Northern Ireland Assembly, 18 June 2001

63 contributions from 27 members. The official report.

Personal Statement

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On Tuesday 29 May Mr Dallat made a number of charges against me. I wish to respond by way of a personal statement.

Mr Dallat falsely claimed that at great inconvenience to him I had departed the Agriculture Committee on Friday 25 May to electioneer in Portadown.

That comment bears no resemblance to the truth. The Committee minutes show that I left the meeting at 11.27 and that, as arranged, my Deputy Chairperson continued in the Chair. I was involved in other business. The arrangements for the meeting had previously been discussed and agreed with members. The Committee rose at 2.54 that afternoon.

I did canvass in Upper Bann that afternoon but — importantly — the Agriculture Committee had risen for the day before I arrived.

Members who wish to study the minutes of the Agriculture Committee meeting on Friday 25 May will see that the Member who made the allegations against me joined and left the Committee on no fewer than seven occasions, causing disruption to business and at one point making the meeting inquorate.

My Committee has met consistently throughout the agriculture crisis, showing leadership and giving support to the industry and to those involved in the fight for its survival. I resent an attack which questions in any way my efforts as Chairperson in that battle.

I point out to the Member that he will face legal action if he repeats the allegations outside the privilege of the House. This is not the first time that the Member has made such allegations here.

I had to miss two other meetings of my Committee during the foot-and-mouth disease crisis — to attend a funeral service and to attend a memorial service for the late Joey Dunlop, who was one of my constituents. On each occasion I made appropriate arrangements with the Deputy Chairperson, and the Committee was kept fully informed and given notice of the arrangements. I have every confidence in the Deputy Chairperson’s ability to do his work.

I take my work as a parliamentarian seriously. It is to be regretted that a Member who was not appointed to the Committee from the beginning chooses to make political capital from this sequence of events. Members will note from the minutes of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development that my record for chairing its meetings — and taking into account the long hours that are involved — is second to none. However, the Deputy Chairperson also has a job to do and should be given the opportunity to do it.

Mr Speaker, I wanted to put that on the record.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As is customary, the Member referred to may say whether he wishes to accept the statement.

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

I am pleased that Dr Paisley felt the need to offer an explanation to the Assembly, given that we were in the middle of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis. Now that the elections are over, I have no doubt that there will be no need to raise the issue again.

Social Security Fraud Bill: First Stage

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 16/00] to make provision, for the purposes of the law relating to social security, about the obtaining and disclosure of information; and to make provision for restricting the payment of social security benefits in the case of persons convicted of offences relating to such benefits and about the institution of proceedings for such offences; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Clerk to put my name down to speak. My understanding was that we would hear from the Minister for Social Development about the Bill before any decision was made.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Perhaps I need to clarify the matter for the Member. This was the formal First Stage of the Bill. The Member is referring to another motion on the Order Paper on the matter of accelerated passage. We will come to that later in the normal fashion, and Members who wish to speak will be called then.

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill [NIA 15/00] be agreed.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928 to extend the partridge shooting season by one month so that it commences on 1 September each year. That will bring the season here in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The amendment is in response to representations made by local enterprises to extend the partridge shooting season for commercial reasons. It is also supported by organisations that represent shooting interests in Northern Ireland. While the main areas of commercial interest are Rathlin Island and the Copeland Islands, I am also advised that several shoots would be prepared to release partridges if the season were extended.

In 1999 some 73 shoots released partridges in Northern Ireland. The majority are not run as businesses, but many sell a day’s shooting to supplement the shoot income and defray costs for syndicate members.

I have been told that a further consequence of the Bill might be that some local sportsmen who currently travel elsewhere in September might stay in Northern Ireland. It is not possible to estimate the economic impact of the changes accurately, but the British Association for Shooting and Conservation argues that it would contribute to the local economy and help to maintain the rural community.

My Department carried out a full public consultation. In addition to the Environment Committee, 370 organisations were consulted. These included the Department’s statutory advisory body on nature conservation, the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the relevant environmental bodies, district councils, organisations representing farmers and land owners, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and local shooting clubs.

Sixty-six responses were received — the great majority favoured the amendment of the 1928 Act. Four objections were received. The first was to blood sports in principle; the second was to the maturity of the birds as quarry in September; the third was to the premature disturbance of other quarry species, such as pheasant, for which the season is later; and the fourth was based on the need to protect the native grey partridge.

A few respondents, although they supported the Bill, also raised the issue of a possible threat of disturbance to other native wildlife. The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside and the environmental bodies outside Government did not object to the proposal. The Environment Committee had no objection to the proposal but asked for more detail on the extra revenue that might be generated and the additional economic and other benefits that might arise through increased tourism.

The Department’s research indicates considerable potential benefits for the commercial shoot organisers. They will attract overseas visitors and their families, and local providers of services such as accommodation, hospitality and transport will receive spin-off benefits. In the case of Rathlin Island, there is the potential for a syndicated revenue of up to £70,000 for the month. Additional benefits of up to £200 a head by way of costs incurred by shooters for travel, bed and breakfast and entertainment might also accrue. Most of this would benefit the local economy. In the case of the Copeland Islands syndicate, the estimates are for four extra shoots at £3,500 a day during September. These are likely to be taken up completely by visitors from the USA who would stay locally.

In bringing this legislation forward, I took full account of the concerns raised in the consultation. First, the question of blood sports falls outside the scope of the Bill. Secondly, with regard to the maturity of the birds, I have been advised that the eggs are usually laid in April or May to allow the birds time to mature and adapt to the wild. The birds would normally be mature in September. However, as all the birds are artificially reared, it would be the responsibility of the game managers and shoot organisers to ensure that they release only fully-grown birds and that these birds are released into conditions that are conducive to good sporting practices. It is not in their interests to release immature birds, which make easy prey and will bring the sport into disrepute.

The third issue of concern is that the changes would create a premature disturbance to other quarry birds. This matter cannot be addressed directly by my Department. It is the responsibility of game managers to ensure that, under the terms of the code of good shooting practice,

"shooting should not commence until all birds are mature and fully adapted to the wild".

However, I am advised that the possible upset to other quarry is minimal.

The last point concerns the native partridge. I have been advised that it is now accepted that there are no native grey partridges in the wild, and it is highly unlikely that they will be re-established in the foreseeable future. Sufficient suitable habitat no longer exists for them, and current farming practices militate against creating such habitats. I understand that there are only a few native partridges left in the island of Ireland as a whole and that those that are left can be found only in the Republic of Ireland. The remaining population is not expected to survive.

With regard to the possible threat to native wildlife, several protective measures exist under wildlife legislation. In particular, some Members have raised concerns about the level of protection that is afforded to the Irish hare. I announced a species action plan for the Irish hare, to be implemented by a number of Departments including my own, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Ulster Wildlife Trust. The plan includes a repeat survey of hares, which will be commissioned once the current foot-and-mouth disease restrictions have been lifted. Upon completion of the survey I will consider what further steps, if any, need to be taken.

This proposal could bring economic benefits without harmful conservation side effects.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Members are looking forward to the discussions that will follow at Committee Stage.

Last September the Committee considered a consultation document issued by the Department of the Environment on extending the partridge shooting season. While we generally welcomed that proposal we did have some questions on the extent of the financial benefits arising from it. We still await the Department’s response to those questions.

The Committee has already received detailed representations on the Bill from the Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. Both organisations expressed disappointment at the proposed changes to the shooting of rabbits and concern at the proposed legislative process by which the Minister may make future changes to the closed season. The Committee takes the concerns that have been expressed seriously and will take the necessary step to permit appropriate consultations with it.

Apart from these issues, the Committee wants to know why the original consultation document seen by the Committee made reference only to extending the partridge shooting season and yet the Bill proposes several other amendments to the 1928 Act. The Committee will be interested to learn what consultations there have been on these proposals. The Minister gave the number of consultations to the House today, but consultation with my Committee extended only to the partridge shooting season and not to the other measures which now appear in the Bill. The Minister can be assured, however, that the Committee will look diligently at the details in the Bill and will come back with any necessary amendments at Consideration Stage.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

As Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee and on behalf of the SDLP, I welcome the Minister’s statement and concur with some of the points raised by Dr McCrea. I am concerned by the change effected by clause 1(3), which will allow the Minister to vary the closed season for all types of hare, grouse and other birds by ministerial Order rather than by legislation before the Assembly.

Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the shooting of rabbits on agricultural land. Many people regard rabbits as pests, and I have noted submissions from various lobbying groups that welcome the more permissive proposals that allow an extended time for shooting rabbits. However, I want to sound a note of caution: rabbits are pests to many people, but they are also part of God’s creation. I have reservations about any measure that could bring about the extinction of a species and have an adverse effect on ecology, biodiversity and variety of fauna. Are we clear that the extinction of rabbits is not an issue?

On the grounds of maximum possible accountability, I am concerned about clause 3’s making orders under the Act subject to negative resolution — perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that.

I will end on a light historical note. In the 51-year history of the Stormont parliament, the Unionist Government accepted only one amendment to a Bill from the Opposition, in the 1930s. It was an amendment proposed by a Nationalist MP to a measure for protecting wild birds, and it was unexpectedly accepted by the Unionist Minister. That caused some consternation at the time.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am not sure what I should say in response to the point that Ms Hanna has just made. Perhaps if Dr McCrea, Ms Hanna and I can all agree, the Minister will find it easier to accept any views that may come from the Committee.

I also welcome the Bill, but I concur with many of the concerns that my Colleagues from the Committee have just raised.

In particular, I find it somewhat unhelpful when the memorandum relating to a Bill says that departmental research foresees economic benefits, but gives absolutely no quantification whatsoever as to what those benefits might be. It is not acceptable for a memorandum accompanying a Bill to make such a general statement and give no specific reference to what the perceived benefits are. If we are going to have a memorandum, we really ought to ask all Departments — and it just happens to be the Department of the Environment on this occasion — to ensure that the memorandum spells out what they are talking about. Unfortunately, this one has come along with a lot of other loose, woolly phrases that the Committee has seen and which were included in the consultation. It really is time that these issues were tightened up rather better.

I welcome the fact that the Minister actually noted the hare as one of the game species. The fact that he is now recognising that may mean that the concerns that people such as Mr Poots, Mr Wells and I have over hare coursing may gradually start to be addressed in this Assembly. It is clear that this remains a problem. I disagree with Ms Hanna in that I believe that the rabbit is a pest — several rabbits are definitely pests and several hundred rabbits are huge pests. We need to regard the hare, which is a native animal, in a different light. The rabbit, however, is an import from the adjacent island, and I would therefore have assumed that the SDLP would not have wanted it.

On clause 2 and the reference to shooting rabbits, is the Minister entirely happy that he now has adequate definitions of words such as "agricultural land" and "occupier"? Given the difficulties experienced at Westminster, particularly under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, where there are huge problems in defining "agricultural land", is he satisfied that the Department of the Environment here is rather better than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was over there? Similarly, given the differences in land tenure — conacre and so on — is he absolutely satisfied with what the term "occupier", in relation to land, means?

These are some of the issues that we will need to look at in detail in the Committee. We can welcome the Bill in principle, but in practice, the Committee has a great deal to do on it.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I am glad to see that amendments to shooting seasons are something that we can contemplate in legislation. It is a long time since they were changed. While I have reservations about this particular change, I think it is important that this matter be always kept under review and that we be alert to it.

My particular interest in this is that I rear, shoot and eat partridges — the last of those activities is the most pleasant, but I enjoy all three. On the subject of these rather elusive economic benefits, in sympathy to the Minister they are very elusive indeed, and they are not relevant to the argument or the issue. I can assure you that there is no economic benefit to me in rearing partridges — quite the opposite.

I cast back to the 1928 debate here, and more particularly the debate down the Corridor when this Bill was introduced, to see what rationales were advanced at that time. It is interesting to note that then, too, there was concern about the decline in the numbers of the native grey partridge, which even then was a consequence of declining habitat. Despite considerable efforts by the shooting fraternity, this decline was probably complete by the end of the 1960s. Sadly, there do not seem to be any left here now. A few years ago the Department of Agriculture introduced a scheme to encourage and provide some assistance for people to reintroduce grey partridges, but this has proved to be exceedingly hard work. However, I hope that initiatives to do that will continue. This Bill, by giving some cognisance to the interests of people rearing partridges, may provide some further encouragement.

I also believe that the countryside management scheme that has been introduced by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will make a major contribution towards improving habitat. The debate about the future of the rural economy and farming is growing louder all the time. In that context, I trust that a move to more environmentally-friendly farming policies, along with the reclaiming for nature of a great deal of land that has been claimed for agriculture, will contribute to the kind of habitat in which it will be possible — if one takes a reasonably long-term view — to get partridges successfully breeding again in the wild.

However, if we continue to protect all predators, particularly raptors, it will prove to be as difficult for the partridge population as it is for the grouse population.

I hesitate in regard to the lengthening of the partridge season because while partridges in Hampshire may be fully grown by 1 September, it is much more difficult to achieve that in Northern Ireland, particularly during a wet year. I understand from people involved in rearing partridges in large numbers that eggs need to be imported from the continent in order that the birds can hatch and be fully grown by 1 September. However, the shooting fraternity self-regulates exceedingly well; therefore I hope that we can trust its judgement from year to year, depending on the rearing season. I welcome the Minister’s comments about that.

