Northern Ireland Assembly, 19 June 2001
61 contributions from 24 members. The official report.
Pre-Budget Statement
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on issues affecting budgetary planning and preparation for the financial year 2002-03.
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have already outlined the considerations that affect our approach to the preparation of Programme for Government proposals for 2002-03 in their letter to the Chairpersons of the Assembly Committees. The position report attached to their letter is the joint responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel. I shall complement what they say by covering the financial considerations in some more detail and emphasising some of the main points that will affect our public expenditure planning for the next year.
In the letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, especially the attached position report, and in this statement, the Executive seek to provide a basis for the Assembly’s consideration of the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2002-03. I particularly want to emphasise that our scrutiny needs to cover the full range of policy areas and actions in the public service. We must look at what is provided from the expenditure for which we are responsible. That means that our focus cannot be solely, or even mainly, on the bids that Departments have lodged for additional resources. We must look at the outputs that are being obtained to be sure that they are the best way to fulfil the Department’s objectives.
We need indicators of how Departments’ plans are progressing. We need a public service planning process, not an exercise in tallying up bids for more.
I emphasise that the development of priorities and actions in the Programme for Government must be the guide to our work on financial allocations. We need to avoid being drawn to focus mainly on financial pressures. We can ensure that we make a difference if we focus on our policy objectives and priorities. Those are set out in the Programme for Government section of the position report. I encourage all Committees and Members to take the opportunity to respond to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on that aspect of the work. The Programme for Government must guide the Budget, and shape our programmes and actions to emphasise the devolution difference.
Our approach this year to financial issues reflects the fact that this cycle is transitional between two Treasury spending reviews. Spending review 2000 gave us substantial increased expenditure as a consequence of the major increases announced by the Chancellor last July. Next year, the spending review 2002 will see the completion of the transition to resource accounting and budgeting with, for the first time, a need to take direct account of non-cash items in the spending plans. That will have profound and important consequences for us well above the level of technical financial analysis. In the longer term it could affect our spending power quite significantly.
At this stage of the cycle the total resources available to the Executive are fixed. Following last year’s spending review, and after the addition of £18 million a year in the Chancellor’s March Budget, we have a departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for 2002-03 of £6,091 million. That is an increase of 5·8% over the current year. The statement and the position report concentrate mainly on the expenditure in the DEL. However, the Budget will also include coverage of the main aspects of spending, which are treated as annually managed expenditure (AME).
We have not yet allocated the £18 million that was added to our DEL in March 2001. That represents a small amount of unallocated resource. Therefore we are in a very different context by comparison with the situation during last year’s spending review. Last year’s addition to our provision for 2002-03 through the Barnett formula was £580 million. A large proportion of that was required to fund ongoing services. We also held some of it back to create the Executive programme funds, which are now progressing well. However, we did not keep a general contingency reserve.
As Members are aware, there is a pattern of changes in departmental estimating. Therefore, resources tend to become available for reallocation through our monitoring system. In that context, holding unallocated provision has not been necessary and may have been unhelpful.
I emphasise that there is fast growth in our spending trends at present. As a consequence of the decisions announced by the Chancellor last year, the growth rate of spending here is as rapid, in real terms, as at any time in recent years, and it is in considerable contrast to the pattern for most of the 1990s. In that respect the context is favourable. Although we dislike the fact that the Barnett formula does not give us as high a rate of growth as that available for comparable services in England, we have still gained substantial increases in real spending power.
This is not an appropriate time for substantial discussion or analysis of the Barnett formula. However, I shall comment briefly on that important subject. We can establish that Barnett causes us difficulties on major services such as health and education, where the growth of spending has been rapid and where our needs are significant.
I have said before that we must not underestimate the great difficulty of making progress on improving the Barnett formula. We have to face the fact that our spending is high. On some services, as a result of historic patterns and post priorities, it is very high compared with that in England, Scotland and Wales. There are also profound differences in the amounts that are raised locally through the rates and in the funding of water and sewerage services. From an English point of view, we are regarded as very well funded. While we have a case to make, especially over capital assets and the future treatment of the Barnett formula under resource accounting and budgeting, we have to face the fact that making that case on Barnett will be difficult. It certainly will not lead to rapid change, and for the foreseeable future we shall have to work within the totals fixed by the current approach.
Against that background, the position report sent to Members highlights issues to be addressed as we develop the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2002-03. The Executive are determined to make a difference through the services and policies for which we are responsible. We want to take the opportunities to break away from approaches that are no longer effective and relevant to the Northern Ireland’s best interests.
Spending pressures are, not surprisingly, intensified, despite the relatively favourable conditions presented by a rising trend in real spending terms, and there are significant backlogs of investment and great demands on some programmes. For that reason, we have emphasised in the position report the need to consider seriously and extensively the scope for reprioritising spending. We must focus more carefully and effectively on the Administration’s top priorities, the region’s most strategic requirements and the community’s most pressing needs.
Efficiency must be improved. Section 2 of the position report highlights a range of activities that could ensure better use of resources. We must decide how to deal with public-sector pay, which is a major driver of our spending, and explore how private-sector finance and expertise can contribute to the delivery of services.
Some spending issues highlighted by Departments must be thought about very carefully in preparation for the Executive’s Budget deliberations in September. It is important to focus on issues and not only on bids. The value of programmes should be considered rather than additional money simply being sought. We must ask "Why?" until we are satisfied or see what alternatives could be adopted. Resource accounting and budgeting should help to break old patterns and promote our priorities.
I emphasise again, however, that we work within a fixed total. There are many substantial demands on future spending power, and resources could be put to a host of useful and desirable purposes. The plain fact is that the majority of pressures will have to be absorbed through prioritisation in individual Departments’ budgets. The indicative figures set for 2002-03 in last year’s Budget can be changed at departmental level if the Executive can agree a new pattern. However, the process is about total public expenditure plans — how best to use the money we have to fulfil the Programme for Government — and not only the bids.
It is profoundly important that, as we go through the process, we remember that what is vital is what we can produce and deliver for the services for which we are responsible. All services, to one degree or another, benefit everyone, and that should influence our judgements.
All of us, whether we are Ministers, Committee Chairpersons or other Members, need to seek a combination of spending plans that can best fulfil the new institutions’ responsibilities. That means that we must look carefully at the contribution that each Department, North/South body and service can make to the wider objectives. The needs of big programmes can easily consume substantial resources. We also need to bear in mind the opportunities for benefit through other activities, while finding the balance between that consideration and the need to ensure that the resources are well spent.
