Northern Ireland Assembly, 5 November 2001

177 contributions from 44 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I trust that all Members received a draft Order Paper at the weekend and were advised that the draft was subject to approval by the Business Committee. That was not an absolute procedural requirement, but it seemed to me to be a proper way of dealing with matters. The Business Committee met at 9.30 am today and agreed the order of business and timings for today’s proceedings.

I have been asked to rule on two matters. Mr Cedric Wilson asked me to look at Hansard in respect of a comment made by Mr Billy Hutchinson during the debate on 2 November. I told him at the time that I had not heard the comment, but that I would check the Official Report. Hansard reads:

"You’ll never find me hiding behind anyone, you eejit, shut up."

In the 1982-86 Assembly a Member raised a point of order and asked the Speaker at the time, Mr (later Sir) James Kilfedder, whether or not it was in order for a Member to "act the eejit". The Speaker’s ruling was that

"The Member is not acting."

He did not, however, rule that the word "eejit" was unparliamentary.

Regarding the use of the words "shut up", it might have been better if the Member, on a point of order, had asked if the Speaker would rule that the speech was repetitive or otherwise unwelcome to the Floor, rather than use those words. Although they are not unparliamentary, they are perhaps tactless.

The second matter was raised by Mr Edwin Poots, regarding Mr John Kelly’s comment

"What about the terrorists beside you?"

when Mr Robert McCartney was speaking. I recall occasions when DUP Members have used similar terms about Sinn Féin/IRA, as they describe it. On those occasions, when they did not refer to specific Members and there was no legal indication that their comments were correct — if there were, that would be a different matter — I have ruled that it is not unparliamentary. Mr John Kelly did not refer to specific Members, although Mr Poots did. It seems to me therefore that this was also not unparliamentary.

I have received a petition of concern:

"As provided by Standing Order 27 we, the undersigned, submit this petition of concern in resect of the business stipulated below: ‘Motion to Amend Standing Orders’."

I have checked this and it appears to be in order. Members will recall that although the debate on such an issue may take place today, the vote cannot take place until tomorrow at the earliest. There is some uncertainty about this issue. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that a petition of concern is in order to facilitate a cross-community vote. Another good reason for a petition of concern, especially in a legislature that does not have a second Chamber, is that the Assembly has an opportunity to consider the matter overnight and to vote on it the following day. The petition of concern is not only in respect of the cross-community aspect of the legislation; it is also in respect of timing.

I have received a second petition of concern:

"As provided by Standing Order 27 we, the undersigned, submit this petition of concern in respect of the business stipulated below: ‘Election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister’."

I have checked this, and it seems to be in order. It is possible to proceed with the debates today on both these issues. The timings have been agreed by the Business Committee. However, I must ask the Assembly to resume tomorrow purely for the purpose of conducting the votes on those matters. Are Members content with that?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall now take a point of order from Dr Paisley, followed by a point of order from Mr Peter Robinson.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At least one member of my party, my Chief Whip, did not receive an invitation to the meeting until 7.35 this morning. All Members were not notified yesterday.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I know that my staff — and I pay tribute to them — worked extremely hard and did their utmost over the weekend to facilitate the arrangements. Your Chief Whip is not a member of the Business Committee until perhaps later on today when there is a motion standing in your name nominating him to that Committee.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I did not make myself clear, Mr Speaker. Our Chief Whip did not receive notice of this meeting.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I appreciate what the Member is saying. I extend my apologies, but my staff have done the very best they can to try to get messages to everybody.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Whose are the lead signatures on the two petitions of concern?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I see no difficulty in advising the House of at least the first signature on each petition of concern. It is a public document which will be available from the Business Office later. The first signature on the petition of concern with regard to the motion to amend Standing Orders is that of the Rev Dr Ian RK Paisley. The lead signature on the other petition of concern is that of the Rt Hon David Trimble MP.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have asked leave of the House to determine whether the Assembly should meet tomorrow morning. Can you inform the House if it is at liberty to take that decision as the Secretary of State’s decision to allow the Assembly to sit today is at present subject to legal action? In making that decision today we should be certain that we are not acting contrary to a court decision that such a sitting may not be appropriate. On behalf of my party, I object to the suggestion that we should predetermine that the Assembly meet tomorrow. It may not be appropriate.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I understand a little of the Member’s concern, so I shall clarify the matter. His concern comes perhaps from a question of whether an election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister would be ultra vires, given that six weeks have passed. I would not be happy for a matter that I believed to be ultra vires to go on the Order Paper. That would not be proper. When I looked at the question my first thought was that it seemed uncertain that after six weeks it was possible for the Assembly to hold such an election. However, unlike some other distinguished Members of the House, I am not a lawyer so I did not presume to come to a conclusion on the matter without consulting senior counsel. That advice, which I proffer briefly to the House, was as follows.

The requirement is that there shall be an election within six weeks, and of course we have had an attempted election within the six weeks. We are not in default on that matter. Does it say that after six weeks there cannot be an election by the Assembly? It does not, so the question must be: would this be a reasonable interpretation? The Northern Ireland Act 1998 makes it clear that after six weeks the Secretary of State shall propose a date for an election. It does not say how long he has to propose a date. It may not be unreasonable for the Secretary of State to take a day or two to consult political parties about the matter and then to set a date. The Act states that the Secretary of State "shall" set a date. That in itself does not bring about the dissolution of the Assembly. It is Her Majesty by Order in Council who "may" take the advice of the Secretary of State. That is "may", not "shall". Often, when speaking of the sovereign, the term is couched as "may" because of the royal prerogative. Parliament had to take a view that the Secretary of State "shall" put forward a date, but Her Majesty "may" call a dissolution. That opens the possibility that the Secretary of State would propose a date for an election, but that Her Majesty would not call one. That would leave the Assembly without a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister for, from this point, 18 months. Would that have been a reasonable interpretation of the wishes of Parliament? It seems reasonable to assume that it would not. Therefore it is a wholly tenable proposition that an election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister by the Assembly may take place after the six weeks, but of course at a time when the Secretary of State may be proposing dissolution and Assembly elections.

Having considered those matters, it seemed clear that it was not ultra vires for the matter to be included on the Order Paper and that it was reasonable to argue that the Assembly should have the right to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. I do not therefore accept the Member’s argument that it would be unreasonable for the Assembly to proceed.

It is not a question of leave of the House. If leave of the House is not given, it is a question for the Business Committee, which will meet today. If the House gave its leave, that would make matters easier, but it is otherwise a matter for the Business Committee. I trust that I have clarified the matter.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My first point concerns the commencement of this meeting at 10.30 am. Standing Order 10(2) states that a Monday sitting shall commence at 12.00 noon. I find it difficult to understand how that Standing Order can be varied as a result of calling a meeting at 10.30 am, contrary to that Standing Order, to validate retrospectively the earlier starting time.

Secondly, in regard to Mr Cedric Wilson’s point of order, it is clear from the Northern Ireland Act that on the expiry of the six-week period during which a First Minister and Deputy First Minister have not been elected, the Secretary of State has a mandatory — not a precatory — duty to propose a date for an election. He "shall" propose a date for an election; he does not appear to have any other option.

The matters that you, Mr Speaker, described as counter-arguments are contained in section 32(4), which reads

"If the Secretary of State proposes a date under subsection (1) or (3), Her Majesty may by Order in Council —

(a) direct that the date of the poll for the election of the next Assembly shall, instead of being determined in accordance with section 31, be the date proposed;"

Section 31 deals with the expiration of the term of that Assembly, rather than an extraordinary situation such as occurs when the offices of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister become vacant and are not filled within six weeks. That section has nothing to do with the date on which the Secretary of State has a mandatory requirement to propose a date for elections. It relates only to the question of whether or not the sovereign decides to confirm that date. However, the Secretary of State must propose a date, regardless of whether the sovereign subsequently decides to accept it.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member raised two points. First, on the question of Assembly sittings and whether a sitting at 10.30 am on a Monday is contrary to Standing Orders; Standing Order 10(2) states how sittings of the Assembly "shall ordinarily be arranged". However, it also makes it clear that the Business Committee can respond to the exigencies of the Assembly.

Members of the Business Committee were contacted. The Member’s party is, by choice, not represented on the Business Committee, nor is the party of his Colleague, Mr Cedric Wilson. They would not therefore have been contacted. Not all the Committee members were content with the decision, but an overwhelming majority was. I nevertheless deemed it appropriate that the Business Committee meet at 9.30 this morning to make the matter clear. It met, and a vote was taken on the matter.

On his second point, the Member adduces a legitimate legal argument, and I have no doubt that in another place those arguments will be thought through and debated.

A court may choose to strike down the outcome of our proceedings. However, there is a wholly tenable legal argument that allows us to proceed in a proper and seemly fashion, and it seems to me that we should do so. I have one further point of order from Mr Roche.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is worth reinforcing what has already been said with respect to — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I am sorry, but it is not for Members to reinforce a point of order. If I have made a ruling on a matter, that is the ruling. If the Member has another point of order, he may, of course, put it, but he may not support robustly arguments against a ruling that I have made.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

This is another point of order.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We shall see.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

The point of order is that it is absolutely beyond dispute that there is a legal requirement if the Assembly fails to appoint a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister within six weeks. There is a legal requirement — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I fear that the Member has not been listening or perhaps has not understood the fine legal argument, but it is quite clear that I have made a ruling on the issue. Another ruling from another place may, of course, supersede us. If that should happen, the Assembly and I will be subject to the law. Unlike Westminster, we are a statutory body and subject to the law. I would not dream of suggesting otherwise.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Act one of the pantomime was on Friday; act two looks as if it will be rather short; and we await the entrance of the pantomime horse and the rider tomorrow in act three.

Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the Business Committee only met this morning at 9.30 and that there was no meeting of the Business Committee before that meeting about this morning’s Assembly meeting at 10.30 am?

Can you also confirm what you consider to be an appropriate time for requisite notice for meetings of the Assembly? Heretofore, it has been understood that there would be at least two working days’ notice — you have said that several times. Why has that been breached on this occasion?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I confirm that, although there were telephone conversations, there was no meeting. I am absolutely clear about that. However, Standing Orders do not stipulate that there must be a meeting — they say that sittings may be arranged. The Member is aware that sittings have often been so arranged. There may be Luddites who believe that virtual meetings may not be possible these days. Well, so be it. There is no doubt in my mind that what was done was entirely legitimate.

The Member asked another question about the timely warning of meetings. There were those — and I do not think that it is any great secret — who felt that it would have been good to have had an earlier meeting. I strongly took the view, although some have chosen to interpret it differently, that it was not possible to conduct the business on today’s Order Paper before today. Some Members may think that there was insufficient notice; others would like to have moved more quickly. I have tried to maintain some degree of decorum in a difficult situation. I shall take one final point of order from Mr C Wilson.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did you say that the House would reconvene to vote on this matter at 10.30 am tomorrow by leave of the House? I take it that, as you had an objection to it, the matter will go before the Business Committee and you will not rule that the Assembly will meet tomorrow at 10.30 am before the meeting with the Business Committee.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has made clear his objection. The Business Committee will decide today. I shall recommend that the House meets at 10.30 tomorrow morning purely for the votes on the two issues. Do you have a further point of order, Dr Paisley?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it clear that in the Business Committee my party and Mr Denis Watson’s party voted against this meeting.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is perhaps a piece of information for the wider world, but it is not a point of order.

Assembly: Suspension of Standing Orders

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly suspends Standing Order 10(2) and Standing Order 10(6) for Monday 5 November 2001.

I must return the House to more prosaic matters. Later today, we shall have the take-note debate on the draft Budget, a matter that normally requires much attention from Members. Matters spanning the remit of all Committees will be raised. Consequently, I ask the House to extend today’s sitting beyond 6 o’clock, if necessary. I trust that there will be cross-community support for that.

It seemed that several matters on the Order Paper would absorb the House’s attention for some time today and that we might have had to sit very late. However, as circumstances have changed during the past half-hour, we may not need to continue so late. Nonetheless, the motion is appropriate.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, if under your earlier ruling on a point of order, it is possible to bring forward the starting time of the sitting as the result of a decision of the Business Committee, why is it not possible for the Business Committee to decide to open the floodgates at the other end? Why do we need this motion?

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

That point was made in an intervention, but I am not sure that it is within my bailiwick to deal with it.

11.00am

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I do not wish to be presumptuous, but I must say that the Member is correct; it is not for him to rule on that. However, there is, perhaps, some misunderstanding. The petitions of concern will not postpone the debates on the issues; the debates will take place today. The only question is the time of the votes on the issues, and they will take place tomorrow. The procedure for arranging the time that the Member may require still applies. That is simply a matter of order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the point of order was raised about whether it was in order for the Business Committee to change the time of the start of today’s sitting from 12 o’clock to 10.30, you said that the Committee had such power. If it has the power to start the sitting earlier than the time in Standing Orders, does it not also have the power to extend the sitting beyond 6 o’clock without the need for us to consider a motion to suspend Standing Orders?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No. The Deputy Chairperson is doing things properly. Members should read their Standing Orders.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

You should, indeed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The House can judge whether I am sufficiently familiar with Standing Orders; I am entirely prepared to throw myself on the mercy of the House in that regard. However, it would be an abuse of the right to make points of order if we were to continue in this vein rather than continue with the proper business of the House.

Mr Leslie has moved the motion. I have had no further requests to speak on the issue, and, hearing no requests, I shall put the Question. Suspension of Standing Orders requires cross-community support. If I hear "Ayes" from all parts of the House and no "Noes", we shall take it that there is cross-community support. If there are "Noes", we shall go through the Lobbies.

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 68; Noes 29.

Ayes

Nationalist

Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Hanna, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maginness, Mr Mallon, Mr McClelland, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Ms McWilliams, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Mr O’Connor, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.

Unionist

Dr Adamson, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Dr Birnie, Mrs Carson, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Foster, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hussey, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr McClarty, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Ms Morrice, Mr Nesbitt, Mr K Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr Trimble, Mr J Wilson.

Other:

Mrs E Bell, Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy, Mr Neeson.

Noes

Unionist:

Mr Agnew, Mr Berry, Mr Boyd, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr McCartney, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Roche, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr C Wilson, Mr S Wilson.

Total Votes 97 Total Ayes 68 ( 70.1%) Nationalist Votes 36 Nationalist Ayes 36 ( 100.0%) Unionist Votes 57 Unionist Ayes 28 ( 49.1%)

Question accordingly agreed to (cross-community vote).

Resolved:

That this Assembly suspends Standing Order 10(2) and Standing Order 10(6) for Monday 5 November 2001.

Assembly: Amendment to Standing Orders

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Business Committee allocated one hour for this debate at its meeting this morning. I have received one amendment, which I have accepted, and it is published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the motion and the proposer of the amendment will each be allocated seven minutes, and the remaining speakers will be allocated five minutes. I have already advised the House of the petition of concern with regard to this matter.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move:

From 5 November 2001, until the commencement of a review under paragraph 36 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement, Standing Order 3(8) has effect as if it read:

"A Member may change his/her designation of identity. Any such change takes effect immediately after notification in writing is submitted to the Speaker. Any subsequent change shall take effect seven days after the day of such notification."

We regard this as a purely technical motion. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I have received one amendment to the motion.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "Speaker" in line 6 and add:

"and the change is endorsed by a majority of those already registered to this designation."

I am not sure that the Assembly was convinced by the argument advanced by the proposer of the original motion. The motion might be tactical or contemptible, but it is not technical.

We covered much of this ground when Members sought to amend Standing Orders last Friday. Today, the ink is not even dry on that change, yet they are attempting to change it once again. They wrote the rules — the rulebook is in their handwriting — and decided the rules of engagement in this political process. When they were defeated even under their own rules, regulations and laws, they decided last Friday to change them. Having changed them, they found out that they still could not win, even by fixing the game. They decided to change it all again.

It is an unseemly spectacle when the Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party is unable to muster an argument. He cannot marshal one single, coherent reason for the Assembly’s supporting this motion. He simply proposes it and resumes his seat. That shows that there is no substance behind his argument; it is purely to obtain an outcome. It is a Jesuitical necessity that the ends justify the means. That is the present proposal of the Ulster Unionist Party. It does not matter if its members have to drive their coach and horses through the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — they will do it. It does not matter if they have to drive their coach and horses through the Belfast Agreement — they will do that too, and they will certainly not stop when it comes to the Standing Orders of the Assembly.