The season for shooting pheasants starts on 1 October. Few pheasants are shot in Northern Ireland before the last week of October. The people involved in that activity know that they need a few more weeks here before pheasants are fully reared, though they might be shot in the early part of October in the south of England. I trust that the self-regulatory disciplines of the shooting community will work in that respect.

The Bill does not distinguish between native grey partridges and imported red partridges, though it is appropriate to have the undefined term. Along with other Members, I am concerned that in clause 1(3) the Minister reserves the right to amend shooting seasons by Order. Although it has not been the case in the past, it might be an excessive burden if legislation were passed frequently. Widespread consultation is important, and the House should be given the opportunity to deliberate fully on any future changes.

I concur with other Members that the definition of "agricultural land" in clause 2 is wrong — we need a broader term. The other rules that regulate where one can shoot will provide the necessary protection to persons and property. All of the matters that I have raised can be addressed satisfactorily in Committee. I hope that there is some degree of consensus among Members, and I look forward to dealing with those matters during the Consideration Stage.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for his time and effort. Approximately four years ago, many of the shooting organisations and conservation bodies approached elected representatives to push for a change in the legislation to bring forward the season for partridge shooting. I agree that there are benefits, though some Members may not. In my constituency, partridge shooting is a pastime, and these birds are used, together with pheasants, to try to increase the potential for many of the shoots. We should welcome that.

Strangford, the constituency I represent, enjoys sporting, tourism and economic benefits as a direct result of partridge shooting. The Copeland Islands, just outside my constituency, are used purely for partridge shooting, and this attracts tourists. Shoots on these islands are oversubscribed, and it is hoped that the existing potential for developing tourism can be increased. If permission were granted for an additional four days’ shooting in September, it would be possible, as the Minister has stated, to make around £3,000 on each of those days.

Rathlin Island, in Dr Paisley’s constituency, is another area where partridge shooting could be promoted to enhance the area’s potential for a growth in tourism. The shoot in Rathlin Island was recently featured in ‘Shooting Times and Country Magazine’, which is distributed throughout the UK and further afield. An advertisement listing the shooting dates for Rathlin Island which are available for booking was published in tandem with the feature.

A partridge shoot also takes place in Portaferry, in my constituency. If it were to begin in September the area would receive direct economic and tourism benefits. Partridge and pheasant shoots also take place in Rosemount in Greyabbey, and the extension of the shooting season by one month would provide extra potential. Dunleath estate in Ballywalter is a third example of such activity in my constituency. Ards Borough Council, of which I am a member, supported the legislation relating to this type of shooting.

Direct benefits are gained from visitors’ staying overnight in the locality, with the result that bed-and- breakfast accommodation, hotels, restaurants and country sport shops all profit. Tangible gains are made as a result of this activity. Shooting can and does create benefits. The countryside needs the creation of this tourism potential and economic benefit more than ever, therefore we should support this Bill. I am glad that there seems to be a consensus on this matter.

The maturity of the birds was mentioned. There is no reason why appropriate management cannot ensure that birds mature on 1 September so that partridge shooting can take place. Sportsmen understand the issues involved, and if the birds had not matured to a suitable standard, they would not shoot at that time. I think that they will be mature, and management is in place to ensure that this is the case. There will be clear benefits for everyone by 1 September.

The Minister is probably already aware of section 7(a) of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928, about which myself and other Members are concerned. The Minister will agree that all legislation must be clear and reasonable. This paragraph is neither entirely clear nor completely reasonable. It relates to the shooting of rabbits on agricultural land, and uses the wording

"Provided that this section shall not render unlawful the shooting of rabbits on any agricultural land".

There seems to be a grey area, because some landowners in Northern Ireland do not own the shooting rights to their land and are not, therefore, in a position to authorise third parties. I am sure that the Minister would agree with this. The position in Northern Ireland is slightly different: while an occupier may have permission to harvest a crop off a piece of land, he may not have the authority to let people on to his land to shoot rabbits and control vermin. The wording of section 7(a) of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland ) 1928 should be changed to,

"Provided that this section shall not render unlawful the shooting of rabbits at any time by authorised persons".

Such wording would ensure that the legislation is clear, reasonable and of benefit to landowners and those with the shooting rights of the land.

I welcome the legislation and the efforts that have been made to create it. We have waited four years for this, therefore it is good to know that on 1 September partridge shooting on Rathlin Island, Copeland Islands, Rosemount, Ballywalter, Portaferry and other estates can be taken advantage of and that tourism potential and economic benefit can be created in all the boroughs and constituencies involved.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity that the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill gives us to redress parts of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928. The amendment in clause 1(2) will extend the shooting season for partridges to commence on 1 September annually, and this will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, as partridge shoots commence in England, Scotland and Wales on that date.

Evidence so far suggests that with appropriate management, partridges can be fully mature on 1 September. As everyone knows, wild grey partridges are extinct here, so there should be no basis for any objections for sustainable conservation on that score.

The change to the close season will also create a positive incentive for conservation by encouraging more landowners to rear and release partridges in the wild, which enhances the commercial sustainability of shoots, making a much-needed contribution to our rural economy.

This legislation should end the confusion about the legal position on shooting rabbits at night-time and on Sundays, but it contains some unclear references. The reference to "agricultural land" that has been mentioned several times already should be removed. Land types are difficult to define in law, and, as we all know, rabbits do not confine themselves to just that. Any reference to a specific land type only compounds the lack of clarity the Bill is attempting to redress.

Present firearms legislation is strict and clearly governs where shooting may take place. The terminology used to describe people permitted to shoot rabbits should be "any authorised persons". Many people have pointed out that some land occupiers do not own the shooting rights to the land, and they would not be in a position to give authority for third persons to shoot over it.

Clause 1(3) gives powers to the Minister to vary the close season in relation to any kind of game, and that causes me concern. I urge that a clause be included in the legislation to ensure that there is consultation with relevant bodies and organisations before any variation to a close season takes place. That would allow a wide range of expertise to contribute to discussions on any change to the close season so that the most sensible option is chosen.

I am also concerned about Orders made by the Minister being subject to negative resolution. That would curtail any debate in the Assembly. Negative resolution must be changed to affirmative resolution to ensure what we all want — open and transparent Government.

I hope that the Minister will consider these points when wording the final Bill.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. While supporting the Bill, I would like the Chairperson of the Environment Committee to reserve the matter until it reaches its Final Stage. I have difficulty with some of the terminology used.

Not all landowners own the shooting rights to their land and not all, therefore, are in a position to authorise a third party to shoot. There are particular means of letting land to a conacre, where the occupier has permission to take a crop, but in many instances he is not able to authorise just anyone to shoot on his land. The current wildlife legislation uses the term "authorised persons" to describe a broad spectrum of people who may shoot on certain lands. That is clearly defined in the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. I strongly recommend that similar terminology be used in the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill. I will wait until the Final Stage to say anything more. Go raibh maith agat.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank Members for their comments, which have been very useful and have teased out many issues that we will look at. This is not a complex piece of legislation, and it has widespread support, particularly from people with an interest in game sport. We expect that it will bring some financial benefit locally, and it is widely accepted that it poses no threat to nature conservation. It also brings the partridge season here into line with the rest of the UK, and it should be seen as the Assembly’s responding positively to modest representations for a change that reaps some benefit to the rural economy.

Rural economy issues are important at all times, but particularly so at present with the crisis in farming and tourism. Providing a sustainable basis for the rural economy is vitally important. Some very interesting points have been made, and I will try to address some of the questions raised by Members.

With regard to the Minister’s being able to make future amendments to the close season for all types of game by Order, there was a view that the provisions of the Game Preservation (Northern Ireland) Act 1928 allowed for any changes to the close seasons to be affected by subordinate legislation, although this was not absolutely clear. Therefore, in order to clear up any such confusion, the proposed amendment to section 7(3) of the 1928 Act will allow me to make future amendments to the close season for all types of game by Order. The use of subordinate legislation procedures of course carries the requirement to consult publicly, and that includes the Environment Committee, which was Mrs Carson’s point.

The benefit of this proposal is that I will be able to make minor changes such as the present extension proposal without recourse to the lengthy and costly primary legislation procedure, which is designed for more major and complicated issues. This was seen as a technical amendment and was not included in the consultation. I apologise if Members thought that this was inappropriate, and I will note it for the future.

Reference was made to the threat to the rabbit population. I have been advised that there is no perceived threat to rabbits, and, in fact, their numbers are possibly increasing slightly. If there were ever any evidence of rabbit extinction, I would take appropriate steps to protect them.

On the change to the description of persons who can lawfully shoot rabbits on agricultural land, the 1928 Act restricts the lawful shooting of rabbits on any agricultural land to the occupier or any person resident with or employed by him. This reflects the nature and culture of landowning at the time.

The proposed change is now to allow the shooting of rabbits by a person so authorised by the occupier or owner. This change brings the legislation into line with the current practice where landowners or occupiers may give permission, or may ask a person who is expert in this field, to shoot pest rabbits. Since the change is of a minor and uncontentious nature, it was not included in the consultation process. I recognise the points that have been made about the definition of "agricultural land" and will take this issue on board.

Reference was also made to the financial aspects. The syndicate which has the shooting rights on Rathlin Island, in support of the argument in the change of the legislation, stated that it could mean up to an extra £70,000 as well as some spin-off for the local economy by way of travel, accommodation, meals and entertainment. As a result of subsequent enquiries, my officials estimated the possible potential revenue for Rathlin Island as being 10 days for 10 people at £350 a day per person, giving a figure of £35,000. There would also be additional revenue by way of accommodation, meals and entertainment and, while it is difficult to put a precise figure on it, this was estimated to be in the region of £150 to £200 per person, which would represent an additional £15,000 to £20,000.

In the case of the Copeland Islands syndicate, the market clients are largely from the USA and are normally accompanied by their families. This syndicate was planning an additional four days of shooting at £3,500 per party per day. There would be associated revenue by way of accommodation, meals, and so on, which could be broadly similar to that for Rathlin Island. Therefore there are additional benefits as far as those groups are concerned.

Some people referred to the immaturity of birds. The advice given to me, and to Members, is that no responsible manager would release birds if they were immature. My officials advise me that normally the birds are mature in September. The eggs are usually laid in April and May, which allows time for maturity and adaptation to the wild. The Bill has not been opposed by the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, by my Department’s statutory adviser on nature conservation matters or by the majority of other people consulted. In addition, the Bill has the support locally of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and other shooting interests.

I am aware of some concerns in different places, and I am glad that those issues have been teased out. The Department of the Environment will take them into consideration. I hope that I have addressed some of the questions raised by Members. I am sorry if any questions or points have been overlooked, but departmental officials will scrutinise Hansard, and I will write to anyone whose question has not been fully answered.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 15/00) be agreed.

Department for Learning and Employment Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members should have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments detailing the order for consideration. The four amendments to clause one and the amendment to the long title — since they are all on the same subject — have been grouped together in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. Therefore, when I call the Minister to propose the first amendment, I ask that he and other Members who wish to speak to any of the amendments speak then in any debate that may follow, and I will subsequently put the amendments in the usual way.

Clause 1 (Renaming of Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment)

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment 1. In page 1, line 4 leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert

"Employment and Learning".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2 (clause 1): In page 1, line 9, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert

"Employment and Learning".

No 3 (clause 1): In page 1, line 13, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert

"Employment and Learning".

No 4 (clause 1): In page 1, line 15, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert

"Employment and Learning".

No 5 (long title): In the long title, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert

"Employment and Learning".

The Bill and the amendments to it propose a change in the name of the "Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment". Members may recall that during the Second Stage of the Bill, in April, I set out reasons for changing the name. Its undue length causes practical problems and its acronym, DHFETE, is unfortunate.

After much deliberation I decided that the title ought to be "the Department for Learning and Employment". Having discussed the title with the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment I have agreed that an alternative formulation would be more acceptable. Therefore I have tabled five amendments which alter the order of the words "Learning" and "Employment". The amendments change the proposed new title to "the Department for Employment and Learning".

I trust that Members will agree that the shorter title is easier to say and, more importantly, reflects the Department’s responsibilities for lifelong learning and preparing people for employment. The resulting acronym, DEL, is acceptable and more positive than DHFETE.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Although some people might think that the Bill has a kind of rose-by-any-other-name aspect to it, I am pleased to support the amendments. The Committee always supported the principle of the name change and has been assured that the cost implications will be contained to under £15,000. The Committee accepts the inadequacy of the existing, unwieldy title and its unfortunate associated acronym.

However, the Committee was not convinced by the option of "Department for Learning and Employment" contained in the original Bill. The amended title, "Department for Employment and Learning", is better. It avoids any potential for the acronym DOLE. It also avoids the usage of the cumbersome "ƒ" used by the Department for Education and Employment in London (DFEE), which has become a casualty of the latest restructuring of Government in Whitehall. The amendment leads to the acceptable and easily remembered shorthand of DEL.

The Committee recommended amendment number one. There was unanimous agreement on that. One Member recorded a preference that the word "training" be retained in the title.