We shall need to reflect that the indicative figures, as set out in December 2000’s Budget, assumed a level of revenue from the regional rate that depended on the increases that were planned at that time. Lower increases will constrain spending provision; indeed, the lower increases that were approved earlier this year for 2001-02 will have a knock-on effect. That point is drawn out in the position report, and it would be helpful if the Assembly and its Committees could address it carefully.
This is serious and difficult business. It is at the heart of the nature of our role and responsibilities as a devolved Administration. With spending rising substantially in last year’s cycle, it was possible to give relatively generous and substantial allocations to many spending programmes. The key point this year is that those allocations have continued in large measure across many programmes, as is shown in the indicative allocations for 2002-03 that were published in last year’s Budget.
This is a profound time for agriculture and rural development. The foot-and-mouth disease crisis has made it all the more important that the vision group’s work on the future of the industry addresses structural and strategic issues. Our per capita spending is high compared with that in England. That is to be expected, given the much greater significance of the agriculture sector to our economy. Much of that is driven by EU obligations on member states on matters such as animal health. We must think carefully about how the agriculture budget can best be deployed and about what changes may be necessary and appropriate.
There are new opportunities to make a difference and benefit the public through the creative application of ideas in the culture, arts and leisure sector. There are also significant spending pressures, not least from the issue of librarians’ pay.
The education sector is greatly significant for all concerned. The indicative figures do not show a sufficient uplift to cover some basic costs when compared to 2001-02. Therefore it is obvious that the indicative figures must be re-examined. Moreover, we must think carefully about the longer-term implications of the review of post- primary education. As the review body’s recommendations are not yet available, we cannot at present gauge the extent to which that issue will affect our spending plans for 2002-03. However, it must be borne in mind as we move forward.
We also want to ensure that the development of a common local management of schools (LMS) formula for all schools, which is important in the interests of equality and equity of treatment, is addressed. The education sector, like several others, faces major infrastructure issues. The Minister of Education has announced a balanced programme of conventional capital procurement and exploration of a public-private partnership approach for several important projects. Those and other issues identified in the position report must be considered seriously as we proceed.
The major developments in the enterprise, trade and investment sector that flow from strategic thinking about the future of the Northern Ireland economy are mainly for consideration in the context of the Executive programme funds. We are carefully considering the issues of infrastructure development for energy and telecommunications. We also want to look carefully at the effectiveness of spending on industrial support and industrial derating to ensure that spending on that sector is as effective as possible. That is one of our needs and effectiveness evaluations.
The main spending issues for my Department concern Government office accommodation and ensuring that the services that the Department of Finance and Personnel provides to Ministers, the Executive, the Assembly and the public are based on the best possible analysis and evidence. Alongside the Economic Policy Unit, it is important that we lead the way in improving the effectiveness of spending. Some investment in that is likely to yield worthwhile returns by improving the way spending is used. We also want to ensure that the procurement review produces results that are fully effective in pursuit of our economic and social objectives.
The 2000 Budget has provided significant resources for new student support measures to cater for the high demand for participation in post-16 and higher education. The needs and effectiveness evaluation, which is currently considering training and vocational education needs, will provide a better analysis of relative spending levels on those services.
The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has identified several spending issues. In the area of training and employment, the uptake for the preparation for work programmes and community projects has been greater than expected. In higher and further education, pressures are expected because of the need to meet higher-than-planned pay settlements for further education lecturers and non-industrial staff, and to adapt buildings to comply with disability legislation. Savings are expected, however, in the Springvale project.
The demands and pressures on the Health Service remain significant. Extensive work is being undertaken at present by nine different working groups to analyse the need for and effectiveness of health and social care spending here. We want to be able to make the best possible analytical comparisons with other countries and regions. Those will make a major contribution to the debate that we need to have on the application of the Barnett formula.
In the meantime, there are genuine pressures on the Health Service because of unmet need and rising demand, as well as the regular introduction of new and higher clinical standards. As is the case throughout the world, expectations of health services are rising significantly. The health sector is, by a considerable margin, our largest spending programme, and it is therefore all the more important that the resources available are used as effectively as possible.
Some hard choices have already been made, and we must be realistic about what efficiency gains are achievable. However, it is vital that we make use of that spending in the best possible way. I expect that the Assembly will sometimes set aside purely local considerations in order to ensure that resources are used in the best way from the point of view of the entire region. I stress that that includes equity of treatment for all parts of the region, and that calls for careful analysis of the relevant indicators so that those decisions can be taken objectively. We simply cannot afford not to do that.
The Department of the Environment received significant increased spending power in 2001-02 to make up for past underinvestment in the pursuit of environmental obligations under European Directives. That programme must continue, although again we need to ensure that available resources are used as effectively and carefully as possible. Demands have been made for grants for historic buildings, which have recently been the subject of moratoria. However, it will be as important to analyse needs and effectiveness in that sector as it is in any other as the Executive move towards public spending decisions.
The Department for Regional Development faces a range of difficult infrastructure issues. Last year, we took the first step in responding to the issues of rail safety that were highlighted in the A D Little Report following the report of the railways task force. The Executive programme fund allocations included some important new road schemes. We have confirmed the growth in spending on investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure. We have that spending rolled forward into future years so that means we cannot use that money for other spending programmes.
In England, the consumer pays directly for the investment programmes for the water and sewerage service providers. Therefore, funds cannot be read across through the Barnett formula for that sector.
We must consider what steps might be required in public transport beyond the rail safety expenditure that has already been approved. The scale of the bids received from the Department for Regional Development is described as very high; it is beyond what can be afforded through available resources for 2002-03. However, it is important that we think about those profound issues so that they can be addressed in the long term.
The Department for Social Development has registered some important issues about fuel poverty and housing that must be considered carefully. The Executive are analysing the need for and effectiveness of current spending in five areas, while giving due regard to considerations of New TSN and equality of opportunity. Housing is one of those areas.
Another key area for the Department for Social Development is the development of a new regeneration strategy for Belfast. The Department is consulting with relevant organisations and groups in the public, community, voluntary and private sectors in that regard. Among the Department’s other priorities is the welfare modernisation programme, for which significant provision was made in the last year’s Budget. The programme will secure major improvements to the social security system with the key aim of providing work for those who can work, and support for those who cannot.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has important responsibilities for the modernisation programme of the Executive’s Departments as a whole, and for that of a range of central co-ordination and secretariat functions that are vital to the operation of the new institutions. Our spending plans must reflect recognition of that, as we cannot advance the development of the agreement and the servicing of the devolved Administration without also willing the means in OFMDFM and other Departments.