What did the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party tell us, only eight or nine days ago? He said it simply would not be credible if he were to find himself elected as First Minister on the back of a re-designation of the Women’s Coalition. A matter of days later, he went through the Lobbies of this Assembly to allow the Women’s Coalition to re-designate — even though it would not be credible. He then spent the rest of his morning twisting the arm of the Alliance Party to get it to do the same.

The Ulster Unionist Party is now proposing the mechanism for re-designation in the Assembly. It shows the unprincipled stand of that party that it is prepared, within a matter of 10 days, to do a complete about-turn on the issue. Perhaps it will swivel a few more times before the issue is finally decided.

I seem to remember the reason that the First Minister gave for his resignation. [Interruption]. He does not do justice to the dignity of his proposed office by shouting with red face from a sedentary position. He should contain himself and really should not get excited to the extent that he does.

When the First Minister resigned, the Ulster Unionist Party made very clear the reasons for his resignation and the conditions he required before he would change his position. Those requirements have not been met. The Unionist community can find no confidence in the unspecified location where an unspecified event took place, when an unspecified number of weapons of an unspecified variety were put beyond use in an unspecified way. This is the kind of certainty that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was looking for before he would take back his resignation and seek to become First Minister again.

Groping as much as he can to return to office, he is prepared to forget about the commitments he made to the people of Northern Ireland. He is prepared to turn on the words that he gave to the people of Northern Ireland a week ago, and he is prepared to reverse Standing Orders in order to do it. That is the credibility of the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.

He said on radio this morning that he was not afraid of an election. Can anybody think of anybody who is trying more deeply and sincerely than the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party to avoid an election? If he thought for one minute that he had half a chance in the election, he would do the decent and honourable thing. He would say, "I cannot get a majority in this Assembly; I am going to the people to see if I can get my majority."

On the subject of unprincipled positions, let me turn to the person who says that he is part of the pantomime. He volunteered for the position of rear end of the pantomime horse, but he did not tell us who would be the front end and who would carry the nosebag. The leader of the Alliance Party takes that credible position, yet his principled stand on these matters is on record, as he made his party’s position very clear on Friday. That was a few days ago. It is said that a week is a long time in politics, but for the Alliance Party it takes even less. Only a few days ago, the leader of the Alliance Party, who cannot look anybody in the eye, said

"The candidate for First Minister wishes that to be a majority of ‘genuine’ Unionists, and he can rest assured that we will not disrupt his concerns in that regard. We will not ‘dress up for Halloween’ as one Member described it. We will allow him to seek his majority among genuine Unionists".

He went on to say,

"We will take no part in this charade of tinkering with Standing Orders".

We can see that in the space of a few days the leader of the Alliance Party will not only take part in that charade but will have the principal part, and he is prepared to dress up in Halloween clothes.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I rise on behalf of my party to support the motion. Much work was done over the weekend in order to arrange the motion and to overcome the remaining difficulties, and I am satisfied that the motion allows us to proceed in an appropriate fashion. The rejectionists and wreckers across in the corner thought that they had their day on Friday. Of course, they will continue with their attempts to stall, to delay and to frustrate the process, and that is what the petition of concern is about.

They will not and cannot be allowed to succeed in their wrecking tactics, now or in the future. That is what the motion is about. Those people can only offer a return to the bad old days of the past. The pro- agreement parties — certainly those who worked over the weekend — wish to create a process of change, to re-establish the political institutions and to make sure that they fulfil the aspirations of the people who voted in the referendum across this island.

We want to make sure that the institutions are bedded down, including the all-Ireland institutions, which have been disrupted and stalled for more than a year. Our mandate is to resolve the conflict, which is of long standing. It is our view that we have accomplished much, but we need to accomplish much more.

Despite the odds, and despite the tactics of the wreckers’ charter which we have heard so often, considerable progress has been made in recent years, and it is up to all of us to ensure that we continue with that progress. We have a collective mandate from the overwhelming majority of the electorate, not only in the Six Counties, but across the island: we will fulfil that mandate. We are here to attempt to bed down the political institutions and the process that spawned them in order to give everybody a brighter future.

I support the motion and reject the DUP’s amendment.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is always interesting to have one’s remarks quoted by another Member. It is particularly interesting to see the bits that are selected, including selective extracts from one sentence. It would be useful if I carried on from the point where Mr P Robinson finished his quotation of my remarks:

"We will allow [Mr Trimble] to seek his majority among genuine Unionists".

He did not finish the sentence. The sentence continues:

"because the rule stating that our votes count for considerably less than those of others is fundamentally sick and wrong."

In that context, today’s debate is completely different from the debate that we had on Friday. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The debate may appear remarkably similar, given the Standing Orders and the business in the Chamber. However, as we have seen, a small minority are hijacking the overall wish of the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland that a First Minister and Deputy First Minister be elected and the institutions given stability. There is an issue about addressing the rule that allows that to happen.

I welcome the fact that, on Friday, the Secretary of State and colleagues from other parties that support the agreement informally initiated the process of the review of strand one. The first item on the agenda will be to address the failure of the voting system, designed to protect minorities, to enable progress to be made. We cannot have a system that is designed to protect minorities allowing a tiny minority to hijack all progress. I welcome that interest — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. From time to time, Members ask me to rule on whether what a Member says is in order. I am happy to do that, but I can only do so if I hear what the Member says. That is becoming increasingly difficult. I ask the House to listen to what all Members have to say.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the review, and the participation of other parties in that review, because, as I said in my speech on Friday, we are not interested in simply tinkering with Standing Orders. We must address the fundamental problem that caused us to be back here this morning. That is what we are now proceeding to do.

I welcome the fact that Ulster Unionist Party and SDLP Members have put their names to the motion, which will make an appropriate and temporary change to the Standing Order in the context of the review. I would have appreciated it if either party had been a little more enthusiastic than they have been in the Chamber this morning, but I welcome the fact that they have participated in that respect at least. It gives a degree of collectivity to the approach that we have sought. It continues the process that we sought to operate during the negotiations that led to the agreement. We made progress then only when parties worked collectively. There is now an option for us to continue to make progress.

There is no doubt that the stability of the institutions of Government rests on proceeding to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. The stability of Northern Ireland as an entity rests on that. Progress has been made in recent weeks, and we must continue to make that progress. I am not the least bit interested in the personal future of David Trimble and Mark Durkan; I am interested in the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that this represents the best way forward. I support the motion.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

First, it is the opinion of our party that the motion — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

The motion is designed to effect the election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, which, at this stage, is illegal under the requirements of section 16(8) and section 32(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The motion also represents a debasement of politics in Northern Ireland. That is apparent from the wording of the motion, which requires us to understand Standing Order 3(8) in a certain way.

The way it wants us to understand the reading of Standing Order 3 (8) exactly contradicts the existing content of Standing Order 3 (8). That is an intellectual somersault that reflects the emptiness of any coherent argument from those who are putting this forward and represents an absurd debasement of politics in Northern Ireland. The instrument driving this debasement is the Alliance Party. The point has been made by a previous Member that this is a party that is now splitting itself on the basis of its internal contradictions and lack of political principle.

The assumption behind this debasement of politics that we are witnessing this morning is that the objective of implementing the Belfast Agreement justifies using any means to achieve that objective. I point out to the members of the Ulster Unionist Party that it is a fundamental political miscalculation to use any means to implement the agreement. The miscalculation is that the pro-Unionist electorate is so willing to prostrate itself before a Government incorporating IRA/Sinn Féin representatives of the terrorism that was directed against the Unionist electorate that the Unionist community will accept whatever political skulduggery is required to put such a Government into operation. That is a fundamental political miscalculation that is being made by members of the Ulster Unionist Party. Even from their own prospective as pro-agreement members, the strategy is self-defeating. The very process of implementing the agreement is alienating, and continues to alienate, a growing majority of the Unionist electorate.

The Unionist electorate wants peace. We are a peace- loving people, but we do not want peace at the price of legitimising those who have terrorised us for 30 years. That is a price for peace that is too high for any self- regarding electorate to pay within a democracy, particularly at a time when the civilised world is saying that we should draw the line between terrorism and democracy.

Finally I address the self-interest of the UUP Members. The leadership of their party is set on implementing an agreement that is being rejected by their electorate. It does not require any great amount of intelligence to understand that their leadership is sowing the seeds of political self-destruction. Apart from any commitment to the principle of democracy, their own self-interest should dictate that they reject this course of action.

I heard Mr Trimble on the radio this morning discounting the possibility of a significant legal challenge against what is happening here today. I remind Ulster Unionist Members that on every issue relating to the legality of the implementation of the Belfast Agreement their leader has got it wrong. I appeal to them, in the interests of their party, and especially in the interests of democracy at a time when the entire civilised world is orientating itself towards drawing the line between terrorism and democracy, to fall into line and vote appropriately.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I take this opportunity to express our concerns to the people of Birmingham over what happened at the weekend.

I am pleased that other parties have the opportunity to follow the initiative that we took on Friday. Peter Robinson said here on Friday that our sole purpose for doing what we did was to protect the agreement. I am pleased that he said that, and I am glad that he has it on the record. He may note too that we asked for nothing in return: we did it solely to protect the agreement.

That people should be allowed to define themselves as they wish, and not have others decide that definition for them, is intrinsic to the agreement. People should have free choice in relation to their political aspirations and citizenship. We have always described ourselves as a cross-community party, not a party of the centre. We are a cross-community coalition supporting a cross- community coalition in Government.

What are this Government if they are not cross-community? What is so strange about being cross-community? [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

The agreement had something unique written into it — something that the DUP signed up to when its members became Ministers in the cross-community Government. These are good times, when people can finally accept that cross-community politics works. It is also very important to say that inclusivity works and that inclusivity counts. We have, once again, an opportunity to show that not just the big parties in the Executive count, but that the smaller parties in the Assembly also count. Otherwise, we would not be here today. It is good to see that we again have the opportunity to make our votes count. They counted on Friday when we re-designated as one Nationalist and one Unionist. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I said of those who went out gloating on Friday that their views are not what Northern Ireland wants to hear any more. Their days will be short. The people do not want to hear the voice of intransigence.

I have one other point to make. We too welcome a review. During the Weston Park talks and, indeed, when Senator Mitchell first came to consider a review of the agreement, we asked for the establishment of an implementation committee. We asked for it again on subsequent occasions. I am pleased that at times such as this it is recognised that an implementation committee should be established, so that when problems such as we are currently experiencing arise, those Members who are pro-agreement, and, indeed, those on the anti- agreement side, can come together to discuss them. That is what people are supposed to do in Government. In moving this country forward, we expect nothing less.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The atmosphere and ambience of the House has often oscillated between farce and pantomime. However, I never thought the time would come when its future would depend upon the decision of a self-confessed horse’s ass. That is exactly how Mr Ford described himself this morning on the radio. He has given an entirely new meaning to the aphorism "leading from behind".

On a more serious note, strand one of the Belfast Agreement provided a number of safeguards. One of those safeguards was that, in the election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, each community would have to have a simple majority of those who had designated themselves either Nationalist or Unionist. That was specifically put in to guarantee the sort of cross-community support that Monica McWilliams has prattled on about. What she fails to realise is that the farce that was conducted on Friday, when the Women’s Coalition designated themselves as the transvestite party, is being taken further today by the verbal and political gymnastics of Mr Ford and his Colleagues. They have demonstrated that their proper place is not in the political arena but in the circus, as a gymnastic troupe, because they have violated the whole principle of the matter.

Mr Ford suggested that Mr Peter Robinson read out only selected quotes. However, what did Mr Ford read out? He talked on Friday about fundamental changes, but what is he now seeking to do? He is seeking to make a change so fundamental in the political description of members of his party that it will last for exactly seven days after which his members can revert to being Alliance Party members. If that is the sort of thing that in Mr Ford’s dictionary of political ideas and thoughts amounts to "fundamental", the Assembly is doomed.

On Friday Mr Ford declared that he would not be a Halloween Unionist, but on Monday he declares that he will be a Guy Fawkes Unionist. He will don his Unionist hat and posture as a Unionist. The public are not deceived. One very sensible but not politically acute member of the public has compared this to a football match at which when one side scores the winning goal the referee disallows it because the ball was not kicked from the player’s own half with his left foot. The referee then cancels the match and reschedules it for Monday when the losing team would have 14 players compared with the winning team’s eleven.

That is how members of the public see the charade, the fraud, the defilement, distortion and disfigurement of the basic principles of democracy that are occurring in the Chamber today. They are not fooled. They do not believe that the ends justify the means. If the intention is to create institutions that are respected and accorded parity of esteem from both sides of the community, one cannot base them on the sort of despicable horse-trading that went on over the weekend. Members cannot continue to violate the rules that have been set by the Assembly and at the same time expect public regard and respect. Those sentiments will not be there.

This is not a tactical manoeuvre as described by Mr J Wilson or by Mr Ford. It is a disgraceful piece of political shysterism, and I hope that it does not succeed.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Anyone looking at what is happening in the Assembly could view it as Mr McCartney has described it as political farce at which Members should be laughing. Those who value democracy here ought to be asking "Does the Assembly have to go through these contortions and tear up the rule book to keep a party in power which no longer represents the Unionist community?" Members are hearing a party admit that it no longer commands the respect of the community that it claims to represent. The Ulster Unionist Party has resorted to sordid tactics — tactics which, as Peter Robinson pointed out, it cannot even defend. The Ulster Unionist Party cannot give even two sentences of defence for those tactics.

Instead, the Ulster Unionist Party is relying upon the Alliance Party to ride to its rescue — not on a white charger but on a pantomime horse, with the leader of the party at the back end. Members must look at what has happened today and at Mr Ford’s arguments. He says that Members from the Alliance Party are redesignating because the stability of the institutions is at risk, and he will not allow a small minority to hold this place to ransom.

That is what has changed his mind. However, those arguments pertained on Friday when he said that he would not engage in this charade and he would not help out the Ulster Unionists. Nothing has changed. The only difference is that between Friday and today the back end of the horse has engaged in horse-trading. It will soon be seen what kind of bribe has been offered to him. Some of his little friends have come along with him. Mr McCartney said that the leader of the Alliance Party is leading from behind — and he is leading from behind. He did not become a Unionist. Eileen Bell is now a Unionist. On Friday in this pantomime Alliance Members were all crying in unison "We are not Unionists. Oh no, we are not". However, today they are saying "Oh yes, we are". I hear Seamus Close bleating from outside "Oh no, I am not". Kieran McCarthy is probably saying through clenched teeth "Oh yes, I am". We have a Kieran and a Sean saying it through clenched teeth.

In order to perpetuate the charade, the leader of the Alliance Party admitted to being a "political ass" this morning, the first time I have ever heard a party leader do so. Some would say that with his beard and his political foolishness, a "political goat" is a more appropriate comparison.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member ought to be somewhat careful about Members who have beards.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

There is the wise old goat, and there is the foolish goat. If we have an Assembly that is sustained by skulduggery, chicanery, trickery and every other kind of underhandedness that we have seen today, we must question its long-term future and sustainability.

Sinn Féin accuses the DUP of being wreckers. We are not wreckers. We are not the people who have made the Assembly lose all credibility. Those who wrote the rules found that they did not work, so they rewrote them — and they still did not work. Those people are in the process of rewriting the rules again. They are the people who are wrecking the Assembly. They are bringing it into disrepute. They are turning it into an institution without credibility.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

The implementation of the Belfast Agreement is a corruption of the democratic practice and the rule of law that is without precedent in any democratic and law-governed state. That position was taken by those who read the Belfast Agreement correctly and advised Mr Trimble and his Colleagues during the fateful weeks leading up to the signing of the agreement. Mr Trimble and his Colleagues have undermined the position of the Unionist community and endangered the Union itself. They have undermined the process of democracy and the rule of law.

Today we are witnessing the outworking of the corruption that lies at the heart of the Belfast Agreement. I do not believe that anyone looking objectively and fairly from the outside at what is happening in the House today believes that it has anything remotely to do with democracy. Unionists who were elected to the Assembly to further the cause of the Union do not believe it either.

I remind Mr John Taylor — although I cannot see him in the Chamber — that when he left the negotiations at Castle Buildings a short time before the Belfast Agreement was signed, he stated that he would not touch the agreement with a 40-foot bargepole because it would bring about the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, he re-engaged. In the last election he told the electorate, just as the Ulster Unionist Party did, that he endorsed the Belfast Agreement because the UUP had saved the RUC.

Mr Trimble and his deputy, Mr Taylor, should hang their heads. I hope that they experienced some feelings of guilt yesterday as we witnessed the final destruction of a gallant force that stood between the ordinary decent Roman Catholic, Protestant, Nationalist and Unionist and the men of terror whom Sinn Féin/IRA represent here.

