by shifting the people power in the street. The Minister’s quick response is very welcome.

I welcome the idea of paying off the trusts’ debts, but I want to voice my concern to the Minister that I hope that this is not an open-ended situation. The trusts should not feel that if there is a crisis in the future, someone will pay off the debts. Will the Minister state whether this will arise again with the extension of the one-year GP fundholding? Is that likely to lead to debts in the future?

It is good news for the older traveller that we now have a stand-alone measure and will not be depending on council funding. This is important, because it is more manageable.

In relation to gap funding, there are concerns in the community that the gap between Peace I and Peace II is extending. Some people believe that there is a policy to create a gap between the two funds, rather than to provide continuity. In that way valuable resources, personnel and experience could be lost. Can the Minister confirm when the Peace II programme will be on the ground?

The rates rise is an important measure. Although I welcome the reduction in the increase for the non-domestic rate in line with inflation, again I am concerned that the level of domestic rates will be maintained. Can the Minister confirm —

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

Order. It is very difficult to hear.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister confirm — particularly to Committee members — that domestic rates will still cost the ratepayer the same amount of money? The new money is being brought in by the rise in valuation. It will not, therefore, save people any money. Like for like, it is not possible to compare district councils here with those in England, Scotland and Wales, because the services provided locally are different to those across the water.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his questions. Under the stricture of brevity, I shall not be able to cover all of them.

With regard to deficits, it is not intended that action taken now to deal with the current serious deficit problem should, in any way, create a precedent or an incentive for further deficit spending in future. That is one reason for undertaking the joint consultancy study, together with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Economic Policy Unit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. This matter is not being taken lightly in relation to any concerns raised by the deficits — either issues of service pressures or the question of unmet need which must occur to people, not least in respect of those trusts which have not been showing deficits, and concerning questions of financial management. I am glad that the Committee Chairperson welcomes our starting the free travel scheme earlier, and on a fully funded basis, so that it is more straightforward. We did not have the resources available to allow us to commit to that previously, but we do now.

With regard to gap funding, I want to refute any suggestion that there is a policy to try to open up or to deepen any gap between Peace I and Peace II. There is certainly no such policy, and our announcement today goes beyond gap funding and moves us on to bringing forward Peace II. Again I emphasise to Members that in relation to the Peace I money, there are outstanding questions which must be addressed. We will be taking measures in that regard — again, proof that we are not treating the issue lightly.

I accept that the reduction in the domestic regional rate is not as much as people would have liked, but I refer Members to my point in relation to the case that we will have to make to the Treasury on the question of the Barnett formula. Comparing the functions of councils in England with those in Northern Ireland is not material to the issue of the regional rate. The previous rate increase of 8% would have seen an average household paying £16 a year extra. Now an average household will pay £14 a year extra.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

The Minister’s statement contained several interesting points, but I shall confine myself to one.

Can the Minister confirm that as a result of his additional £3 million allocation, the free travel scheme will be introduced seven months earlier than would otherwise have been the case? Will he also comment on his statement that an additional £2 million a year will be provided in forward years? That seems to go beyond the scope of a monitoring announcement and into the realm of a matter pertaining to future budgets. Can the Minister explain how he manages to contain the allocation of £2 million in future years within his statement on monitoring?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The £3 million allocated to bringing forward the commencement of the free travel scheme for the elderly to 1 October 2001 rather than 1 April 2002 requires a consequent provision in future years. In making the decision to bring forward the scheme and to fully fund it, the Executive had necessarily to take a decision consciously in relation to provision for future years. The Executive have done that and have been fully open and transparent about it.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

The Minister’s statement was a good example of how the Executive are beginning to function in a meaningful way for the public, who will be appreciative of the forthcoming reduction in the regional rate, which has been one of the most contentious issues this year.

Can the Minister give details of the total amounts made available to date for gap funding? When will the money announced today be available to the community groups on the ground, who are anxious about the continuity of the Peace programme?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is good to have a welcome for the direction in which we are moving in relation to the rates. We have only been able to do that on the basis of the money available to us, either through the improvement of the valuation base or because we do have this money available after dealing with other pressing spending items. I stress that we only have the money available after we have dealt with those other items, and it would have been wrong to make the money available before addressing our priorities.

In this financial year we made £9 million available for gap funding — £4·5 million of that went to the Peace programme. We now wish to see Departments making the sort of considered judgement that we think they are capable of, and that many community groups would like them to make, on whether or not people are eligible for the next round of funding, and making some advance allocations on that basis. We have provided the additional £2 million for the Executive’s social inclusion programme fund as a safety net, so that if Departments, in good faith, make allocations to groups that turn out not to qualify for the next round, that is covered and it is not an expense to the Department’s other programmes or to the wider Peace programme.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I welcome the Minister’s finding the necessary finance for free travel for the elderly. In keeping with your request to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a very concise question.

Last week, the Deputy First Minister said:

"At no stage, and I repeat this, at no stage was a bid made to the Department of Finance and Personnel for funding for this by Mr Campbell prior to today."

Will the Minister confirm that my predecessor, Peter Robinson, made a bid for full central funding in July 2000? I renewed the bid in bilateral meetings with the Minister in September 2000 and again in December 2000. Rather than my having to release the documents, which would demonstrate the extent to which the Deputy First Minister misled the public, perhaps the Minister would be good enough to confirm that the July, September and December bids were all made to him.

12.00

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I acknowledge the question. There are several issues. There was a bid in July in the context of the Budget discussions. That bid was for full funding of this scheme and is a matter of record. It came prior to Mr Campbell’s term in that Department. The point was referred to in one of the bilateral meetings that I had with all Ministers in September. However, it would be misleading to imply that those were the only terms on which free travel for the elderly, and questions on how to deliver it, were discussed. Although the point was referred to, I do not recollect the discussion as being about a straightforward bid for full funding with no other options.

Mr Campbell also said that a bid was made to me in December. In fact, Mr Campbell sent a memo to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 7 December 2000, which was the day that the Executive were meeting to discuss my proposals for the revised Budget. Those proposals included one to have the scheme begin on 1 April 2002, with three quarters of the funding coming from us, and one quarter from councils. Mr Campbell’s memo acknowledged that the proposals he had been pursuing with councils were for part-funding by them, and it reflected on some of the difficulties of that. His memo was to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the day of an Executive meeting and was in response to the recommendations from the Department of Finance and Personnel. I can confirm that communication in December, if that is what Mr Campbell was referring to.

I can also confirm that, subsequent to that, I had a further communication from Mr Campbell dated 23 January 2001 — the day after I made the statement on December monitoring. That communication put forward the proposal that he would like to be able to allow councils that were willing to participate to go ahead and contribute to a part-funding scheme this year, beginning in April 2001.

The Deputy First Minister’s point, I believe, was with reference to Mr Campbell’s comments last Thursday morning on Radio Ulster. Clearly referring to the opportunity that he said existed — and it was obviously in terms of the December monitoring round — he said that he had instructed his officials to make a bid to the Department of Finance and Personnel. We did not receive that bid, and I pointed that out in a note to Mr Campbell.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the statement, and the four proposals contained therein. It is quite remarkable that the proposals are possible. It is not because of the political context within which we are working, but in spite of it. It is remarkable that the First Minister has announced yet another timetable to collapse the institutions.

In paragraph 26 of his statement, the Minister states that he asked for further comparisons between the rates here and those, for example, in England. This matter was well aired over two or three months, particularly when I and others raised the point about the regional rate being increased too much above the level of inflation. I find it difficult to understand what information the Department — I do not mean the Minister, of course — did not have available to it when the deliberations were going on.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Comparisons are neither entirely easy nor straightforward, and many technical issues must be examined. However, one can conclude that businesses here would be paying similar rates to their counterparts across the water. Another relevant point is that we have a higher proportion of smaller businesses here. We were only able to consider using money to offset the expected higher rate increase after other outstanding issues were dealt with. Many of those who question why we were not able to go for this lower rate increase earlier are the same people who say that there should be significant additional expenditure on certain programmes.

The comparison with English rates has never been expressed to me before, but several Members expressed particular concerns about the effect of the rate increases on the non-domestic sector. Given that much of the argument on the domestic regional rate included references to the situation in England and the Treasury’s likely angle on that, I made a point of confirming that those same concerns did not apply. I feel that I have been quite open and fair about this — I was not aware of any of this earlier. Officials, working in the background, found the information. This, combined with the fact that we had money available at the end of the December monitoring round, allowed us to take this measure, which I hope people will welcome.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that because of the illness of my Friend, Mr Close, he only has me to put up with today. I will probably be slightly gentler on him on some topics than Mr Close would have been. I am glad that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is in her place. She has previously acknowledged the difficulties of funding different aspects of her work and the fact that the acute services sector has taken the lion’s share of available money compared to children’s services, community care and psychiatry.

Can the Minister indicate how he proposes to ensure that there will be a fair distribution of the additional resources allocated to Health Service trusts to ensure that the bigger acute hospitals do not, yet again, run off with the vast majority of the money?

I have no desire to interfere in the little spat between the DUP and the Minister on free travel. I welcome the extension of free-travel provision and, speaking on a constituency-level basis, I trust that this additional money will result in more resources for the Department for Regional Development to enable the Knockmore railway line to be preserved. I hope that the Minister will happily confirm this today.

Similarly, the proposals on gap funding must be welcomed. Can the Minister indicate more clearly how he is going to administer the inelegantly described "exit strategy" for those organisations which will no longer receive funding?

Finally, on the regional rate, the Minister will know that Members in this corner of the Chamber will welcome the reduction of the business rate. Will he assure us, on the basis of his statement, that any rises to this rate will be in keeping with rises in the rate of inflation and that it will not be increased as was originally planned? I agree that the Barnett formula is unjust and that it must be changed, but does he agree with me that to change it we must move to fair taxation as well as to a fair distribution of national funding — [Interruption]

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

I am sorry. I am not taking a point of order.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

And that must refer to income tax and not the rates.

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

Minister, I am sure that you may wish to answer one of those questions now. You may wish to respond to others in writing later.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In acknowledging several of the Member’s points, I stress that I am not having a spat with the Minister for Regional Development. The emphasis in this important proposal should be on who gets the benefit, not on who gets the credit. We should work on that basis. Although we refer to joined-up government, perhaps grown-up government would be a better term — let us concentrate on that.