Those are only a few of the issues that we must address in the forthcoming Budget round. The situation is covered much more fully in the position report. Some of the work that we shall carry out from now until December will be relevant, not just to 2002-03 but to the years ahead.
From early next year, we shall be engaged in a full-scale spending review with the Treasury, and we shall try to resolve how the Barnett formula will be applied to resource accounting and budgeting. There has been concern about the timetable for that process. In my statement of 29 May, I emphasised that there is scope for considerable discussion despite inevitable constraints on the timetables. We have asked for preliminary views to be brought to us quickly, but that is because the Assembly has asked for the Budget to be presented earlier than it was last year. We could provide longer for the initial stage of comment if the Assembly could wait until later in the autumn to have the Executive’s Budget proposals. However, that would not be the best way to proceed.
I accept that there is room for more improvement by way of pre-Budget input from Committees, but I would also like to point out that Committees are free to query their Department’s existing spending priorities or propose new ones. Neither my Department nor I wish to inhibit our Committees’ scrutiny of their respective Department’s spending, or the exercise of their policy development role.
We must also bear in mind the Executive’s key responsibilities and the need to ensure that the Programme for Government drives the Budget as it should. Together with all Departments and Committees, and in time for next year’s cycle, we need to establish arrangements that ensure full dialogue on the spending plans for all programmes and how they relate to the Programme for Government. Committees can and should be able to influence the approach that their Department is taking to the Programme for Government and Budget work.
I hope that all Committees and Members will now be able to play an important role during this cycle and as the process progresses. This is a preparatory stage, but the more important stage will begin after the Executive make specific proposals for the 2002-03 Budget in September. I hope that, as a result of the position report, and the deliberations of the weeks and months to come, everyone concerned will be well prepared by that stage and there can be constructive and positive engagement.
James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)
I thank the Minister for his detailed statement, which contained some interesting observations. I note, in particular, his comments on public sector pay, which is a major driver of our spending. Will he also be examining the overall size of the public sector — a matter about which I have tackled him before — to check whether there is capacity to reduce the overall size of this bill?
He laid considerable emphasis on the importance of finding other means of paying the bills. In particular, the Minister made it clear that there are insufficient existing resources to address the infrastructure deficit faced by the Department for Regional Development. Has he considered pursuing other means of raising revenue, such as tolling, congestion charging or water rates, to address the deficit in a timely manner? Does he agree that the tough decision-making and the potential for short-term unpopularity that such responsibility entails are not characteristics normally associated with the party responsible for that Department?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
The scale and scope of the public sector are relevant considerations in the overall review of public administration. They are also relevant to our financial planning, because we want to ensure that we are not spending money on Government activities that do not benefit our citizens. We are therefore happy to carry out the work constructively and based on policy.
We want to ensure that the Assembly and the public have a realistic understanding of the resources that we have available to fund services. Under the Barnett formula we get no money for water and sewerage, because there is no public expenditure on such infrastructure across the water. Therefore we can not be given a Barnett consequential. We must find the public expenditure needed to fund water and sewerage, and the Executive recognise that there has been historic underinvestment that needs to be remedied.
We must find the resources needed to fund this infrastructure out of funds that are essentially intended to provide other services. Our only means of supplementing the Barnett formula moneys is through the rates. The Assembly has already indicated that there are sensitivities about seeking increases in rate revenue to support our expenditure in several areas. In the context of the rating review, we have to look at alternatives while recasting the rating policy itself. We must find other ways to raise funds to support much-needed investment in services. It will be for the Department responsible for each service, rather than the Minister of Finance and Personnel, to explore the possibility of imposing charges or taxes to fund that provision.
Mr Leslie is correct to acknowledge that we must be realistic and recognise that those issues must be dealt with.
If we are not prepared to ask ourselves those questions, we shall find in any attempt to review the Barnett formula that the Treasury will be asking us those questions, perhaps in more uncomfortable terms.
Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)
I add to Mr Leslie’s welcome of the Minister’s statement. It is important that the Budget flows from the Programme for Government. Can the Minister give details as to when the needs and effectiveness reviews will be complete? If they are not ready in time for the work on this year’s Budget, will Ministers be encouraged to rigorously interrogate their Departments to ensure that wasteful bureaucracy is removed, and that the structures and quangos developed under direct rule are tested to see whether they meet the needs of Northern Ireland?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
The needs and effectiveness reviews to which Patricia Lewsley referred are an important tool to help to identify all our requirements and to ascertain the degree to which we are using our resources to best effect. The initial five reviews are under way, and we expect to see some preliminary results on relative needs soon. The work on effectiveness will necessarily take longer, but I hope that useable results will emerge to inform the Budget exercise.
The Executive expect each Department to conduct its business with the greatest possible efficiency, and the review of public administration to which we are committed will look thoroughly at opportunities for improving the delivery of public services. I emphasise that each Minister should be a value-for-money Minister. I also remind Committees, in the context of the position reports going to the Committees, that each Committee should be a value-for-money Committee. Patricia Lewsley mentioned the role of Ministers; Committees should also interrogate Departments on their spending.
Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)
Will the Minister take on board concerns and allocate significant additional funding to the Health Service, the morale and staffing levels of which seem to be at an all-time low? Moreover, will finance be made available to revitalise the rural economy following the foot-and-mouth disease crisis?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I cannot pre-empt the decisions that the Executive will take on the Budget. The fact that we are making a pre-Budget statement and making available the position report, which covers the pressures facing all Departments, means that the Assembly and its Committees have a chance to address issues such as those that Gardiner Kane has mentioned.
I accept, as I said in my statement, that there are serious pressures on the Health Service. However, there have also been significant increases in expenditure. The Executive made more money available for Health Service expenditure from the additional resources that we got from the Chancellor’s spending review than would have been the Barnett consequential for health. We therefore do recognise the priority attaching to the Health Service. We also recognise that even those significant allocations that we could make will not always enable us to keep pace with all the pressures that arise. There are technological costs and implications for services, some structural changes and the service pressures through patient and client demand.
On the rural economy, the Executive are committed to rural proofing right across their programme. In relation to support for the rural economy, we should be thinking of more than just one or two particular budget lines. We should be trying to make sure that all Departments bend and lend their programmes to ensure that the rural community is supported in every possible way. It is not a matter of getting a single turn out of a single budget.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I too thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. The Minister reiterated that this is not the time to further analyse the entire Barnett formula.