The working together of the Committee and the Minister on the amendments demonstrates consensus politics in action. The Committee supports the amendments. We suggest that it would be advantageous if all stages of the Bill could be completed by the summer recess. That would allow the Department and the Committee, under the new names, to progress with the real work in hand.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their meaningful and helpful input to the Committee Stage of the Bill. I also thank the Deputy Chairman for progressing the Bill through the Committee Stage in my absence. I support the amendments.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I support the Minister and the amendments. I also want to put on record the good work carried out by the Committee Chairperson and by the Deputy Chairperson, Mervyn Carrick. That was important in reaching an accommodation with the Minister before the matter came to the Floor of the House. We all agree that the old title was clumsy. It was difficult for everyone in the Assembly and in the Department.

The Department is responsible for so many issues in such a varied portfolio that it was always going to be difficult to shorten the name. At various stages in the Committee some members thought that the training aspect should be reflected in the new title. It was difficult to shorten the name and still try to cover the Department’s entire remit. The old title had five words, and now we are down to three.

The Committee and the Minister have managed to reach an accommodation on this matter. I welcome that.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I thank the Members who have spoken and, in particular, I thank the Chairperson of the Committee and Assembly Member William Hay for their support.

Members will appreciate that the amendments before them have, in effect, the same purpose as the Bill itself. My officials and I deliberated at great length over what the new name of the Department should be. We identified a number of options, including "the Department of Learning and Employment". This was rejected because it resulted in the acronym DOLE, which the Chairperson of the Committee has already mentioned. "The Department of Advanced Learning and Employment" was another option. That highlighted our involvement with higher education but did not adequately reflect our training and basic skills provision. This process continued for a number of months with various options being identified and then rejected for one reason or another. The new title proposed by these amendments effectively and equitably represents each of the key areas of the Department.

The Department’s staff are drawn from the Training and Employment Agency, which is an agency of the former Department of Economic Development, and the higher and further education divisions of the former Department of Education.

The new name portrays the image of a cohesive Department, as opposed to one made up of separate parts. It creates a shorter, more manageable title and, I trust Members will agree, a more marketable acronym.

On costs, I am happy to repeat the assurances that I gave during the Second Stage of the Bill. The main costs of the change are associated with stationery and signage. They are unlikely to exceed £15,000. The Department has purposely ordered only small stocks of stationery, and a large proportion of the Department still uses Training and Employment Agency stationery. The cost of changing the Department’s seal is around £150, and the signage currently in the Department’s headquarters costs around £200. I am aware of the Committee’s concerns on this issue, which arise from the costs of rebranding the jobcentres following the introduction of New Deal.

I want to assure Members that I have no plans, and there is no need, to rebrand jobcentres as a result of this change.

With regard to the amendments, I am happy that the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and I are in agreement, and I thank the members of the Committee for their time and effort during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Question

Amendment No 2 made:

"Employment and Learning" — [Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment]

Amendment No 3 made:

"Employment and Learning" — [Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment]

Amendment No 4 made:

"Employment and Learning"— [Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment]

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendment No 5 made:

"Employment and Learning". — [Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment]

Long title, as amended, agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Product Liability (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

When the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development met on 15 June I was asked to make a statement on its behalf. Following the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s request for comments on the proposals in the Bill, we considered how these matters might affect agricultural producers and the fishing industry in particular. The Committee was most concerned about a number of aspects.

Everyone knows the dire straits that farmers and fishermen are in these days. Many are facing financial ruin because of BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and cod closures, among other things. Members do not need me to tell them that. It has been voiced over and over again at length in this Chamber and elsewhere. On top of all these problems comes a Bill implementing yet another EC Directive that will leave food producers, farmers and fishermen wide open to be sued by consumers who feel that they had been affected by food that was defective in some way. The ramifications of a successful claim against the producers do not bear thinking about. The potential cost of extra insurance and other measures to protect themselves is yet another straw to break the camel’s back.

The Committee was most disappointed to see that those who will be directly affected by this Bill have not been consulted. I can imagine what their response would have been. It seems that when Brussels issues a decree, it must be implemented without question. Not only have those affected not been consulted, but they were not told about the Bill’s provisions and the implications and potential consequences for them.

The Committee sought and received an assurance from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development that everyone involved in agricultural production and the fishing industry would be made aware of possible repercussions and any additional costs that would arise. Therefore, I am pleased that in its report on the Bill, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has taken on board my Committee’s concerns about the additional costs and ramifications of successful claims. The report comments on the lack of consultation and the need to inform those affected. I trust that the Minister in charge of this Bill will urge his Colleague to take appropriate action.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I appreciate and accept the concerns that the Member has raised on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I thank members of that Committee for giving consideration to this issue. In particular, I thank the members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for their scrutiny of this short Bill.

We must recognise that the timing of this Bill is far from ideal, as it comes in the wake of the foot-and- mouth disease crisis and in the context of the various pressures on fisheries. However, as the Member will realise, we have no option but to implement the European Directive that is the subject of this Bill. The Executive has had no choice in policy on this matter. However, evidence from other countries that already have this provision in force reveals no significant increase in costs to farmers or other affected groups. Nor is there any evidence of an avalanche of claims resulting from increased liability.

Consultation revealed that the vast majority of farmers already carry adequate cover for product liability. Therefore, this extension should not cause many of them any onerous additional burden. I can assure Dr Paisley that, before the Bill was introduced, my officials wrote to many interested parties in Northern Ireland alerting them to the need for this legislation. One response was received, and it was positive. There is a realisation that measures such as these, which are designed to restore public confidence in food safety, are of long-term benefit to producers as well as consumers.

I can give the Assembly the assurance that Dr Paisley’s Committee and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment have sought. My Department, in conjunction with colleagues in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, will ensure that those who could be affected by this Directive are made aware of the consequences and advised to take out any additional insurance cover that may be necessary.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Product Liability (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Trustee Bill: Further Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to group the 46 clauses, followed by the four schedules and the long title. Hearing no objection, I put the questions to the House.

Clauses 1 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Trustee Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Social Security Fraud Bill: Accelerated Passage

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That in accordance with Standing Order 40(2), the Assembly grants accelerated passage to the Social Security Fraud Bill.

The Social Security Fraud Bill is an important piece of legislation that will make provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to provision made for Great Britain by the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. In Northern Ireland alone, an estimated £73 million per annum of public money is lost due to benefit fraud. By anybody’s standards, that is a large amount of money.

First, the Bill will help to reduce that loss through prevention and earlier detection, using new powers to acquire and disclose information. Secondly, it will reduce loss through deterrence, through the powers to restrict payments to persistent benefit offenders and the swift, effective punishment of collusive employers.

Social security Bills are, by definition, exceptional. The unique position of social security, child support and pensions is specifically recognised in the very Act that set up the Assembly, and from which its legislative competence is drawn.

Under section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I, as the Minister responsible for social security in Northern Ireland, am under a duty to consult with the Secretary of State with a view to maintaining single systems of social security, pensions and child support for the United Kingdom. That section recognises the long-established principle of parity in social security between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland pay the same rates of income tax and National Insurance contributions as those in Great Britain. They are entitled to enjoy the same rights and benefits as people in Great Britain.

The cost of paying benefits in Northern Ireland is very heavily subsidised by Great Britain. For example, in 1998-99, the Northern Ireland insurance fund needed a transfer of £123 million from Great Britain just to meet its benefit obligations. In the same period, expenditure on non-contributory income-related benefits, which are demand-led and financed from taxation revenue, amounted to almost £2 billion.

This funding is predicated on the maintenance of parity, which I hope all parties in the House are aware of and fully understand. However, parity is a double-edged sword. Rights to benefits must be matched by obligations to society. If it is right that we should enjoy the same rights and benefits as people in Great Britain, it is equally right that we should play our part in tackling the problem of benefit fraud.

In line with section 87 of the 1998 Act, I have already consulted the Secretary of State and agreed that I should bring the necessary legislation before the Assembly. Parity covers not only the content of the legislation, but also the timing of its implementation. To ensure that certain proposals in the Bill are implemented at the same time as in Great Britain, the necessary powers must be available as soon as possible.

Ministers in Great Britain are eager to commence several provisions of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 as a matter of urgency, particularly the section dealing with failure to notify changes of circumstances, which closes a loophole in the existing legislation. It is currently difficult to prosecute fraudulent claimants who have been paid by automated credit transfer (ACT) and who fail to declare a change of circumstances. That is because, unlike payment by giro or order book, such clamaints need not sign a declaration that there has been no change of circumstances before receiving their benefit payment.

Clause 15 of the Bill would rectify this situation. The ability to prosecute fraud where the claimant is paid by ACT will be severely compromised until that provision is introduced. Ministers in Great Britain have delayed implementing their Act to allow the Assembly time to consider the Bill. Failure to grant accelerated passage will probably delay the Bill until the end of this year or the beginning of next. That will leave the loophole for ACT payees open. Ministers in Great Britain will probably be unable to delay implementation of their Act until then. This will lead to a break in parity, which is clearly unacceptable. It will lead to a situation where in certain circumstances fraudsters could be prosecuted in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland.

It will also be difficult to expect the Great Britain National Insurance fund to continue to bail us out if we delay taking the necessary steps to close the loophole as a matter of urgency. Therefore I am seeking the leave of the Assembly to use the accelerated passage procedure set out in Standing Order 40(2) to bring Northern Ireland law on these matters into line with Great Britain with the minimum of delay.

The granting of leave for the accelerated passage procedure means that there will be no formal Committee Stage. I have already met with the Social Development Committee to outline the provisions of the Bill and to discuss some issues arising from it. I have taken on board the Committee’s comments on the use of information powers, and I have arranged for a draft code of practice that will govern the use of powers to be made available to the Committee. I have also arranged for the draft code of practice to be made available for Members in the Library. The draft code will also be published for public consultation. Members will have the opportunity to make their views known at Second Stage and Consideration Stage.

As Members will appreciate, social security Bills are a regular feature of the Assembly’s legislative programme. A decision on whether to seek leave to use the accelerated passage procedure will be taken on an individual Bill basis, bearing in mind the duty placed on me under section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to seek to maintain single social security, child support and pensions systems. The fact that we are attempting to use the accelerated passage procedure today in no way prohibits Members present from raising issues with regard to the Bill. It simply means that the Bill will not have a Committee Stage.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin is opposed to social security fraud. We are particularly opposed to the organised social security fraud that is costing £73 million. As the Minister said, £73 million is a massive amount of money to be dealing with. We could be using that money in other ways.

Members have the right to be able to scrutinise the Bill and to put forward effective amendments. The Minister has not given a good argument for accelerated passage, which is a bad method of putting any Bill through the Assembly. There are particular problems in the Bill, and every Member should have the opportunity to scrutinise it.

It could affect people’s human rights and invade their privacy. Following investigation there is no comeback for innocent people to right the wrongs done to them. The Minister mentioned that there is an obligation from a parity perspective. However, there is no rush to bring this legislation forward. The Minister said that delay here would delay the implementation of the equivalent Act in Britain, and if that is the case then they will go ahead in Britain. He also said that there would be a code of practice. A code of practice is no substitute for good legislation, and we have seen that many times in the past. I oppose the use of the accelerated passage procedure, and I hope that others will do likewise.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I want to raise the issue of accelerated passage. I understand what the Minister has said, and I agree with him on what needs to be done. My difficulty with this Bill and Standing Order 40(2) is that I am not sure that parity is mentioned. Either we decide that parity means accelerated passage or we do not. Such decisions must be made in all matters.

My understanding is that if this Bill were to go through the Committee Stage, the House could be asked to carry it over to the next sitting in September in time for its commencement. I am informed by people at Westminster that the commencement date is not expected until spring 2002, yet the Minister told me that it is expected to start in autumn 2001. I accept that, but there seems to be a difference of opinion.

We are setting a very dangerous precedent. Not long ago Michelle Gildernew commented that she was against setting the precedent of accelerated passage in the Assembly. At the time I said nothing, because I felt that what had to be said had been said. I am, however, concerned that Ministers are being allowed to accelerate whatever they want through the House.

On this occasion I am not as concerned as my Colleague, Mr Kelly, about what is in the Bill. No matter what we do, because of parity, the Minister cannot change what has been set down at Westminster. But how we allow Ministers and Departments to conduct business is a point of principle.

I understand that Westminster had six months with the Bill and that the Department for Social Development was told about it in January 2001. It did not, however, come before the House. Long before the Easter recess I asked the Chairperson and the Clerk of the Committee for Social Development if any legislation was to be dealt with between Easter and now, and nothing was forthcoming. Other Committee members know that the question was asked. My concern is therefore about how the Executive deal with business. They must deal with it better than they have so far, and they need to get that message.

The question for me is parity. Do we agree that parity deserves accelerated passage? The Committee or whoever is responsible for deciding should make that decision. It will be difficult for the Minister — whether it be Maurice Morrow or some other member of the DUP — because in fairness that Department will have most to do with parity in dealing with social security.

This is not a question of the Minister’s ability or about the content of the Bill. I accept all that he has said today. My argument is about our setting precedents which enable other Ministers to use acceleration for other reasons. We need to make very sure that this is not an abuse of power.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

We face the issue of liaison between the Department for Social Development and the Department of Social Security in London and, on a wider scale, between the Executive and the Cabinet. I have heard no argument from the Minister on why the Assembly should be forced into rushing an accelerated passage procedure on this Bill through because they failed to get their act together.