Our stance is honourable. Unfortunately, the Alliance Party has shifted from the position of honour that it held on Friday when it resisted moves to re-designate. On Friday, the Alliance Party opposed what was taking place, not as a pro-agreement or an anti-agreement Unionist party, but as a party that had assessed the situation and realised that its electorate would not be well represented through use of trickery and sleight of hand in order to elect Mr Trimble and MrDurkan.

The electorate should not lack heart because of today’s events. As has been pointed out, Mr Trimble can run but he cannot hide, even should, in the next day or two, the House move to re-establish an Executive that will include two members of a party that is inextricably linked to and that fronts a terrorist organisation. Mr Trimble has said since the signing of the agreement and the formation of the Executive that it is wrong to be in Government with a party that fronts a fully-armed terrorist organisation. Therefore, is it not equally wrong to be sit in an Executive with those who represent a partially, yet still well-equipped, terrorist organisation? As Mr Roche stated, Mr Blair and Mr Bush make lofty comments about taking a stand against terrorism across the globe. However, up close, it looks like it will be the people on this side of the House who will be denigrated by the press, by the church leaders and by the captains of industry who endorsed the agreement. I have no doubt that we shall be seen as the villains of the piece and presented as the wreckers — those who do not want the people of Northern Ireland to have peace, stability and reconciliation. I throw that allegation back in their faces. We are not playing some petty game in order to deprive Mr Trimble of his ministerial car and his office. Rather, we are determined not to have in the Northern Ireland Government those who front a organisation that terrorised the ordinary decent citizens of Northern Ireland for 30 long years. That is obscene and disgusting, and my party will do all that it can to prevent it. We may win or lose this round of the battle for democracy, but the battle will go on and on.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The normal format for a winding-up speech is that the arguments advanced on the opposite side of the House during the debate are demolished. I had no difficulty in demolishing the mover of the motion’s argument, because he did not make any. There followed an argument from IRA/Sinn Féin, the close friends of the Marxist drug dealers of Colombia. That party referred to anyone who wished to uphold Standing Orders and the law as wreckers. Of course, IRA/Sinn Féin has the Belfast Agreement wrapped around it as some form of purity that wipes away all its sins, whether those be the murders committed by its terrorist colleagues or the political chicanery in which it is involved.

We had the embarrassing spectacle of the leader of the Alliance Party. He is not having much of a time since he assumed that role. I see that he is experiencing great difficulty; he squirms as he swallows large chunks of his own words only days after he uttered them. However, he had the audacity to argue that the Assembly cannot have a small minority frustrating the will of the rest. That "small minority" happens to represent the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland. That is the "small minority" that he seeks to sweep aside.

He also referred to a "tiny minority". That "tiny minority" is six times the size of his party. He is so puffed up with his own importance, and the belief that the Alliance Party has a pivotal role in the proceedings, that he refers to a group which is six times the size of his own organisation as being "tiny". That shows the degree of importance that he attaches to his own position.

Returning to the original proposition, what was the intention of the law, of the Belfast Agreement and of our Standing Orders in relation to designation? The purpose is clear — designation was to be a safeguard for both communities. If key decisions were taken, both communities had to be satisfied. The Belfast Agreement identified some key decisions where it was not enough to have 40% of Unionist or Nationalist support, but which required a majority of Unionist or Nationalist support. One of those key decisions was the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Alliance Party, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and their friends in Sinn Féin regarded that as being of such importance that — [Interruption].

I see that the leader of the Alliance Party is shaking his head. He is telling us that he does not agree with the Belfast Agreement, because that is what the Belfast Agreement says. Now he is saying that he does not agree with the Belfast Agreement. That shows how quickly he can change his position and that of his party.

They all signed up to the Belfast Agreement. They all believed in that aspect and accepted it. When it is put into form in the Standing Orders, they want a way to wriggle out of it. They no longer want it to require a majority of Unionists. Everybody knows the designation of individuals because of what they stand for at elections. That is a principled designation. If a Member stands as a Unionist, that is recognised as his designation. However, these people are not Unionist. The leader of the Alliance Party went on record at the weekend saying that he could not stomach being a Unionist or a Nationalist for more than 24 hours. That is the sheer hypocrisy of such a designation. Alliance Party Members are so sick of the whole process that they are prepared to tell the world "We could not bear to be Unionists for more than 24 hours, but we will do it for this purpose." That is the Alliance Party’s principled stand.

I will give it one warning. If it has not learnt by now — [Interruption].

Just listen to the warning; it is simple. Members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP are the people that the leader of the Alliance Party is relying on. They are the people whom he expects to ante up in any review. That is the position that they are adopting.

What did they say in this debate? Where were the words of reassurance from the Ulster Unionist Benches or from the SDLP? Does he think that their silence is accidental? Can he trust them to fulfil their obligations in any review? They will have already delivered by the time that that review comes around. The leader of the Alliance Party should know from experience —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

I have a problem at this point, because one of the Members who spoke named another Member, and that Member has appealed for an opportunity to reply to what was said. Mr Cedric Wilson named Lord Kilclooney. Lord Kilclooney has requested the opportunity to reply. I think that it is only fair that he be given the opportunity to reply to the remarks made by Mr Wilson.

John (UUP, Strangford)

First, I can confirm that the DUP’s legal action was dismissed in the Belfast High Court today. Can I refer — [Interruption].

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right for Mr Taylor again to mislead an elected Assembly? What happened at the court was that the Secretary of State said that he would be calling an election.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. We should remain within the Chamber for the present, particularly to give Lord Kilclooney an opportunity to respond to being named by Mr Cedric Wilson.

John (UUP, Strangford)

I want, briefly, to — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Point of order, Mr Wilson.

12.00

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that you had given leave to Lord Kilclooney to address the comments made. He abused the Chair of the Assembly by taking the opportunity to speak about something completely different.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Chair is used to being abused.

John (UUP, Strangford)

I will be brief, Mr Speaker. Of course there will be an election — the question is when.

Mr Cedric Wilson referred to me by name. It is a normal courtesy in parliamentary affairs that when a Member refers to another Member, the former gives advance notice. I regret very much that Mr Wilson misbehaved in this manner. I hope that the next time he mentions a Member by name, he will at least have the courtesy so to advise him.

The Member said that the Ulster Unionist Party had not fought to retain the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Let us get the facts right. Well — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

John (UUP, Strangford)

It was the Ulster Unionist Party that tabled 200 amendments in Parliament to benefit the Royal Ulster Constabulary — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I cannot hear what the Member is saying. I ask the House to give the Member a hearing.

John (UUP, Strangford)

And, of course, the DUP — [Interruption].

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that the hon Member was making a personal statement because of a personal attack.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member is mistaken. Lord Kilclooney is not making a personal statement. A personal statement would require the Member to give me a written note of precisely what was to be said. What I gave the Member — and I explained this to the House — was an opportunity to respond to the fact that he had been named by Mr Cedric Wilson in a particular regard.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you draw our attention to the Standing Order that allows someone to make personal remarks after the winding-up speech on an amendment?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Perhaps the Member can draw my attention to the Standing Order that forbids it?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Standing Orders do not allow it.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The whole question of personal statements, in case the Member is not aware, is dealt with in ‘Erskine May’, not in Standing Orders. The Speaker is entitled to call whomever he wishes, at whatever point he wishes.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Not after a winding-up speech.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am afraid that the Member is, yet again, wrong. I am not taking any further points of order. This is a piece of silly nonsense. Frankly, it feels less like a pantomime than a circus, with me as the ringmaster.

John (UUP, Strangford)

As you say, Mr Speaker, this is not a personal statement. It is part of a normal debate responding to allegations made by Mr Cedric Wilson. As I pointed out, we in the Ulster Unionist Party tabled 200 amendments in Parliament to the most recent Police Bill. The DUP did not table one amendment — not one. That shows that party’s lack of support for the RUC — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

John (UUP, Strangford)

I can hear some ignorant comments from some of the DUP Members.

I will explain the name of the RUC. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 says that

"The body of constables known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary)."

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. This is going wholly wide of the debate.

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

In this debate, and indeed on Friday, much comment has been made about principles and democracy. It has been implied that principles and democracy can be protected only by the immutability of the Standing Orders of this Chamber. Those who used that argument ignored the fact that Standing Orders were created and enforced by the Assembly itself, conforming where required to the statute that set up the Assembly and reflecting the good sense and intent of all Members. Correctly, Standing Orders also embody special safeguard provisions with regard to parallel consent and weighted majorities.

Those safeguards are there. They have not been tampered with, and they cannot be tampered with, denied or amended without the work of others outside the Chamber. The motion makes no attempt to change those safeguards, which are there for Unionists and Nationalists alike. No debate or motion today changes that fact. I hope that the safeguard of parallel consent will apply eventually to the motion we are debating. The DUP, by its amendment, has indicated its clear understanding of how Standing Orders can be used. That is its entitlement.

The motion concerns designation, not Standing Orders. Designation does not enjoy the same immutability — indeed, it would be odd if it did, because development and change could not be accommodated. Members would not be able to express their designation more fully or more precisely. The right to choose should not, and cannot, be expunged.

Designation as Unionist or Nationalist has a relatively clear meaning. The designation "Other" is less clear. Those who freely choose to use that designation feel that their votes are less valuable than those of people who are designated Unionist or Nationalist. They feel that their votes are not equally counted and that their mandate is not equal to that of other Members. Their votes are not counted in cross-community votes in relation to the Nationalist or Unionist community, even on crucial issues that affect the very existence of this devolved institution.

The motion enables that deficiency to be resolved temporarily until the matter can be examined more fully in the light of current experience. This can be achieved through a review of strand one of the Good Friday Agreement as provided for by paragraph 36. The Secretary of State has announced that such a review will commence on 19 November 2001. Until that review happens, I urge Members to accept that basic justice must be done to reflect democracy in the House, as expressed through the ballot box, and that the motion be carried.

There has been much abuse bandied about the House today concerning pantomimes and circuses. The DUP engaged in a series of vitriolic attacks on Members. Perhaps its wonderful circus act of riding two horses at once is competing with what it alleges is a pantomime. It takes the advantages of the Assembly and the benefits of office while trying to bring it down. Its other act is wearing a bit thin for public consumption — the mystery of the disappearing and reappearing Ministers. Watch that Cabinet very closely – a new face might come out of it before we finish today.

Let us not talk about circuses and pantomimes. Let us talk about the reality of our purpose today. The DUP has consistently tried all types of manipulations in the House and elsewhere to frustrate the will of the people of Northern Ireland. That will not happen, because the expressed wish of those people is that the Assembly should continue.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In the normal course of events, two Questions would be before the House at this point — the amendment standing on the Marshalled List and the motion to amend Standing Orders. As a petition of concern has been received in respect of the motion, I propose to leave both votes until a later time. The Business Committee will meet at lunchtime today to consider the matter.

Election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My information — and, of course, it is subject to confirmation — is that the Secretary of State’s counsel has declared that the Secretary of State intends to propose a date for an election after consultation with the parties. There are only two ways in which an election can be called. First, after the natural efflux of our term — four years, or whatever it may be — and, secondly, following the failure to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister within the six-week deadline.

If the Secretary of State accepts that he is now under an obligation to propose a date for an election, it can be based only on an acknowledgement that the time for the election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister expired at midnight on Saturday. That being the case, to go through the pantomime of electing a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, in circumstances where it cannot be valid, should at least prompt you, Mr Speaker, I suggest, before proceeding further, to seek some information as to the exact circumstances of this morning’s court proceedings.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The House is always impressed by the Member’s presentations. However, having considered the matter in advance, having heard what the Member said and having received a note about what happened in court, I find myself quite unconvinced by the Member’s arguments.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

That is a shock.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I mean the Member no harm, but his arguments do not convince me, and, therefore, we must continue.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am always willing to be persuaded, as are other Members. Therefore, perhaps you will indicate the nature of the information that you received that would demolish my argument. I am always willing to listen.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There is no need for us to go through that. The situation is clear. The Secretary of State has said that he will propose a time. The Member may be trusting entirely in whether the Secretary of State will carry through on what he said; I do not place myself in any position in that regard. It will depend on whether there is a successful outcome to today’s proceedings. However, the Member’s remarks about the six-week deadline are manifestly wrong.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I do not think so.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member may think not, but in that case, perhaps he should have gone to the court — perhaps he would have got a different outcome. The outcome of the court proceedings is quite clear: there is no injunction against our proceeding, it is perfectly legitimate for us to do so, and, therefore, we ought to proceed.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Democratic Unionist Party asked the court to consider, under section 32(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, whether the Secretary of State had a duty to call, or to propose a date for, an election. The idea behind that was clear — it was to force the hand of the Secretary of State to do what he is legally required to do. The Secretary of State’s counsel put on the court’s record that the Secretary of State recognises that he has a duty to propose a date for elections and that he will consult the parties about that. That makes it clear that the Secretary of State recognises that his legal responsibility comes after the six-week deadline has expired. If the six-week deadline, within which the Assembly had the opportunity to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, has passed, how can we possibly consider that item on the agenda?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have tried to explain the matter, in as much detail as I think reasonable, to the House. While I hear the Members’ arguments, I think that they are mistaken. It is entirely for them, if they wish to challenge any outcome, to take it to court, and, if the court strikes it down, it strikes it down.

However, I am not persuaded by the argument. I have received a note from my own counsel that it is perfectly appropriate —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member may be happy to dismiss not only those who are not lawyers, but even those who are. However, I will stick with the counsel that I have.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

That is clear.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I should think that it should be clear. In my profession, one generally does not deprecate the work of other professionals, but it may be different in the legal profession. However, for the moment — [Interruption].

Order. For the moment we shall proceed with the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I propose to conduct the proceedings on the same basis as on the previous occasion, which was as long ago as Friday 2 November. I will begin by asking for nominations. A proposal must include nominations for both First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I will then ask for the proposal to be seconded — [Interruption].

Order. I think it would be unwise to miss any of this — you might get it wrong.

I will then proceed to ask for further nominations. If further proposals are made, the process will be repeated until there are no further nominations. At that point Members may, if they choose, debate the proposals. I propose — [Interruption].

Order. The Member may be setting aside her opportunity to be proposed.

I propose to conduct one debate on all the proposals, and no Member will be permitted to speak more than once. I shall then put the question that the first pair of nominees be the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the Assembly. However, that cannot be done until the time set out in the petition of concern has passed. So, today, after any nominations are made, there will only be the debate. I trust that that is clear, so we will proceed.

Do we have any proposals?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I propose that the Rt Hon David Trimble MP MLA be First Minister and that Mr Mark Durkan MLA be Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Is there a Member to second the proposal?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

It is still my pleasure to propose David Trimble as First Minister and Mark —

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Mark Durkan. I thank the Member — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. This degree of cross-community co-operation is not required.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his assistance — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

There are so many marks of Cain about this place at the moment that it is difficult to remember.

On Friday, I placed on record my views about the proposal that I am seconding. I do not wish to repeat them. Suffice it to say that I am confident that the two nominees will be able to bring some dignity and decorum to the proceedings — which, I regret to say, is very badly needed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Does the first nominee, the Rt Hon Mr David Trimble MP, accept the nomination for First Minister?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I accept the nomination. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members may not have heard clearly, but the Member accepted.

Mr Mark Durkan, do you accept the nomination for Deputy First Minister?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I accept the nomination, with assistance from the Benches.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Are there any further proposals?

As there are no further proposals, the time for proposals has passed. Several Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and I remind Members that they may speak only once.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I reiterate many of the points that I made last week. However, I wish to add other points. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland want devolved Government to be given the opportunity to prove itself. At the beginning of the process we set out with two objectives in mind: to ensure that devolution was established and maintained; and, in order to sustain devolution, to ensure that all parts of the Belfast Agreement were operational. That meant that the decommissioning process would commence.

Many issues that were raised in the previous debate are again relevant. Cedric Wilson’s remarks drew attention to the fact that there are a variety of opinions on the fundamentals of the agreement. Both sides’ views are legitimate. I believe, and have maintained the belief within my own party, that one should not be demonised because one does not agree with the agreement any more than one should be demonised for supporting it. Those people who are morally indignant about certain things that are happening here should perhaps examine their own behaviour in the past three and a half years.