I want to make the point again that I would be more content if I were assured of the Executive’s commitment to securing the necessary changes to the Barnett formula to take into account the gross underfunding that a large number of our services have endured for many years.
Secondly, the Minister will be aware that it is important to build on the relationships between himself, the Department and the Committee. The Minister will know that Members have varying degrees of satisfaction, and perhaps even dissatisfaction, with the degree of timely consultation with, and scrutiny by, the Finance and Personnel Committee of financial matters in the Assembly.
Finally, the Minister has dealt with the need for such proper scrutiny in his speech. However, Departments must retain responsibility but that does not absolve the Committees. That is right, and I thank the Minister for pointing that out. There is a significant onus on the Department to ensure that there is proper sequencing of the deliveries throughout the financial year. The Department can and should lead the way. As I said, that does not remove responsibility from the Committees to do their job of scrutinising or coming forward with their own proposals, but the Minister and his Department are central to the Executive’s financial operation.
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I want to reply to several of Mr Maskey’s points. I welcome his continued interest in the need for us to try to challenge and change the Barnett formula. We must raise issues that relate to the Barnett formula, not only because of the implications that the ongoing taper on our expenditure increases have for some of our key service programmes, but because of the implications of resource accounting and budgeting.
We must also deal with issues to do with our capital assets in the public sector such as water, sewerage and roads. Across the water, local authorities usually deal with those issues, so they do not count, therefore, in the departmental expenditure limit (DEL), unlike here. That not only concerns the amounts made available to us through the Barnett formula, but what capital charges are counted in the ambit of the DEL. The Executive are committed to trying to pursue those questions, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are especially committed to playing a strong striker role as they represent the Administration and the region.
I acknowledge that there have been frustrations and criticisms from members of the Finance and Personnel Committee and others about the flow, cycle and availability of information at different times. With this exercise, the statement that I made on 29 May that set out an approach to timetable, the pre-Budget statement now, and the position reports sent by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to all Committee Chairpersons, we are trying to ensure that all Committees have an early input. I remind Members that the position reports that Committee Chairpersons received yesterday were received by Ministers only in the middle of last week. There has been no Executive consideration as such of those position reports, and no bids have been weeded or screened out. From the point of view of the Executive planning process, the Committees and their Chairpersons were furnished with information almost as soon as Executive members.
Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)
I thank the Minister for his statement. It is good to talk about those more strategic aspects of spending plans as early in the financial cycle as possible.
Will the Minister elaborate on two points that I found to be tantalising disclosures? The first concerned the needs and effectiveness evaluation relating to training and vocational education. This is the first occasion on which my Committee has been aware of that. I would be grateful for any further information, in particular on who will conduct that evaluation. External evaluation can achieve a more objective proofing of the standards of service delivery.
Secondly, can the Minister elaborate on
"the need to meet higher-than-planned pay settlements for further education lecturers"?
That could be good news for further education lecturers, who feel that their pay levels have decreased in comparison with pay levels for secondary teachers. What sort of pay settlement is envisaged for those staff?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I am surprised that the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment was not aware of the needs and effectiveness evaluations, and I cannot understand how that has happened.
The Executive instituted an exercise that involved five needs and effectiveness evaluations, as mentioned in my statement, and that is one of them. It has been mentioned in various communications and also in the Chamber. In future, we must ensure that any such decisions are communicated to those people who have a direct interest.
The needs and effectiveness evaluations are being done for our own purposes. This is a significant programme with a large amount of expenditure involved. It is an important area as far as the Executive’s priorities in the Programme for Government are concerned. We are also conscious that we might want to challenge — and be challenged — on some of those issues on any approach we make in relation to the Barnett formula. Like the other needs and effectiveness evaluations, it is there to assist the Executive and the region in ensuring that we have optimum public spending patterns and levels.
I want to be careful about singling out any one group on the subject of pay pressures. As well as the reference to further education lecturers, elsewhere in the statement I referred to public sector pay’s being a significant driver of our spending. I do not want to speak out of turn and imply that any one group of staff in any service is a problem, or that its pay award may lead to pressures. I hope that all Committees will note that we face significant pressures on public sector pay; the uplifts on public sector pay consume considerable amounts of our available additional resources. That means that people who need increases in services are often not getting as much as they would like.
Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and recognise that his area of work is complex and important. The Assembly understands that our needs are many and varied, and that the resources received from the Treasury are insufficient to meet them. Consequently, can the Minister advise the Assembly what action he has initiated to identify alternative sources of funding to augment the Barnett-based allocations, and what actions will his fellow Ministers take to help to get a greater return from the resources that we have?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I agree with the Member that public finances can be complex, but we must never lose focus on the essentials, which are to obtain an appropriate share of the resources available and to use them effectively to meet our needs.
The Executive have made no secret of the fact that we believe that a better needs-based mechanism to replace the Barnett formula is required. We are pursuing that goal, as I have already indicated.
The Executive are also determined to make maximum use of the existing funding opportunities. We have set up several needs and effectiveness studies in key areas in order to better inform policy-making. We have also announced a high-powered working group that will look at the scope for using public-private partnerships to help deliver public services. My Executive Colleagues have pledged their full support for those initiatives.
Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)
I note the Minister’s comments that the Minister of Education has announced a balanced programme of conventional capital procurement and exploration of public-private partnerships. I assume that Mr Durkan’s view of a balanced programme relates to public-private partnerships as opposed to spending from the public purse, and that it does not include the two-to-one ratio of spending that the Minister of Education announced for maintained and controlled schools, which discriminated against the controlled sector.
There was some confusion last year as to whether Northern Ireland would benefit from the "Prescott package". Can the Minister confirm that we are entitled to our element under the Barnett formula, given the case of the London Underground and other circumstances that prevailed in the UK? If that will be the case, can the Minister assure us that the money will stay in the public transport sector?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I addressed Mr Poots’s point about the balanced programme for education yesterday. The spending on schools’ capital is properly needs-based, whether it is announced by the Minister of Education with respect to his Department’s Budget allocation or by me on behalf of the Executive programme funds. Information on the working lists of projects awaiting investment has been furnished to Members who wished to see it. Decisions were properly needs-based.
If people are saying that we should only give equal amounts to school sectors regardless of the needs of particular schools, that could be discriminatory. We would be saying that we could not fund certain schools because they were in a particular sector, but that we would fund schools in another sector that had less need, or whose building project was less ready for funding.