Billy Hutchinson said that the Department was aware of this Bill in January. The English Bill was going through its process in Parliament at Westminster in January and February. If that was so, I see no reason for producing a Bill on the Floor of the House today and saying that it must go through in the few weeks before the summer recess and that if it does not, that will be the fault of Members who wish to scrutinise legislation properly. Talk that a code of practice might somehow be the solution to bad legislation is so spurious as to be unacceptable. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he has a Northern Ireland code of practice or if he has merely adapted the GB code of practice, as has happened with the Bill itself.

We seem to be rehashing the arguments that we had about the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. We have never discussed the fundamental principle of how far we are bound by every clause, comma and full stop of Westminster legislation if there is to be parity in social security provision. Whilst we may have parity in social security in the rates of benefits paid, it is quite clear that parity of taxation does not exist in the United Kingdom. There is no parity of effect in social security payments either; the costs that claimants incur vary widely, yet there is a blanket allocation of the payment in pounds sterling per week.

We must start to discuss some of these issues, and not merely when a Minister decides that accelerated passage is needed for a certain matter. It was presumed that if we were to have a single social security system for the United Kingdom, that would have been a reserved matter. However, it is not. I am not aware that anyone in the House has argued that it should be. If it is not to be a reserved matter, the Assembly should give proper scrutiny to every aspect of its legislative programme. By proper scrutiny I mean no accelerated passage, and detailed scrutiny of every piece of legislation. If that results in a Minister’s having to try to negotiate with a Minister in London about the fine-tuning of a Bill as it goes through its Consideration Stage, so be it.

As long as we have the legislative duty here, we should use it. We should not merely run away saying "This is parity. Let’s do nothing".

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

The Committee for Social Development had a long discussion about the Bill, and it did not have any objections. The Minister attended those meetings and answered specific questions. Therefore I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no dispute about the Bill. Accelerated passage is a different matter altogether.

We will face the issue of accelerated passage on a number of occasions because of the social security Bills and the relationship between this Assembly and Westminster. I am sure that the Minister will request accelerated passage on a number of important issues such as payments. I do not think that any Member will object to accelerated passage for payments, because people in Northern Ireland would be disadvantaged without it.

Let me highlight a number of issues relating to the Bill. Mr Kelly wanted to know how the Bill will be implemented. The Minister explained to the Committee that objections and concerns about the implementation of the Bill should be raised when the code of practice — which Members can study today — comes before the House.

The Committee has a number of concerns about the implementation of the Bill. Clearly there are human rights implications. The handover of power to the Department allows it to investigate a range of personal issues such as individual bank accounts. In some cases the Department will be able to delve into the personal arrangements of innocent people. That concerns me deeply. However, that debate will begin with consideration of the code of practice.

As far as possible, we should try to divorce these two issues. The Committee approves of the Bill. The issue of accelerated passage which has caused concern to a number of Members must be dealt with in a wider political forum. Parity is of enormous importance to claimants in the area of social security, and accelerated passage will not be stopped when it comes to paying claimants. The Minister responded as best he could to the Committee’s questions, and the majority of the Committee is satisfied with the Bill as it stands.

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

Accelerated passage is the most important issue today. By using this mechanism we would create a precedent that could cause damage in future circumstances.

I support what the Chairman of the Committee said with regard to how the Committee examined the legislation before it. He is right in saying that we did not register any objections, but we did ask some very serious questions, and those were tabled to the Minister. Those were dealt with and, in fairness to him, he did promise us the code of practice, which will be subject to further examination by the Committee and by this House in the fullness of time.

On the question of infringement of human rights, which is something that I am particularly interested in and asked a direct question or two on, I received answers that are, I suppose, protected by this code of practice. I took the step of consulting a human rights legal expert, who assured me that on a preliminary reading of the proposed legislation he could not see where there would be an infringement of human rights. While a more definitive view could be sought on that matter, and I may reserve judgement on it, I was quite satisfied because I recognised his authority in that area. While the legislation does appear to be strong in some respects, unfortunately it may be necessary when we are dealing with this loophole.

Two things have frustrated me for many years as a public representative fighting people’s social security benefit cases. One is the amount of money that goes unclaimed each year and that should be given to those who are entitled to it. The second is the amount that is lost through fraud. I do not think that anybody could possibly stand over that and allow it to happen. I am afraid that the interpretation that might be put on our refusal to accept this request for accelerated passage might be that we were standing over a recognised loophole and allowing it to continue. That concerns me, because it annoys me to think of the abuse as well as the unclaimed amounts.

The Committee did get a fair chance at that preliminary stage. We will have opportunities at the Second and further Stages to examine the matter even further. I hope that a more definitive legal opinion may be available to me by then. At the moment, I hope that Members will agree to accept the Minister’s recommendation.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The issue before this Assembly today is not one in regard to the content of this Bill. It is very important to keep that in mind. I myself am not a supporter of the acceleration procedures. There is a better way of doing business than that. On this issue we have to be absolutely honest, as was pointed out by Mr Cobain. He said that we will accelerate payments, but we are not prepared to accelerate legislation to stop fraud. Where do we stand in this Assembly?

Mr ONeill talked about his frustration when he has been representing people. I have had the same frustration when I have looked at the vast amount of money that is lost to the system through fraud. We must have a proper scrutiny of this today, because there is the code of conduct to be looked at, and there is another debate coming. People outside this House expect us, as the guardians of public money, to want to do something that should be done. After all, if we did not have devolution — and I happen to be a devolutionist — this provision would already be in force.

Let us take the pragmatic step of saying "Yes, we might not agree with putting business before the House in this way, but we need this procedure when it comes to making social benefit payments. We need it now to safeguard the public purse so that the money can be made available and more of it kept for the purpose for which it was raised". That is the issue before us. If there was something radically wrong with the Bill, people here would not accept it, but as there is nothing wrong with it, as the Committee procedure has shown, the time has come for us to speed up the process and to deal with this running sore.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have listened carefully to all of the contributions. I would be bitterly disappointed if the Assembly were to decide that this is the time to take a stand on legislation and, in particular, parity legislation. It would be a tragedy if the Assembly, which was allegedly brought into being to speed legislation up and to bring Government nearer to the people, were to be the very instrument that held the process up. Several Members have voiced their concerns, and I in no way disparage those concerns. Some Members also recognised that we addressed all of the issues that were raised at the Committee as honestly and squarely as we could.

I want to deal with the issues that Members have raised today to see if I can further allay their fears and concerns. I hope that I can. Several Members mentioned the issue of human rights. The Bill does comply with human rights legislation. Mr ONeill has gone the second mile; he was concerned about this aspect, and he double- checked the facts. He has been satisfied, from another source, that the Bill complies with human rights legislation. Some Members raised the matter of the code of practice. The Committee raised this issue and put much emphasis upon it. The Committee was satisfied that the code of practice that we were introducing would go a long way towards ensuring that everything was done fairly and that every step that could be taken was being taken.

Mr Billy Hutchinson, Rev Dr Ian Paisley and others had concerns about the accelerated passage. This is not an attempt to abuse procedure — this is purely an attempt to keep up with parity legislation. I can understand why Members would want to object to the use of accelerated passage for anything other than parity legislation. If I were sitting on the Back Benches I would feel the same way. This is not an attempt to ride roughshod over the elected representatives in the House — the aim is keep up with parity legislation. Mr Hutchinson also made the point that much of the legislation that comes from my Department is parity legislation. He is right. My Department, probably more than any of the other 10 Departments that are answerable to the Assembly, deals with parity legislation. It follows therefore that I will be on my feet more often to ask for accelerated passage, purely in an attempt to enable us to stay in step with Great Britain.

Mr Ford also raised the issue of the code of practice. I have dealt with that, and I hope I have satisfied him as I think we did the Social Development Committee by the assurance that the code of practice is not something that has been cobbled together. It is a code of practice that the Social Development Committee is totally satisfied will meet the requirements.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Is the Minister speaking about a Northern Ireland code of practice and not an adapted Great Britain code of practice?

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

By and large, it is a code of practice for the rest of Great Britain. I assure the Member that it will also be unique to Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, Fred Cobain, has struck the right chord on all issues. He chaired the meetings that my officials and I attended, and he has made a very useful contribution. He has hit all the right buttons today, and he acknowledges the reason why we must opt for accelerated passage. I cannot gainsay or add to anything that he has said, and I thank him for his useful and positive contribution.

I have dealt as best I can with Mr ONeill’s concerns. The Bill is compliant with the Human Rights Act, and he has already satisfied himself on that point.

Mr Ford asked if it would not be possible to introduce this Bill before the Great Britain Bill receives Royal Assent. The answer is no. A more detailed answer is that, as with all social security Bills, amendments were tabled at every stage of its process through Parliament. Given the need for parity, it is better to introduce a Bill that reflects the Great Britain Act than to introduce a Bill at an early stage and ask the Assembly to work its way through corresponding amendments in order to achieve a corresponding Act. That would be an unnecessary use of the Assembly’s valuable time.

Dr Paisley said that in principle he is not an enthusiastic supporter of accelerated passage. Nevertheless, having been a parliamentarian for many years, he recognises the need for social security legislation to be kept on a par with the rest of the UK. That is a very valid point.

He also made the point that we in the Assembly are custodians of the public purse. Every year we lose approximately £73 million through fraud. Something has to be done about that, and today we are making an attempt to close the loopholes that fraudsters are jumping through.

Dr Paisley and Éamonn ONeill made the point that they have felt frustrated in their roles as representatives of their constituencies. When this legislation is passed, some of their frustrations will not exist any more. We will have gone a long way towards ensuring that legislation exists to trap those who abuse the system. We want to get funding and give social security benefits to those who deserve and need them. We also want to deprive those who are jumping in and out through the legislation loopholes and who are keeping money back from those entitled to it. I commend the Bill to the House.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I remind Members that Standing Order 40(2) requires the Member in charge of the Bill to seek leave of the Assembly to proceed with accelerated passage. The motion can be carried only if the house is unanimous.

Question put and (in the absence of unanimity) negatived.

The sitting was suspended at 1.40 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Supply Resolution for 2001–02 Main Estimates

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £4,679,167,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 and that resources, not exceeding £5,021,262,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3(a) and 3(b) of Table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2001-02 that was laid before the Assembly on 11 June 2001.

I propose the adoption of the resolution under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make to the Assembly proposals leading to cash appropriations from the Consolidated Fund. In doing so, I act on behalf of the Executive, and the spending allocations reflect the decisions of the Executive.

The main spending plans were approved by the Assembly during the Budget debate on 18 December 2000. There was, therefore, a period of scrutiny of the proposals between the presentation of the draft Budget on 17 October and the Budget debate on 18 December. Since then my Department and I have sought to provide all the briefing and analysis needed in regard to the proposals. We have also sought to develop procedures for the future, which will improve the scope and detail of the consultative process.

The Budget, as approved on 18 December, has been supplemented by further resources carried forward from 2000-01, and by the first allocations from the Executive programme funds, as I explained in my statements of 12 February and 2 April. The main purpose of today’s motion is to seek the Assembly’s approval of the use of resources by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas, for the year ending 31 March 2002. This was summarised in the Estimates booklet that was laid before the Assembly on 11 June.

The resolution also seeks the Assembly’s approval of the allocation of a cash sum from the Consolidated Fund for the 2001-02 financial year, as detailed in the Estimates booklet. To ensure that the Assembly, and especially the Committee for Finance and Personnel, had the best possible opportunity to consider the Estimates, drafts were provided a month ago, before the printing process was finalised. We also offered briefing on the significance of the change from cash-based estimates to resource- based estimates, which takes effect this year. That offer still stands, and officials from my Department will provide further briefing on those issues for Members in the autumn.

The amounts of cash and resources covered by today’s resolution are additional to the Vote on Account approved by the Assembly in the Supply resolution debate on 19 February, which was followed by the passage of the Budget Bill. When the amounts quoted in today’s Supply resolution are added to the Vote on Account, the total cash and resources contained in the 2001-02 Main Estimates will amount to some £8,486 million and £9,327 million respectively.

I remind the Assembly of the significance of the Supply resolution for which I seek support today. The resolution is the basis upon which the Assembly authorises the expenditure of Departments, the Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and other bodies in carrying out their functions. One of the Assembly’s most fundamental responsibilities is to authorise expenditure while holding Departments accountable for the use of this money. This is one of our main means of ensuring that we deliver on the commitments set out in the Programme for Government.

The scope of the debate covers expenditure in 2001-02. The resolution is the means by which Estimates can be examined by the Assembly, thereby implementing the Budget agreed by the Executive and approved by the Assembly last December.

It will pave the way for us to consider the Budget (No 2) Bill, which, subject to the approval of the Assembly, will provide the legal authority for Departments to incur expenditure this year. As such, those steps represent the conclusion of the 2001-02 financial cycle. It is important that a clear distinction be drawn between those processes which are concerned with the current year and the preparatory steps that we are taking towards the development of a Budget for 2002-03, on which I will make a statement to the Assembly tomorrow.

Before I cover the details of the Estimates, I want to acknowledge the confirmation by the Finance and Personnel Committee that appropriate consultation on the spending plans is reflected in these resolutions. I welcome the Committee’s keen and constructive interest in finance issues, and I look forward to further advice and assistance from Committee members throughout the key phases of our financial cycle.