Although it does not matter who gets the credit, for the likes of rate increases, it is pretty clear who gets the blame — and I recognise the unfairness of that.

In response to the other question on gap funding, when the Peace I programme was undertaken, and before there was any mention of Peace II, there had to be provision for exit strategies. That may or may not have been made on a satisfactory basis. This is causing us further problems, but the issue must be addressed. We want Departments to work on that and to make best use of my announcement today by way of gap funding and by moving to make allocations from the next round of programmes. Further work also needs to be done to maximise the spending on Peace I.

Today’s announcement bears no relation to the Knockmore railway line. That matter should be taken up with the Minister for Regional Development.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I welcome today’s announcement, particularly in relation to free travel and the reduction in the regional rates. It is clear from many who have lobbied the Assembly that this is the kind of message they want to hear.

Last week UNISON, the trade union representing those in the community and voluntary sector, lobbied the Assembly. In its report ‘Communities in Crisis’ the union expresses its concern about the transitional nature of this funding and predicts that £3 million, not £2 million, is needed. What is more important, the report recommends that the Executive now take a serious look at mainstreaming these projects, many of which are examples of good practice, rather than wait for Peace II and leave it to the Health Service to pick up the psychiatric or social service costs.

The second point I want to make concerns the £18 million deficits that we are now picking up. I am concerned that proceeding with the Programme for Government requires a resolution to the problem of the deficits. Will this allow next year’s trusts to say that they cannot do what is in the Programme for Government and then have their deficits picked up? How does the Minister intend to address that problem?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am aware of the UNISON paper to which Ms McWilliams has referred. It says that £3 million is needed for gap funding. I refer the Member to the statement I have made. We are authorising Departments to make considered judgements now and on the basis of those to make advance allocations to projects they believe to be eligible under the Peace II criteria. The £2 million that is going into the social inclusion fund now is there effectively to cover Departments against any risk of allocating moneys to projects that do not end up being eligible for Peace II. It is there to cover the Departments and protect the Peace programme. We hope that the allocations which can now be enabled by this approach will involve more than the total of £2 million. I ask the Member to look again at the statement and at the nature of the proposal we are dealing with. We are making a gear change. This is not the way in which gap funding has previously been provided.

The Member referred also to mainstreaming. One of our reasons for changing the nature and scope of the Peace programme and for further embedding and developing the notion of partnerships so precisely is so that our arrangements will sustain themselves after the Peace II programme. That is the only way to mainstream these things seriously in the long term.

In answer to the trust deficit question, we made significant provision in the Budget, with some increases in Health Service spending. It would have been inappropriate and inconsistent with the goals we set out in the Programme for Government to have left some of that additional funding for paying off these deficits. In the statement I made the point that there will be a significant difference between this year and next year because of the change to resource accounting and budgeting. Trust spending will no longer be at one remove from departmental control.

We have agreed a joint consultancy exercise with the Economic Policy Unit, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and ourselves to look at both the causes and the consequences of trust deficits. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and I recognise that a number of questions arise in this regard, and we want to address those seriously.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

It would be churlish not to welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly on such matters as free travel and the reduction in rates. Is the Minister aware that in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s coming Budget one of the incentives may be a substantial reduction in business rates? In Northern Ireland, however, while there is to be a reduction in the increase in business rates, there is nevertheless to be an increase. Is the Minister aware that the public at large are becoming a little concerned at the millions of pounds that can be found down the side of the sofa or at the back of the piano when it is necessary to address what is clearly an urgent problem?

I have taken up the issue of business rates with the Minister outside the Chamber. Increasing small business rates will put a substantial and significant number of hard-working, self-employed business people out of work, while simultaneously the Executive are pumping money into the IDB and LEDU in order to lay out huge capital sums to create new jobs. Is it not something of a paradox that on the one hand he is putting people out of business while on the other hand he is laying out large sums of money to encourage new jobs?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question and acknowledge that he has spoken to me about the non-domestic rate increases. Quoting averages can be dangerous in this context, and I have already stated that the change in the domestic rate will be from £16 a year to £14 a year. With business rates the increase will be reduced from £299 a year to £150 a year. I am not sure that the rate increase was going to have quite the adverse effect on individual businesses that some people have suggested, but I do recognise that the margins are significant, particularly when people are working in marginal circumstances.

We will look at what is happening elsewhere with rates. Across the water non-domestic rates are increasing at the rate of inflation, and we have been able to achieve the same rate for the non-domestic sector here. I cannot promise that that will be the case next year, because we will have to look at next year’s funding requirements in the light of many circumstances and pressures. It would be irresponsible of me to make a blanket commitment.

We are sensitive to the impact of rate levels and are aware that several issues need to be examined. This also applies to rates in the commercial sector, and some commercial areas are affected and others are not. These issues can be best addressed in the wider review of rating policy which is to be undertaken and on which I will soon refer papers to the Finance and Personnel Committee.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I welcome the Minister’s announcement of an additional £18 million to clear the health deficits. I hope that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will ensure that there is equal distribution and that an unfair proportion does not go to the large hospitals. I wonder if the Minister has considered giving some money to those poor GP fundholders who through no fault of their own also have deficits.

The Executive’s review of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is welcome; it should produce some clarity on health funding. Will the Minister encourage the review team to introduce a standardised system for tracking health funds so that we know where the allocations go and can be sure that the best value is being given to patients at the point of delivery?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We need to address the liability that the deficits represent, and not least the liability in service planning and management. Therefore, it is best that we resolve the historic or cumulative deficits as they stand. However, we need to go beyond that and look at many of the underlying questions raised, not least those referred to in relation to a management information system. That is important, not just for financial control but also because it would mean sound service planning geared to meeting need on an equitable basis. I recognise that the pattern and the nature of trust deficits raise serious equity questions about what is done to resolve them and to avoid them in the future. The consultancy study that has been undertaken on terms of reference agreed by the three Departments involved should be able to contribute positively to that.

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

I also welcome the Minister’s statement and commend him for his actions, particularly on the gap funding and the £2 million now available. Can the Minister tell us what additional actions, if any, he would propose to the Departments to assist the community and voluntary sector further?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Several issues need to be addressed, but not all together. We cannot make progress on any one point without attending to all the others. However, gap funding is not simply allocated in the same way as before. We are now asking Departments to judge who is eligible and, on that basis, to make advance allocations against the funding programmes. Furthermore, we are asking them to do that in relation to Peace I funding because a considerable amount of money is still available there. We have engaged with the Special EU Programmes Body on this.

As Members will recollect, in what was a new departure in the Budget, we have created Executive programme funds. Some of those programme funds will be of particular interest to the community and voluntary sector, not least the children’s fund, an arm of which would need to be accessible to applications directly from that sector. The social inclusion/community regeneration fund, by its scope and terms of reference, should allow Departments to continue their good work with the community and voluntary sector.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I would like to take the Minister back to the issue of the Department for Regional Development’s proposal for free fares for the elderly. Is the Minister aware that a Department does not ultimately produce a scheme and deliver the goods? An operator does that, and the Minister and the Department for Regional Development have to negotiate with that operator. Can the Minister therefore inform the House why it was thought appropriate for the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and himself to announce details of the amount of funding available prior to entering into negotiations with the operator? By doing so, they prejudiced the added benefits that could have been obtained had negotiations taken place beforehand.

Will he further tell the House why documents and information, which would have allowed him to enter into negotiations that would have produced improved services in rural areas, were withheld from the Minister for Regional Development?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

First, on the circulation or availability of papers, that is not my responsibility, so I cannot comment on that. In relation to the earlier part of the question, once the Executive had taken a decision, there was going to be a decision presented here today. I do not think that many people would have liked me to leave part of the statement blank because certain matters were subject to negotiation. If anybody is taking issue with what the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said on Thursday evening, I remind Members that the Minister for Regional Development referred on Thursday morning to a bid of between £5 million and £7 million that he said that his officials were making to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

On ‘Good Morning Ulster’ the Minister for Regional Development referred to a bid. He said:

"I have made a bid, and I have instructed my officials to make a bid to the Department of Finance and Personnel."

He referred to a sum of between £5 million and £7 million. Mr Robinson cannot make an argument against the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and not apply it equally to the Minister for Regional Development.

Once the Executive have taken decisions on these matters and have allocated figures, I have to present those decisions here so that they become public quickly. Members of the Finance and Personnel Committee would not like me to say to them that there are certain parts of this that we are keeping blank because of other negotiations. I would make the point that negotiations still have to be undertaken. An amount of money has been made available, but several details still have to be worked out, and they include negotiations with the transport providers. We are quite clear on that.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an ráiteas a rinne an tAire inniu. I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is a good news statement in several regards, not least in the area of free travel for senior citizens, which brings us closer into line with the rest of Ireland.

My question is on the regional rate reductions, which is a step in the right direction. I draw attention to the commitment to look carefully at the wider impact of the rating system on business, individuals and households. I ask the Minister and his Department to embark on a comprehensive programme of public consultation. This should be aimed at listening to the views of the wider community, increasing public awareness on the procedure and methodology for arriving at the regional rate, and on the range and character of public services financed by the regional rate. This mirrors an approach taken by Omagh District Council, which held an open forum.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In my statement I referred to the wider review of rating policy, which will look at many of the business implications, including some of the points touched upon by Mr McCartney earlier and at the distribution of the domestic rate burden. I hope that the review will look at the whole question of rating in a root and branch way.

I do have to offer everyone a reality check. We do need to raise money from the rating system and we are not going to be able to come up with a rating system with such a menu of exemptions and reliefs that will exempt everyone from paying. People under that illusion are simply not living in reality. I remind those Members, who normally are very articulate in telling me how much public expenditure we actually need, and how much we need into services, that the margin of additional expenditure afforded to us by the rating system is significant. If we were to try to cut the moneys represented by the rates, we would soon be hearing strong protests from the expenditure areas immediately affected by such cuts.

I will forward papers to the Finance and Personnel Committee soon. These papers will outline the main phases of the review as we see it unfolding, consistent with the Programme for Government. That will include a strong public consultation phase.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

Although I welcome aspects of this announcement, such as free travel for the elderly and the reduction in the increase of the non-domestic rate, I have to express concern at the somewhat meagre reduction of the increase in the domestic rate.