I want to assure the House that there is no discrimination in those areas of spending. There are means available for Members to pursue issues for which they believe that equality implications arise. Members are not using those means but are continually reciting this criticism or allegation every time I make a statement on spending.
We received a Barnett share from the money announced in the "Prescott package". Large additions were made to road and rail in 2001-02 in the past year and in the Executive programme fund allocations. Although the money that we get through the Barnett formula derives from expenditure decisions across a range of programmes in England, we, as a devolved region, have discretion on how we should spend that money.
George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)
I too welcome the Minister’s comments. He mentioned that the agriculture sector is of much greater significance to our country than it is in England and that we need to think very carefully about how our Budget can best be deployed.
Does the Minister agree that following the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, which came hard on the heels of the BSE crisis and, effectively, a decade of collapse in agriculture, that the time is right to restructure the agriculture sector? Everybody says that that needs to be done, and I moved a motion to that effect last December. Does the Minister agree that we should take this opportunity to try to restructure the agriculture sector, including fishing?
We have come through a crisis through which no other industry has come. My Colleague mentioned the pay rises to lecturers in further education colleges. We are not talking about a pay rise; we are talking about a survival package. Something has to be done . I hope that the Minister will take that on board. Those of us on the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee pride ourselves on the fact that agriculture is, as he said earlier, a value-for-money sector.
Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)
The Member is making a speech.
George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)
I hope that I work in the department of value for money, but this has to work two ways, and we need help.
I shall ask my question and shall come to my point. I do not need any help. — [Interruption]
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
Order.
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
Mr Savage has asked a number of questions and made some salient points about the pressures and difficulties facing agriculture — and not just the pressures from the immediate fallout and impact of foot-and-mouth disease, but some of the longer-term structural challenges.
This is an area in which I want to be careful. After all, we are at preparatory stage for the Budget, and I look forward, on the basis of Mr Savage’s remarks, to the views and insights that will come from the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on those matters. The Committee will help the Executive think through how best to support the sort of changes and developments that are needed for the long-term good of agriculture.
I want to be careful about taking up his invitation to make a specific call for restructuring, wholesale restructuring or whatever. Many people in agriculture might make a benign response to a call from him phrased in those terms, but they might not make such a benign response to a similar call from the Minister of Finance and Personnel. People tend to look negatively at any strategic analysis that we offer as a threat rather than as an encouragement.
I have shared this with you before, Mr Speaker: as Minister of Finance and Personnel, I do not suffer from depression, but I am a carrier, so I will be more than happy, as will the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and Executive Colleagues, to reflect on the sort of thinking that Mr Savage is sharing with us on behalf of the Committee.
P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)
I too welcome the Minister’s statement and endorse the other comments made. Can the Minister confirm that more professional procurement can play an important role in generating value for money and helping to achieve the wider social and economic goals that will meet society’s needs?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
The procurement review implementation team, which was established in February 2001, is reviewing procurement policy and procedures with very much the purpose that Mr Bradley has referred to in mind. The findings of the initial review, which was conducted before devolution, indicated that, if we were to set similar targets to those set for Departments in Great Britain, we could achieve procurement savings of £30 million.
Such significant savings for a devolved Administration to administer and direct towards some of our spending priorities would be useful. The more efficient our procurement procedures are, the more value for money can be achieved, and, in turn, the more money can be allocated to other public service needs.
The review team has also been asked to identify the scope for using procurement to achieve local social and economic objectives. That is a fairly complex legal area, and I look forward to receiving the report from the review team.
Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)
I thank the Minister for his — [Interruption]
I suppose that one has to take as much as one gives. I welcome the Minister’s statement and the moneys set aside for the redevelopment of Belfast city. It is important that that should happen. However, does the Minister agree that there are several important provincial towns that also need investment? Some of those towns have been allowed to fall into a terrible state because of sectarian trouble, population movement or out-of-town shopping. Will the Minister assure the House that some consideration will be given to that?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
Members have an exercise that allows them the opportunity in the Chamber — and particularly in the Committees — to raise and explore issues such as that which Roger Hutchinson mentioned. Today we are allowing for pre-Budget reflection and input from the Assembly and Committees.
The position report is reflecting issues concerning the Departments, issues that they have brought to the attention of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel relating to Programme for Government planning and Budget planning.
The references made to Belfast in the context of the Department for Social Development budget are clear. If Members wish to make further representations to the Department for Social Development to apply similar attention in other towns, they are free to do so. It is not for me in any context — and certainly not in this preliminary pre-Budget context — to give definitive commitments of the nature that Mr Hutchinson has sought.
Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I agree with much of the Minister’s statement. However, my problem with previous statements was that they were vague in stating what might be spent in the next round in areas that we consider priorities, and with how we might approach that.
In Britain, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has been removed. Will that impact upon the Assembly’s views on how to prioritise spending for agriculture in our Budget? Will this perceived movement away from agriculture by the British Government impact on how the Executive might view priority spending for agriculture in the next round?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
The Executive are alert to the importance of the agriculture sector in our economy and its importance to the whole region. The implications of the changes in departmental designations in Whitehall will not make any material difference to how we set our priorities.
It is for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to determine what Departments we have and to designate their structures and titles. The move to a dedicated Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is supported by the Assembly. It is a Department that is working hard to serve the needs of its sector and one that is co-operating with the Committee.
The Executive will be as supportive and as responsive as possible to the needs and services that are represented in the work of all Departments, including the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Changes in departmental designations will not materially affect the priority that we want to see accorded to agriculture, and the type of support and intervention that we want to undertake in agriculture.
It might make some difference at representational level. It might affect how well our needs are reflected at UK level when it comes to some EU considerations. There may be some change at representational level and in the European policy-influencing area, but not in our own priorities.
Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)
I want to raise a number of issues on behalf of the Social Development Committee. First, it is important to target social need. Housing is central to that. This year we shall spend less on housing than we did last year. Next year we shall spend less again. The Housing Executive has targeted north Belfast, citing it as having the worst housing conditions in western Europe and highlighting the need for £157 million over the next eight years to tackle that. To date, the Executive have allocated £5 million, and if we continue at that rate, it will take 20 or 30 years to address that issue in north Belfast.
Secondly, there is the matter of rents. Last year’s budget was based on an increase of twice the rate of inflation for rents. I benchmark that against targeting social need (TSN). People who live in the poorest sections of society, such as Housing Executive tenants on housing benefits, had their bathroom and kitchen replacement schemes cancelled. That is another first for targeting social need.