As Members will be aware, 2001-02 is the first year in which Budget allocations and Estimates will be determined and managed on a resource, rather than a cash, basis. The technical side of that transition does not need to take up time today. However, it is important that I draw out some important aspects of the Estimates that differ from the position on the Budget. The Budget as approved in December 2000 concentrated on expenditure in the departmental expenditure limit (DEL). The Estimates include some annually managed expenditure (AME) as well as expenditure that falls within the DEL. The main items that fall into that category are social security benefits, some of which are subject to annual appropriation or authorisation, and others which are charged under legislation to the National Insurance fund. Hence they do not feature in the voting process. Expenditure under the common agricultural policy also falls into the same category, because it is fully funded by the European agricultural guarantee and guidance fund.

As well as those AME items, there are some aspects of expenditure which were nominally attached to the departmental expenditure limit but which are ring-fenced by the Treasury. As we have no discretion on the use of those resources, they have also not been included in the context of our monitoring rounds, even though they were shown in the Budget documents in October and December last year. Those include expenditure under the Peace I programme and the special addition that was provided some years ago to cover the costs of the Moyle electricity interconnector.

I have already mentioned that some expenditure on social security is handled outside the voting system, because there are standing authorisations in the form of specific legislation that allow money to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund or another fund to provide a service. A further example arises when a Department makes a loan under a statutory power. In most cases the issue of the loan will count towards the departmental expenditure limit. However, where there is a standing authorisation for the making of loans outside the vote, the loan would not need specific Assembly approval through the Estimates and Budget Bill system. Some important aspects of the Budget are funded in this way, as distinct from the supply procedure that we are considering today.

The total that determines what we can do is the departmental expenditure limit set by the Treasury. The Budget brings together all the expenditure and revenue that relate to what we can do within that limit to finance public services. The Estimates then set out what that means for the drawing of cash by Departments from the Consolidated Fund and their use of resources in relation to their objectives. I must also emphasise that the convention is that Estimates are not reduced as the year progresses, even if the Department concerned is clear that not all the spending will be required.

By their nature, the figures are estimates. The reason for the Supply resolution is that the Executive and the Departments are seeking authorisation for spending up to the figures quoted in the Estimates. This point is important, because it helps to explain how the figures, which were set out in the Budget planning documents, are ultimately reflected in the amounts that need to be authorised for issue from the Consolidated Fund to cover the approved expenditure. This is complex, but essential, in order to meet the twin requirements that we keep expenditure within the departmental expenditure limit as set by the Treasury, and seek authorisation for no greater amount of cash expenditure than is set out in the Estimates.

The total net resource requirement for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is £223 million. Approximately £172 million is sought in request for resources A. That sum provides for ongoing regional services and support measures, including £73 million for development of agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Approximately £57 million, including £2·4 million allocated under Executive programme funds, is sought for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, animal disease compensation, and processing and marketing grants, which are totally funded by the European Union. Twelve million pounds is for central administration, including information technology and specialist accommodation services, and £9 million is for the rural development programme.

Nine million pounds is in respect of the EU peace and reconciliation programme and structural funds, totally funded by the EU, and £12 million is for non-cash items such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges and depreciation costs. The various market support measures administered under the common agricultural policy, totalling £158 million, are also accounted for under request for resources A. These are fully funded by the receipt from the EU and, therefore, cancel within the Estimate.

Resources of £51 million are sought in request for resources B. This includes £25 million for the Rivers Agency, Forest Service and Fisheries Division, and £5 million in relation to central administration, the EU peace and reconciliation programme and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The remaining £21 million is in respect of non-cash items, such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges, and depreciation costs.

When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking £208 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The total net resource requirement for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is £76 million, an increase of 3% on last year’s final net provision. Those resources, which are contained in a single request for resources, include £24 million on expenditure by education and library boards on public libraries, of which £2·3 million is for capital works and £0·3 million has been allocated under the Executive programme funds. In addition, £9·9 million has been provided for the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland. The sum of £8·8 million, including £0·7 million allocated under the Executive programme funds, has been allocated for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and other miscellaneous support for the arts, and £1·5 million has been allocated for the Odyssey landmark project.

Approximately £4·8 million, of which £0·5 million has been allocated under the Executive programme funds, is for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, and £2·2 million is for the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland.

The sum of £3·4 million is sought for sports. The request for resources also provides £1·6 million for the Northern Ireland Events Company and £0·8 million for the Armagh Planetarium and Observatory. Provision of £3·5 million is needed for Northern Ireland’s contribution to the North/South language body, and £2·6 million for Northern Ireland’s contribution to the Waterways Ireland project is also included. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, it can be seen that the Department is seeking cash of some £74 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

Moving to the Department of Education, resources of some £1,350 million are sought in request for resources. Schools require £1,023 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards and £38 million for boards’ capital projects. The figure also provides for £59 million for capital projects in voluntary and grant- maintained, integrated schools, £148 million for recurrent expenditure in voluntary grammar schools and £34 million for recurrent expenditure in grant-maintained, integrated schools. Some £5 million is being made available under Executive programme funds and £7 million under the European Union’s peace and reconciliation programme.

For resources to cover youth service and community relations programmes for young people, resources of £27 million are being sought. This includes some £18 million for recurrent and capital expenditure by education and library boards, £2 million under the Executive programme funds and £2 million under the European Union’s peace and reconciliation programme. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking cash of some £1,377 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate. In the Estimate for teachers’ superannuation, resources of £80 million are being sought along with a corresponding cash requirement of the same amount.

In the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment the total net resource requirement is £322 million. The sum of £306 million is sought, first, to cover the Department’s economic support and regeneration measures. This includes £123 million to help the Industrial Development Board to attract and support industrial development in Northern Ireland and £28 million for local enterprise to assist in developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of the important small firms’ sector. Also included in this request for resources are £23 million to support the tourist industry and £26 million to increase industrially relevant research and technology in industry.

In this request for resources, which covers the Department’s regulatory services, the sum of £16 million is sought. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure taken into account, the Department is seeking £306 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

Turning now to the Department of the Environment, a total net requirement of some £112·8 million is being sought, together with £2·5 million for capital investment. This is a significant increase over the resources available last year, reflecting the need to resolve historical underfunding of the Department’s functions. Around £9 million of the new funds will be used to help meet international environmental obligations, including the development of a new strategy for the disposal of waste.

The remainder of the increase, some £3 million, will be directed in a variety of ways, including assistance to district councils, the continuing effort to reduce road casualties and support for the planning process. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking almost £103 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department for Regional Development’s Estimate comprises two requests for resources with a total net requirement of £1,384 million, together with £173 million to meet direct departmental investment in capital projects. Requests for resources to cover the roads, transport and strategic planning functions of the Department with related central administration amount to just under £915 million, of which almost £692 million is attributable to non-cash costs such as depreciation and capital charges, substantially in respect of the road network.

Provision is also made for capital expenditure of some £63 million, mainly by the Roads Service, and this includes an initial allocation of approximately £2 million from Executive programme funds to enable four priority road schemes to progress.

On the transport side, the request for resources includes the additional £20 million approved in the Budget to fund capital expenditure by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company to bring the railway network up to modern safety standards. This is included in the grants column on the resource side of the estimate. Almost £14 million is needed for other railway services and some £20 million for road passenger services, including concessionary fares.

Requests for other resources relate to the provision of water and sewerage services, for which a total net amount of slightly over £469 million is required. This includes some £5·5 million made available in the Budget approved by the Assembly in December 2000 to meet the additional cost associated with the Kinnegar waste water treatment works and alternative means of sludge disposal. Depreciation and capital charges amounting to £367 million are also catered for.

The £110 million needed for capital investment in the water supply and sewage treatment and disposal infrastructure includes the extra £14·5 million allocated in the Budget and £1 million for flood prevention work allocated from the Executive programme funds. After accruals to cash adjustments are made, the Department for Regional Development’s net cash requirement for the year is just over £509 million.

Turning to the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, the total net resource requirement is £604 million. Some £396 million is being sought, which includes over £147 million for colleges of further education, £167 million for universities and colleges of education, and net resources of £81 million and capital provision of £95 million for student support, including provision for new arrangements emerging from the recent review of student support.

Some £208 million is sought, which includes £42 million to provide 15,000 places in a range of employment and training measures, mainly within the New Deal initiative, for 18 to 24-year-olds and the long-term unemployed. This will also provide for the introduction of an enhanced New Deal for the over-25s from April. Over £66 million is to provide over 12,000 places under the Jobskills training programme, and a further £14 million will be spent on other training and temporary employment programmes providing some 3,000 places for long-term unemployed adults who are not eligible for the New Deal.

When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking £662 million cash to fund the expenditure in the Estimate.

Over £2,060 million is sought for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That figure includes £1,968 million to be spent on delivering an effective, high-quality health and social care service to people in need, £57 million for fire services and £34 million for departmental administration. When adjusted for capital payments and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is just over £2,124 million. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s Main Estimate identifies £48·6 million to meet the cost of the health and personal social services superannuation scheme. The net cash requirement for that estimate is also £48·6 million.

The Department for Social Development has sought £2,473 million for resources A, which covers the Department’s social security and child support programme. That figure is made up of non-contributory and income- related benefit expenditure of £2,303 million, £145 million for administration and £25 million for non-cash items such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges and depreciation costs. Included in the administration cost is £18 million to enable the Department to take forward the welfare reform and modernisation programme.

The Department for Social Development is seeking £266 million for resources B, which covers the housing programme. That figure includes programme expenditure of £260 million, administration costs of £2 million and £4 million for non-cash items. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive’s rent and capital receipts from house sales are taken into account, the gross resources available for housing will be over £600 million.

In its request for resources C, which covers the urban regeneration and community development programme, the Department for Social Development is seeking £73 million. That figure includes programme expenditure of £57 million, administration costs of £6 million and £10 million for non-cash items. In programme expenditure, £30 million will be provided to promote and implement a comprehensive approach to physical and social regeneration, and £8 million will be provided for grants to voluntary bodies. Under the European Union peace and reconciliation programme, £16 million will be made available, of which £12 million will be funded from European Union receipts. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash figure and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department for Social Development is seeking £2,773 million to fund the expenditure in the Estimate.

The Department of Finance and Personnel has sought a total net resource of £133 million. For resources A, the Department has sought £23·4 million to maximise the benefit to Northern Ireland of public expenditure, including European Union funding. For resources B, the Department has sought £93·7 million to support public sector business performance. For resources C, the Department has sought £16·4 million to administer specialised public services including Ulster Savings Branch, General Register Office, maintenance of the valuation list for rating purposes, Rate Collection Agency, Office of Law Reform, Land Registry and Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland. When adjusted for capital and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is £124·6 million.

On superannuation, the Department of Finance and Personnel is seeking £18·5 million to cover the payment of pensions and lump sum benefits to those covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £18·4 million.

For the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, total resources of some £32 million are sought. Some £13·1 million is to support the Executive in making and implementing well-informed and timely policy decisions and improving public services, while £18·7 million is to promote equality of opportunity, human rights and improved community relations and to meet the needs of victims. When adjusted for capital and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is £32 million.

The Northern Ireland Assembly is seeking £37·7 million to cover Members’ salaries and expenses and the Assembly Secretariat. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £38·8 million.

I remind the Assembly that the spending plans that we are debating today derive from the first Budget cycle for which the devolved institutions have been solely responsible. We have collectively risen to the challenge of looking afresh at what our priorities should be, and at the social and economic outcomes that we wish to achieve through public expenditure.

Through the Programme for Government we have established a number of important priorities upon which we will wish to build our policies and develop our thinking further. These include meeting our equality obligations and giving proper recognition to need through targeting social need and the priority areas and initiatives that will attract additional funding through the Executive programme funds.

In commending this Supply resolution to the Assembly, it is right that we should reflect on the importance of being able to make these decisions in a devolved Assembly for a complete financial year for the first time. It is also appropriate that we ensure proper levels of management and control over the use of these resources so that they give maximum effect and deliver the highest quality and the greatest range of services possible for the citizens of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his detailed account of the Supply resolution and for the opportunity to contribute to this debate as Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee.

Due to the suspension of the Assembly last year, the Committees had little time to consider the Main Estimates on the Supply resolution. This year there was disruption because of the Westminster and local government elections. There has, however, been limited time for the Committees to scrutinise their departmental spending plans.

The Finance and Personnel Committee questioned the Department’s officials on three occasions on the Main Estimates, as proof copies became available. The Minister has today given a detailed account of the Supply resolution. The Committee welcomed the Minister’s proposal that the Committees should have the opportunity to scrutinise and focus on the Supply resolution to ensure that they were content that it reflects the needs of their respective Departments in the Programme for Government. The Committee advised the Minister of its preference to present the Executive funds as a separate functional line within the request for resources, as this is the case for expenditure such as the European Peace programme.

However, the Finance and Personnel Committee has expressed concern at the complete absence of prior consultation with the Assembly Committees regarding how to allocate the funds that become available through the monitoring rounds. These allocations are simply presented to the Assembly as a fait accompli, with no opportunity for the Statutory Committees to bring any influence to bear on how they are spent.