First, Democratic Unionists and others decided to abandon the talks that led to the Belfast Agreement. That was their decision. If a party walks out of a process before serious negotiations take place, it is inevitable that those negotiations will not bear that party’s stamp, nor will they include the, perhaps valuable, contributions of that party, which might have helped mould the debate. It comes as little or no surprise that it does not like the outcome of the talks — it does not like it because it was not present and was unable to influence it.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

We did not have to buckle.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member’s party did not have the bottle to go in and negotiate, but it has the bottle to sit here — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Settle down.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The DUP has had the bottle to attend 2,000 Committee meetings. It has had the bottle to stay in office. The party said that it would rotate its Ministers. That rotation mechanism was designed to keep the seats warm for the current occupants of the two ministerial posts. The DUP’s tongues were hanging out to return to office. If the DUP is so opposed to what is happening in the Assembly, if it does not like the system, if it believes that the system is tarnished and inappropriate — well, nobody is forcing that party to be here.

Moreover, the DUP talks vividly about the presence of Sinn Féin and about its opposition to that party. Those are perfectly legitimate points of view. However, some of those same people ensured that Sinn Féin represent Fermanagh and South Tyrone in Parliament.

We can shout at one another and guffaw in the Chamber; we can point out the hypocrisies that abound. However, that disguises our main purpose, which is to try to provide good governance for the people of Northern Ireland. We wish to sustain an economy that will provide worthwhile work and a future for our young people, so that they will be able to remain here and avoid the emigration that so many generations have had to endure. We want to provide and improve health, education and housing services, and to address all the other social and economic problems from which our community suffers.

We must ask ourselves whether any of those areas would be improved by the reintroduction of direct rule Ministers to run the Province, or whether they would be better dealt with by this House. The vast majority of people, regardless of their views on the fundamentals of the agreement, believe that devolution is a better solution to our problems than the alternatives that have been in operation for 30 years. Direct rule did not bring peace or the lowest unemployment figures for generations. It did not, and will never, bring about the enforcment of the rule of law that we wish to see.

We can absent ourselves if we like, but I suspect — and the evidence supports my argument — that, since we came here in 1998, no Member has rushed out of this Chamber. Everyone present then — bar the fatality of Mr Benson and the resignation of Mr Hume — is still here, despite the views expressed by some that they were so appalled at the prospects that they could not stomach it. They seem to be able to stomach it, and that is also the case at the end of every month.

We should proceed to put in place the entire Administration. That would give us the opportunity to test and provide good government. It would also allow us to ensure that, against the background of the global economy before and since 11 September, we can compete in a situation where every region of Europe and of the Western World is scrambling for a diminishing supply of inward investment. Some might not be bothered about that — I am, as is the average person in the street.

Those are the issues that matter to people, and the histrionics of the Chamber are secondary to the question of whether people have a career and an opportunity to live a decent, dignified life in peace, enabling them to get on with their work. Those are the things that, given the opportunity, this Assembly could deliver. People might try to shout me down, but I will ensure that as long as I have the opportunity I will say my piece, and I will not be shouted down. I commend the motion.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

On Friday I described Sir Reg Empey as "a fine young man". I have since been taken to task on the grounds that that comment might diminish his standing in the Assembly, his gravitas and his authority. He is a fine young man, and those who wish to define "young" can do so.

I have three serious points to make. The first is that in this Chamber in 1973 I witnessed behaviour that I hoped would never be seen again in any elected Chamber. We had "performances" — and that is the only term that I could use — by many during those debates. I even saw fisticuffs in the Chamber at that time. I would have hoped that in the subsequent 30 years things might have changed. I believe that they have changed, and that underneath the bombast and the sotto voce contributions there is a recognition that what is happening here will last, that the entire community wants to be part of it, and that any ultimate stability will be based on politics. I do not want to see a return to the performances of 1973.

I know there are — and there will be — Members who find it impossible not to make snide remarks, and who regard themselves as the star of the show and a great comic act. However, we are not dealing with a comedy: we are varying between tragedy and farce. Tragedy exists on our streets, in our towns and in our homes, and we are not doing anything to resolve it; we are adding to it with the farce that is created in the House.

My second point is a serious one. Since last week I have heard much debate on Standing Orders, voting methods and procedures contained in the legislation and in the agreement.

However, the procedures are not deficient or at fault. Without intending any offence, I must say that the fault, when it comes to Standing Orders, the legislation and the voting requirements, lies in the number of Unionist parties. I may be wrong, but I have counted five Unionist parties. I may be one out — and I am not taking into account the halves that may well be added before the end of the week. That is what is at fault.

A fractious, divided Unionism is not capable of, or competent in, maximising the Good Friday Agreement. That is not the business of Nationalists or of others. It is the business of Unionism. There is a concern and a willingness inside and outside the House to help those in the political process who find themselves in that difficult position. There are those who will spurn it and scorn it. However, there comes a day for everyone when help and tolerance is needed, and nobody should forget that.

In many ways we have had an unseemly week and an unseemly weekend. I do not want to see the Assembly, the Executive and the political process being manipulated by anyone — not least by a Secretary of State. Our political process can, and must, stand on its feet without gimmickry, manipulation, and without people’s having to pull rabbits out of hats every week.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Was it not a horse?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

A rabbit is not a horse; rest assured of that. If we are honest, no amount of reviews will cure the problem, because the problem is not in the procedures. No amount of interventions — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Speaker for his indulgence, but I ask as a final shot — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

It ill becomes the Member to read homilies. I remember the vicious and diabolical attacks he launched against the UDR and the unanimous decision taken by all but two Unionist Members that we would leave when he rose in the House. Two Members would not leave. One of them was Reg Empey, and he is still running true to form.

What is the aim of the motion? The aim is to get IRA/Sinn Féin into Government. I carefully noted what Mr Empey had to say. He said that it was to get all of them into Government, which can only refer to IRA/Sinn Féin. That is what we are asked to do. Then when we use our democratic rights to try to implement our mandate, we are not supposed to respond to how we are treated. Fascism does not want an opposition. Sir Reg Empey does not want an opposition; he certainly does not want Unionist opposition. Sir Reg Empey has gone round the country — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

He has gone round the country telling people about salaries. He has never mentioned the fact that he gets his whole salary, but that the people that he is attacking only get one third of their salaries. He does not think that the public should know that. He does not tell the truth. If the people of Northern Ireland send a party — [Interruption].

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member has stated that I was not telling the truth. I want that remark to be withdrawn.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Dr Paisley, the Member has asserted — and I think that it is true — that you accused him of not telling the truth. He asks that you withdraw the statement.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I will change it: he has deliberately misled the people. Of course, if he met the truth, he would not recognise it.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Is that a withdrawal or not?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The question is whether Dr Paisley has withdrawn the remark. Dr Paisley, have you done so?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes. I made another remark — a remark that is acceptable in the House of Commons. It is used regularly there, so I am on good ground. Hansard can verify that.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I fear that the Member is right; it has to be used very often in that place, but I trust that it will not be used here.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

There is no rule against saying that a person misleads people. I know the sensitivity of the Member on this matter; I can understand that.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

No, I will not give way. I would not give way to you in North Antrim when I beat you in the elections, and I will not give way now.

Are people who disagree with the so-called agreement entitled to come to the Assembly? It is interesting to note that all those to whom Mr Mallon referred back the agreement. Those on our streets, causing the mayhem and trouble, all back the agreement. Why then take it out on those who disagree? They continue to do what they told their electorate they would do. In other words, they come here and resist as hard as possible any effort to take us further towards unity with the Irish Republic.

"An IRA arms handover would not be enough to give Sinn Féin seats on the Executive. If punishment beatings are continuing, if training, targeting, if units are still active on the ground, then the purposes of decommissioning would purely be fraudulent."

Those were the words of Sir Reg Empey. Then, when I say a hearty "amen" to that, he tells me that I should not say it in the House. He will say that to the electorate, like his friend, Mr Taylor, who has left us; he is Lord "somebody" now — I do not remember the geographical locality that he chose for his lordship. What a misleading statement he made today. What happened not far from here at the headquarters of the police? They took down — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. When my time ran out on Friday I was about to quote Christopher Logue on Apollinaire:

"Come to the edge. We might fall. Come to the edge. It’s too high! Come to the edge And they came and he pushed and they flew……"

That sums up what is happening in the House today. We have seen the comedians at work this morning, and they have had a laugh at the expense of many Members. However, we shall have the last laugh. Before this week is out we will elect David Trimble as First Minister and Mark Durkan as Deputy First Minister. That will be quite an experience for us on the pro-agreement side. I hope that as a result of our efforts, and for the sake of our people and our children, this peace process will, at long last, fly. It is our duty and our responsibility to ensure that. I look forward to working with those Unionists who do want a Catholic about the place. I do not know them very well, but I have met them over the last 18 months in different situations. I say, without fear of contradiction, that there are decent people on the opposite side of the House who want to see Fenians and Catholics about the place and who are prepared to work with me to bring about the essential change that the Good Friday Agreement promised all our people.

I look forward to working with the SDLP, the Women’s Coalition, the Alliance Party and the PUP. I also hope that at some time in the future the Democratic Unionist Party will recognise the need to be part of that change. The DUP is not there yet, but we can bring it there.

I have listened to people say that Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds enjoy their Ministries, that they like the place and that they are quite content with everything. I do not believe that to be true. I believe, from witnessing its behaviour, that the sectarian wing of the Assembly is dedicated to the total collapse of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process.

What is the peace process about? It is about people, education, health services, culture, arts and leisure, the environment, finances, the economy, further and higher education and the education of little children. It is about making lives better. We are in this position today because we have made great advances in our process recently. People said that the DUP’s main aim was to bring about decommissioning and that nothing else in the process mattered. I believe that the decision taken by the leadership of IRA was the worst nightmare of the DUP and of those opposed to the search for progress and change on this island.

Our job is to ensure that the power-sharing arrangements continue. It is the duty of the pro-agreement parties this week to cross that vital Rubicon together. We have shown that we can work together and that we can create the new future that all our people want. That future includes power-sharing institutions, equality, justice, an end to domination, the demilitarisation of our society and the taking of all the guns — Irish and British — out of Irish politics. It is also about the all-Ireland institutions and moving forward to create the new future that we all crave. Go raibh míle maith agat.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I rise as leader of the Alliance Party, a party committed to the centre ground, to support the nominations of David Trimble and Mark Durkan to the posts of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I need not repeat the comments expressed on Friday. Everyone knows where my party stands on the need for progress under the agreement and on the need for people to be seen to be working together and for a collective approach.

It is absolutely clear from the reactions that I have received over the weekend that there is a huge will in the community to see the Assembly make progress and to see the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to match the other Ministers who are in place and to match the workings of the Assembly and its Committees.

Many people have told us over the last several years what they will and will not do. I am prepared to swallow my pride in certain respects. There are clear assurances that there are moves to resolve the difficulties that were demonstrated last Friday. I recognise that others have done what they previously said they would not do. I can remember when Sinn Féin spokesmen told us that the IRA would never decommission, and the IRA has decommissioned. Whether or not some people believe it, I believe that Gen de Chastelain is an honourable man, and his word is good enough for me. That is why we asked him to come — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

We are incapable of dealing with serious issues such as decommissioning. That is why we have had to ask for help from outside. It is time that we grew up and took on the responsibilities ourselves. That is why we must elect the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I am also conscious of all that Sinn Féin has meant to the DUP, or what the DUP would not do with Sinn Féin. However, every Member knows that we have rotating, hokey-cokey DUP Ministers playing a part alongside Sinn Féin Ministers and that DUP Members sit in Committees negotiating and talking with Sinn Féin Members. So, if we are going to talk about charades and pantomimes, let us remember that the DUP has made its efforts here a complete pantomime and charade for three years. If some of us must live with that for 24 hours, we shall because the greater good requires it. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is also essential that we deal with our problems and that a review makes serious progress on them. I shall be voting for David Trimble and Mark Durkan. I shall do that with pride, not in the designation I hold at the time, but as a representative of the vast majority of the people of this community who want us to go forward together.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Everything has been said that can be said about the proposed appointment tomorrow of Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan. As we shall not have an opportunity to debate the matter tomorrow, I want to bring these proceedings to a conclusion by appealing directly to the Ulster Unionist Members to examine their consciences between now and whenever the vote is taken. They should consider whether their loyalty is correctly placed and whether they should have more concern about loyalty to their party leader, which is normal in a party — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is only fair to hear the Member out.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

They should have consideration for their party. However, the priority for Ulster Unionist Members, when they consider this matter overnight, should be their country. They were charged, when they were elected, to defend Northern Ireland’s position as an integral part of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that the decision of the House tomorrow will greatly affect the future of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. They should disregard the final attempt that was made by Mr Trimble and those in the Ulster Unionist Party to coerce them into supporting his reappointment and therefore the reappointment of Mr Martin McGuinness and Ms de Brún, and the continuation of the Executive and the Assembly.

Members should consider the latest promise — because we have moved on to another piece of nonsense from Mr Trimble and his party. Mr Trimble told Ulster Unionist Party members and its executive — and no doubt he will tell the council when it meets — that all decommissioning will take place by February of next year. I am certain that if the Members on the Sinn Féin/IRA Benches were honest, they would tell Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party that there is no chance of any such thing happening.

Mr Trimble has misrepresented the facts. He tells the House that decommissioning will have to be completed because the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning is due to wind up its work in February. A review is to be held in February 2002 as that is normal procedure in United Kingdom legislation. That is not required in the Republic of Ireland. The British Government will review Gen de Chastelain’s position in February and will appoint it for another five years.

In a few months or a few years, the Ulster Unionist Party may be sitting in an Executive with a party that is inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation — a party that continues to hold weapons and a large arsenal. The violence, targeting and all the other activities in which it still engages will continue. Every member of the Ulster Unionist Party must consider that; they need not point the finger at Mr Trimble or at the party executive when that becomes apparent.

The Ulster Unionist Party Members have a choice. In years to come, when their children or grandchildren ask them where they stood on the issue of putting Sinn Féin/IRA back into Government, it is to be hoped that they will be able to hold their heads high and say that, when the chips were down and the votes were counted, they took a stand, not for the Ulster Unionist Party but for Ulster and for Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom. It is hoped that they will say that they took a stand for democracy, decency, and law and order.

Tomorrow’s vote, should the Ulster Unionist Party permit it to happen, will affect the future of Northern Ireland. Members are corrupting the democratic process and undermining the rule of law and order in Northern Ireland. The reappointment of Mr Trimble will underline Northern Ireland’s departure from democracy and from support for the rule of law.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I add to the debate my voice, my vote, the vote of my Assembly Colleague, Monica McWilliams, and the vote of the people who elected the Women’s Coalition so that it might participate in the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Women’s Coalition’s ability to ensure that its votes counted in the election was only made possible by the initiative that it took on Friday to allow re-designation to have immediate effect.

As Members know, the Women’s Coalition Members changed their designation — myself to Unionist and Monica McWilliams to Nationalist — to reflect directly the party’s cross-community nature. By its actions, the Women’s Coalition called into question the discriminatory nature of a system that does not take the votes of "Others" into account. The Women’s Coalition believes that every vote in the House should count in this crucial election, and it is pleased that on Friday it opened a door for others to follow.

However, I wish to emphasise one point, perhaps to Mr Trimble himself. It has been said that the Ulster Unionist Party leader, the person who has been proposed as First Minister, should only receive genuine Unionist votes. I remind the House that David Trimble can only be elected by Unionist and Nationalist votes and that Mark Durkan can only be elected by Nationalist and Unionist votes.

I want to make this clear. We are voting for a slate that is neither one thing nor the other. It is both. We support cross-community coalition government.

The election is about more than putting the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in place. It is about sustaining the institutions of the agreement. The DUP says that it will use every opportunity to bring down the agreement, including the use of ministerial "musical chairs". That minority will use every procedural mechanism to usurp the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland who voted for the Good Friday Agreement.

As demonstrated on Friday, the Women’s Coalition can use procedural measures in a more noble fashion in the pursuit of positive democratic advancement in recognition of the democratically expressed wish of the people of Northern Ireland.

Those who challenge the election of David Trimble and Mark Durkan fail to recognise that the two largest parties should have the posts of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. There is no question about that.

The anti-agreement parties speak nonsensically about legitimacy and motives for re-designation. Mr Mallon pointed out that we have seen schisms, party formations and individual and collective splits throughout the anti- agreement camp. The election is about getting ourselves out of a political limbo and back to the business of government.

That is possible because of new and exciting events in Northern Ireland politics. Parties have been standing separately behind the roadblock of decommissioning. That roadblock has been lifted. We must choose to walk through together or stand back alone.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I listened to Reg Empey defend the agreement with all the ferocity of a toothless sheep. Is this the Reg Empey who, when the Brooke/Mayhew talks foundered upon the rock of SDLP intransigence, wept and said that for people like him, the sticky fingers on the levers of power had gone for a generation?