If the domestic rate were reduced from 7% to an inflation rate, what resources would be required to achieve that? As today’s announcements have been funded from the £68 million resulting from the December monitoring round, will the Minister give the House a breakdown of where that money came from? How much of it came from departmental savings and easements? How much of it came from the money saved with the suspension of the Executive last year? How much has come from other sources?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With regard to where the money came from, we covered those points in the December monitoring round itself. I made the point that, with regard to the £68 million available, some items were clearly sizeable and exceptional. One was the fact of the change to the treatment of domestic rate rebate. That gave us a further £23 million — essentially, a windfall. There was a further £7 million, for instance, from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, which was money from returned shipbuilding loans that had been held against a possible claim from Harland & Wolff. There was also the £9 million which the Assembly, partly because of suspension and other phasing problems with plans, did not spend this year.

Those are three items accounting for £40 million that we had previously allocated. There were also the additional receipts, including those from housing and the Water Service, and other regular easements from Departments on a fairly routine basis.

It is a matter of providence that we had that room to manoeuvre in the December monitoring round. It is one of the reasons we should not confuse the providence that we now have with the need for prudence that we had up until that point. We could not have made provision for lower rate increases without knowing that we had the resources to do so and without knowing that we could meet our expenditure commitments. That is why these matters have taken time.

I have made the move to rates after we had looked at the other pressing issues such as the health trust deficits. There was a stage, a few weeks ago, where it looked as if the figure for health trust deficits would be £38 million. When we held £28 million over, we thought we could still be facing difficulties there.

Fortunately, with good work between the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Finance and Personnel, we have been able to come up with a clearer and a more helpful picture. That has now enabled us to move in other key directions that I hope all Members will welcome.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Does the Minister agree that there is an implied rap on the knuckles to management in the Health Service in the statement? It appears that it is now going to have to be given some kind of "management information" — to quote from the statement.

There are technical issues amounting to £20 million of a difference. What are they doing as managers within the system? We are told that there is an effort

"to ensure that whatever future levels of funding are available are used to best effect to promote the best interests of the health of the region".

Has this not been the case so far?

On the issue of free travel, I understood from Translink that the current system was costing in the region of £6 million a year on the 50% reduction. Can the Minister therefore confirm the figures in his statement? My understanding is that it should be in the region of £12 million.

On the issue of gap funding, the Minister referred to outstanding matters in Peace I. The Deputy First Minister has already agreed with me that the Protestant/Unionist community has yet to rise to comparable funding levels with the Nationalist community groupings. Will the funding ensure catch up through the proactive promotion of schemes in that part of the community where it is needed? Will the Minister assure the House that that will happen?

One final point — [Interruption]

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

I think that the Member has overstretched.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

This is the final point. In his statement, the Minister, instead of using the term "rates", says

"levels of local revenue per household raised here are markedly below those in England".

Will the Minister comment on the fact that households on the mainland also have to take water charges into account? Is it implied in the Minister’s statement that households in Northern Ireland may be faced with such charges to bring them up to comparative levels on the mainland?

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

The Minister may wish to answer some of those questions in writing.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will bear that helpful suggestion in mind.

First, it is wrong to characterise the consultancy study as a rap on the knuckles, just as it is wrong to characterise the money going into the deficits as a signal that people can accumulate deficits in the future. Both interpretations are wrong. We are trying to deal with, and recognise the measure and background of, the problem.

As for the December monitoring bid, which clearly reflected the problem in certain ways, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have been able to bring the estimated deficit down to £18 million after examining the problem. That has been achieved through technical re-categorisation and an assessment of the impact of the allocations that were announced a couple of weeks ago in the December monitoring round.

The real issue now is to ensure that the trusts know that they can proceed on a positive, purposeful and sound management basis to plan services based on next year’s Budget without worrying about the deficits. We also need to make a success of the consultancy exercise. The three Departments concerned, and Health Service management, need to make sure that we do not run into these problems in the future, not least by ensuring that the management information system — which is needed because of changes in budgetary arrangements — is put in place. Making that improvement and change for the future should not be viewed as a punitive or critical exercise.

With regard to the rates and examining what households pay here, the fact must be borne in mind that people across the water pay council tax and water charges. I make the point that we fund the Water Service here. There is no Barnett formula consequential for doing that. I remind Members that that is a relevant issue when one examines what resources we have. The Treasury provides no funding for the Water Service. Remember, therefore, that that is the only additional money that is raised to support the Budget, including funding for the Water Service. Money for the Water Service has to be found by stretching the Barnett allocation for other services or from the regional rate.

There are questions about how we fund services, and Barry McElduff touched upon this earlier. It was asked whether we should be hypothecating services that rates, or a portion of the rates, pay for. All these issues must be considered in the rating policy review. It would not be a comprehensive review if it were not open to such consideration.

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

I remind the Minister and Members of the time constraints.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The statement shows the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s commitment to the Health Service, the business sector, householders, the elderly and the community sector. These announcements will be widely welcomed across society. The statement shows that this Minister of Finance and Personnel stands at the centre of joined-up government.

Will the Minister provide details on when the findings of the Health Service consultancy will be ready for implementation?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We hope to get the joint consultancy study under way shortly. We do not intend it to be a prolonged exercise. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Economic Policy Unit and I recognise that this needs to happen sooner rather than later. We want to ensure that the results of that study give us good light under which to consider funding needs as they arise for the Health Service in the coming financial year and beyond. I hope that we will be able to work with the benefit of some conclusions and insights from this consultancy study within a few months.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I welcome this act of repentance by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on behalf of the pro-agreement parties in the Executive. It is nice to see that the pro-agreement parties have seen the error of their ways on the issues of free transport and the regional rate. Is this really an act of repentance for past misdeeds, or a bribe in relation to future elections? To use the Minister’s own words, is it the Executive at work or "at its work"?

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

I am not clear that there was a question there.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Can I come to my question?

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

I would prefer you to ask the question.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Minister accept that all the arguments that he put forward on 18 December in relation to his refusal to accept the amendment on the regional rate have been proved to be false? Will he tell the House when he found out that the valuation of domestic property gave him an extra £2 million?

When did he get the result of the more detailed work that showed that, contrary to what he said on 18 December, people in Northern Ireland do not pay more for non-domestic rates than is paid in England? Will he tell us when he was convinced that by not increasing the non-domestic rate by 8% he would not be putting in jeopardy any discussions on the Barnett formula?

Perhaps, having got his homework wrong last time, the Minister can now tell us, in answer to a previous question, how much it would cost to reduce the domestic rate to 3·3%. Will he now consider alleviating the burden on domestic householders by restricting the increase to 3·3%?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I did not mislead the House on 18 December. I never said that we were paying non-domestic rates at a proportion that was lagging well behind Great Britain. I always made that point in relation to domestic rates. I subsequently have made a point of trying to check out the position of non- domestic rates — not an argument that had been made to me. That information became available to me at the end of January. It was at around the same time that confirmation of the buoyancy of around £2 million came through.

At the stage of the draft Budget, and at other times, including in December, I made the point that if the figures showed a buoyancy that allowed us to raise the same amount of money with a lower rate increase, we would consider that. That now has happened.

I have a point to make to Members, especially to those who tell me that there are all sorts of things that we should be doing on Barnett: that we should be taking on the Treasury, and so on. In relation to what we are raising as a contribution from households in the domestic regional rate, we will be in a very weak position in making any case to the Treasury. The Treasury will be able to say "Here you go again; you want English taxpayers to pay more for services yet you will not do anything to raise from your own households even a larger fraction of the amount that is being raised in England and Wales". Therefore, Members need to remember that when we quote and when we rightly argue parity on many grounds, that case can be used against us.

It is only since the Executive have examined other spending issues and the money that was available in the December monitoring round — not all of which could have been reliably predicted in December — that they have been able to make these judgements. It is wrong for Members to suggest that the Executive should set a particular level of rate increase as a priority, ahead of public spending needs and the needs of certain services, and regardless of anything else. If that line had been taken I might have been unable to make some of today’s welcome announcements. As was clear from my statement, if £2 million buoyancy means that the Executive can reduce the rate increase from 8% to 7%, each 1% will work out at £2 million.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister on his comprehensive and socially meaningful statement with regard to health, free travel and — with reservations — rates.

I particularly welcome the joint review of the causes and consequences of the Health Service’s trust deficits. At a recent meeting of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee a Member suggested that the Executive had set up a hit squad to investigate deficits and monitoring procedures in the Health Service. I am glad to know that that will not be a punitive or hostile study. Does the Minister recognise that those deficits result from the historic years of underfunding? Will he assure the House that those deficits may not have accrued from carelessness but may have come about because people were targeting social or health needs in those trusts?

No age limit has been set for those wishing to avail of free travel. Women are pensionable at the age of 60. Will the Minister and his officials keep that in mind? Does the Minister accept that, on Thursday morning, Gregory Campbell made a pre-emptive strike on the free travel issue and was making no contribution to the debate?

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

That is a speech.

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

Mr McCrea, please sit down.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am glad that John Kelly has found much to welcome in what I have said.

The people who will carry out the consultancy report into the trust deficits are not a hit squad. It is about trying to get on top of the problem and make sure that we understand it fully. There are several issues involved. I accept what Mr Kelly said about the service pressures and needs that trusts face and how those have a bearing on some of their spending patterns. However, the study will also examine other issues to try to ensure that deficits will not rise to the level that they previously have without effective recovery action being taken. The Executive must be fully aware of the extent of the trust deficits, particularly as we move into a different regime under resource accounting and budgeting. The point of the consultancy study is to ensure that the Executive — and the Assembly, as the public expenditure management — are in the position that they need to be, as well as making sure that the trusts, as far as possible, have adequate funding.

We have already dealt with the sequence of the statements. We need to focus on making the scheme for free travel for the elderly work. Several details still need to be worked out. Some of them will be addressed in the interdepartmental working group that the Executive established some time ago, and the Department for Regional Development will have to pursue many of the issues directly with transport providers. We need to get on with that work and achieve the outcome that we want, rather than arguing about the provenance of it.

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

Time is up. The House is suspended until 2.30 pm.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, you called two Members of the Ulster Unionist Party consecutively. When calling Members to speak, I understood that you had to do so on the basis of how they were aligned when they were elected to the House. You called Mr Weir and then Mr Hussey. That removed the opportunity for other parties to have their full allocation.

Secondly, perhaps you could facilitate Mr Taylor by giving him a copy of the rules of the House on the use of mobile phones. We know that he does not attend very often, so he may not understand them.