I suggest that the way in which in-year monitoring is handled should be re-examined. The procedures that were adopted during the direct rule era have continued on and carried across without serious consideration having been given as to whether they are appropriate in new circumstances. In the Committee’s opinion these procedures are far from being appropriate. A revised arrangement is needed in which the Department of Finance and Personnel anticipates the likelihood of additional resources becoming available as a result of the in-year monitoring. The Assembly Committees could be given advance information about the scale of the funds and their availability for reallocation, and their views could be sought in relation to how these funds could be reallocated, before the Executive Committee takes its final decision.

I speak for all departmental Committees when I say that the Committees must be fully consulted on future spending plans, including related financial matters such as the spending review, the regional rate, and the European Union structural funds. This should be undertaken early in the year to ensure that the Committees can make an effective contribution.

The Committees can demand this within the existing structures. Each Committee has the right to question its Department on what bids it is making and how it proposes to spend the money. Additionally, there is a duty on each Department to ensure that its respective departmental Committee has the information it needs to perform its statutory role of scrutinising, considering and advising on the departmental Estimates.

I refer to one of the principal points raised in the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report with regard to the Budget proposals in November. The Committee suggested that steps needed to be taken to reassess the application of the Barnett formula with particular reference to its inability to address the present infrastructure deficit, the low population density across most of our region and, significantly, social need and deprivation. We suggested that the Minister look again at a joint approach with our counterparts in Scotland and Wales. With the involvement of the Committees a co-ordinated approach could be made to the Treasury.

I would like to impress upon the Minister the overriding need to agree procedures for the handling of the annual financial cycle. The Committee for Finance and Personnel is extremely concerned about the Minister’s proposal for the handling of the early stages of the public service financial cycle.

It is clear in the Belfast Agreement and reiterated in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that the Committees have a statutory duty to advise Ministers in the formulation of policy. The role of the Committees in relation to the preparation of budgets is a central theme in their work. However, in this area it appears that the Executive Committee and the Department of Finance and Personnel are paying lip service to the functions of the Committees. It is clear that the various Departments have been told not to discuss their bids and proposals for the 2002-03 financial year with Committees until tomorrow’s announcement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. This effectively prevents Committees from becoming involved with their Departments’ crucial stage of development of financial policy. The involvement of Committees in early consultation is crucial in planning ahead.

In virtually all other areas my Committee Colleagues are content with the procedures proposed by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. We still question the issue of early consultation. The success of future procedures depends on the ability of Committees to become involved in the early formulation of financial policy by individual Departments. To my knowledge there has been no coherent argument put forward to justify the withdrawal of rights of Committees to obtain policy papers relating to the bidding process, to be consulted and to have their views taken into account.

This situation is unacceptable to me and to the Committee, as it is to other Committee Chairpersons and members. I ask the Minister to look at this again. With this proviso in mind, I am content to recommend the Minister’s Supply resolution to the Assembly.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

My Committee met on Friday 15 June and agreed that I should speak on its behalf in this debate. This Supply resolution allows consideration of the 2001-02 Main Estimates. Committee members received papers, including proof copies of these Estimates, in mid-May. At a meeting on 18 May Committee members agreed that their main interests in exercising their statutory powers regarding budgets lay in budget bids and allocations specifically related to the Department, rather than in the overall format and presentation of Estimates and general financial procedures. They therefore passed no comment on the proof copies of the Main Estimates. On Friday, however, members compared the final estimates with the plans previously tabled in the Programme for Government and the announcements regarding Executive programme funds.

Members were reassured by the Department’s explanation of the differences in the figures, due mainly to the change from cash to resource terms. The Committee noted the inclusion in the Estimates of £2·4 million for Executive programme funds in this year, and it was content that this reflected announcements made by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Through the Executive programme funds the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has secured important resources additional to those agreed in the original Budget. At that time the Committee supported the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s unsuccessful bids under farm waste management, nutrient management and organic farming.

The Committee, having considered the draft LEADER programme last October, also welcomed the additional funding for the LEADER+ programme. However, when considering the Department’s Executive programme funds bids, the Committee noted that here had been no bid for funds to implement early retirement or new entrants schemes for farmers. These are imperative for the future of farming and for farming to remain the main job provider in Northern Ireland. It has long been the Committee’s view that such schemes are needed urgently. The foot-and-mouth disease crisis has simply brought this home, and we will be looking for action on this front — not pleasant words or promises on the dark horizon, but real action for the farming community in this year’s and next year’s budgets.

Bad news for the fishing industry seems to be coming from Europe. Our fishing industry has already been decimated. There is an urgent need to deal with the decommissioning of boats in a realistic way. Why should fishermen, who have been given money to keep their boats in seaworthy condition to face bad weather conditions, be invited to pay back what they have received before they get any compensation whatsoever? That is an insult to the fishing industry.

While the Committee welcomes the increased funding for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for 2001-02, members agree that there should be no illusion in the Assembly, as quoted in the Ulster press, that the farmers are the big winners in this Budget. That is not a fact.

Farmers will need significant additional help, and, if we are realistic about keeping our farming industry, this year’s resource allocation can be seen only as a beginning.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I will start in my capacity as Chairperson, and then speak on behalf of my party.

I note that in the Estimates relating to the Department of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment, the allocation for central administration appears to have increased considerably this year in comparison to the previous year, from £27 million to £37 million. The justification for that cannot simply be the cost of introducing the new Department, as such changes would have already fed through the system. I wonder whether this is the result of reallocations under different definitions, or if it is a real change in administrative costs. That might be a cause for legitimate concern, both for the Committee and others.

I want to make two other points on the estimates allocated to the Department of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment. These remarks will be based on a report published last week by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The report, ‘Education at a Glance’, provided statistics for all OECD members — basically, the Western economies — and made two points that are relevant to the situation in Northern Ireland.

First, of all OECD members, the UK has the largest number of 21-year-olds graduating from university. Northern Ireland has a considerably higher so-called participation rate amongst its young people than the UK average. That is a cause for some satisfaction. However, the Minister will not be surprised that I will not say that everything is fine. There are some worrying issues that continue to require attention, and hence there are implications for the allocation of money to our universities and other parts of the Department.

There is a question mark over whether that high level of participation in Northern Ireland has been compatible with the maintenance of quality standards. Certainly, as in the rest of the UK, the cost per unit of output in higher education has been squeezed over the last 10 or 15 years, and there is a resultant strain — sometimes a considerable strain — on staff and students.

Moreover, although Northern Ireland has a considerable proportion of 18-to-21-year-olds in higher education, around one quarter cannot stay here because there are insufficient places. While there has been some improvement in that regard, the need for increased numbers of places will have funding implications for the future.

Secondly, I want to address the area of adult basic skills.

The OECD report also showed that while the United Kingdom has a very good record of producing a high number of university graduates relative to the younger population, it also has the infamous position of being near the bottom of the OECD league with respect to the proportion of the working-age population who do not have basic numeracy or literacy skills. In this regard, Northern Ireland is no different from the United Kingdom average.

On behalf of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee I welcome the funds that have been allocated to deal with this problem. I also welcome the Executive programme fund moneys, but I put down a marker to say that those funds are probably inadequate, given the scale of the ongoing problem. It is a major social and economic issue that must be tackled.

I will now make some more general remarks. The motion concerns the fate of up to £5 billion, which is a considerable sum of money. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, it is a demonstration that we have, thankfully, moved away from the direct rule system, wherein such moneys would have been dealt with in an entirely different manner.

No one of any sense ever argued that the introduction of devolution per se and the introduction of these new arrangements to deal with the authorisation and accountability of public money would immediately and necessarily lead to Northern Ireland’s becoming a land flowing with milk and honey. However, what can be reasonably argued is that we now have a process where the quality of decision-making is improved relative to what happened under direct rule. That improvement, while subtle, will, in the long run, create an economic and, ultimately, financial benefit which will exceed the considerable costs of running this Administration.

From time to time, the Executive will make mistakes in the allocation of money, but the point in comparison to direct rule is not that mistakes are not made, it is that those mistakes will, I hope, be corrected more rapidly than was the case before 1999. Today we are considering £5 billion expenditure in the Northern Ireland block, but whatever happens to the Barnett formula it would be unwise to assume or bank on any big jump — much though we might like it — in the amount of public money provided per capita. That is not at all likely. The imperative is, and no doubt always will be, one of a careful stewardship of our resources. I support the motion.

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

I thank the Minister for his in-depth examination of the Supply resolution. We were very glad of his grasp of the financial situation, because at times it seemed quite expansive to me. The Committee welcomes the additional allocations in the Budget this year in respect of libraries, health and safety in sports grounds, the languages body and improved access to, and participation in, the arts by young people and those who are most disadvantaged in the community. As we have pointed out already, the Department’s total allocation is modest compared to its assessment of its need for this year.

The Committee hopes that the Department will fare better in 2002-03. We, like all other Committees, have aspirations in that regard, although we have not yet been informed of what those needs are.

We were also glad that the Executive programme funds provided much-needed resources — totalling £7 million over three years — in critical areas, including some that we have pushed very strongly for. One example is the £400,000 to be spent this year on beginning the process of buying out the commercial fishing nets around the Northern Ireland coastline. As I have said before in the House, the impact of this measure in arresting the decline in the North Atlantic salmon population in our rivers will be enormous.

There is also £300,000 additional expenditure to begin work on the vital and imaginative Northern Ireland electronic libraries project.

Our Committee has expressed its concern to the Department that following negotiations nothing was included for the safety improvements of existing motorcycle road racing facilities. Again, I take the opportunity on behalf of the Committee to remind the House and the Minister of Finance about this issue, which has been the subject of much debate in the Committee, the Department and the community. It is an issue requiring urgent attention, and it is one in which small amounts of funding could go a very long way.

The Committee is also concerned that the current year’s funding for the arts is so low. The Minister referred to it as an improvement in expenditure. For a couple of months, we have been taking oral evidence in our inquiry into cultural tourism and the arts, and it is clear that this area is very poorly funded despite the tremendous potential and talent that exists in all aspects of the arts in Northern Ireland. I am amazed that there are so many enthusiastic and committed people in the arts. With a small nudge in the right direction, that potential could achieve a tremendous amount for the whole community and could help to create sustainability.

The closure of the Navan Centre has very seriously concerned the Committee, and it would be remiss of me not to mention it. The main reason given was resource problems. The Committee has asked for a meeting with the Minister to go through the detail of the situation, and I do not want to pre-empt that. However, this is as good an opportunity as any to make a point on behalf of the Committee. A pre-emptive move such as this closure, without a proper examination — at least, as far as we are aware there was no proper examination — of the circumstances that led to that decision seems to have been very hasty indeed. It came towards the end of the foot-and mouth disease crisis, when one might have hoped to see an upturn in visitor figures. Considering the importance of that facility for Northern Ireland, the whole island, and internationally, it is a very abrupt way of dealing with a situation.

As we all know, once something is closed it can be very difficult to get it up and running again. Is there any possibility that the Minister of Finance might have an idea of how to handle this type of crisis with support until such times as a proper publicly accountable examination can be carried out to ensure that such decisions are not too hasty?

The Committee also shares the view of the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee and other Chairpersons that finding adequate time for consultation is problematic. I recognise that time laid aside for consultation can be freely interfered with by events such as elections. I applaud the Minister on his clear attempt to improve on last year’s timescale. As we should also continue to look at ways in which we could make the timescale even better, I am glad that the Minister announced that intention earlier.

In general, the Committee welcomes and supports this stage of the Supply resolution.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I want to focus on the shortfall that will affect the road system and the education system in my constituency and on its periphery, despite the proposed increase that the Minister spoke of.

Many of us in the Ards borough and on the Ards Peninsula sat by while road improvements took place elsewhere. That must be proactively addressed. It is all very well for people to say that the Minister for Regional Development can do that. On the contrary, he can only do so if he is given the funding. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s statement estimated that the increase for the Department for Regional Development should amount to 2·58%. Obviously that is of great concern to us, because that 2·58% could be used in the Strangford constituency alone.

Our roads have continued to deteriorate and are now in the worst condition seen for many decades. Last winter saw the Ards borough road network in especially bad straits. While some improvement work has been done, the number of serious potholes in the area has highlighted the need for more attention. It is clear to any regular car user that the deterioration of the roads is ever-increasing, to the extent that drivers may be unable to control their vehicles.

The Roads Service has a number of appointees whose duty it is to locate and mark parts of the roads which need to be repaired. A great deal of the deterioration appears to have been missed. The Department seems to be playing catch-up with the amount of repairs that are needed to the roads in my area. This must be addressed.

In addition, the Roads Service was allocated only about half the amount needed to maintain the road network. Divisional road managers in the service are currently preparing proposed road maintenance programmes for 2001–02. They will inform councils about that programme at the end of June. The Roads Service advised me that the focus will be on the structural maintenance of the road network through carriageway resurfacing and surface dressing, along with the repair and augmentation of the road drainage system.

Will there be adequate funding for the Roads Service’s proposals? My constituents and I are worried that we will again find that the roads in the Ards borough and the Strangford constituency fall far behind those in other parts of the Province. My Colleague Mr Gibson always tells us that the roads in west Tyrone are the worst, but if he comes to the Ards Peninsula he will see what bad roads are.

As a result of the inability to cope with repairs, the Department for Regional Development hears a litany of compensation claims. Over the past months, an increasing number of my constituents in Strangford have come to the advice centre in Frances Street with complaints about the state of the roads, the damage caused to vehicles by poor road conditions and the length of time they must wait to obtain compensation.