This is the man who proclaims the great successes of devolution. What are its great successes? The economy and unemployment figures were not dependent on anything that the Assembly did. We simply rolled forward on the benefits of a world economic cycle, which is now going the other way. Reg Empey and the Assembly are powerless to do anything about that. He tells us about the great benefits that the Assembly will bring to the Health Service. The Health Service is in a disastrous situation, worse than that which prevails in the rest of the United Kingdom. He tells us about education. Education was the one area of government that succeeded under Northern Ireland provisions when comprehensive provisions in the rest of the United Kingdom were having a disastrous effect on its education system. That will all go. Those are the benefits of the Assembly.

Mr Mallon tells us about the great changes that have occurred since 1973. Great changes indeed.

We now have the political representatives of armed terrorists, Loyalist and Republican, in Government: that is a great change. He dismisses adherence to the procedures of government as unimportant. One of the greatest English jurists, Sir Henry Maine, said that:

"Many of the most important and major principles of the law are contained in the rules of procedure."

The rules were not laid down by anti-agreement Unionists; they were put into the Belfast Agreement by the pro-agreement parties and by the two sovereign Governments as a safeguard against a breach of the kind that is intended today. The rules were put there to ensure that the balance between Nationalist and Unionist opinion was preserved and that the form of government was truly cross-community.

The enlightened Jane Morrice talked about the discriminatory nature of the system. The system was put in place by the parties to the agreement as a safeguard provision. Now, because the system does not suit, it has suddenly become discriminatory. Safeguards are abandoned because they no longer suit.

Ms Morrice also spoke about sustaining the institutions of the agreement, but she forgets that she tore up one of the most fundamental institutions of the agreement — a safeguard for ensuring that only a majority of Unionists and a majority of Nationalists could take certain decisions, including the election of the First Minister. She also talked about majorities. I understood that the difference between devolution in Northern Ireland and that in Scotland and Wales was that the latter had majority systems. We did not have a majority system; we had a cross-community system, based on securing a majority of Unionist votes and a majority of Nationalist votes. It was not intended that that would be defiled and distorted by transvestite Members and horses’ asses.

There are people here who do not understand the basic principles of democratic procedure. The ends are being used to justify the means. Ms Morrice is a very mixed-up person. The Assembly is being turned into a laughing stock, and the man and woman in the street know that.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We have reached the end of the debate. In the normal course of events I would put the Question, but, because the matter is subject to a petition of concern, it will, as with the previous Question, be put at a later time.

Assembly: Business Committee

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the discussion about timetabling and the need for the Business Committee to meet to consider that matter, may I suggest that the Assembly adjourn for approximately one hour to allow that business to be done.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Assembly suspends — rather than adjourns — for lunch. That happens by leave of the Assembly. Are Members content that the House suspend for one hour and resume at 2.00 pm?

Members indicated assent.

The sitting was suspended at 1.04 pm.

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

Draft Budget Statement

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

We return to more prosaic matters. If all the huffing and puffing, by some mischance, blows the House down, it would be just as well to leave the books in good order. I beg to move

That this Assembly takes note of the Draft Budget announced on 25 September 2001 by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

On 25 September, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, presented the Executive’s draft Budget proposals for the financial year 2002-03, in accordance with section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In making his presentation, the Minister acknowledged that Departments suffer serious pressures and shortfalls. The Committee recognises that, in producing the draft Budget, difficult decisions had to be made to strike a balance between competing demands across Departments, of which there were plenty.

I have no doubt that the Minister and the Executive devoted much thought and a considerable amount of arm-wrestling to allocating finite resources so as to obtain the maximum return and to support the Programme for Government. Members must ask whether the correct balance has been achieved.

This debate will provide Members with an opportunity to comment on the priorities outlined in the draft Budget and to argue a case for any change to them. The Finance and Personnel Committee will be taking note of the issues raised by Members. It will reflect on those issues, together with written submissions from other Committees and produce a co-ordinated report on the draft Budget. On behalf of the Committee, I express appreciation for the timely and full responses that it received from every statutory Committee and from the Committee of the Centre. Those responses will be included in full in the report.

The Budget that we will finalise in December covers the second year of the 2000 spending review. There has been a relatively rapid growth in public spending since the comprehensive spending review of 1998. The departmental expenditure limits allocated by the Treasury show a rise of 5·8% in public expenditure in the financial year 2002-03, which is about 3% above general inflation. The allocations build on the 5·5% real-term increase in the 2001-02 Budget. However, even with these increases to the departmental expenditure limits — which the Treasury has indicated we should not expect to continue after the 2002 spending review — it remains the case that most Departments are running to stand still.

The Minister, when discussing the draft Budget, and indeed any matter relating to finance, referred to the Barnett formula. Many Members feel that much can be gained by renegotiating that formula. The Finance and Personnel Committee has questioned officials closely about its application to Northern Ireland. The Committee recognises that Barnett is often weak at reflecting the particular needs of Northern Ireland, following some years of underinvestment in infrastructure and transport and in the acute needs of the health and education sectors.

Although it would appear that Westminster accepts that the shortfalls in public services require fundamental review, and, at the Westminster level, significant additional resources are being allocated, there is no guarantee that any Barnett formula consequential for Northern Ireland will focus on the same priorities. I reiterate that it is a question of deciding what our priorities are in Northern Ireland. I trust that that will consume some of Members’ attention in this debate.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel shares those concerns about the Barnett formula and wants to see Treasury allocations to Northern Ireland reflecting the needs of the people. The Committee recognises that there is some need for caution. It is not axiomatic that Barnett should be regarded as the root of all evil. The Finance Committee welcomes the Executive’s determination to address the Barnett issue and looks forward to an early report from the Minister on whatever progress is being made.

The Committee recently agreed that a research paper on Barnett that it commissioned should be made available on the Assembly Intranet. I urge Members who have an interest in the matter to have a look at that paper. The Barnett formula is by no means straightforward — it is surprisingly sophisticated in some of its manifestations. To inform a worthy debate on it and to drive any representations that are made to the Treasury, the more Members who get their heads around it, the better.

During last year’s debate on the draft Budget, Members raised concerns about the Budget timetable and the need to involve Statutory Committees at an early stage when departmental spending priorities were being considered. The Minister said that those concerns would be borne in mind for the current Budget cycle, which would be initiated and run in tandem with the drafting of the Programme for Government.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel recognises that the Executive have gone some way to meeting those concerns. This year’s timetable has certainly been better than last year — although that would not necessarily be difficult. On this occasion the Minister has brought the draft Budget to the Assembly at an earlier date, thereby giving the Committees an additional two weeks to scrutinise the departmental allocations. There is a general consensus that the extended timetable has proved valuable in allowing Committees, among all their other work, to plan and consider the details of the proposals for their Departments. There is also a feeling that it would not matter how early you started — you could always do with more time to consider those matters.

The publication for consultation of the Executive’s position report prior to the summer recess was also a recognition that Committees and the public need to be consulted on the Executive’s developing plans for the Budget and the Programme for Government. The preparation of, and consultation on, the report was, in effect, an additional stage in the Budget and Programme for Government consultation process. The Committee for Finance and Personnel found that useful.

The position report provided the Committees with a focus and a starting point for the commencement of budgetary considerations. In future budgetary cycles, that stage will grow in importance as Committees have access to service development agreements, providing much more detail than is currently available to use as benchmarks against which to assess departmental plans and allocations.

Most of us are just starting to focus on these public service agreements, but they will have an important role to play in enabling us to focus on whether there has been an increase or a decrease in efficiency of delivery within Departments. The Committee for Finance and Personnel welcomes these developments. However, the Committee remains concerned that further improvement in the process is necessary if Committees are to have sufficient and appropriate opportunities to contribute to the Budget process.

It remains the case that the earlier a Committee starts looking at the Budget for the subsequent year, the more impact it is likely to have on the outcomes. Essentially, it is never too early to start. Committees are beginning to identify, as the Finance Committee has, that the Departments may not be keen on Committees starting early. Indeed, from their point of view, Departments have more chance of getting their proposals accepted if a Committee starts late.

Members are now more familiar with the structures of the Departments that they scrutinise. I trust, therefore, that they can examine those matters further in advance and that they will be in a better position to drive the policies that are attached to the budgetary decisions. Nonetheless, I put on record my Committee’s generally positive reaction to the improvements in the budgetary cycle. The Minister should, however, note the intention of the Finance and Personnel Committee to pursue further improvements through its report on the draft Budget, which will soon be published.

Committees have expressed almost universal concern about the failure of Departments to consult them appropriately during the bidding round for the second tranche of the Executive programme funds. The allocations made to successful bids from the Executive programme funds represent a real increase in the Department’s spending allocation, both in-year and across the budget cycle. There is probably a greater impact — certainly a greater discretionary impact — from the Executive programme funds than is likely to derive from this Budget round.

Unfortunately, the timetable for the Executive programme funds bidding process did not, in the eyes of many Committees, deliver an opportunity to be fully involved, informed or even properly engaged in the process. Owing to the serious problems identified with the process, the Committee for Finance and Personnel decided to act on behalf of the other statutory Committees, and of the Committee of the Centre, and to raise their concerns with the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

As a consequence, on 19 October 2001 the Committee published a report co-ordinating its views with those of the other Committees. The report outlined the problems and detailed 16 substantial recommendations for the attention of the Minister of Finance and Personnel and of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who share responsibility for managing the Executive programme funds bidding process. The Minister is considering the report and will return to the Committee shortly to discuss methods and suggestions for improvements to the process. I assure him that Members and Committees expect to see a substantial improvement in that area in the future. In that context, it is never too early to start focusing on the next Budget, and by the same token it would never be too early for Committees to start focusing on the next round of Executive programme funds. In any case, the general criteria and the allocations to those funds are already well laid out.

I will not go into details of the Budget; my remarks are more general. However, I draw attention to one matter in the Department of Finance and Personnel. As well as conducting a thorough and strategic examination of the Executive programme funds, the Finance Committee took considerable pains to examine strategic issues in the Department of Finance and Personnel’s central finance group section — if you like, the engine room for the Budget and the Executive programme funds process. Our aim was to ensure that the resources available to this pivotal part of the Budget management process were appropriate to meet the Department’s objectives as set out in the Programme for Government. From the concerns expressed to us by senior departmental officials, it was clear that resources in that area have been stretched to meet challenging objectives. As a result, the Committee for Finance and Personnel agreed that effective management of the financial process is essential if the outcomes that we all desire are to be achieved. The Committee, therefore, has supported, and will continue to support, the allocation of extra resources to the central finance group in the Department of Finance and Personnel in order to secure those objectives.

The purpose of today’s debate is to give Members the opportunity to raise their concerns, to support various provisions, to pose further questions and to probe the issues. It will enable the Committee for Finance and Personnel to listen to and note the issues raised, to inform its proposals and to advise the Minister accordingly.

That concludes my remarks as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel; I now wish to make several personal ones.

Whether public services are delivered in the most effective way has become a national issue, particularly since the last general election. A great deal of soul- searching is going on over that. An interesting question arises as to whether responsibility for any fundamental changes, such as in how the Health Service is operated, should be transferred from Westminster, letting the devolved Administrations decide whether they should adopt them or not. That may well be what Westminster expects to happen. It does not need to be done in that way. We should also consider whether there is scope for the devolved Administrations to take the lead in reviewing how some services are provided and whether there is scope within existing departmental expenditure limits to look at things in what could turn out to be a radical way. I toss that thought out for consideration.

Members, and in particular members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, must always focus on the fact that we are dealing with taxpayers’ money. Those taxpayers come from throughout the United Kingdom, and it is important to ensure that they get value for money from the public services. The public service agreements and the service development agreements are new initiatives to assist in that. However, we must look at the administrative structure that surrounds how Departments exercise their different functions. Money is tighter than it was, and that should be a further stimulus to examine whether the administrative structures are appropriate or whether there is scope to pare them down and place more focus on outcomes and less on process. I trust that when Committees are scrutinising the work of their Departments, they will take account of those matters.

Taxpayers are becoming concerned about whether they get value for money from public services. If there is to be an increase in general taxation, to go with the considerable increases that have occurred in past years, albeit of a stealthy nature, taxpayers will become increasingly cynical and question the real value that comes from that extra taxation.

I look forward to hearing the views of Members, and I welcome today’s opportunity to have an extended debate on the draft Budget.

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

I welcome the opportunity that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has given Members to take part in a wider debate on the draft Budget. There is much to be commended in its proposals. The Minister has shown insight and fairness in dealing with the difficult task of allocating funds to areas of need and social deprivation.

As I have said before, it is easy to advocate change when in opposition, but it is not so easy when in Government. It is absurd to see the people who claim that they want change, and who are the most vocal about the Executive programme funds, resisting the mechanisms in the Budget for change.

We are all aware of the problems that many of the public services face, but rapid growth in that area is essential. At present, that growth still falls short of meeting expectations for service delivery, particularly in the health sector, where there is a serious deficit in funding for current needs, let alone increased future requirements.

The promotion of interdepartmental co-ordination to deal with issues that affect people with disabilities is a positive measure for building a stronger, more concerted way to alleviate current difficulties and to promote the social inclusion of one of the most disadvantaged sections of our population. Our aim is to provide better access to services and facilities for people with disabilities and to give them better access to education and employment. I commend the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning for addressing the issue in the draft Budget, because they are bringing people with disabilities into line with the rest of society.

The draft Budget contains a proposal to allocate an extra £20million for education in 2002-03. That represents an increase of 4·8% on last year’s allocation. However, is that funding enough to make a real impact, particularly on TSN? Many schools are still experiencing funding difficulties, and, to advance the review of post-primary education and the review of local management of schools (LMS) grants, adequate funding will be needed to implement real change.

It is commendable that the Executive have recognised the difficulties faced by the education sector and that they have prioritised those needs. However, a revision of the Barnett formula would be preferable to ensure a more equitable allocation of funding in line with England. However, there has not been a spending review in Westminster, and it seems that we still have to work within the constraints on our spending power.

I am concerned about the effects of the proposed £2 million cut in the local government resources grant. The consequences of that could leave less-well-off coun `cils in a serious situation with regard to services for local communities. We need all Departments to examine their spending patterns to ensure that those are relevant to the real needs of the communities.

Our targets in the Programme for Government must be reviewed and examined regularly to enable us to turn them into realistically achievable objectives. However, we cannot do that without adequate funding in the first place. To achieve that goal, we must show support for the Minister of Finance and Personnel in his endeavours to secure greater levels of funding to benefit all our constituents.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

My Committee met the Minister on 12October to discuss the draft Budget and the draft Programme for Government. Members also agreed their formal response to the draft Budget during a meeting on 26October. They had the chance to consider a draft of the contribution that I will make to the House today, and no comments were received.

One issue with regard to the draft Budget concerns my Committee more than any other: no provision is made for the implementation of the findings of the vision group’s recently published report on the future of the agrifood industry. The Committee has not completed its own consideration of the report, and it will not agree with all of its recommendations. However, through the Assembly’s research services, the Committee has established that many areas could be described as compatible or consistent with recommendations already made by the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in its inquiry reports.

On 19 October, the Committee met some of the authors of the vision group report, who expressed disappointment that the original bid for money had not been met. One of the subgroup chairmen pointed to the group’s 208 recommendations and pleaded with the Committee to help secure the resources required to implement them. The Committee takes a similar line, pointing to its own two inquiries, which have resulted in four reports containing 73 recommendations. The vision group deliberated for more than a year, while the inquiries of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee lasted a year and a half. If there is no finance available to implement at least a proportion of those well-thought-out proposals, then all our time has been wasted.

The Executive’s position report published in June 2001 asked Committees to concentrate on what will be achieved through Departments’ programmes rather than on bids. However, in this case the Committee cannot separate those two aspects. If new actions are not financed, there can be no new outcomes. At best, the agriculture industry will remain in the doldrums it has descended into in the past few years. At worst, it may not survive at all.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s original bid was for £10 million per annum for implementation, but this bid seems to have been totally rejected. The Minister explained to the Committee that the proposed Budget settlement was a satisfactory outcome for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. She went on to outline her intention to bid for Executive programme funds for the necessary resources for the vision report, which she described as being £10 million — in total, presumably.

The Committee accepts that, for example, the new directions fund would be an appropriate source of funds for some of the actions proposed by the vision group and, indeed, by the Committee. There may also be scope for some reallocation of existing resources within the Department’s budget. In the face of massive change in the industry, it is inevitable and desirable that the Government’s approach must also change. However, it is not prudent to put all your eggs in the one basket. The Executive programme funds are limited, and there will be great pressures for access to them from all Departments. The Committee is concerned that the funds will not be able to satisfy the Department’s implementation demands. Members are therefore convinced that there should be some mainstream element in the Budget to fund those actions. I would like to hear the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s response to that theme.