Fuel poverty issues that were agreed by the Executive affect a small portion of society. People who are over 60 and have a small income-related pension are not entitled to the fuel poverty entitlements. Similarly, most people who are under 60 and who have severe physical disabilities and those who are under 60 and have a small family are not entitled to the fuel poverty entitlements.
Roger Hutchinson raised an issue about the regeneration of towns and cities. We are spending less this year than we did last year, and according to the Budget we shall spend less next year than we did this year.
I ask the Minister to take on board the concerns of the Social Development Committee. Unless the Executive take those issues on board and allocates sufficient funds that will tackle some of those needs, we are in for a lively Budget debate in November.
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I thank Mr Cobain for his warning and the points that he made. Our spending on housing was not reduced last year. We reversed a pattern and saw an increase in housing expenditure last year. The Executive, when budgeting for services for which charges are made, such as rents, will allocate moneys based on certain assumptions.
Those are the working assumptions on which the Executive allocates the money. I indicated at the draft Budget stage and at other points of consideration that, in relation to the Housing Executive budget, the Executive were working on the assumption of rent increases of GDP plus 2%. The Housing Executive was funded on that basis. However, it fell to the Minister and the Department to decide whether that would be the case in practice. The option to go for a lower rate increase of GDP plus 0·5% was taken, and that in turn meant that there would be less rental income and less money to spend on the housing programme. That was not the Executive’s choice; it was the choice of the Department and the Minister concerned, and was made within their budget. The Committee for Social Development is free to engage the Minister on that issue in relation to further Budget planning.
Members referred to what was or was not in the statement, and I ask them to look at the overall position report. Mr Cobain stressed that the Executive will have to take account of the needs that he referred to under the responsibilities of the Department for Social Development. I hope that all Committees will take account of the wider realities and pressures that the Executive face and the service issues that the Budget must meet. We cannot go on automatically increasing every single Budget line year on year. If we are serious about making a difference and about reprioritisation as a devolved Assembly, we must spend less on some Budget lines, either because success has been registered in meeting particular needs and overcoming problems or because there are other new needs that take greater priority. We cannot sustain increases in every single Budget line — we do not have the additional money to do that. We hope that all Committees will be realistic about that matter, as well as being assertive in the context of the services that they want to see bettered and protected.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. It has been both interesting and provocative. I note that he said that
"The scale of the bids received from the Department for Regional Development is described as very high; it is beyond what can be afforded through available resources for 2002-03."
As Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development I accept that. However, I re-emphasise that there has been a historic underfunding of the roads infrastructure, which has led to a serious deterioration in the standard of roads throughout Northern Ireland. There has also been a historic underfunding of water and sewerage, and underinvestment in public transport, and that has led to a serious situation. All three areas must be addressed, and, unfortunately, they must be addressed simultaneously. The high bids are not inflated artificially but reflect the growing need in our society for better roads, better water and better public transportation.
The Minister has rightly stated that there are profound questions on future funding for the Department for Regional Development. I ask the Minister to consider whether there are alternative sources of funding that he or his Department can envisage in the near future that would effectively address the needs mentioned and of which he is aware.
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
I ask all Members and the Minister to be as concise as possible. I have a substantial list of Members who wish to ask questions, but there are only 15 minutes left for them to do so.
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I assure Mr Maginness that my reference to the scale of bids from the Department for Regional Development was not meant to imply that there were inflated bids. I reflected on the historical underfunding that exists there. We have consultations at Committee and Executive level, and it is important to hear the results of deliberations such as those from the Committee for Regional Development on issues that are, as Mr Maginness acknowledges, profound.
If there has been historical underfunding, there is also current underfunding in the Northern Ireland budget at large, and we have to work with that reality. We need to look at issues that must be addressed to get more resources for certain services. That comes back to the issue about charges that was raised by Mr Leslie, in particular, for services for which we get no money from the Barnett formula. We get no money for water and sewerage from the Barnett formula, and we must fund those services out of whatever resources we have. We need to think about the degrees of priority that we accord to the needs that are registered. We shall try to take account of particular priorities and pressures that exist across all Departments, and we shall take the Committees’ views into account. We ask the Committees to look not only at what needs more money, but at how to get more money.
My Department does not have a "magic bullet". Some people think that there are easy options, that it is just a matter of establishing a new super bond. Unfortunately, that would not help us under existing Treasury rules. We are governed by a departmental expenditure limit. As my officials point out, the departmental expenditure limit does exactly what it says: it limits the amount of money that Departments have to spend. Therefore, if we were to get resources by other means, we would still come up against that spending limit. That is one of the reasons for having a high-powered working group to look at ways of supplementing our public spending through other means, including private funding.
Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)
I thank the Minister for his pre-Budget statement and for yesterday’s draft. An unfortunate phrase has entered our political vocabulary — "rural proofing". I do not regard the rural community as something to be equated to vandal proofing, child proofing or theft proofing. The rural community is an important part of society. However, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development introduced that phrase. The Programme for Government talks about social inclusion and New TSN, but there is no mention of rural proofing.
As a result of the crisis in the rural community, we expect some form of positive discrimination so that we can get an equality of results. I am grateful that the Minister has allocated £10 million to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for a vision for the future of agriculture. However, nowhere in today’s statement or yesterday’s draft was there any indication of how rural proofing would be carried out, whose responsibility it is, which Department is in charge or how it will be financed. How will rural proofing be carried out to support the rural community?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I hope that Members do not expect the concept of rural proofing to be translated into a Budget line of that name. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has championed and emphasised the concept. Although that Department will, obviously, have a particular responsibility for, and interest in, ensuring that the needs of the rural community are properly met, a similar responsibility will fall to all Departments that provide services across the region, including those services to people in rural communities. The issue can also be usefully taken up through the channels available to the various departmental Committees, which can question how well rural proofing is done by the corresponding Departments as far as their particular spending programmes are concerned.
In a draft or revised Budget, I present the spending decisions made, in broad terms, at Executive level. It is then the responsibility of individual Departments and Ministers to translate those into specific spending decisions that support services across the region. I reiterate that Committees are free to explore and interrogate those detailed spending issues. Questions on those issues should not be asked in a setting such as this, but should be taken up with the various Departments.
Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)
In the past, the "economy budget" has been an easy option for extracting funding at a time of crisis. Can the Minister assure me that the Budget will not be tampered with, bearing in mind that major projects, such as the Northern Ireland science park, have not been outlined as part of the Budget itself?