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

I do not want to delay the House. As you know, we are going to a memorial service at 1.00 pm. Mr Taylor is quite aware of the rules on mobile phones. With regard to calling two Ulster Unionist Members in a row, I understood that Mr Weir did not fall into that category. I hope that that explains the situation.

The sitting was suspended at 12.52 pm.

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

Government Resources and Accounts Bill:Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We do not have any amendments to the first six clauses. Before I seek leave of the House to put those clauses en bloc, may I remind Members that only one of amendments No 4 and No 5 may be made. If amendment No 4 is made, amendment No 5 will automatically fall. If amendment No 4 falls, amendment No 5 may be made. Similarly with amendments No 7 and No 8: if amendment No 7 is made, amendment No 8 will automatically fall. If amendment No 7 falls, amendment No 8 may be made.

Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 (Resource accounts: preparation)

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 4, line 25, after "practice" insert

"as agreed with the Public Accounts Committee".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

Amendment No 2: In page 5, line 3, leave out "Department" and insert "department". — [Mr Molloy.]

Amendment No 4: After clause 17 insert the following new clause:

"Advisory group

*—(1) Before—

(a) issuing directions under section 7(2), or

(b) determining the form and content of accounts under section 12,

the Department shall consult the group of persons for the time being selected by the Treasury for the purposes of section 24(1) of the Government Accounts and Resources Act 2000 (c. 20).

(2) Where a group is consulted under subsection (1) in a particular year, the Department shall arrange for the group to prepare a report for that year—

(a) summarising the activities of the group for the purpose of the consultation, and

(b) dealing with such other matters as the group considers appropriate.

(3) Where a report is prepared under subsection (2), the Department shall arrange for it to be laid before the Assembly." — [Mr Durkan.]

Amendment No 5: After clause 17 insert the following new clause:

"Advisory group

*—(1) Before—

(a) issuing directions under section 7(2), or

(b) determining the form and content of accounts under section 12,

the Department shall take full account of all recommendations made by the group of persons for the time being selected by the Treasury for the purposes of section 24(1) of the Government Accounts and Resources Act 2000 (c. 20).

(2) Where a group is consulted under subsection (1) in a particular year, the Department shall arrange for the group to prepare a report for that year—

(a) summarising the activities of the group for the purpose of the consultation, and

(b) dealing with such other matters as the group considers appropriate.

(3) Where a report is prepared under subsection (2), the Department shall arrange for it to be laid before the Assembly." — [Mr Leslie.]

Amendment No 6 (clause 18): In page 10, after line 14, insert

"( ) In determining whether and, if so, how to exercise its powers under subsection (6) or (8), the Department shall have regard to any views expressed by the Public Accounts Committee of the Assembly." — [Mr Durkan.]

I welcome the Minister to financial matters, round three, Monday 12 February. By the end of this debate there will be very few nooks and crannies of the Assembly’s finances that have not been turned over and looked under. That is really the substance of my amendment to clause 7. I raised these matters at the Second Stage and in the early Committee Stage. Unfortunately, I missed the later Committee Stages through illness, which is why two amendments are down in my name today.

Those amendments cover an exceedingly important matter: who oversees the overseer? The way the Bill is constructed, the Department reserves for itself all of the power to be the overseer, and clause 7 addresses that issue. Subsection 2 states:

"Resource accounts shall be prepared in accordance with directions issued by the Department."

— that is, the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Subsection 3 states:

"The Department shall exercise the power to issue directions under subsection (2) with a view to ensuring that resource accounts —

(a) present a true and fair view,"

— as you would expect, and —

(b) "conform to generally accepted accounting practice".

The Department also has the power to issue guidance on various matters.

There are two separate strains here. In my view, the Assembly should welcome the fact that the Department puts itself in charge of setting the same standard for all Departments. That is entirely appropriate, and anything else would be chaotic and would make it difficult to make comparisons.

Secondly, it is a good thing that clause 7(6) gives the Department the power to appoint an official in each Department as its accounting officer. I support the minor technical amendment — amendment No 2 — that relates to that matter. The provisions of the clause are welcome. The Assembly wants to be sure that a powerful Finance Department is able to ensure conformity between the other Departments.

The matter that exercises me is how the Department of Finance and Personnel will set the accounting standards, practices and conventions. The thrust of the Bill is in the move to resource accounting and the adoption of practices that are prevalent in the private sector. That is a sensible move, but I am vexed that the Department has given itself — and only itself — all of the power to place and, therefore, move the goalposts. It is in the interests of the Assembly to have an independent third party who would provide scrutiny and make recommendations that would be binding on the Department.

Who should set the accounting conventions? In the Assembly, we have two candidates: the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee. Externally, there is the Financial Reporting Advisory Board, which is, in essence, appointed by the Treasury. Amendments No 4 and No 5 propose that the latter body would, in effect, be the independent body.

When the equivalent Bill was debated in Committee at Westminster, it was proposed that a national accounts commission be set up to be the independent body to set the standards and oversee the Treasury’s actions. That proposal was strongly supported by the Conservatives, by the Liberal Democrats and by the other parties, and it was also, I understand, supported quite widely on the Labour Back Benches. However, it was defeated by the Government. The debate at Westminster highlighted the issue, and I wish to bring the same issue to the attention of the House.

The compromise arrived at in Westminster was that a body selected by the Treasury would be consulted. The wording in the Westminster Bill was that:

"The Treasury shall consult a group of persons who appear to the Treasury to be appropriate to advise on financial reporting principles and standards.

(2) Before selecting a group for the purpose of subsection (1) the Treasury shall consult the Comptroller and Auditor General."

The effect of those sections was to bring the body known as the Finance Reporting Advisory Board into position as the body to be consulted. The point was made in Committee that the nature and name of that body could change and that, therefore, it was not sensible for the legislation to prescribe the name of the body precisely. That is sensible, and I agreed with the Minister’s recommendation on that matter.

The two amendments which move on from my amendment to clause 7 involve inserting separate clauses, but they refer back to clause 7 and its operation. Amendment No 4 has been put down by the Minister, further to discussions with the Committee. Amendment No 5, which I have tabled, is very similar to the Minister’s amendment but goes a little further in terms of the power that it gives to the independent body.

The Minister’s amendment precisely parallels section 24 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, as passed at Westminster. The fact that the Finance and Personnel Committee here persuaded the Minister to move this amendment is perhaps not as much the success that we thought it to be at the time, because it does no more than bring into our Bill a provision that was already in the Bill passed at Westminster.

The House should be concerned that our Bill, as originally tabled, made no provision whatsoever for this independent body to be involved, even in the consultative role that is proposed. That implies that the Department did not want any independent body to scrutinise its setting of accounting policies, and that is regrettable. In the interest of open government and transparency, it is exceedingly important that we have an effective form of independent scrutiny.

Consequently, having examined amendment No 4 moved by the Minister, I put down my amendment, which is amendment No 5 on the list. It takes the proposals that were made in his amendment further. Where he has used the words

"the Department shall consult the group of persons"

I have said:

"the Department shall take full account of all recommendations made by the group of persons".

While mulling over the matter at the weekend, I felt that I had perhaps not worded my amendment strongly enough and that the words "shall abide by the recommendations" might be more appropriate. Nonetheless, I believe that the tighter parameters set down by my amendment are preferable to those in amendment No 4. However, it has been drawn to my attention that the drafting of amendment No 5 is slightly incomplete and would be improved if under (b) it said:

"the Department shall consult with and take full account of all recommendations".

Therefore if my amendment is successful today, it is my intention at the Further Consideration Stage to move a minor tweaking amendment to insert those extra words, which would improve the sense and effect of my amendment.

The key point of principle here is to ensure that there is an independent body which has some teeth and which would oversee the way in which the Department is carrying out its remit to set the parameters for accounts and pull them together. There are various possibilities: this power could be vested in the Public Accounts Committee; we could give further power to the Finance and Personnel Committee; a new independent body could be set up; or we could use the existing — more or less independent — body, although I raise the caveat that it is selected by the Treasury. In moving my amendments I am, in effect, airing the various possibilities.

Amendment No 5, which uses the existing body and puts it in a position where the Department must take full account of its recommendations, sets a reasonably good standard for independent scrutiny of the activities of the Department. I therefore urge the House to support my amendment in preference to amendment No 4, moved by the Minister. I also reiterate my support for amendments No 2, No 3, and No 6.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Before addressing amendment No 2, as proposed by the Finance and Personnel Committee, I want to convey my thanks to the other members of the Committee for the work carried out at the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Minister identified the time pressures surrounding the Bill and asked the Committee to end its statutory Committee Stage on 26 January instead of 2 March. The Committee had to meet 10 times before that date.

I also pay tribute to the Department’s officials and to the Minister for the work they did to provide guidance and advice to the Committee. Finally, on behalf of my fellow Members, I thank the Chairpersons and members of the Public Accounts and Audit Committees for the invaluable service they gave in seeking to improve the Bill. Without their help it would have been impossible for the Committee to complete the Committee Stage of the Bill by 26 January.

Amendment No 2 relates to clause 7 and is tactical in nature. It is needed to ensure that this part of the clause relates to Departments in general and not just to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Amendment No 4 introduces a requirement for the independent advisory body to be selected to oversee the manner in which the Department produces guidance on resource accounting for use by other Departments. This matter was discussed during the Committee Stage with departmental officials and the Minister. The Committee agreed that it was appropriate for the Bill to incorporate a worthwhile safeguard. While the Committee did not consider the further refinement proposed by Mr Leslie in amendment No 5, it too seems to represent a worthwhile improvement to the proposed arrangement.

Finally, the Minister’s amendment No 6 was discussed with the Committee, departmental officials and the Minister. The Committee agreed that it was appropriate for the Department to consult with the Public Accounts Committee before making an order to direct the Comptroller and Auditor General to undertake examinations to obtain access to documents. The Committee recommends the adoption of this amendment.

Billy Bell (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Public Accounts Committee broadly welcomes these amendments. However, as Chairperson of the Committee, I prefer amendment No 5 because we want to give the Comptroller and Auditor General as much power as possible. Amendment No 5 would strengthen his position.