There is a clear commitment in the Programme for Government to implementing an action plan for the strategic development of the agrifood industry. If the Executive are genuine in this commitment to the people of rural Northern Ireland — which we welcome — they must underpin that commitment by providing adequate resources that must be firmly established in the Department’s budget.

I will continue when I am called again after Question Time.

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

We shall resume the debate on the draft Budget statement at 4.00 pm.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I want to comment on some aspects of the draft Budget for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Committee welcomes the additional £2·2 million allocated for BSE testing according to new European requirements. The Committee studied the bid carefully and supports it fully as an essential measure to regain export markets for Northern Ireland beef.

However, the matter was brought to a head by a visit of a committee of inspectors from Europe. Unfortunately, the Department had not maintained the full standards, and the leeway thus lost was used as an excuse to delay the vital decision of allowing our meat into the European market. Now that the Department has decided to spend this money, I trust that it will raise standards to the European level.

It is impossible to get away with anything in Europe. If one does not do it the European way, one brings disaster on oneself. If the standards that were set by the Department had been adhered to and the Committee had not been rushed, BSE testing might have been closer to the requirements.

The Department has allocated a further £2 million for the scrapie eradication programme. To the Committee’s knowledge, that was not the subject of a new bid. There was a successful bid for £2 million in the 2001-02 financial year, and this £2 million is presumably additional to that. Can the Minister confirm that in his response?

Workload pressures on animal disease control are also quoted in the draft Budget as part of an allocation of £3·4 million. The Committee agrees that disease eradication should be a departmental priority. Much of the Department’s annual Budget is spent on compensation payments to farmers whose animals fall victim to disease, particularly brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis.

Although it is vital to ensure that farmers’ livelihoods are protected, a concerted effort must be made to eradicate disease. Compensation is not enough; eradication schemes must also be subsidised. Therefore, the Committee expects to see positive outcomes from the Minister’s reviews of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s disease policy.

Although it concentrates on the agrifood industry, the Committee does not ignore the plight of the fishing industry and of the rural communities dependent on that industry. The Committee notes that part of the draft Budget figure of £3·4 million is allocated to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

"to maintain existing service levels"

in several areas, including the cod recovery plan. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was successful last year in securing £120,000 toward implementation costs in 2001-02. Members can only assume that this year’s allocation will also go to the plan’s administration and policing of fishing ground closures as part of that plan.

I want to remind Members that on 27 March 2001 the Assembly unanimously agreed a motion calling on the Minister to provide short-term financial assistance to the fishing industry to compensate for restrictions coming from the cod recovery programme. The Minister’s reaction was that it was too late to act in the current year. She undertook to review the economic effects of the closures and to discuss the possibility of compensation, as permitted by Europe, with Colleagues in the other UK Fisheries Departments. However, she warned that it has not been the policy to compensate fishermen. It seems that one can take away a fisherman’s right to fish and yet give him no compensation. That is intolerable. If extra funding can be found for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s administration of the cod recovery programme, it should also be possible to find funding to compensate fishermen for the sacrifice that they are forced to make when their fishing grounds are closed under the recovery programme.

The Committee must welcome the increase of 4·3% in the Department’s budget. However, the Committee recommends, in the strongest possible terms, that the Executive allocate additional funds to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in support of two hard-pressed industries in the Province — farming and fisheries.

I am now taking off my hat as Chairman of the Committee and am speaking in a personal capacity. My Deputy Chairperson will be referring to the important matter of a retirement scheme. Each Committee member would be at one about that scheme.

I also want to correct a rumour that has come out of the Department. When Mr Hume and I, as Members of the European Parliament, met Commissioner Byrne, he told us that European money was available. Of course, that money would have to be matched on a retirement scheme. It has been put out by the Department that that could not be. I would have thought that the Commissioner would know more about Europe than any member of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development or the Minister herself. The Commissioner did tell us that money was available. There were four witnesses — Mr Hume had someone with him, and I had my friend with me. Four of us heard it, and we had quite a discussion about it. If that is the case, there should be a move. There seems to be a tremendous hold-up when one mentions a retirement scheme.

I feel strongly about the fishing industry, and I regret the state that it is in. It is disastrous when men are put out of their livelihood, that their ships, with all the money that was spent on them, must be burned, battered and broken up, and nobody gets a penny. That is an utter scandal. If a man who has a boat leaves the business, why can he not sell that boat? It would not be used for fishing; it could be a residence or some sort of shed for use in the fishing industry. However, he cannot do that. No matter how many thousands of pounds have been paid, the boat must be broken up, and the fisherman must pay back the money that he got to repair that boat originally. I am glad that even the Alliance Party agrees with me on that one. I am thrilled to bits — [Interruption].

Please do not transubstantiate yourself, or I might change my mind.

These are real wounds in the heart of the society of Northern Ireland, both in agriculture and in fishing. The Minister had to be Scrooge-like when he handed out his money, and I understand that. If the money is not there, he cannot hand it out. However, if we do not make some real moves to deal with these matters, the plight of agriculture and fishing will be even worse, and it will be even more difficult to extricate the fishermen from the mess they are in.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have some general points on the draft Budget, and my Colleagues will make more specific ones.

We are tied to the budgetary plans of the British Exchequer, which for generations has had an obsession with cutting taxes. We need a real increase in investment in public-sector infrastructure. Preoccupation with tax cuts, ahead of the duty to schools, hospitals, pensioners and a whole raft of issues, is part of being tied to the political philosophy of the British Exchequer.

Our departmental expenditure limit allocations, as set out by the Treasury, show a rise in public expenditure in 2002-03 of 5·8%, or about 3% more than inflation. However, many of the costs that affect public services are rising at a faster rate than inflation. The allocations for 2002-03 build on the 5·5% real-terms increase in the 2001-02 Budget, which has allowed Departments to initiate the work started on the Programme for Government priorities.

The Barnett consequential that is used to calculate the block grant is unfair. It is a headcount that takes no account of need or of any meaningful adjustments to population structure. We have an ageing population, a high proportion of young people, higher levels of ill health and rural problems. There is an immediate need to increase spending on infrastructure, health, education, housing, roads, rail, and power, as well as on information and telecommunications technology.

Throughout the North of Ireland, and with the Dublin Government, we must find funds to build not just a North/South economic corridor, but an east-west, cross- border corridor. We do not want to see the good work done in the Assembly with the return of local democracy being undermined and undone by a parsimonious British Chancellor. An inflation-busting increase in the regional rates for the second year in a row will leave many businesses and households running for cover. Although businesses have been spared the worst of the increases with a 3·3% increase for the second year, householders have been hit by yet another 7% rates hike, also for a second year.

It is clear that the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the entire Assembly need to unite and put that matter to the British Exchequer. There is a legacy of underfunding. We have a need that is not reflected in the headcount of the Barnett formula. We are a society emerging from conflict.

Sinn Féin would like to see the creation of an all-Ireland economy. That is the only way that this island’s economy can be more successful. The first step towards that goal is tax-varying powers for the Assembly. Unfortunately, we are not currently in a position to have those. In the meantime, we need a co-ordinated strategy to deal with the flawed and unfair Barnett formula that allocates our block grant. We need to ask why the massive British war machine expenditure has not been redeployed to support our transition to a more peaceful, stable, prosperous, fair and outward- looking society. The Assembly should also negotiate with the Irish Government for an increase in their commitments to expenditure on cross-border programmes and services, and on all-Ireland bodies through the North/South Ministerial Council.

We should work towards eradicating community differentials, ending discrimination and tackling disadvantage. We need to spend much more on the community and voluntary sectors, instead of starving them of resources. Their dire situation is compounded by the twin problems of the gap in the European funding that supports so much of those sectors’ work, and the retreat of mainstream funding. The community and voluntary sectors deal with problems such as drug and alcohol abuse by giving advice and practical assistance. They are a vital community resource, especially in the most disadvantaged and marginalised areas. Thousands of people employed in those sectors face job losses because of the lack of gap funding.

The regeneration of towns and villages is also a victim of the Budget, with annual allocations being slashed by 4·4%. Given the millions pumped into the Laganside project in east Belfast, expenditure on town and village regeneration should be given priority in order to create a level playing field.

Rather than tinkering around the edges, we should be developing a comprehensive plan to deal with the flawed and unfair Barnett formula that is used to work out our block grant allocation. There is also an onus on the Irish Government to spread the benefits of the "Celtic tiger", and we need to put pressure on the British Government, not only about the Barnett formula but on the provision of the peace dividend.

The peace process has been in place for a number of years, yet we are still waiting for the money sucked up by the British war machine to be redeployed. We are a society emerging from conflict, continuing to suffer the social and economic consequences of that conflict. No adequate provision is contained in the Budget or financial estimates for the legacy of discrimination, inequality and injustice in the north of Ireland that needs to be redressed as a matter of urgency. Go raibh maith agat.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I do not wish to use the opportunity afforded by this debate on the draft Budget to criticise the allocation of money to the various Departments. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear that. Nor do I intend to rehearse the old arguments about the iniquity of increases in the regional rate that are above the rate of inflation. I am sure that the Minister will be doubly delighted to hear that. Rather, I shall use the opportunity to question the whole concept and methodology of our Budget process.

It has been three years since the Assembly first met, and in many respects we are still slavishly following customs and practices of the past. Although such practices may have served society well in the past, they ignore the stark realities of the present. The money that we are spending is not the Government’s money; it is not the Executive’s money. It is taxpayer’s money. That money is departmentalised — it is locked away in particular Departments. It is spent by Departments, and each is hell-bent on ensuring that it gets its percentage increase year on year oblivious to, or without concern for, the stark realities of life that exist outside.

The sums of money allocated and the percentage increases awarded can be justified when viewed in the context of a particular Department. For instance, who could question that more money needs to be spent on roads, transport, water and sewerage services. However, the justification becomes less meaningful when viewed against what must be the Assembly’s number-one priority: the health of our people.

The Executive say that they prioritise expenditure, and to a small degree that is true. However, words have not yet been backed up with sufficient resources. The Assembly and the Executive pronounce publicly that health is the number one priority, but do Members mean what they say? Do the Ministers and the members of each Statutory Committee feel in their heart of hearts that health is the number-one priority, and do they treat it as such? Is their own Department their number-one priority? Do they not clamour year in, year out for more of that finite resource called money for their Departments? Ultimately, that is at the expense of health. Everyone wants his or her extra pound of flesh.

To say that there is a crisis in the Health Service is no exaggeration; it is an understatement. It is not an exaggeration to say that people are dying because of lack of resources. Thousands of people, maybe tens of thousands, are waiting for proper coronary care. The new cancer unit has been further delayed. There is a shortage of surgeons, nurses, beds, et cetera. Members could rehearse the problems, and they could beat their breasts. However, there is a huge void when it comes to doing what is necessary.

Over the past number of weeks I have tried to ascertain what the word "priority" means in the Assembly. I have asked all the Ministers to release at least £10 million from their budgets to alleviate the crisis in the Health Service. Such a move would increase the health budget by at least £90 million. I met with some interesting results. In a number of cases my questions were ruled inadmissible. However, I was not told that by any Minister: I was told it by others who appear to rule on whether a Member may ask a question on behalf of his constituents. That is a strange form of democracy.

Some of my questions were referred to the Minister of Finance and Personnel on the grounds that it was his responsibility. That is an interesting concept. The Minister of Finance and Personnel apparently decides whether the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of the Environment, or any other Department, can release money. That is what I have been told. In one case I got a straight "No". The Minister in question acknowledged the pressures on the Health Service but said that transferring £10 million would have severe implications for his or her Department.

So much for priority. So much for those citizens crying out for urgent health care. So much for those who are waiting on trolleys. So much for those who are dying. In the overall scheme of things, is it more important to save a life or to spend an extra £300,000 in support of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, or an extra £500,000 on veterinary services? Is it not more important to resource more nurses and surgeons than to increase expenditure on accommodation or give an extra £5 million to the Environment and Heritage Service?

Is transport more important than cancer care or community care packages? We are the guardians of the public purse. Our management of that purse must reflect the real and pressing needs of society — the taxpayers. Would a businessman or businesswoman continue with an expensive advertising campaign if that meant laying off production workers because of scarce resources and a cash-flow problem? Would the parents of a terminally ill child spend money on redecorating their home or buying a new car, or would they keep money in the bank if that money could save their child’s life?

How can the Assembly justify keeping tens of millions of pounds in Executive programme funds for future spending, when people will die because that money is not being spent now? The draft Budget fails to give meaning to the word "priority". It fails the people. The Assembly has proved adept at changing rules over the past few days. I suggest that it put the same effort into changing practices of the past and give a real and meaningful definition to the word "priority".

Denis Watson (UUAP, Upper Bann)

During the opening debate on the draft Budget on 25 September, the Chairman of the Environment Committee questioned the Minister of Finance and Personnel on the justice of the proposal to cut £2 million from the resources grant payable to those councils with the weakest rates base. Neither the Minister of Finance and Personnel nor the Minister of the Environment has explained the logic of that proposal. It takes £2 million from the weakest councils to pay for compliance with EU legislation that is primarily on waste management, which will benefit everyone, including people in the strongest rates-base councils.

I ask those Ministers again — and Members — how that stands with the key policy theme in the Executive’s draft Programme for Government of targeting social need and the promotion of equality of opportunity. The Environment Committee has received letters from 14 local councils protesting against the £2 million cut and highlighting the unfairness of targeting the weakest rates-base councils. The Committee has forwarded those letters to the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Executive, and has asked that the proposal to cut the local government resources grant be dropped from the 2002-03 Budget. Those letters show that the £2 million cut will have a major impact on local government services and rates in some of the poorest and most socially deprived areas of Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister of Finance and Personnel to give this matter serious and urgent consideration.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I want to focus on two main areas in relation to the draft Budget: first, adult basic skills, and secondly, research and development spending, particularly regarding Northern Ireland’s universities.

I want to address the policy response to and funding of adult basic literacy and numeracy. The Committee for Employment and Learning was pleased that additional money was granted to that area in the first round of Executive programme funds. However, the sum granted at that time was less than the 30% of what the Department had asked for. No additional funding has been provided since then. Those problems are sufficiently serious to warrant further funding. This is a fundamental social problem that has implications for individuals’ employability and state of health and has an impact on general economic growth and productivity.

We welcome the fact that the most recent draft of the Programme for Government placed increased emphasis on that area. One quarter of the adult population here falls into the category of the lowest measured level of ability either to read or count. Along with Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and the United States, Northern Ireland languishes at the bottom of the international league with regard to adult basic skills. This seems to imply that something systemic has gone wrong with basic education — particularly primary education — in the English-speaking world. That has happened in the past. Our priority is to ensure that this problem will never be recreated for future generations in primary and secondary schools. We also need to deal with those currently in the labour force who have a tragic inability to read or exercise basic numeracy. We appeal for additional moneys in that area.

My second concern in respect of employment and learning is R&D, as based in universities in Northern Ireland. The issue of the contribution of the training and education system to industry was given prominence in our Committee’s report about three weeks ago. Subsequent to that report, the vice-chancellors of Queen’s University and the University of Ulster gave evidence to the Committee in the strongest possible terms about what they saw as the inadequacy of the funding provided for R&D in general, and university-based R&D in particular.

There is a strong positive relationship between the proportion of R&D spending in any country or region as a percentage of regional or national gross domestic product (GDP) and the subsequent economic growth rate. It is worrying that Northern Ireland lies at the bottom of a second league table: that of Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. We fall in the class occupied by countries such as Turkey and Hungary. We have an R&D spend of only 0·6% of regional GDP, compared to 1% in the Republic of Ireland, where the spend has increased rapidly over the last five or six years, and roughly 2% in the United Kingdom as a whole. Thirty per cent of the R&D spend in Northern Ireland is carried out in universities, compared to under one fifth in the UK as a whole. The universities will therefore have a pivotal role in increasing the level of R&D spend in Northern Ireland.

When presenting their evidence to the Committee, the two vice-chancellors argued very similar cases, making the point that the Welsh and Scottish Administrations have substantially increased the level of public support for university-based R&D since devolution. Locally, that has yet to happen to the same degree. It was also noted that a continued decrease in university-based R&D would have a negative knock-on effect on the economy and on society. The private sector would suffer from a resulting reduction in the numbers of so-called spin-off companies. Many of these are high-growth and high-tech entrepreneurial companies. There would also be implications for the public sector generally. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which rely heavily on the universities to do background research to aid the development of future policies, would find resources less forthcoming.