Some have been waiting for more than six months for compensation claims to be properly processed despite the fact that the average waiting time is five and a half months. There is something seriously wrong if the claims can not be processed on time. Changes need to be made as soon as possible to make the system more efficient so that the Department can give the public a satisfactory level of service.

Our roads are disintegrating as a result of gross underfunding, and the number of claims for compensation reflects the dire nature of the situation. In 1999-00, 1,702 compensation claims were submitted in the area that I represent. In 2000-01, 2,094 claims were submitted which is a rise of almost a quarter.

Mr McCoubrey of the Roads Service stated that

"Roads are the backbone of Northern Ireland’s social and economic life".

In spite of this, his Department, because of its lack of funding, has been unable to grasp the nettle. We are desperately seeking to attract business and employment to the area, but I am sure that the poor condition of the roads has been a major factor in the failure by interested parties to secure investment. We need to ask why people who have come to our constituency with a view to developing factories or businesses there have not stayed.

I have lobbied the Department on several occasions, and I will continue to do so. However, Members, and Mr Durkan in particular, must add their voices to the list of concerned parties. Perhaps Mr Durkan can release the necessary funding. The situation is wholly unacceptable. After ten years of lobbying, the main route between Portavogie and Ballyhalbert has finally been upgraded. Such delay is unwarranted, and the state of disrepair is unparalleled. That message must be made very clear.

The situation is such that the Department’s commitment to providing and maintaining a satisfactory road network and its compensation procedures must be questioned. We must ask why there has been such underfunding of roads that their deterioration is increasing the number of compensation claims. The Minister for Regional Development has assured me that he will be pressing for further funding. However, beyond the 2·58% increase, what funding can the Minister allocate to our area?

I will highlight areas in my constituency where there is insufficient funding for education. The education budget has been increased by 9·7%, and this is to be welcomed, but will any of that money be spent on the people that I represent? In the mid-Down area, which includes part of the area Mr ONeill represents, most people, especially those with children who are approaching secondary school age, are aware of the difficulty in obtaining school places. They are also aware of the public pressure for the reopening of Killyleagh High School.

The cases of pupils who were refused admission to Saintfield High School have been well documented by the media. As a result of the fundamental problem of insufficient places, weaknesses have filtered through all aspects of the transfer procedure. As a result the criteria used in the area, and especially in Saintfield, to allocate places have become inefficient and profoundly unfair. In other areas there are no such problems, and criteria can be used successfully without alienating or offending anyone. In Saintfield, however, the use of the same criteria over the past few years has resulted in prejudice against some local children.

Four years ago the annual intake to Saintfield High School was cut from 90 to just over 60. Given that the aim is to address the competition for school places, it would have been wiser to increase the percentage of local pupils who attend the local high school. Unfortunately, a situation has arisen whereby children who have family ties with the school travel from Belfast, Comber and Downpatrick, while some children from Saintfield are turned away.

Flexibility is needed to deal with the problems, and finance must be put in the right pockets to ensure that these issues are addressed. To date, the criteria have been applied so rigidly that pupils’ education is being put in jeopardy. The heart of the problem lies with the closure of schools in the area, and until this is addressed a system is needed to accommodate local pupils, because they deserve better. Without such action the problems can only get worse.

If the people of Newtownards and district are not to be exposed to the same crisis in secondary education as we have witnessed in mid-Down, it is essential that Scrabo High School be retained. There is already competition for places at Movilla High School and Regent House Grammar School in the area, and it is clear that within the next five to ten years the problems concerning secondary education places in Newtownards will continue to grow. We witnessed the same short-sightedness on the part of the board towards Killyleagh High School, when education standards were not maintained so that a few pennies could be saved.

The situation in mid-Down has now reached crisis point, with so few secondary places available that students are forced to travel to either Downpatrick or Comber to receive their education. At least we still have the option of reopening Killyleagh High School. To continue with the sale of Scrabo High School is utter lunacy. It may save a few pounds in the short term, but it will cause pain and anxiety for many local parents in the not-too-distant future.

In the same vein, special schools throughout Northern Ireland require increased funding if they are to meet their current demands. There are real shortfalls in special needs education for children in the Ards area. A wee bit more funding for Killard House Special School would be sufficient to bring in another class and ensure that the special educational needs of the children in the area are addressed. That can only happen if the funding is there. That 9·7% of the education budget must go where the need is. There is a need for secondary education in the Ards Borough Council area. There is a need in Strangford, and we should examine that.

The plight of the non-maintained sector has been directly precipitated by the openly prejudiced behaviour of the Minister in command of the Education Department in ignoring the needs and the requirements of the state sector, preferring instead to give priority to the maintained and integrated sectors. I fear that the crisis in education will continue until he is removed from office.

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

It is very important that we are discussing and approving this Supply resolution today, because only a few years ago this scene would have been unimaginable. We are working together across all parties — and I stress all parties — on issues that unite rather than divide us.

We know that the resources we get from the Treasury are not sufficient to meet the needs of our society, and so does the wider public. We also know that the rates are one of the few sources of funds for health, education, roads and the other services so badly needed by our people. We all hate the rates but we should realise how much we actually need them, because this is real politics. What can we do when our only way of raising revenue is through the rates? We can pretend, score political points and ignore the reality, or we can accept that however unpalatable it may be, we need them.

We also need to develop other areas of funding and efficiency so that we can reduce our dependence on the rates. It is important that we approve the Supply resolution, but it is also immensely important that we support and approve the action of our Finance Minister. He does a difficult and complex job fairly and professionally. Even his sternest critics would commend his professionalism on these issues.

However, it is insufficient to merely congratulate from these Benches. All of us in this Assembly, in the Committees and in the Executive must work ceaselessly in pursuit of the goals of the community. We need to increase the resources available for allocation to meet the needs of our people. Therefore we should be watchful of expenditures that do not meet the priorities that we know exist. We must continually question the use of resources in every Department and ask whether such usage represents value for money. We must strive to find innovative ways of funding our services, not just through the private finance initiative or public-private partnership, but also through using not-for-profit organisations to deliver services in a way that ensures professionalism and, at the same time, derives other benefits in terms of secondary goals.

We must ensure that our public procurement is used in ways that not only satisfy a need but also, where possible, liberate opportunity for the people and the economy. There are many ways in which we can wage war on need, utilising resources more efficiently and effectively, and thereby maximising the return to our people. We need to explore these, no matter how small. We can be rightly proud and happy with this Budget and the increases achieved, but we cannot be complacent or rest on this success. We must build and innovate, develop and continuously improve our activities. We need to get behind Mark Durkan, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and support and encourage his efforts as he leads this Administration’s effort to secure more resources, both from the Treasury and through actions internal to Government.

I support the Supply resolution and ask this House to do the same. To build the resource base for the future society needs this approach, and the people demand it.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

One Member has withdrawn, leaving only three others to speak. Minister, how long will you require for winding up?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not know yet.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

We can continue until 6 o’clock, but we must finish then and resume the debate tomorrow. However, we have 45 minutes remaining, and it is possible we might finish it now.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Mr Deputy Speaker, can I assure you, the Minister and the House that I will be extremely brief.

I have to agree with much of what Patricia Lewsley had to say. We cannot ignore reality. I doubt there is anybody in this House who does not enjoy the opportunity that the Assembly has afforded us to look at and control our own Budget. It is a great pity that we all know we are facing a threat to the continuation of this. I appeal to those who pose that main threat to this institution to do what is expected of them in the agreement — to start the process of decommissioning of weapons and allow us to continue here with proper government for Northern Ireland.

I would like to say to Mr Shannon that I am in total agreement with his Colleague Mr Gibson. In the west Tyrone area we do have the worst roads in Northern Ireland.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I was under the impression that he has not spoken yet — perhaps I am wrong.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I am talking about previous addresses to the Assembly. We are totally together, and I believe we were called "Team West Tyrone" earlier in the Chamber.

There is a threat to the roads network throughout Northern Ireland. A danger may exist in the future strategy of concentrating on the main transportation corridors, and the rural network could suffer through that. Like Mr Shannon, I appeal for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to ensure that the regional development budget is sufficient to ensure that the total transport infrastructure is dealt with in a proper way. It should not be allowed to constantly go down, down and down to the point of becoming unreasonable.

I am seeking clarification from the Minister on the subject of European funds, which he mentioned with regard to one or two Departments. Indeed, in respect of his own Department he mentioned a sum of money that struck me as being laid aside as pump-priming. What additional funding does the Minister expect to come through that he will have to deal with? Also, can he assure Members and clarify to the House that the Assembly would be dealing with additional funding available to it from Europe, as opposed to the previous situation?

I said I would be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr Hussey, you are a man of your word.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

What the Minister of Finance and Personnel has announced today is fine detail. That is important and good for us all. Usually when the Minister announces a Budget, we get a run around west Tyrone roads.

One point concerns the maintenance of roads. There is no doubt that if we cannot maintain existing roads, we will find it more and more difficult to raise capital money for new schemes. The Department for Regional Development sees roads maintenance as a priority, because defects are increasing every year, and there is no money to repair them. How are we going to address that problem?

The Department has asked for additional funding of about £40 million to address this. We also have to raise the matter of the Roads Service’s capital budget with the Minister, because that concerns us deeply, not only in the west of the Province, but across Northern Ireland. That capital budget causes great concern. Officials tell those of us who managed to get re-elected to councils what they have to spend in our areas, whether for maintenance, capital schemes or whatever. Meetings between officials and councillors in all the 26 district councils are usually fairly lively.

Councillors ask whether the situation has improved since the setting up of the Assembly, and the public assumes that, because we now have an Assembly here, we have more money to spend and it should not be a problem for Mr Durkan to get a few million pounds if he needs them. Members of the public do not understand why we do not have extra money. To get the necessary money to deal with priorities is as difficult for the Minister of Finance as it is for any Minister. Irrespective of how the Minister of Finance announces extra money, he is criticised, because some of us will say that it is still not enough, and no matter how much money we get from the block grant, it will never be enough to address some of the serious issues that concern us, whether they be health, education, or the Department for Regional Development.

We will never have enough money to address the needs that must be looked at. We must look at other ways of raising money. That is where the difficulty arises. However, there are other models and methods that have to be considered.

Some of us who sit on the Regional Development Committee know the serious situation that the Water Service is in. Some of the issues that it has raised with Committee members would make your hair stand on end. We have heard about our sewerage system and water treatment system, and we are trying to find out exactly how to move things forward. We were simply told that there must be massive investment in those two areas in the Department for Regional Development. It could take five years, 10 years, or even longer, to reach the point where we have a modern system — whether it is a roads system or a water system.

EU regulations are driving forward the issue of the water system. We are having to try to keep abreast of regulations that change year after year, and it is costing the Department a huge amount of money to do that. I want to know how the Minister plans to raise the extra money needed if we are going to resolve some of the Northern Ireland’s serious problems.

All Departments need money — each needs a large amount of money to address the serious issues that are concerning us in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, each time the Minister announces the Budget, or extra resources, it is only a small drop into what is really needed by every Department. The public perceives that the Assembly can address some of these problems very quickly. We know that some of the issues could take many years to address across every Department.

It is important that we try to come up with new ideas on how we can raise the necessary finances to address our problems. The public will not wait five or 10 years for the problems in health and hospital waiting lists to be dealt with. They will not wait much longer for problems in the transportation network to be addressed.

I heard Mr Hussey talking about transportation networks. There is no network in west Tyrone or throughout the west of the Province — an area starved of resources for many years. We could spend all day debating why that happened, but, as someone from the west, and who has represented the west of the Province for 20 years, I can say that the resources have not been there. They have not been there for a long time. The west of the Province comes from a lower base — it always has done.

When I see the road networks in other parts of the Province and come back to the west I ask myself "Where did it go wrong?" The problem has existed for about 30 years. I have no doubt about that. I remember when Roads Service officials came to council. There were occasions when we did not meet them at all. We did not even allow them to open the book, because we were so fed up with them continually telling us that there was no money for any capital schemes and that there would be no money for the next five to 10 years. I remember that we closed one council meeting after five minutes because there was no point in listening to them — they had nothing new to tell us since the previous year.

That is how bad it was. Things are slightly better now, because they understand the concerns of the west of the Province, but we could be debating the same issue in two or three years’ time and still have no real resources to show for it.

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

I congratulate the Minister on the presentation of the Estimates, and I welcome the increase in the funding for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, there would be something wrong if, as elected representatives, we did not seek a little more.

What percentage of the estimated £223 million will make its way directly to the farming community? I hope that that is not an unreasonable question. I would also like to say, following on from what the Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee said, that it is my party’s view that an early retirement scheme would be beneficial to the industry. Such a scheme, combined with a newcomer scheme, would have been welcome, but we may, regrettably, have to wait for at least another year. I hope that the Minister will take note for next year and put that near the top of his agenda. The Minister has earmarked £8·6 million for rural development. That amount will not create the desired vibrancy in rural areas. Therefore it is important that as much of that sum as possible reaches the people.

I acknowledge the efforts made by the Minister to help the agriculture industry, and I congratulate him on the Estimates. No doubt, he has burned the midnight oil in preparing the paper. Will he give an assurance that the spending of the £223 million will be closely monitored to ensure that every available penny reaches the farming community?