We are concerned with the guidance that the Department of Finance and Personnel gets on accounting matters. We would prefer it to be overseen by the group selected for the same purpose in Great Britain. The Public Accounts Committee considers that there can be little scope for divergence, since we are part of the United Kingdom public expenditure framework and normally follow Treasury guidance on financial reporting, based on UK accounting standards. I am satisfied that the membership of the advisory body is representative of all the relevant interests, including audit in particular.

The requirement for the advisory group to report on its activities, and for the Department of Finance and Personnel to arrange for such a report to be laid before the Assembly, will ensure that we are made aware of any areas of difficulty. I believe that amendment No 5 would help us more than amendment No 4.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

I support the Bill and amendments No 1, No 2, No 5, and No6.

In the explanatory and financial memorandum — if we are to believe everything we are told in it — we are being promised a new dawn in Government resource accounting. The benefits of the Bill which are listed are that there will be better information on the costs and benefits of capital assets, a lessening of current disincentives for capital investment, better focus of resources on priorities, better informed judgements and an extension of the accountability of the Executive.

All of those things are to be welcomed. However, in examining the Bill — and it has been examined extensively — we need to look at how we can best improve it. The amendments that have been put forward will improve the situation.

In particular, as has been indicated, within the Bill the bulk of control lies with the Department of Finance and Personnel. That is necessary and right. Nevertheless, there is a question mark over whether there is an opportunity for some independent input into that control. That has to be as strong as possible.

Consequently, left with the choice between amendments No 4 and No 5, amendment No 5 is clearly stronger. As Mr Leslie said, there may be a need for some tweaking as regards amendment No 5 at Further Consideration Stage.

We are faced with the choice between a Government Department simply offering consultation with an independent body and, as in amendment No 5, the Department’s having to take full account of all recommendations made by that group. Amendment No 5 imports a greater degree of independence by professionals into this subject, which is necessary.

I want to make a point that has not been made until now. According to the explanatory and financial memorandum, amendment No 5 is proposing something in keeping with the intention behind the Bill. Looking at clause 7(2) — which is one of the key clauses as referred to in amendment 5 — the memorandum indicates that the purpose is to

"provide that DFP shall direct the form of resource accounts subject to the requirements that they shall present a true and fair view and conform to generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP) amended as necessary in the context of departmental accounts. In doing so DFP will have regard for any guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) or any successor. In practice this means that resource accounts will follow the normal accounting standards and conventions used in the private sector and elsewhere in the public sector modified only where necessary to take account of the particular requirements of departmental accounts."

The intention behind the Bill and such a clause is that the Department should have to take account and follow the example of the professional bodies indicated by the advisory board. Therefore it is more in keeping with the spirit of what is intended rather than simply having a duty of consultation with the advisory board.

Amendment No 5, with its more thorough regulations that compel the Department to take full account of all recommendations, is the preferable amendment. I urge Members to support amendment No 5 rather than amendment No 4.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Several points have been addressed. Some amendments have been debated, and there are others in my name.

First, regarding amendment No 1, I want to make the point that under my proposed amendment — amendment No 4 — any directions issued by the Department would be required to be agreed by the Financial Reporting Advisory Board and therefore would be subject to an independent check.

I want to emphasise that at all times we stressed the need for independent scrutiny and oversight, as happens at Whitehall. There is no resistance to that, and I refute any suggestion that there is. It was part of the initial proposals.

I also remind Members that I identified this question in my introductory remarks at the Second Stage of the Bill. The outstanding question then was how to achieve that in the context of Northern Ireland. I said that I needed to introduce an amendment to achieve this. Essentially, that is what is now being done with the Financial Reporting Advisory Board clause. I hope that that allays some of the concern that Mr Leslie appeared to have, given his remarks about the initial Bill. I made that point myself at Second Stage.

In the UK, the Accounting Standards Board oversees generally accepted accountancy practice, as Mr Weir indicated, while the Financial Reporting Advisory Board oversees the application of generally accepted accounting practice in the UK to public sector resource accounts. The proposal that accounting guidance should be agreed with the Public Accounts Committee is inappropriate, because such an approach would be inconsistent with that adopted in Westminster and Scotland. Therefore I do not accept amendment No 1.

I accept amendment No 2, which was discussed by Mr Molloy as Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee. This is a relatively minor amendment to correct a typographical error, but it is essential in that it gives the clause its proper meaning.

I thank Mr Molloy and the Committee for the very thorough role that they played in scrutinising the Bill, for adhering to a very tight timescale and for presenting their report before the January deadline. I am also grateful to those other Committees which took a particular interest in the Bill. I am pleased that we were able to work together to progress the Bill thus far, despite the complex issues involved. The keen interest and co-operation of the Committee has been, and will be, vital if the Bill is to be passed during this financial year.

I believe that amendment No 4, which I moved, is preferable to amendment No 5. The legislative draftsman has noted that the clause is technically defective because subsection 2 refers to consultation under subsection 1. However, the amendment removes the reference to consultation.

Mr Leslie stated that, after further consideration, he might want to go even further with the amendment by requiring the Department of Finance and Personnel to obey the rulings of the Financial Reporting Advisory Board. That would leave the Finance and Personnel Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Executive and the Assembly without any discretion to take a different approach. An attempt to move in that direction may not be consistent with points about other aspects of the Bill, which stressed our need to retain some facility and judgement of our own, rather than be absolutely bound by practice, as happens elsewhere. Regarding amendments in my name, I have already indicated that I prefer amendment No 4 to some of the others tabled.

When the Assembly considered the Second Stage of the Bill, I signalled that I intended to introduce an additional clause to give effect to the way in which the Department of Finance and Personnel’s guidance on accounting matters to Departments would be overseen by an independent check. I intimated that I wished to discuss how best to go about that. That is something we pursued in discussion with the Committees — the Finance and Personnel Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee. Hence the nature and wording of the clause.

My proposal was that, in line with the position at Whitehall, the Department of Finance and Personnel should be required to consult an independent body on accounting policy and guidance to ensure an independent check. Also, an annual report will be required on those and other similar accounting matters.

The question was whether to appoint the same body of persons selected by the Treasury — the Financial Reporting Advisory Body — or find an alternative. Following discussions with the various Committees and other interested parties, it has been agreed that the role should be fulfilled by the Financial Reporting Advisory Body, and the amendment has been drafted accordingly.

I shall explain why amendment No 6 is in my name in more detail later. The Bill, as originally presented, contained a proposed power to enable the Department of Finance and Personnel to make an order to grant the Comptroller and Auditor General access. Although that was intended to facilitate accountability, some of the Committees interpreted it as placing the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers under the discretion of the Department of Finance and Personnel.

To emphasise that the powers should be used mainly to open doors for the Comptroller and Auditor General, I am proposing this further amendment to place an obligation on the Department of Finance and Personnel to have regard for any views expressed by the Public Accounts Committee on the issue.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank all Members who have contributed. This has been a useful airing of a very important issue. I note the comments made by the Minister, particularly the one he made at the beginning of his remarks when he said that the Department would have to agree with the Financial Reporting Advisory Body. That may be his intention, but it is not the thrust of his amendment, which says:

"the Department shall consult".

We are all familiar with what the outcome of consultation can be. Sometimes it can be very effective, and sometimes one wonders why the consultation took place at all. Although the Minister may have worthy intentions, the House must be conscious that when we pass the Bill we are binding the way in which Government accounts will be done in the future by all future Ministers. Although Ministers, and the parties that they are drawn from, may come and go, the Department goes on.

When the Bill was first put before the House it did not contain that clause, even though a clause of that type was in the Bill at Westminster. That means that we must entertain some suspicions in that respect. Therefore, it is important that we increase the power beyond that of consultation. I urge the House to accept amendment No 5 in my name in preference to amendment No 4, as proposed by the Minister.

I acknowledge that the drafting of my amendment needs a further tweaking and, as I said earlier, I will put down an amendment for Further Consideration Stage to take account of that minor matter. It was for that reason, when we first wrote our Standing Orders, that we quickly decided to introduce two Consideration Stages rather than one. With the best will in the world, one can sometimes fail to spot the consequences of amendments.

I agree with the Minister that the thrust of amendments No 4 and No 5 is preferable to the thrust of amendment 1, and I support amendments No 2, No 3 and No 6. However, I urge the House to support amendment No 5, rather than amendment No 4, on what I regard to be the major issue.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Is the proposer begging leave to withdraw amendment No 1?

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I do so beg.

Amendment No 1, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No 2 made:

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 10 (Comptroller and Auditor General: access to information)

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle, I beg to move amendment No 3: In clause 10, page 6, line 36 leave out

"at all reasonable times".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

Amendment No 7

"( ) The accounts and all documents relating to the accounts of an authority or body which are not otherwise required to be examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General should be open to his inspection if it appears to him that the body exercises functions of a public nature, has received significant public funds or is entirely or substantively funded from public money." — [Mr Molloy.]

Amendment No 8: After clause 18 insert the following new clause:

"Inspections by Comptroller and Auditor General

*—(1) The Comptroller and Auditor General may at any reasonable time inspect—

(a) the accounts of any body to which this section applies, and

(b) any documents relating to those accounts which are held or controlled —

(i) by the body; or

(ii) in pursuance of arrangements made by the body for the compiling or handling of any of its financial records.

(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall not exercise his powers under subsection (1) in relation to a body unless it appears to him that—

(a) it is appropriate to do so in view of public concern about any matter relating to the finances of the body or its financial transactions, or

(b) it is otherwise appropriate to do so in the public interest.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), this section applies to a body if it appears to the Comptroller and Auditor General that—

(a) the accounts of the body are not required to be examined by, and are not otherwise open to the inspection of, the Comptroller and Auditor General by virtue of—

(i) any statutory provision,

(ii) any agreement made between that body and a Northern Ireland department, or

(iii) any conditions imposed by a Northern Ireland department in pursuance of any statutory power, whether in connection with the provision of financial assistance or otherwise, and

(b) the body exercises functions of a public nature or is entirely or substantially funded from public money.

(4) This section does not apply to a district council.

(5) Any person who holds or has control of any accounts or other documents mentioned in subsection (1) shall give the Comptroller and Auditor General any assistance, information or explanation which he requires in relation to any of those documents.

(6) The Comptroller and Auditor General may report to the Assembly the results of any inspection carried out by him under this section." — [Mr Durkan.]