Both universities anticipate improved performance in the current research assessment exercise. Sadly, as things stand, there will not be enough money in the kitty to reward those university departments that have improved their measured research output with a commensurate increase in funding. This will remain true even if the bid for £4·5 million extra for university- based R&D is realised from the current round of Executive programme funds. Northern Ireland’s universities, through no fault of their own, are slipping further behind their counterparts in Great Britain as initiatives and funding announced in London are not being read across to Stormont.

Other Departments may be able to make more apparently striking cases for extra money. However, the long term as well as the short term must be considered. The crucial point about R&D spending is that it is an investment. There is no doubt, according to the available evidence, that it helps increase future economic growth. For instance, it provides additional resources that could be used to provide funding for the health sector, which Mr Close talked about.

In a sense it is a partial answer to Mr Close’s point about asking each Department to give £10 million to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That action might provide some short-term relief as regards waiting lists, but it would do nothing to generate future economic growth. That is the only sound and sustainable basis for an adequate level of health, social or educational spending in the Province. Unless the Northern Ireland Executive face up to the challenge of matching the commitment to R&D already being shown by their counterparts in London and in the other devolved Administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh, devolution will fail to lay the foundations for a more prosperous future here.

I want to close by making some more general points about the Budget. To do so, I remove my Employment and Learning Committee Chairman’s hat. I commend the Minister of Finance and Personnel on his stamina. By the end of the debate he will probably feel that he has heard many of the speeches before, and he is likely to hear similar speeches again in the future. That is the nature of such debates. Certain matters are so important that they deserve to be returned to again and again until the Executive deal with them adequately through the Budget and the Programme for Government.

The 2002-03 Budget is designed to deal particularly with changes in spending and to focus on areas that are deemed by the Department of Finance and Personnel to be new or inescapable commitments. It is not about a fundamental review of the baseline of expenditure and of the annual growth rate of expenditure of each Department. Such a fundamental review is projected for the following year’s Budget. However, given that such a review of baselines is so necessary, I suspect that we will be treading constantly in that territory in the debate. Perhaps that is no bad thing.

In a debate such as this, many Members will yield to the strong temptation to bash the Treasury, for example, on the Barnett formula’s inadequate funding of public expenditure here. In that context, I suggest that when Dr O’Hagan of Sinn Féin speaks about tax-varying powers, it must be recognised that that will almost inevitably mean substantial tax-increasing powers. We must be clear about that before we ask for it. The danger of asking for gifts is that you will be given them and that, sometimes, they are not really gifts at all.

On the point about the island economy and the alleged desirability of it, we must be clear about what is being asked for. The level of public spending in Northern Ireland is substantially greater by several billions pounds per annum than the level of tax revenues received. Therefore, if stress is being put on the so-called all-island, or all-Ireland, dimension, it must be asked whether Sinn Féin has asked the Minister for Finance in the Dublin Government, Mr McCreevy, whether he would be willing to contribute those several billion pounds, especially as his own fiscal position has become more difficult since 11 September. I am pretty sure what the answer would be.

As I understand it, the Executive programme funds were designed to engineer innovative areas of spending additional to what would have been spent anyway. Moreover, the funds were to encourage the so-called joined-up pattern of Government expenditure that we have so often been encouraged to promote, particularly interdepartmental initiatives. It is a real source of regret that, as of yet, there have been relatively few such genuinely inter- or multi-departmental initiatives. Overall, there is not much evidence that the funds have been leading, at least so far, to genuinely additional, innovative or joined-up measures. There is a great danger that they have simply become a contingency fund for public expenditure in Northern Ireland by another name.

I support the motion.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

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

I thank the Minister and the Committee for Finance and Personnel for their combined efforts in ensuring that the budgetary process has, this time, allowed Committees to scrutinise the draft Budget allocations for their respective Departments more effectively than previously.

I have put it on record before that my Committee welcomed the additional allocations for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, which totalled some £4·7 million. However, the Committee still has several major concerns about the level of underfunding that continues to inhibit the Department’s activities. I am required to mention a few of them on behalf of the Committee.

The first is the safe sports grounds scheme, which was warmly welcomed by the Committee and the House when it was introduced. Unfortunately that scheme received only £1 million, when there was a lot more to be allocated in that direction. It is interesting and concerning that, of all the bids for sport in our departmental budget, that was the only one that received any recognition at all. The money received was below what was expected.

There was also great disappointment among the Committee Members because of the failure of the arts bids, which totalled some £4 million. Sometimes other Committees and those who sit on them forget that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has a very small budget indeed. If £10 million were taken out of it, as Mr Close suggested, that would be almost one sixth of the budget. Compare that with some of the higher-spending Departments — for example, one sixth of the health budget would amount to £250 million.

Like-for-like calculations do not apply. We are working with such small amounts of money that often, if the figures for our projects were to be rounded up by other Departments, they would be "lost in the roundings". That would make a tremendous difference to our objectives.

It is important to bear in mind the need for serious action in the arts sector, particularly in the light of the launch of Belfast’s bid to become the European Capital of Culture 2008. That campaign is exciting and has captured the imagination of many, but it must be based on certain fundamental building blocks. One of the most important of those, which, in general terms would be considered a small bid — £1 million — is the Grand Opera House development scheme. The project would be a key plank in Belfast’s application to become the European Capital of Culture, and recently the Committee was very concerned to note that there was a competing interest in the site. The Grand Opera House cannot bid for the site because of a lack of funds, and the expansion programme could be in jeopardy. A unique opportunity to enhance the arts infrastructure of the city would be lost, and it would be difficult to explain that in future.

The Committee is also concerned about such important institutions in the Department’s responsibility as museums, the Armagh Observatory and the Planetarium. Recent research revealed that the budget for museums was cut by 8% in 1994. That historic underfunding has been inherited; the situation has never been rectified, and institutions have been trying to exist on a drastically reduced budget. The seriousness of the position is illustrated by the proposal to sell off Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) property, at least in part, to meet the deficit. The Committee was concerned to learn about that proposal.

Our concern is that we will have to strip the assets of our arts and culture sector in order to survive. I place on record the fact that the Committee’s deep concern was reflected in its strong opposition to such an approach.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has inherited a problem as a result of a library staffing review which was initiated by the former Department of Education for Northern Ireland at a cost of £10 million. The Department’s bid for the £10 million to cover the cost of the review until the current year is OK, but, should its in-year bid fail, the Committee would not expect the Department to find the money from its own resources. That would also be our position on any in-year bid in 2003 for the additional £2 million that is still unmet in the draft Budget. The situation was not of the Department’s making, and the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure would not support any attempt to fund a pre-devolution review from the Department’s already inadequate resources.

However, the Committee expressed pleasure that the Department’s bid for additional staffing had been met. That staffing is fundamental to departmental organisation, the creation of a proper corporate structure and the improvement of its services to customers and to the Assembly.

The Committee has known for some time that staff shortages have meant that progress on many important areas of work, which would have had a considerable social and economic impact on the community, have had to be deferred. It hopes that the additional resources for staffing show that some recognition is being given to placing the funding requirement for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on a proper footing.

Leaving aside my role as the Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, I wish to ask a question on a matter that several Members mentioned: the all-Ireland economy. As we move to an integrated economy in Europe, has the Minister any comments to make on how Budgets, particularly in a cross-border setting, could be affected by the introduction of the euro? I represent a border constituency, and I know the concerns that many people have about the ordinary, everyday changes that will come about as a result of the euro’s introduction. Has the Department of Finance and Personnel made appropriate plans to cope with any problems that may emerge?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Dr Paisley spoke about the fishing industry. He made the point about the shortfall and the need for support, especially this year, for the cod recovery plan. However, other issues must be reiterated.

The first issue came to the fore in my constituency in the past month. Complaints about health services apply across the Province, not just in Strangford. The worrying trend in Newtownards is that the trust intends to reduce the amount of time that home helps spend with pensioners and with the handicapped. That causes concern in my constituency and is a result of the stress and contraction of the budget that is allocated to the community care side of the Health Service. It is totally inadequate to deal with the needs of people in the area.

Several elderly constituents have contacted my advice centre. They were distressed because their home helps, who previously made their meals, had been replaced by meals on wheels, which the trust has said is more cost-effective. The trust has failed to acknowledge the therapy — I purposely use the word "therapy" — that home helps provide the people on whom they call. They do not simply make a meal; they spend 15 minutes to half an hour talking to the senior citizens or the handicapped people, who, in turn, are made to feel that despite being infirm they are not completely divorced from the rest of the world. We must address the despair and isolation that many elderly people feel, because, ultimately, that will lead to health deterioration and depression.

Last week, I met the chief executive of the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust. Although he sympathised with the home-help situation, he felt that it was the latest in a catalogue of budgeting blunders that have left the National Health Service, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom, at a loss. He reiterated that the necessary budget is not there to cope with the demands. Last year, the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust provided nine additional complex care packages. Members will know that there is now a greater demand on care packages; higher levels of need exist. This year, the trust has 60 extra cases, which compounds the issue.

The fact that the elderly population in Strangford is rising also adds to the problem. The population there contains 75% more elderly people than any other area in Northern Ireland. We have lost some nursing homes, and many residential homes cannot cope with the pressures that the system places on them.

In my trust area, we have been told that £500,000 would be needed to provide the appropriate level of home-help and care-package assistance. If we multiply that figure across the Province, we shall find that the issue needs to be addressed in all community trusts. It is hard to understand the situation here when we find that £300 million is available in England and Wales to get people out of hospitals and into the community. That money will dramatically reduce waiting lists. Why is the same emphasis not placed on solving the problem in Northern Ireland? Is Northern Ireland, once again, the poor relation in the United Kingdom?

Disabled sport is also affected by the draft Budget. We all remember the last Paralympic Games, and one would imagine that everyone would be behind our disabled sportsmen and sportswomen. Instead, we find that a paltry sum of £30,000 is set aside to appoint a development officer to an umbrella organisation. Nothing has been contributed to the Special Olympics. Given that our disabled athletes can bring home more medals than our able-bodied ones, the lack of funding is scandalous. Northern Ireland has many disabled sportsmen and sportswomen who were injured as a result of the troubles of the past 30 years. Often, the only release that those people can find from the frustration and anger that they feel towards those who caused their injuries is through sport. We should make every effort to ensure that disabled people who want to be involved in sport have the opportunity.

The Chairperson of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee mentioned the details of the bids. Looking down the list, I see that almost every bid was unsuccessful. It is frustrating that the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee has been unable to achieve the level of support needed to deal with many of the matters that fall within its remit.

It is disappointing that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety seems more intent on spending money to promote the Irish language and her culture than on spending it on health provision that everyone wants.

A bid for £500,000 was put forward for languages, but it was unsuccessful. I am concerned, given the failure to provide money for languages, that Ulster Scots will not receive adequate financial assistance. There has been a great resurgence of interest in Ulster Scots, but not enough money is being allocated to it. The BBC has an Irish programme on the radio every night and an Irish television programme several times a year. However, we are yet to see an Ulster-Scots programme, and I would like to see that happen. I know that that does not fall directly within the remit of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, but perhaps such programme development is something that we should all work towards. The BBC must work towards it too.

Money must be put into the programmes that people want, and into language programmes, which are clearly needed. The failure to allocate sufficient money to the Ulster-Scots language is widely recognised. Such inequality and inequity is a bitter indictment of some people’s lack of understanding about the rights and cultural identity that I share with many people in the Province.

I am disappointed that the bid for motor-sport safety improvements was also unsuccessful. Only one bid out of about a dozen was successful. The Committee tries to promote and ensure improved safety at road-racing circuits. Although £100,000 was set aside for that previously, the Committee is concerned that this year’s bid for £100,000 has not been successful.

Road racing is a unique sport in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is unique within the British Isles. Road-racing clubs and followers are keen to promote their sport, and it is important that the sport be encouraged and that it can progress. That can happen only if money is allocated for the necessary safety improvements. The clubs and the road-racing enthusiasts are keen to see improvements in the circuits and safety standards. It would not take much money to improve the circuits in the Province, but I am concerned that the £100,000 needed to ensure the short-term and long-term future of motor sports will not be provided in the Budget. About 100,000 people follow the sport — it is truly a sport for everyone, and it needs help.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee has asked us to take note of the draft Budget announced by the Minister in September. Several Members have mentioned the problems faced by the Health Service as a whole. As a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I shall give some detail of the problems faced by the Health Service daily.

Various groups have told us about the state of the Health Service. We have heard stories from children’s organisations, the elderly, homes and hospitals, and we have heard about many problems from waiting lists to trolley waits. Everyone agrees that the Barnett formula is fundamentally flawed, that it is merely a headcount that must be changed. The formula does not take into account our high levels of ill health and the many children at risk, our ageing population and long waiting lists. I could go on — the list is endless.

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety was informed that the Department’s draft Budget bid was £275 million. The Committee was told that that was the amount needed merely to maintain the service as it is with its high waiting lists, trolley waits and so on. A plaster was put over them. However, the Department did not receive that amount. The amount received fell £121 million short of the original bid. I should like to ask the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel Committee and the Minister where that will leave the Health Service.

I totally agree with Séamus Close. I accept that this is a test for the Executive as a whole — they must tackle this problem, and by the Executive I mean every Minister in the Executive. This is a real test for collective responsibility.

Several weeks ago the Health Committee sent out letters requesting meetings with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Finance and Personnel. It might be easier if we could meet him when he wears both hats. This is not only the responsibility of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Minister of Finance and Personnel; there is collective responsibility in question.

The Finance Minister acknowledged that the proposed allocation to the Health Department would, at best, only allow it to maintain the provision of services. Critically, key commitments in the Programme for Government will have to be deferred. Given the serious situation which all parties have agreed exists, there must be a fundamental review of the allocation of money to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Members said earlier that if it means withholding funds from other Departments, so be it. Mr Close did point this out, quite rightly. Perhaps we can take on board what one Member from the Ulster Unionist party said about the Executive programme funds — allocate them to the Health Service to try to alleviate some of the pressures it is facing and the pressures it will face through the winter crisis.

I also sit on the Public Accounts Committee. Many who have spoken here today are criticising the Budget, saying there is a need for additional money for whatever Department or Committee they sit on. It is my view, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee over the last year, that public money has been wasted in various Departments. I need not rehearse the arguments because people have seen the media stories and have read the reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee. We must look closely at giving value for money and at saving money from Departments rather than always crying out for additional money.

I stress that we need a review of the budget for the Health Service. Taking on board what the Deputy Chairperson has said, I shall take note of the Budget. However, I also take note of the present state of the Health Service and call for a fundamental review of its budget. Go raibh maith agat.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I am glad to hear that the alarm is finally being raised in the Assembly about the disappointing increase in the health budget. Unless all Members and, indeed, all Ministers in the Executive come together and agree this as the number-one priority, we will bring disaster on those overstretched services, overstressed workers and demoralised staff — never mind what we are doing to the patients.

A real increase of only 7·2% was bad enough, but it will be even worse, going down, not up, to a 5·4% increase for 2003-04. I do not know whether any Assembly Member can walk into a local hospital or healthcare centre and tell people what he or she is going to do. They are cutting, and cutting and cutting. We need only look at the level of hygiene, the waiting lists, the patients on trolleys and the stressed-out workers who are just walking away. They feel — and they told us — that they cannot meet their professional standards.

This is not what people were promised, and I know that it is not the fault of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is time that we stopped leaving it at the Minister’s door. I am also aware that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has done all in his power to deal with these matters. However, I ask him and the Executive to look at the matter again. We await the outcome of the September monitoring round.

I would also like the Minister to know that the Health Committee is trying to save money — he may not hear that too often. We are carrying out an inquiry into why 9% of outpatient clinics are cancelled, as that clearly wastes money. We are trying to find out if some of that money can be recouped for the Health Service. It has quite a lot to do with consultants cancelling appointments at short notice — I hope that it does not happen in psychiatry, Mr Speaker, but I hear it is happening right across the board.

I agree with Mr Shannon that we could also save money in community care. The statistics speak for themselves. If we had enough packages, we could immediately start to release some of the 150 patients who are in hospital beds only because they cannot move into the community. The Committee has calculated that, as the average stay in hospital is one week, 50 additional patients could be treated each week, which amounts to 7,500 patients a year. We must think about cost- efficiency and get a proper plan in place to co-ordinate services, save money and put it back into the service, rather than constantly demanding more.