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I come at the Budget speech today from a somewhat different angle. I was hopeful about the Budget; it is our first real attempt to assess our needs.

I want to put the case for the west of the Province. We have suffered a serious battering from bomb and bullet that has torn our social infrastructure apart. The Orange halls that were once community centres for the rural Protestant population have been neglected because of intimidation and other forms of discrimination. The halls are in a state ranging from good to very basic, but they are still part of the social infrastructure. If that community is to re-emerge as an active part of the west Tyrone community, it must be helped to develop and renew its social infrastructure.

Removing the rates from Orange halls would involve little effort, but it would help. Parochial halls, church halls and community halls are not rated, but they serve the same purposes as small rural Orange halls. The Orange halls are social centres for the local Protestant community but must pay rates. The cost of one cross-border conference would cover it. The Minister should consider that only a minor change to the legislation would be needed and that only a small amount of money would be lost by removing the rates. That would be a start to rebuilding the Protestant community’s infrastructure and would encourage those people to recommence active social life.

I also suggest that in the whole budgetary allowance, greater consideration should be given to victims. I am not talking just about the Omagh bomb. I am talking about the 97 people who were murdered in my constituency before the Omagh bomb. These are the people who, over 30 years, have suffered deep-seated physical, psychological and mental disabilities. Homes have been decimated. I would have thought that we would have shown reconciliation in this Budget by demonstrating that there was going to be a willingness and a helpfulness to the community that has suffered so much.

I am appealing today to the Minister to take on board those very human aspects of healing and reconciling those in the west of the Province who have suffered because of their remoteness and their religious affiliation. Their social infrastructure has to be activated and redeveloped to bring it up to modern needs and requirements.

I agree with William Hay that it did not matter how much the Minister announced. I thoroughly congratulate the Minister on presenting this Budget, with the increases therein. But let me take you to seven of my constituents who are waiting for heart bypasses — those operations that cast gloom over a family. Take a farmer who has been told some weeks ago that his condition is such that they will not allow him out of hospital. Priorities come into play. Finance comes into play. The man is sent home, and he is still at home, waiting for a call. It is to be hoped that he will get someone who has either dropped out of the queue, or who has died while still on the waiting list.

That is the reality of our provision at this time. I can think of seven others in my constituency about whom I have written to the Department of Health, asking that special consideration be given to them. They are the breadwinners of their families, with the whole family waiting in fear, trembling and desperation.

Budgetary consent is something that has to be examined. Where are our priorities? I think of those who are waiting for hip replacements and those who are struggling to get money to go into the private sector to be relieved of the serious agony of a hip joint replacement. I am told that there is a marketplace that ranges from £6,000 in the Royal Victoria Hospital to £2,000 in Letterkenny. There is something seriously wrong with our system when people are forced, despite having paid every required contribution to the Health Service, to go to their own private financial resources. This Budget does need examination.

I will move on to the area of rural proofing, which we were assured would take place. This Budget has not indicated how we are going to rural proof. How do you rural proof to give equality of opportunity to the people of my constituency as well as those who live in the more wealthy, opulent Strangford area? This Budget has to take consideration of Government policy statements. If the Government statements do not measure up — [Interruption].

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

It was the voice from Strangford.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

The voice from Strangford was just trying to compete with me.

The roads issue has already been very well dealt with, but I want to make another plea, because the Minister and the finance people have been good — [Interruption].

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I must insist that this does not happen again.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I also insist that it be switched off, because I am speaking.

We have £20 million for the A5, but we have the worse problem of getting to the A5 on class B roads. Our roads are outworn. I am sure that the Minister is fed up hearing this from west Tyrone and the west of the Province, but the roads are rugged and outworn.

Yesterday evening I went to look at Oldcastle Road outside Newtownstewart. The last time I was on it, it was like a road into a quarry. The best they could do was darn the road, but the road has often been darned. I could take Members through Omagh and along the Hospital Road and the Derry Road, two arterial routes through the largest town in the west of the Province — but they are like test tracks for a Sherman tank. The surface has been rutted, relaid and re-piped — everything has been done to it. Driving on it now is like spending an hour on the bumper cars at Bundoran.

Serious consideration needs to be given to us. We do not have railways or airports; we have only one infrastructure —a roads system, and it is a terrible one. The question has been asked "Is it worn beyond repair?". It is now becoming an argument about value for money. A little repair over many years would have prevented the massive capital input that is now needed to bring the roads up to standard. Even if the Minister were to pour in millions of pounds per year, the contractors would probably be working and charging double the price because they could not keep up with the amount of work that needs to be done.

We have a desperate problem and, as my Colleague William Hay has suggested, alternative forms of financing our infrastructure must be sought and found, because we cannot go on living in a state of desperation. There is supposed to be a normal standard, but our roads are abnormal.

Finally — and I know that our time is nearly up — I want to deal with education and rural proofing. Rural schools are still a central part of our community, and there is always a push for rationalisation and great concern about viable numbers. However, other countries like Belgium and Holland have proved that you do not need to have such equations of numbers. They deliver a very good education system — in fact, one that is suspected to be better than ours at primary level — yet they can retain a rural school infrastructure. By clustering the resources and combining a number of other qualities of the provision of teaching staff, rural schools can be retained. However, no research has been done on that, and there is no indication in the Estimates that any research money is going to be put into that area.

If the Assembly is serious about the Budget proposals, there are areas of concern that need to be given priority. I appeal to the Minister to prioritise in order to solve some of the desperate rural problems.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The sitting must finish at 6.00 pm. Does that give the Minister sufficient time to give the House a sketchy version of his winding-up speech? If not, the House will adjourn until tomorrow.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Orders state that the sitting can carry on until 6.00 pm. If the Minister is not finished his winding-up speech by then, he can do so tomorrow.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will endeavour to respond to the debate, and I hope that I will not need much time tomorrow. When I opened the debate I was looking forward to a responsible discussion of the Supply resolution, and that has been achieved. The contributions have ranged widely, although not as widely as some previous contributions have, and Members’ points have been made clearly and forcefully. I have noted each of the points, and if I am not able to address them all, I will follow them up and reflect further.

The motion before the House is the basis upon which the legislature, in the form of the Assembly, authorises the spending of Departments, the Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and other bodies to enable them to carry out their functions. That is one of the Assembly’s most fundamental responsibilities. It involves the authorisation of expenditure and, importantly, it holds Departments to account as they seek to deliver on their Programme for Government priorities. I accept that time is limited, so if I leave out some significant challenges that have been made to me, it will have been conveniently so.

Mr Molloy, Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, raised some questions about the Budget consultation — and I appreciate that Mr Molloy had to leave the House to attend a council annual general meeting at 7.00 pm. The Executive are committed to providing Committees with a constructive role in the development of the Budget for 2002-03. That is reflected in the proposals that have been set out for the Budget timetable, which I presented in a previous statement.

The Department has tried to deliver on the main aim as set out by the Committee for Finance and Personnel last year. It had concerns about the time available to consider the Budget, and we were keen to ensure that we would be able to take the Budget as soon as possible after the summer recess. To facilitate that, the Department of Finance and Personnel has today made the position reports available to the Committee Chairpersons, through the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Those reports will not only inform the Chairpersons of the Executive’s consideration of the work in relation to the Programme for Government but also of the work relating to the draft Budget.

I assure the House, and particularly the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, that those position reports were only made available to Ministers in the middle of last week. Therefore, there has been no question of trying to pre-cook things separately through the Executive in ways that deny Committees anything.

The position reports that were made available to Committees today reflect the same information that went to the Ministers last week — bids for next year, for instance. Therefore information is not being withheld from Members in the way that has been suggested. Members will be able to discuss further issues relating to the future process when I make a pre-Budget statement tomorrow, after which they will be free to ask questions about next year’s Budget, and also as the Department takes forward the work with the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

Many of the points raised have involved people seeking increases in various budget lines and emphasising the needs of particular sectors or particular localities. Many of those issues will be more pertinent to the consideration of next year’s Budget, and the possible adjustments to the Programme for Government, than to the Supply resolution or the Budget Bill per se.

I remind Members that we are dealing with the second instalment — the major and final instalment — of the Budget for this year. The figures that are being referred to today, and the Estimates that were laid in the Assembly on 11 June, are figures that derive from the Budget. I have explained why some of the figures are not in exact accord with the Budget because of the nature of the Estimates in changing over to resource accounting and budgeting. Dr Paisley reflected on that in a point that arose in exchanges between his Committee and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Members have raised a number of questions. Mr Shannon, Mr Hay, Mr Hussey and Mr Gibson all raised issues about the roads budget. Some of the questions were about roads in particular localities, such as the Ards Peninsula, west Tyrone and the western area in general. I want to emphasise that the Budget that we adopted did commit new resources to roads. It also committed new resources to other significant areas of the Department for Regional Development’s programme.

We are conscious of the historic underfunding that there has been in relation to infrastructure. The moneys that we made available in the Budget were further supplemented by allocations from the Executive programme funds and infrastructure fund.

In some areas, people are pressing for further attention to be given to maintenance and capital investment in roads. Those will be relevant issues for people to pursue and take up in the context of the preparatory work for next year’s Budget and the Programme for Government. If Members have particular concerns about the relative priorities within the existing roads budget, those can be taken up with the Minister and the Department for Regional Development, as prioritisation within the budget falls to that Department.

I would like to make a similar point in relation to some of the questions that were raised about education. Members have emphasised the importance of ensuring adequate resources for schools. The Executive, the Minister of Education and I have made it clear that we want to make sure that we improve our school stock and the performance of our schools. We want to do that with proper investment, both in the education programme and in the schools capital programme. We have shown that in the previous Budget, again supplemented by the allocations from the Executive programme funds.

I stress to Members that I have noted the insinuation that there is some discrimination being practised either by the Executive or by the Minister of Education in relation to the schools’ budget. I reject any such insinuation. If Members believe that any measure being pursued on behalf of this Assembly by any Department raises issues in relation to equality considerations, there are procedures that can be invoked on that. No one has ever invoked any of those procedures. People have traded on all sorts of insinuations. I stated in the House previously, when this question arose in the context of the Executive programme funds, that allocations are made on the basis of educational need.

The readiness of projects can also be relevant when it comes to spending money. It would not make sense to allocate money to projects not ready to make use of it. The information shows that the allocations are being made fairly and properly.

The question was asked as to what proportion of the agriculture spend will go to farmers. A significant proportion of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Estimate will benefit farmers directly. In "Resources, Grants", £170 million is for subsidy payments direct to farmers under the common agriculture policy. Additionally, there is an allocation of £14 million for agrienvironment schemes. In "Resources, Other Current", there is an allocation of £12 million for animal disease compensation. A substantial proportion of the "Resources, Administration" total of £117 million reflects the cost of departmental staff carrying out essential work for the operation of the industry. This includes statutory and regulatory inspections and testing, the reduction of animal disease levels, ensuring access to EU funds and high-quality education and advice.

Dr Birnie raised a number of concerns within the context of a broad welcome for our ability to conduct our Budget business in this way. I reassure Dr Birnie that the Executive do appreciate the significance that many Members — particularly the members of his Committee — attach to improving our performance in relation to basic adult skills, especially numeracy and literacy. We have been able to make some moves in that direction, not least in the context of the Executive programme funds. As regards further improvements, I refer Dr Birnie to the preparatory work in the context of next year’s Budget and Programme for Government.

Ms Lewsley stressed the need for us to look at efficiency, not just at the money that is becoming available for the Budget. Committees in particular — and the Assembly in general — need to make sure that we are not just watching the bids but overseeing the spending in a sound and proper way. Ms Lewsley referred to the fact that we have to try to find additional means to supplement our expenditure and ways of improving delivery in order to release other resources. The same point was made by Mr Hay when he emphasised the need to add to the scope that we have for improving the levels of money available for public services and for important capital programmes. Mr Hay and Mr Gibson welcomed the increases available in this Budget. I also welcome those increases, and that is why I have always voted for this Budget. However, some people who have welcomed the increases that are reflected in today’s motion have not always voted for the Budget the whole way down the line.

When looking at areas of additional resources there is no simple solution. We cannot take an "over the rainbow" approach to the question of the Barnett formula. Dr Birnie’s cautious words were correct in that we face difficult issues in relation to the Barnett formula. We do have some hard questions to put to the Treasury, but hard questions will also be put to us, and not just by the Treasury but by a range of other regional and national interests.

We must not believe that there is a magic bullet out there as far as the Barnett formula or finding additional moneys are concerned. Some of the ideas being suggested as magic bullets, such as the setting up of some type of bond, would not be easy to implement, because Treasury rules would count those as spending, and they would be scored against the departmental expenditure limits. It would not give us any additional public spending.

The time has beaten me. I hope that I have responded to most of the issues raised by Members. Any individual points not addressed in my general response will be followed up directly or will be brought to the attention of the Minister concerned.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I have looked up the Standing Order, and as long as I am on my feet, calling for a Division, we can go on for a few minutes after 6.00 pm. I must remind everyone that the Supply resolution motion is subject to section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This means that it has to be agreed on a cross-community basis. When I put the question, both sides of the Chamber should reply.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £4,679,167,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 and that resources, not exceeding £5,021,262,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3(a) and 3(b) of Table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2001-02 that was laid before the Assembly on 11 June 2001.

Adjourned at 6.01 pm.