Amendment No 9:

"Economy, efficiency and effectiveness examinations by Comptroller

*—(1) Part III of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (NI 5) (economy, efficiency and effectiveness examinations) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In Article 8(3) (public bodies subject to examination under that Article) —

(a) after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

‘(b) any body—

(i) whose accounts are open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General by virtue of section (Inspections by Comptroller and Auditor General) of the Government Accounts and Resources Act (Northern Ireland) 2001; and

(ii) which is a public sector body within the meaning of paragraph (7).’;

(b) in paragraph (c) after ‘by virtue of any’ there shall be inserted ‘other’.

(3) At the end of Article 8 there shall be added the following paragraph—

‘(7) For the purposes of this Part an authority or body is a public sector authority or body if—

(a) in the case of a company, its directors (or a majority of them) are appointed by a Northern Ireland department or a Minister of such a department;

(b) in the case of any other body, its members (or a majority of them) are so appointed, and

(c) in the case of any authority, the authority is so appointed’

(4) In Article 9 (other bodies subject to examination) for paragraph (4) (bodies to which that Article applies) there shall be substituted—

‘(4) This Article applies to any public sector authority or body within the meaning of Article 8(7).’ " — [Mr Durkan.]

That clause empowers the Comptroller and Auditor General to obtain the information he needs to carry out his investigations. As currently worded, the clause restricts the Comptroller and Auditor General’s access to times that are deemed reasonable. That could mean that the Comptroller and Auditor General might not be able to gain access to accounts during the weekend or on public holidays. There may be times when urgency is needed, and that test of reasonableness may be inappropriate.

In order to remove unnecessary barriers to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s ability to obtain documents, the Finance and Personnel Committee recommends the deletion of "at all reasonable times".

A Cheann Comhairle, amendment No 7 is intended to invest the Comptroller and Auditor General with the additional power to investigate bodies that are in receipt of substantial public funds. The amendment is closely based on an earlier proposal by the Public Accounts Committee, which receives support from the Audit Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee. A further refinement to the Public Accounts Committee’s proposal was the introduction of additional wording to extend the scope of this power to encompass bodies that have "received significant public funds". However, the Finance and Personnel Committee has noted the format of amendment No 8 proposed by the Minister, which sets out to achieve the same objectives.

A Cheann Comhairle, the Finance and Personnel Committee is satisfied that the Minister’s proposed amendment represents a form of words which is more legally competent than the version suggested by the Committee. Although it failed to address the inclusion of those bodies which are in receipt of a significant amount of public funds, the Finance and Personnel Committee is satisfied that the additional powers invested in the Comptroller and Auditor General are now broad enough to establish a robust system of inspection.

I will not be moving amendment No 7. I urge the Assembly to support amendment No 8, as proposed by the Minister.

The Minister is to propose amendment No 9, which introduces a new clause that will further extend the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General to undertake audits to measure economy, efficiency and effectiveness. At present, the Comptroller and Auditor General can undertake such audits in respect of Civil Service Departments. The new clause will extend that power in line with the inspection powers set out in the earlier amendments. The Finance and Personnel Committee urges the Assembly to support amendment No 9.

Billy Bell (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee originally drafted the amendment following discussions with the Minister. We were concerned that the Department of Finance and Personnel had not taken the opportunity presented by this legislation to widen the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General to allow him to examine the use of public money on behalf of the Assembly more fully.

The Public Accounts Committee’s amendment would have provided for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have inspection rights to all bodies carrying out functions of a public nature, or which are entirely, or substantially, funded by public money, where he did not already have such access. One of the key reasons behind the original amendment was a clear recognition by the Public Accounts Committee of the invaluable work that the Comptroller and Auditor General carries out on behalf of the Assembly.

As Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, I have first hand knowledge of the vital contribution that the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff in the Northern Ireland Audit Office make in ensuring that the Northern Ireland Departments and other public bodies are fully accountable to the Assembly. That is very important.

Over the past nine months the Public Accounts Committee has been able to examine some important issues based on the Comptroller and Auditor General’s reports. These included road safety, control of river pollution, expenditure on the rural development programme, the administration of income support benefit and suspected fraud in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

I recommend that Members take a keen interest in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s work and in the reports produced by the Public Accounts Committee, which have been based on his work up to now.

The amendment has been widened and strengthened since it was first produced by the Public Accounts Committee. That has been due to the hard work and commitment of the Finance and Personnel Committee, of which I am also a member. We have argued successfully that we should seek to get things right rather than settle for something less because of the unreasonable time constraints that always seem to be placed on the Finance and Personnel Committee. No doubt this will be taken into account.

At this stage I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s co-operation in accepting the thrust of the Public Accounts Committee’s proposals and extending it to provide for the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out value-for-money examinations of all public bodies to which he has inspection rights. This would now include public corporations and a range of other bodies, such as housing associations. We have also had some positive assurances from the Minister. He has undertaken to review the Comptroller and Auditor General’s role in the light of the impending report on the review of audit and accountability being carried out in Great Britain by Lord Sharman and to bring forward legislation in an early audit reorganisation Bill very soon.

I am also encouraged by the Minister’s response to the question of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s access to bodies that receive significant public funds but which are not covered by the Bill. He has agreed to consider the matter further and to bring forward proposals in the audit reorganisation Bill. We look forward to that. He also said that the Department would be prepared to use powers under clause 18(8) to make an order to give the Comptroller and Auditor General inspection rights to such bodies where necessary.

The Minister’s amendment would require the Department of Finance and Personnel to have regard to the views of the Public Accounts Committee when determining whether and how to exercise those powers.

This Bill is a worthwhile first step in improving the Assembly’s accountability arrangements. However, I must emphasise that our long-term aim should be to ensure that the Assembly has complete oversight of public expenditure and that the Assembly’s auditor has the statutory authority to investigate every pound we vote to the Departments, whenever or wherever it is spent.

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

To avoid any confusion, I will explain that the Audit Committee is primarily responsible for the budget that the public auditor has to spend — currently it is about £5 million and going up.

I am pleased by the co-operation there has been between the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee and by the willingness of the Minister to take on board our concerns, anxieties and plans. From the very beginning, the Audit Committee recognised the need to update the powers of the public auditor in line with the modernisation of Government accounts that was being proposed. It was for that reason that we held joint meetings with the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee. I think that that marks a very good demonstration of how the Assembly can work in a positive way in the interests of the people whom we represent.

It is critical that the Audit Committee works with the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee, which it has done. The Minister’s co-operation has to be noted and has already been recognised by Mr Billy Bell.

The Audit Committee is keen to see the Comptroller and Auditor General’s inspection rights widened as far as possible to represent all public sector bodies and organisations that are substantially funded from public money. That is certainly something that we will pursue, although we may differ on timescales.

However, the Bill must not be the end of the story. It is important that the Minister has undertaken to bring forward an audit reorganisation Bill. That will have implications for the structure and resources of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and my Committee will be taking a close interest. We will be particularly keen to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s audit and inspection powers are as comprehensive as possible and clearly defined in statute.

We need to be able to assure voters in Northern Ireland that under devolution the Assembly can exercise full overview of public expenditure and hold to account any Department, body or company which receives taxpayers’ money. Earlier today the Minister assured us that there would be no unnecessary hold-ups in how that work is done. It is critically important to the performance of this Assembly.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am glad that other Members are today able to enjoy the excitement that we have had for several months in the Committee and to listen to the lively contributions on this subject.

The Bill provides a considerable improvement in the way our finances are managed. The movement to resource or accrual accounting is, perhaps, something we should have had before now. As it works its way through the system, it will produce several advantages in the way that Government operates.

Therefore there is a general welcome for the Bill, and even if none of the amendments are accepted I am sure Members can go away knowing that we have improved on the ways things are being run.

That is not to say that perhaps the Minister is not trying one on, but we caught him out with amendment No 2. The suggestion that there is a difference between a small "d" and a big "D" — and we are not talking about the "d" word that we have been arguing about in the Assembly since it started — shows that the original wording was a clear attempt by the Department of Finance and Personnel to have complete control over the appointment of accounting officers in all Departments. The interpretation section of the Bill makes it clear that if it is a large "D", we are talking about the Department of Finance and Personnel, and if it is a small "d", it is all other Government Departments. The Minister did not even attempt to defend it, other than to say it was some poor wee typist who was responsible and that she has to take the blame. Nonetheless, it gives a taste of how the Department of Finance and Personnel is viewed.

When I was Minister for Regional Development I found that coherent, articulate, and even macho civil servants became a quivering mass when reference was made to the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is seen as the overlord within the Civil Service, and people consider it with some fear and reverence. I quickly found out that the response to suggestions that I might do something to get its back up was "Oh, it will get you eventually, Minister, if you do that". I assume this was a suggestion that it does not always make decisions based on the merit of the case.

Nonetheless that gives us some idea why, when we look at legislation such as this, we need to look and see just what powers we are leaving within the Department. Therefore the reference in amendment 3 to "at all reasonable times" is no small matter — reasonable to whom? Well, "reasonable" to the Department of Finance and Personnel, of course, because all reason begins and ends with it in these matters. From the point of view of those of us who want to see proper inspections carried out, there should be no barrier to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. If the Comptroller and Auditor General wants to see the accounts in any office, Department or Government agency, he should be able to do that. He would not start the task if it were not reasonable in all circumstances that he should be doing it. To have this other layer of judgement added to it is unnecessary and perhaps dangerous.

It is possible to conceive of circumstances where the person who is going to make the judgement in a Department might be the person whom the Comptroller and Auditor General wants to investigate. Is it reasonable then for that person to have the power to stay the hand of the Comptroller and Auditor General? I note that although amendment No 3 is down as an amendment to clause 10, the Minister managed to get it in again in amendment No 8 — the new clause where he again inserts the reference "may at any reasonable time inspect". If amendment No 3 is carried it would suggest that at the Further Consideration Stage it will be necessary, for the sake of consistency and of taking the power away from the Department to determine whether or not the Comptroller and Auditor General has the power to inspect, that the reference in the amended new clause be taken out as well.

This brings me to the inspection rights of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not think there was any disagreement in the Committee or with the Public Accounts Committee or with the Audit Committee in relation to the matter. There was a general principle, accepted by all, that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have the ability to follow the money. If the Assembly is voting money, the Comptroller and Auditor General should be able to satisfy himself, or herself, on how it is spent.

Has it gone in accordance with the wishes of the Assembly as regards how it will be managed? There are several additional opportunities open to the Comptroller and Auditor General if the Minister’s amendment is accepted, as I expect it will be.