The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is currently investigating energy provision in Northern Ireland. Will the necessary funding, especially for the expansion of the natural gas pipeline, be made available from the Executive programme funds?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I assure Mr Neeson that we are not identifying any departmental budget as an easy option. I hope that Members recognise that if we do not allow ourselves to reprioritise, or to refuse to increase one Budget line so as to make more money available for significant increases elsewhere, we shall only continue the patterns set under direct rule. Either we want to make a difference or we do not.
The Executive will decide the broad Budget allocations in respect of different programmes. In the Programme for Government, the Executive have defined a competitive economic situation as a high priority. Infrastructural commitments are of similar importance. We have made clear that money could be available from the Executive programme fund for infrastructure for projects like the gas pipeline. That obviously depends on the value and economic strength of the given proposals. It would be wrong to promise more than that or to pre-empt negotiations or Executive decisions about either the Executive programme funds or to the wider Budget.
John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)
As an eternal optimist, I welcome the Minister’s statement. If I were in the Gallery, would I be right to assume that the statement triggers a process that, if properly used, will enable us to break away from the pattern of direct rule expenditure?
Am I correct to assume that we can now prioritise expenditure against our agreed Programme for Government, thereby meeting people’s needs in a more appropriate way?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I would like to think that the eternal optimist Mr Dallat would be correct in making that assumption if he were sitting in the Gallery. We have challenges before us. We must match the limited public expenditure available to us to the right priorities, and they must be our priorities. We have taken some strides in that direction through the creation of the Programme for Government, the agreed Budget and the establishment of the Executive programme funds. We want to continue to break away from direct rule patterns of expenditure. We shall be able to do that only if we do not insist, as an Assembly or as an Executive, on being handcuffed to previous Budget patterns and commitments. We need to be ready to reprioritise. We can reprioritise as effectively as our decisiveness will allow.
Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is very fitting that we have a devolved Government in Northern Ireland. Today we are looking to the future of Northern Ireland, and especially to next year’s Budget. Since the Belfast Agreement in May 1998, we have been looking forward to a brighter future for all the people of Northern Ireland. We all hoped for a time when we could make decisions in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland. However, today the future of Northern Ireland is still in the hands of Sinn Féin and the IRA. For the past 30 years, the country has been put in debt following the destruction of people and property.
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
Order. This is an opportunity for the Member to ask questions on the pre-Budget statement, not on the Budget or anything else.
Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)
The agriculture industry is a shambles, and most of the budget is spent on administration. Is the budget too small, or is the Department not efficient enough? That question must be addressed by the Executive. Agriculture must be restructured so that farmers in Northern Ireland can have a fair day’s pay for producing a superior product. Farmers are living on the knife-edge of bankruptcy. We cannot sell the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I note Mr Armstrong’s point, but I shall not borrow the phrase that he used, because the wrong connotation would be put on it. The Member asked whether the budget for agriculture is inadequate, or whether the Department, or the plans that are in place, are efficient enough. It may be either or both. However, this exercise, with the pre-Budget reflections and the consideration when it comes to the draft Budget, allows departmental Committees to explore those issues with their Departments and Ministers. Our total Budget is not adequate to meet all our needs and service demands. We also must ask whether our existing spending plans and patterns are as efficient or as effective as they could be.
Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. I particularly welcome its tone and tenor regarding the introduction of resource accounting and development priorities in the Programme for Government. How will that impact on our future spending powers? Does the Minister envisage discussion with the Treasury leading to an improvement of the Barnett allocation to Northern Ireland, given the limiting factors that we currently have?
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I have already touched on some of the points that Mr Byrne raises. The Executive are trying to address with the Treasury the difficulties that the Barnett formula gives us. I have said that it is not just the amount, which is the usual issue with which everyone readily identifies, but some of the implications of resource accounting and budgeting. That is a complex issue, but we must note that the move to resource accounting does not, in itself, have implications for our spending power. However, a fundamental principle of resource accounting is that budgets have to bear a cost in respect of assets held. That will have implications, because, as I have already said, we have a much larger asset base than England.
The Executive — while trying to address those allocation and ambit issues of the Barnett formula with the Treasury — are establishing a high-powered working group to look at other means of supplementing and supporting our public expenditure needs.
12.00
Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)
I welcome the statement. Will the Minister confirm that the process initiated today offers a real opportunity for the Assembly and the Committees to play a full part in ensuring that the broad needs of our society are met and that we are not just exploring and raising issues? Will our views be taken seriously?
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
I am afraid that the time for questions is up. The Member will not be able to complete his question or, I regret, receive an answer from the Minister, except perhaps in writing if the Minister feels able to do so.
I regret the fact that some Members who wished to ask the Minister questions were not able to do so in the maximum time available under Standing Orders. Several Members asked questions that were almost identical to some that had already been asked. In some cases, Members had an excuse as they were not in the Chamber when the questions were asked. However, some Members were in the Chamber when questions were asked, and they asked exactly the same questions again, which is perhaps less excusable. I am sure that the Environment Committee will be happy about the recycling nature of this, but for the rest of the Assembly it is not particularly the best way to use the very limited time available for such a broad issue.
Budget (No. 2) Bill: First Stage
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA17/00] to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of the year ending 31 March 2002; to appropriate those sums for specified purposes; to authorise the Department of Finance and Personnel to borrow on the credit of the appropriated sums; to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources (including accruing resources) for the year ending 31 March 2002; and to repeal certain spent enactments.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
The Bill will be put on a list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.
Family Law Bill: Final Stage
Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I beg to move
That the Family Law Bill (NIA 4/00) do now pass.
Taking account of your earlier observations, Mr Speaker, I shall not repeat the comments that I made at Second Stage.
This is a short but significant reforming Bill that will best serve the interests of children, their unmarried fathers and step-parents. Generally, it will support strong, healthy family relationships. Equally, the parentage of a child will be more easily established when that is in dispute, and certain presumptions of paternity will be set down in statute.
I sponsored the Bill, as law reform falls within my departmental responsibility. At the Second Stage, it became apparent that the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee had an obvious interest in the subject matter. The Finance and Personnel Committee was obliging in allowing another Committee to conduct the scrutiny stage of the Bill. As a direct result of the deliberations of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, five amendments were tabled in my name at Consideration Stage. I thank those Committee members.
Although only one of the five amendments was substantive in nature, it significantly improved the Bill in the way in which it amends the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The amended provision directs courts to look to the best interests of the child when considering an application to make a parental responsibility order in favour of an unmarried father or a step-parent.