However, I am not convinced that it is sufficiently global to include all the essentials. The Comptroller and Auditor General, who happily came along to give evidence to the Finance and Personnel Committee, was quite content with the Public Accounts Committee’s amendment when it was produced, although he had to admit that, during the course of the questioning, circumstances were put to him that he had not thought of before and which clearly could only be taken into account by an amendment of the scope of the amendment put down in the name of the Committee.

The Minister’s amendment falls short of what is necessary. However, as a reasonable man — which I am at all times — I am willing to listen to what the Minister has to say in moving his amendment and in his defence of it. I wish to see if it takes into account the various circumstances that concerned members of the Committee. One example is the famous football case. This is off the top of my head and is, perhaps, not the best analogy to use. However, if a substantial amount of money were to be given by the Minister for Fun to football clubs in Northern Ireland, and those football clubs set about spending that money, what power has the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure that they do what they were supposed to do? If millions of pounds had been given to a football club, how could the Comptroller and Auditor General ensure that, for example, grounds were upgraded? Have they had the added value, as required by the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, of putting in a certain amount of their own money as well? How does the Comptroller and Auditor General check that out if he does not have the power to inspect their accounts? Under the amendment as it stands, how could that be done? If it can be done, we have closed off one loophole.

Another example is the enormous amount of money that is going out to so-called community organisations. All sorts of community organisations have sprung up. We hear reports day and daily about how such money is going into paramilitary organisations and that the IRA is running this organisation, the UDA is running that one and the UVF is running another. They are running around in cars of a better type than the Speaker of the House has. The truth is that there are allegations in the community that this is Government funding of these organisations. Would it not be worthwhile if the Comptroller and Auditor General had the power to go in to see if the money that is given to these organisations is being used properly? Will the Minister look at those issues to determine whether he is satisfied that the Comptroller and Auditor General would have the power to do so under his amendment?

We have the opportunity at Further Consideration Stage if we feel that we have to revive the amendment not moved by the Chairman of the Committee; it can be put down under the name of another Member at Further Consideration Stage. I am unconvinced, as a reason for not pursuing it at Further Consideration Stage, by the view expressed earlier that the Minister will come back to the issue on the foot of later legislation. My confidence in the longevity of the Assembly is such that I prefer to have my jam now. If that is the only reason that the Minister can provide for putting it off to a later stage, that will inform my decision as to whether I put down an amendment at Further Consideration Stage.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

I support amendment No 3. It is important that no restrictions be placed on the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the removal of the phrase "at all reasonable times" is to be welcomed. I also welcome the new clause put down in amendment No 9, made by the Minister himself. This is a welcome piece of progress. As regards amendment No 8, I am glad that the Minister has taken account of the concerns raised by the Public Accounts Committee and, indeed, of some of the concerns raised by the Finance and Personnel Committee.

Amendment No 8 is certainly a step in the right direction, and it is comprehensively drafted. However, I share certain concerns with Peter Robinson. Regarding the reference in the first sentence to "at any reasonable time", there is a question mark over whether that should be in the legislation.

For the sake of clarity, I would also like the Minister at some stage to define "substantially funded from public money". It is clear that a body which is entirely funded by public money has 100% funding from the public purse, but the definition of a body which is "substantially funded" from the public purse is more vague. It would be appropriate for the Minister to clarify that.

Bodies receiving significant public funds were covered in amendment No 7, which is not now being moved, and I would like to see that changed by way of an amendment for the Further Consideration Stage. That was the principal weakness of amendment No 8. Again, there needs to be clarity about what that will entail. It is important that the Comptroller and Auditor General be given these inspection powers, which are of a lesser strength than audit powers. They should be much more comprehensive in the areas they cover.

For example, if there are two bodies — and reference has been made to community groups — there could be a situation in which one group, perhaps a relatively small one, receives funding from the public purse. It employs one or two people and perhaps has an annual budget of £30,000 or £40,000, all of which comes from the public purse. To ensure that there is no abuse of that funding, and to ensure that it is spent correctly, we rightly have powers of inspection. But another community group may have a budget of £200,000, of which perhaps £80,000 or £90,000 comes directly from the public purse. It may well be that that group falls outside the definition of being "substantially funded", because less than 50% of its budget comes directly from public money. However, the amount it receives is in excess of what other groups receive.

To take another example, there may well be, by way of contracts, various private bodies which receive tens of millions of pounds, but this may not constitute substantial funding from public money because it may be less than 50% — if that is the definition — or it may well fall below the level which would constitute "substantially funded". Yet no one could argue that that public body is not receiving significant public funds. That money needs to be traced to ensure that it is being spent properly. To close this loophole, when the Bill comes to Further Consideration Stage I would like to see an amendment that takes account of the proposals in amendment No 7 to bring on line my opinion that the power of inspection should also extend to bodies which receive significant public funds.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Most community groups receive a cocktail of funding from various sources, of which a small amount may come from rural or district councils to prime the pump. Most of those money providers have a different system of auditing, so community groups have great difficulty in presenting their accounts in such a way as to be understandable because often each provider demands its own system. It is imperative that those accounts are properly scrutinised. Recent reports have indicated that community groups have shown gross negligence in how their money has been spent. It is imperative that the Comptroller and Auditor General has a remit that allows him to inspect these bodies fully.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

I accept the Member’s point, but I only cited community groups as one example —there is a myriad of bodies that are outside direct departmental control, and it is important that any public money be spent in the right fashion. Events in recent years in Northern Ireland have shown that some groups are effectively fronts for paramilitary organisations, and we must be particularly careful that we are not funding such organisations.

That is why I believe that the powers of inspection — as opposed to the audit powers — should be drawn as widely as possible. It is why, while I am happy to support amendment No 8, I would like further amendments to be made at Further Consideration Stage. I want to ensure that, as far as possible, we have a Government Resources and Accounts Bill which we can stand over and of which we can be proud.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I understand the arguments put forward in respect of amendment 3, but it is not desirable to remove any reasonableness test from this clause and, therefore, I oppose the amendment.

The provisions for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have rights of access to documents "at all reasonable times" is included simply to ensure that it could not be thought that the Comptroller and Auditor General was exercising his rights in an unreasonable manner. The intention is not to restrict the Comptroller and Auditor General’s rights, but rather to have a reasonableness test which is consistent with other legislation and which others have to pass. If the context were such that access was needed urgently, that would be reasonable.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister acknowledge that there is a duty upon any public official, in those circumstances, to behave reasonably and that this reasonableness test does not need to be explicitly spelled out in legislation? There is a general requirement for reasonableness that would be tested, for example, in a judicial review of any decision. There is no need for the words "at all reasonable times" to appear in the Bill.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I was going to comment on that matter. The explicit inclusion of the reasonableness test in the Bill would not jeopardise the effectiveness of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s work. Equally, if the Wednesbury test of reasonableness applies anyway, why should objection to its inclusion be so strong that an amendment is needed.

Contrary to Mr Peter Robinson’s suggestion, the Department of Finance and Personnel would not be seeking to define "reasonableness" case by case. It is a reasonableness test that would apply anyway in the approach taken by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Some Members seem to be suggesting that this is an attempt by the Department of Finance and Personnel to rig or restrict things. That is certainly not the case.

In the same way, when Mr Robinson referred back to amendment No 2, and to the question of whether one should include "Department" or "department", it was made clear that this was the result of a typographical error. Do people really think that the Department of Finance and Personnel would wish to be in a position where only its officials would be accounting officers for different Departments? As a Minister, would I want to be in that position? I assure Members that I would not want that, particularly given the experience we had earlier in the life of the Administration when dealing with conflicts of interest. Such a situation would put me in an impossible position. People should be more sensible about this.

We have amendments No 7, No 8 and No 9. I need to address the issues that go to the heart of those amendments, notwithstanding the points that have already been made about amendment No 7 and the Committee’s willingness to withdraw that amendment — although that willingness has been qualified by the expression of particular continuing concerns.

Although the primary purpose of the Bill was to give effect to the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting, consequential changes to the auditing of Government accounting information presented to the Assembly were also necessary. This gave rise to a more extensive debate of accountability issues than was directly relevant to the Bill. As a result, the Finance and Personnel Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee each suggested possible amendments aimed at extending the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The Finance and Personnel Committee report was completed before officials were able to produce the text of an amendment to put into effect the approach that I agreed with the Committee in January. Hence the Committee’s report indicated that the Committee would be prepared to consider withdrawing its amendment if it were satisfied with mine. The approach in amendments No 8 and No 9 is designed to fulfil my undertakings to the Committees, and amendment No 6 provides further assurance that the Department of Finance and Personnel will work with the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee in implementing these provisions.

The issues are complex and sensitive because they relate not only to how the Government go about business but also to the ways in which Ministers and Departments are accountable to the Assembly and the public. There has been considerable debate about the respective roles and powers of the Executive, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the key Assembly Committees. I again want to place on record my gratitude to the three Committees for the detailed thought and attention that they have given to the Bill. I also recognise that they have served notice — including what has been said here today — that they will continue to underline these concerns as matters proceed, and particularly if matters do not proceed.

This is of major constitutional significance, and I want to put some points on the record. We can all agree that the institutions here are unique and distinctive. It follows, therefore, that any model for the relationship among the various branches of the Administration will also be distinctive. The approach that we adopt in the Bill does not need to be the final word on the subject, but it can and should lay some important foundations. Some principles are clear in both the agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and, indeed, in our practice so far, though that is still evolving.

First, expenditure is subject to the approval of the Assembly, following scrutiny of, and consultation on, the annual Budget. Secondly, there is clear accountability by Departments and other public bodies to the Assembly through the Public Accounts Committee. It is already evident that on both these points the scrutiny is deeper and more intense than was possible under direct rule, although I also recognise Members’ frustrations — as we have heard again today — with the timetables. I agree, yet again, that these need to be improved.

I want to affirm that I and my Department are committed to working with the Finance and Personnel Committee and the Public Accounts Committee to develop these arrangements. We want and need to see better and stronger scrutiny of Departments’ expenditure, with an increasing emphasis on the outputs and outcomes that are being achieved.

We need to ensure that the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Economic Policy Unit fulfil their roles to pursue jointly value for money and effectiveness. We need to have a strong and effective public audit function, working constructively with Departments to ensure that Departments and other public bodies are held to account — to learn lessons and share best practice.

The approach to the key amendments to the Bill should be seen in that context. Amendment No 7 would give the Northern Ireland Audit Office wide-ranging powers of access to the accounts of private sector companies, voluntary organisations and individuals on an almost unrestricted basis. It has been argued that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be able to follow public money without constraint. However, I am concerned that adopting such an approach without prior consultation could lead to criticism that we are imposing unwarranted and undue burdens on the private and voluntary sectors in an uncontrolled or summary fashion. It might lead some to hesitate over participating, not least in the voluntary sector.

I am not saying that I oppose comprehensive scrutiny, but we need to proceed carefully and with consultation. We need to keep the focus, as in recent Public Accounts Committee hearings, on how Departments protect public money. Similar issues arose when the corresponding Bill was being taken through Westminster. The Government responded by commissioning the Sharman review to address them and report. That process is still ongoing, although the final report is expected later this month. I intend to examine the findings very carefully, as, undoubtedly, the Committees will.

Although I am concerned that we should not act without consultation, I have been supportive of the general principles underlying the approach sought by the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee. Following lengthy consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committees, I have brought forward this amendment, which further extends the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In some respects, these go further than the corresponding powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General in Whitehall, and represent a significant advance on the original proposals. In my view, this is the furthest we could reasonably go without consultation with the other affected bodies. It has been argued that the public auditor has more extensive powers in some other jurisdictions. I am not aware of any case where such powers were rushed through in a context such as our present position.

For all bodies in the public sector — except district councils, which are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment’s local government audit function — amendments No 8 and No 9 would, in essence, give the Comptroller and Auditor General powers to inspect relevant documents and to initiate value-for-money studies. For any other body undertaking functions of a public nature or substantially funded from public money, they would give the Comptroller and Auditor General powers to inspect relevant documents. For other bodies in receipt of significant funds, the effect of my proposals would be that the Department of Finance and Personnel would facilitate the Comptroller and Auditor General by using the new power to make an order giving him inspection rights where necessary. The Bill, as originally presented, contained a proposed power for the Department of Finance and Personnel to make an order granting the Comptroller and Auditor General access.

Although that was intended to facilitate accountability, some members of the Committee interpreted it as placing the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers under the discretion of the Department of Finance and Personnel. In order to emphasise that the power should be used mainly to open doors, I am proposing a further amendment — amendment No 6 — which will place an obligation on the Department of Finance and Personnel to have regard for any views expressed by the Public Accounts Committee in relation to the issue.

I have also proposed that the Comptroller and Auditor General should only exercise these powers if it appears to him to be appropriate to do so in view of public concern or interest about a matter. This condition is there to provide reassurance that the powers will not be used without good reason.

As I have indicated to the Committee and others, the amendment represents only a first step in the process of developing improved local accountability arrangements. I am committed to revisiting this area in the forthcoming audit reorganisation Bill.

Going any further at this stage would have direct implications for other bodies. It would be helpful and necessary to consult, so that any factors that may emerge could be taken into account when we frame new powers. That should lead to better legislation than would be the case if we proceed on our present understanding of the issues.

It is my intention that, following consultation, we should seek to agree definitions that will clarify the extent of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s locus for inclusion in the audit reorganisation Bill — which is also the obvious place to address any issues in respect of district councils. This will mean widening the scope of the audit reorganisation Bill, which is primarily designed to improve the organisation of the functions of the audit of local government and of the Health Service. However, as it was not possible to resolve all the issues of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s locus in the very tight time scale for the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, it will be necessary to review those issues in time for the next Bill.

To take that forward, I propose that the Department of Finance and Personnel consult widely on the implications of providing access for the Comptroller and Auditor General to the types of bodies that would be affected. The views of all Departments regarding the scope, remit and nature of public sector audit will be sought as part of the preparatory process — particularly its remit for health boards and trusts, local government, limited companies and other entities.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to draw to the attention of the House that the moment of interruption is 6.00 pm and we have a substantial amount of business still on the Order Paper.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Our thinking may also need to be developed in the context of the review of public administration, as appropriate mechanisms of accountability will need to be part of the overall proposals that emerge there.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle, you will be glad to hear that my voice will not allow me to speak very long, so I will be brief. I too recognise that there has been good co-operation involving the three Committees and the Minister in dealing with the Bill. This augurs well for the future.

As regards amendment No 3, in relation to the issue of reasonableness, although we recognise that we have a reasonable Minister currently, we are looking at legislation which may be used by future Ministers who may not be as reasonable or understanding. Therefore, it is important that we look at access for the Comptroller and Auditor General at reasonable times. It depends on interpretation. It is important that we actually open up doors to ensure that there are no barriers created to make it impossible for the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out his functions at weekends, holiday periods and at other times when there may be unnecessary delays. It is important that that deletion be made.

The Committee met this morning and gave me permission to withdraw amendment No 7. Members can, of course, put forward any amendments for the next session. I ask the Assembly to support amendments No 3, No 8 and No 9, as the Committee has recommended.

Amendment No 3 agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 4 proposed: After clause 17 insert the following new clause:

"Advisory group

*—(1) Before—

(a) issuing directions under section 7(2), or

(b) determining the form and content of accounts under section 12,

the Department shall consult the group of persons for the time being selected by the Treasury for the purposes of section 24(1) of the Government Accounts and Resources Act 2000 (c. 20).

(2) Where a group is consulted under subsection (1) in a particular year, the Department shall arrange for the group to prepare a report for that year—

(a) summarising the activities of the group for the purpose of the consultation, and

(b) dealing with such other matters as the group considers appropriate.

(3) Where a report is prepared under subsection (2), the Department shall arrange for it to be laid before the Assembly." — [Mr Durkan.]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I remind the House that if amendment No 4 is made, amendment No 5 will fall.

Question put That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 25; Noes 40.

Ayes

P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Joe Hendron, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.

Noes

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ford, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, James Leslie, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Sean Neeson, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause

Amendment No 5 proposed: After clause 17 insert the following new clause:

"Advisory group

*—(1) Before—

(a) issuing directions under section 7(2), or

(b) determining the form and content of accounts under section 12,

the Department shall take full account of all recommendations made by the group of persons for the time being selected by the Treasury for the purposes of section 24(1) of the Government Accounts and Resources Act 2000 (c. 20).

(2) Where a group is consulted under subsection (1) in a particular year, the Department shall arrange for the group to prepare a report for that year—

(a) summarising the activities of the group for the purpose of the consultation, and

(b) dealing with such other matters as the group considers appropriate.

(3) Where a report is prepared under subsection (2), the Department shall arrange for it to be laid before the Assembly." — [Mr Leslie.]

Question put That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 41; Noes 25.

Ayes

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ford, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, James Leslie, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, Alan McFarland, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Noes

P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Joe Hendron, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment No 5 agreed to.

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 (Examinations by Comptroller and Auditor General)

Amendment No 6 made: In page 10, after line 14, insert

"( ) In determining whether and, if so, how to exercise its powers under subsection (6) or (8), the Department shall have regard to any views expressed by the Public Accounts Committee of the Assembly." — [Mr Durkan.]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment No 7 not moved.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 8 made: After clause 18 insert the following new clause:

"Inspections by Comptroller and Auditor General

*—(1) The Comptroller and Auditor General may at any reasonable time inspect—

(a) the accounts of any body to which this section applies, and

(b) any documents relating to those accounts which are held or controlled —

(i) by the body ; or

(ii) in pursuance of arrangements made by the body for the compiling or handling of any of its financial records.

(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall not exercise his powers under subsection (1) in relation to a body unless it appears to him that—

(a) it is appropriate to do so in view of public concern about any matter relating to the finances of the body or its financial transactions, or

(b) it is otherwise appropriate to do so in the public interest.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), this section applies to a body if it appears to the Comptroller and Auditor General that—

(a) the accounts of the body are not required to be examined by, and are not otherwise open to the inspection of, the Comptroller and Auditor General by virtue of—

(i) any statutory provision,

(ii) any agreement made between that body and a Northern Ireland department, or

(iii) any conditions imposed by a Northern Ireland department in pursuance of any statutory power, whether in connection with the provision of financial assistance or otherwise, and

(b) the body exercises functions of a public nature or is entirely or substantially funded from public money.

(4) This section does not apply to a district council.

(5) Any person who holds or has control of any accounts or other documents mentioned in subsection (1) shall give the Comptroller and Auditor General any assistance, information or explanation which he requires in relation to any of those documents.

(6) The Comptroller and Auditor General may report to the Assembly the results of any inspection carried out by him under this section." — [Mr Durkan.]

New Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill

New Clause

Amendment No 9 made: After clause 18 insert the following new clause:

"Economy, efficiency and effectiveness examinations by Comptroller and Auditor General

*—(1) Part III of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (NI 5) (economy, efficiency and effectiveness examinations) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In Article 8(3) (public bodies subject to examination under that Article) —

(a) after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

‘(b) any body—

(i) whose accounts are open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General by virtue of section (Inspections by Comptroller and Auditor General) of the Government Accounts and Resources Act (Northern Ireland) 2001; and

(ii) which is a public sector body within the meaning of paragraph (7).’;

(b) in paragraph (c) after ‘by virtue of any’ there shall be inserted ‘other’.

(3) At the end of Article 8 there shall be added the following paragraph—

‘(7) For the purposes of this Part an authority or body is a public sector authority or body if—

(a) in the case of a company, its directors (or a majority of them) are appointed by a Northern Ireland department or a Minister of such a department;

(b) in the case of any other body, its members (or a majority of them) are so appointed, and

(c) in the case of any authority, the authority is so appointed.’

(4) In Article 9 (other bodies subject to examination) for paragraph (4) (bodies to which that Article applies) there shall be substituted—

‘(4) This Article applies to any public sector authority or body within the meaning of Article 8(7).’ " — [Mr Durkan.]

New Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Assembly Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We have a procedural dilemma. We still have two items on the Order Paper, but the time of interruption is 6.00 pm. There are two possibilities. If the business on the Order Paper is unopposed, I could put the questions forthwith. However, if we do not have the leave of Members to proceed in that fashion the Assembly will be adjourned, to resume at 10.30 am tomorrow morning for the rest of the business, after which there will be a break of five minutes. Then the business of the new day will begin.

Do Members agree to the former?

Members indicated assent.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: Final Stage

Assembly Standing Orders