As I said in an earlier debate, our legislation on the interests of the child is more advanced than that in other jurisdictions on these islands. Another innovation that others are following is the conferral of joint parental responsibility on those who jointly register the birth of their child. We all agree that that is a common sense measure that most people already assume to be the law.
Members are interested to know when the reforms will come into operation — should the Bill be passed. I cannot give a precise commencement date, but it is likely that the Bill’s substantive provisions will come into force in the autumn. The reason for the delay is that, although the Bill is short, there are a considerable number of court Rules and other Regulations that must be made so that the reforms can operate as intended.
For the most part, those Rules are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Court Service, and they are subject to scrutiny and endorsement by the Lord Chancellor. A complicating factor is the interaction between this Bill and certain provisions in Part IV of the recent Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill at Westminster.
My officials will use the time to develop an effective publicity and information campaign to raise the public’s awareness of the effect of the changes. Members who spoke earlier referred to that point.
Mr Speaker, I commend this short Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Family Law Bill [NIA 4/00] do now pass.
Committee Business: Assembly Standing Orders
Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
I beg to move
That, in Standing Order 47(7), after "five" insert:
"and such quorum shall be deemed to be present where Members are linked by a video conferencing facility."
The motion to amend Standing Order 47(7), a Cheann Comhairle, is required after advice from the Assembly Commission that it is actively exploring proposals to provide several of off-site locations to facilitate Committee meetings. The aim is to allow local people to have greater access to Assembly Committees and, equally, to allow Committees to interface with local communities. I am aware that several Committees have already undertaken oral evidence sessions outside Parliament Buildings. It is likely that that practice will increase.
One of the key issues raised by Committee Chairpersons in the Commission’s consultations about off-site meetings was the feasibility of using video conferencing. That raised the issue of whether a Committee meeting would be in quorum should video conferencing be used with, for example, three members in Parliament Buildings and two members in Omagh. The Assembly’s legal adviser has stated that, although the existing Standing Order 47 could be interpreted as permitting a quorum when members are linked by video, it would be better if the Standing Order made it absolutely clear that a quorum can be achieved in such instances. The Committee on Procedures accepts that advice and proposes the amendment to Standing Orders.
James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)
I listened carefully to Mr Murphy, and, although for the most part this seems to be a sensible measure, it occurred to me that there might be one problem with it. The circumstances to which the Member referred were essentially in the context of a public Committee hearing, and I do not see any difficulty there. However, if for some reason a Committee does part of its business in private, how can it be certain that those persons who are participating in the meeting by video link are equally conducting their business in private? Although I regret to say that I did not think of that in time to table down an amendment, I wonder whether the Chairperson of the Committee might like to reflect on that matter for future reference.
Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
I thank Mr Leslie for his observation. Of course, Standing Orders provide that it is up to the Committees to set their own procedures on many of the issues. I am sure that that advice could be relayed to Committee Chairpersons who are intent on setting up an outside meeting with a video conference link. If some of the business must be done in private, they obviously need to reflect on that and set their own procedures in that regard.
I imagine that only certain types of meeting would be held outside of Committee rooms. To date, the only meetings of that nature have been to hear oral evidence. Those are the sorts of meetings — rather than private, in-house meetings about sensitive issues — that people would want to hold in the community. Once the motion to amend has been passed, the Members’ Committee can pass on observations and advice to the Committee Chairpersons through the Chairpersons’ liaison group.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 49; Noes 16
Ayes
Nationalist:
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Mark Durkan, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Unionist:
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Ivan Davis, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.
Other:
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.
Noes
Unionist:
Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Peter Robinson, Denis Watson, Jim Wells.
Total Votes 65 Total Ayes 49 (75.4%) Nationalist Votes 25 Nationalist Ayes 25 (100.0%) Unionist Votes 35 Unionist Ayes 19 (54.3%)
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That, in Standing Order 47(7), after "five" insert:
"and such quorum shall be deemed to be present where Members are linked by a video conferencing facility."
Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
I beg to move
That, in Standing Order 72, delete all and insert:
"Subject to the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Member may move a motion for the suspension of one or more Standing Orders in whole or in part. A motion under this Standing Order shall require cross-community support within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998."
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am somewhat at a loss as to why we were forced through the Lobbies on the previous motion. I was aware that the DUP was opposed to progress. I did not realise that that also extended to technological progress.
This motion to amend is part of the Standing Orders —
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
Order. Is this a point of order, Dr Paisley?
Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)
Yes. Surely it is entirely out of order for the Member to comment on the previous vote. His job is to move this motion now, but he has no right to start to comment on the previous vote.
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
If I were to interpret the rules of the House so strictly in that matter, we should certainly shorten all the debates by a substantial amount. I have listened to a number of questions to Ministers from all sides of the House, including the Member’s side, in the past hour and a half that were well wide of the mark. The Chairman of the Committee on Procedures should continue.
Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I continue to move forward. This motion to amend Standing Orders is part of the Committee on Procedures’ ongoing work to clarify, where necessary, the existing Standing Orders. In this instance, the motion has been moved to clarify the meaning of Standing Order 72, which allows for the suspension of Standing Orders to facilitate the Assembly’s plenary business in unusual circumstances or because of an unforeseen event.
Experience has shown that it has been used on several occasions, and that sometimes only part of a Standing Order has had to be suspended. The current wording of Standing Order 72 makes reference to "one or more Standing Orders", and my legal advice is that the reference to one may be interpreted to include part of a Standing Order. The Committee has been advised that the wording of that Standing Order should be tightened to make it clear that part of a Standing Order can also be suspended.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That, in Standing Order 72, delete all and insert:
"Subject to the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Member may move a motion for the suspension of one or more Standing Orders in whole or in part. A motion under this Standing Order shall require cross-community support within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998."
The sitting was suspended at 12.28 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —
Assembly Business
Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)
On a point of order, I gave notice to the Speaker —
Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)
I remind the Member that points of order are taken at the end of Question Time. Your point of order may be taken at the end of the first half-hour session.
Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)
This is nothing to do with today’s Question Time. It is an important point of order about which I have already spoken to the Speaker, and I want to put it on the record. It is a simple reference to what took place in the Assembly yesterday and is recorded in Hansard. Questions that were entirely out of order were put to Mr Morrow by Mr Leslie and Mrs Carson. I have referred the matter to the Speaker, and I told the Speaker that at the opening of this session I would put it on the record.
Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)
I thank the Member for his point of order. The matter has been raised with the Speaker and is being examined by him.