Are the Minister and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel satisfied with the Executive funds? I can see neither rhyme nor reason to them, and I cannot understand how some of those headings and bids ended up where they are. They could equally come out of mainstream departmental funds, and we could explain them much more easily. They do not sit easily under their current themes or with the infrastructure funds, in which substantial funds are set aside for the development of hospitals or schools. Those moneys are welcome, but they should not be part of the Executive funds; they should be in the departmental bids, so that we can scrutinise those budgets properly. Only three of the funds were up for bids this time; the other two were not. It is difficult to keep the entire Budget together, and Committees find it hard to see what Departments are doing.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has fared badly, and I look forward to seeing whether the new cancer hospital at the City Hospital site will get funds under the infrastructure bid, which now seems to be the only bid that still has substantial funds in it. Perhaps the cancer hospital should not have been funded from that bid in the first place. I would never support salami-slicing the block grant in that way.

To what extent have the Minister and the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee been able to make criticisms of the waste highlighted in audit reports? Have Departments been asked to explain themselves? One example of such waste is the huge amount of compensation that was paid out by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development after the Department allowed its own herd in the research centre to become infected with brucellosis and had to replace it. That was a scandal that should not have happened, as the Northern Ireland Audit Office stated clearly in its exemplary report. Has there been a proper inquiry? Our Departments would have welcomed the £22 million that was spent on that, rather than seeing it go on something that will not even produce any benefits.

There is also a question over some departmental running costs. Why did the Department for Social Development need an increase of £20 million — 12% — over last year’s figure? There may be a reason why the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure might require a 21% increase — it is still a new Department — but why would an established Department require such a huge sum for administration or running costs? I have already said that that Department wasted £1 million this year on unpublished consultancy reports. Neither Assembly Members nor the public had the benefit of knowing what was in those reports.

There are still major concerns, and we have a long way to go to get it right.

To offer the Minister some sympathy: I supported his call — and I continue to support it — to address the issue of rates seriously. If the Assembly is to be responsible and mature it can no longer expect to meet departmental bids if it does not, at the same time, ask people to address the issue of rate increases seriously. I take issue with Séamus Close — he cannot ask for money while simply saying that there should be some tax-varying power. I hope that such a proposal could be sold to people if the Assembly could show where the money was being put, particularly if it could explain that a certain percentage was going directly into health and education. I have no doubt that that would make our jobs much easier.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I have listened to the debate, and for the first time everyone agrees about one thing — they are all looking for support from the Minister. I agree with what the Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee said about the draft Budget and how it affects the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, particularly regarding provision for the implementation of an action plan for the agrifood industry.

There is one area that he did not cover — the prospect of an early retirement scheme for farmers. Members will know that it is a subject that I care deeply about. The Committee has also frequently stated its position that there is a genuine need for a retirement scheme and new entrants’ scheme. As recently as 6 July, the Committee put down a marker that assistance could be sought for such schemes through the Executive. As the Chairperson said, Executive programme funds are likely to be oversubscribed and in big demand. There is no provision in the draft Budget for the introduction of a retirement scheme, which is necessary if farming in Northern Ireland is to be successfully restructured. The vision group, which has been working this past six months and which was referred to by the Chairperson, does not support a retirement scheme. Any funds ultimately secured for implementing the group’s recommendations will not, therefore, go towards a retirement scheme.

There remains the hope that the Minister will be convinced that a retirement scheme is a constructive way of managing structural change. When the Committee met with the Minister on 12 October she explained that she had commissioned research on it that should be available next year. A year is a long time. I trust that the research will be closely considered. Retirement schemes are run in parts of the EU, such as Holland and France.

One of the main objections to such schemes is the cost. In June, the Minister quoted a figure of £30 million for a scheme involving 750 farmers. That is nonsense. There are schemes taking place in other countries and they are self-financing. All such schemes need is the backing of the Government and the Department of Finance and Personnel. Cheaper alternatives are a fact and must be pursued.

If — and it is a big "if" — the Minister agreed to implement a retirement scheme, the main funding for it would come from modulation moneys, together with Treasury match-funding of those amounts. This is money that has been skimmed off farmers’ direct subsidies and is matched pound-for-pound by the Treasury. It would effectively have no impact on the overall Northern Ireland Budget.

However, if there was a shortfall and modulation funding was insufficient to cover the cost of a scheme, I suggest that money could be found from the Budget. I am sure that fellow Committee members and other Members who understand farming would agree with me. In every other sector where recruitment difficulties are being experienced, such as teaching and medicine, the Government creates special financial facilities such as cheap, interest-free loans for housing for key workers, et cetera. A recent news bulletin reported that such incentives are being introduced to rectify a shortage of key-sector workers in an area of England. Why should farming be treated differently? Farmers do not want anything for free, and they are prepared to pay back any money that they might borrow under a long-term low-interest loan scheme — they are not scroungers.

If the farming industry is to meet the demands of a growing European market, it must receive the support of the Government. Primary producers and the manufacturing sector are too often ignored, yet they are the basic wealth-producers on which the service industries rest. If that attitude is not supported, economic decline will be inevitable. The vision group has called for

"a dynamic, integrated, innovative and profitable agricultural industry".

However, we cannot achieve that without the restructuring of farming. Only the loan scheme proposed by our Committee will achieve all that, and it is accepted that loans must be paid back. Farming needs the protection and the backing of the Government. For too long this matter has been kicked into touch by the Minister. We debated the matter last December, almost a year ago. The Committee has now decided to initiate a study by a team of academics, which will bury a live issue in a committee of so-called experts. As I said last year, we need action. The matter should not be put on the back burner — we need action today. The rest of Europe has no problems with such action, so why should we?

I welcome the improvements that will be brought about by budgetary increases. If we do not do enough to help the industry, we will only be playing about, tinkering with the side issues. Mr Speaker, given your farming background and your interest in the industry, you will know that, if farmers do not achieve support, we will be in trouble. Although many Members do not think very much about farming, it must be remembered that, if one of the aeroplanes taking part in the terrorist attack of 11 September had hit its target, there would have been a big dependency on agriculture. We must protect and take pride in the agriculture industry.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Budget debate. I will make points relating to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, of which I am a member.

In a recent Assembly debate on the safeguarding of industries in Northern Ireland, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment said that Northern Ireland faced its stiffest economic test in more than a decade. He also said that we must ensure that Northern Ireland is strategically placed to take advantage of the upturn when it takes place.

In the proposed Budget for 2002-03 there is a slight decrease in the allocation of funding to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment: £7·7 million this year, £5·8 million next year, and £3 million the following year for the telecommunications strategy. The Department’s ability to spend £7·7 million this year has been held back for various reasons. It is therefore important that the Department be given end-of-year flexibility to carry forward underspending from this year into 2002-03.

There are other concerns, particularly in relation to Invest Northern Ireland, which is the body that is to replace the IDB, LEDU, IRTU and some aspects of tourism funding. We need to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to Invest Northern Ireland for maximum effect and that regionalisation is top of the agenda. There has been an economic downturn with potential for job losses, particularly in the aerospace and airline industries. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee is anxious to ensure that if in-year bidding is necessary, it will be successful.

The draft Budget also indicates a decrease in EU support for economic development. Approximately £870 million of European funding is available to Northern Ireland. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee will be interested in how this money is allocated.

The encouragement of an enterprise culture in Northern Ireland is a stated objective of the draft Budget and requires new and renewed investment. This is particularly relevant at a time of economic uncertainty. The global slow down, together with the terrorist events in the United States, has already begun to affect Northern Ireland’s foreign and direct investment, trade and tourism adversely. It has already been noted that the most vulnerable sectors are those exposed to global export markets, such as engineering, information and communication technology and aerospace. In the current economic climate, we must put strategies in place to ensure that the economy remains fast-growing and innovative. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and its agencies have successfully promoted Northern Ireland as an attractive location for inward investment and will continue to do so.

The draft Budget shows that energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources will be supported by an allocation of £1·9 million. It may be that the greatest potential for renewable energy and electricity here will come from immature technologies, which will need grant support to achieve commercial viability. If this is so — and the Committee has seen renewable sources in action — we will wish to ensure that the Department bids successfully for additional support for renewable energy projects. The Department also made a bid for £2 million to enhance the North/South electricity interconnector. This was unsuccessful, and it will need to be re-submitted.

In paragraph 5.7 of the draft Programme for Government, recognition of the important role of local councils in inward investment is welcome. It is noted that work with universities, further education colleges, local councils and the private sector will secure investment in 20 knowledge-based industries each year. It is not said where they will be located, nor is there any reference to TSN in this sub-priority that might suggest that priority will be given to sub-regions with high levels of unemployment. I ask the Minister to take that into account.

In paragraph 5.6, on promoting entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity, it is said to be expected that

"local councils will continue, through the Business Start Programme, to play a key role, particularly in encouraging potential high growth businesses while our universities and centres of excellence will play their part."

The business start programme aims for 600 new business starts by March 2005, and 120 high-technology, value-added spin-out and spin-in companies will be formed in research-linked incubator units. Twenty new and enhanced centres of research excellence will be established by December 2004. These centres are clearly expected to have a major impact on the future industrial structure of Northern Ireland through spinning and start-ups, numbering approximately 700 enterprises over the next three years. They will also, no doubt, affect inward investment opportunities in their catchment areas.

Paragraph 4.7 covers enabling the socially excluded to enter the workplace. Reference is made to 1,000 additional university places. This is most welcome. Travelling outside Northern Ireland to study places a heavy financial burden on those who must do so. The largest growth in forced emigrants has been among those in the less well-qualified categories that often correspond with those whose earlier educational experience was less adequate. However, local higher education places also sustain more local jobs in the higher education industry. I ask the Minister to apply TSN to the allocation of places to the various centres of learning in Northern Ireland.

In the Budget programme for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, I note that £1 million has been assigned to the development of museums. As this represents an important part of the tourist package offered by urban areas, and as industrially oriented museums can also support local industry, can consideration be given to the establishment of a museum in the north-west to celebrate the clothing industry?

It is also important to note that the Budget provision does not take into account possible major infrastructure projects, such as the recently announced natural gas pipelines and the provision of broadband telecommunications in Northern Ireland. Those will be considered under the Executive programme funds, and grants for the gas pipelines will probably arise in 2003-04 and 2005-06, not in the current budget year.

It is also noted that the Executive have identified the areas of regional development, education and health as being in need of special support. It is unfortunate that due to a lack of resources the introduction of free nursing care for the elderly has been deferred. That shows the tough decisions that the Executive have had to make and will continue to make. I support the motion.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh mait agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion and wish to debate some points regarding all Departments, not just the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Some Members have already mentioned the importance of departmental priorities. Members will agree that outcomes should be more important than the functioning or costs of a Department. That is certainly what those outside the Assembly believe. However, the reverse applies. Departments hold dear their spending power and sustainability — at the expense of everything else that happens beyond their Department and in public.

The needs of different areas should be regarded by Departments as a higher priority than they are at present. There must be a change of mindset in how Departments prioritise their bids, what they do with their money after receiving their funding and how they spend their money.

West of the Bann, areas such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone — indeed all of Tyrone — have always been given low priority by all Departments. Investment policy in those areas must be examined in the light of recent job losses in Fermanagh. How much will be spent on trying to change the situation in the likes of Lisnaskea, or will it be forgotten about as time passes?

I have a question for the Department for Regional Development concerning roads. Recent meetings with the last rotational Minister gave little indication that Fermanagh and South Tyrone would be treated with any sort of priority compared with urban areas or those that normally receive a high level of funding. Members request that funding for public transport and rail be dramatically increased in comparison with that devoted to roads. That is a very nice environmental policy, but those in rural areas do not have an option. The motor car as the main form of transport is not just an option there; it is essential and will probably be essential for many years.

It is unlikely that any future Budget will see a great deal of money being spent on public transport or a rail system into the rural areas of Fermanagh and Tyrone in particular. It is a non-event; it will not happen. How many passengers are brought by public transport — by bus or rail — into Belfast city centre on a weekday? How can the system be improved to move people out of their cars and on to public transport? People have got the wrong end of the stick when they start pushing larger amounts of money into public transport at the expense of rural areas, particularly where the local people will have to depend on their own transport for many years to come.

The aggregates tax is an environmental tax that exists for the right reasons in the right places, but it is an anti-roads policy.

I suggest to the Minister that road projects in rural areas need to be prioritised now because there may not be the possibility of road budgets in the future. The environmental policy will become stricter, and rural areas will be given a lower priority, and it may be impossible for rural roads to be brought up to the standard of roads in eastern areas. Roads in urban areas such as Belfast and Dublin will be looked after in the future. I ask that rural areas be prioritised.

Sue Ramsey mentioned that at present the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has a standstill budget. That is intolerable. Other Members have mentioned the prime importance of health. Individual Members have priorities, but health must come above everything. Waiting lists must be examined. Cancer sufferers in Fermanagh must travel to Belfast to receive treatment where there are long waiting lists. That happens on a weekly basis. I was told recently that the trusts and boards have no idea how much money they are getting to deal with winter pressures and expenses. We are close to that critical time.

Massive savings could be made through providing better community care. Monica McWilliams made the point that when cuts are made in community care the cost of acute services increases. People have accidents in the home because they do not have the proper care, equipment or facilities to meet their needs. When care is not given at an early stage, the later costs are vast.

The main priority of rural areas such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone is that of overall acute care and the sustainability of services. The Hayes review is heading towards final decisions and implementation. A large amount of the Budget is required to bring those services to the proper standard. Due to the lack of consultants wanting to move to those areas, there is a real danger that some services will either collapse on to one site at Omagh or Enniskillen or will collapse altogether. Some people might think that that might be a good thing for their particular empire, but it is not something we should look forward to. It is important to sustain present services, and we need an increased budget to do so. As one Member remarked, it is important that health concerns are given priority over individual departmental concerns.

How is the Budget to be allocated? The Department of Finance and Personnel must stop "top slicing". It discriminates against rural areas by giving some £1·5 million each to the Southern Health and Social Services Board and the Eastern Health and Social Services Board at an early stage and dividing the remainder among other areas later. That is working against rural areas that are the most deprived in the Six Counties. Money must be allocated on an equitable basis.

I have a particular interest in agriculture and most of my concerns have been covered in the vision group’s report. The Chairman mentioned that we were all in agreement. However, I have not argued exactly the same line. There are issues in that document that do not require money and should therefore not be allocated for. However, a section of that report concerns the important area of rural development. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development requires a budget that allows it to implement its priorities. It does not as yet have such a budget. Which parts of the document does the Department intend to implement, given that it does not have a budget for that in the coming year?

There is also a need to work across Departments to implement much of it, including planning and roads.

There has been a considerable increase in funding for disease control, but, as has already been mentioned, much of that funding has been wasted, which may be largely due to fraud. I must point out to the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee that fraud is not confined to just a few areas, as the DUP has been saying recently. That was on a narrow margin compared to the £22 million mentioned by Ms McWilliams. There are farmers who have made more profit from bringing the disease onto their farms than from ordinary farming — not just here but also in England, Scotland and Wales. The money could be better used in other areas. Why does this happen year after year? We should be getting to the point where there is eradication, rather than continually pouring money into a bottomless pit.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development questions the commitment of the British Government with regard to their policies on the North/South element. How much money is to be spent, for example, on a benchmarking exercise to compare business practices here with those in the South?

Mr Armstrong mentioned early retirement for farmers, and it is feasible under match-funding and even other self-financing methods which could be considered. It is vitally important that we have new entrants.

We do not want to face another foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. This one has cost the Department very dearly in time and in commitment to other issues which it should have been getting on with. We need to know how much of the budget will be spent on an inquiry. The cost will be considerable, but it is necessary if we are to avoid another crisis.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development may think that it is not its responsibility, but it needs to budget for advice to farmers regarding on-farm audits. The citizens advice bureaux provide this service at the moment, but do not have adequate funding. Farmers need help to prevent debt, and the funding for that should come from the Department rather than from local councils, which is ratepayers’ money. Certainly the Department could match the funding — that is something that is amiss with the bids. I hope that, if not this year, perhaps next, that aspect could be considered. Also, the issue of women in agriculture could be mainstreamed at some point in the future. Go raibh maith agat.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

It is good to take part in a debate such as this, particularly when one compares it to the events of this morning. Perhaps it is because only the good, sensible and important people are left in the Chamber to take part.

I fully understand that the Finance Minister works under extreme budgetary pressures. I realise that the Barnett formula does not give us the expenditure that we in Northern Ireland need and to which we are entitled.

Nevertheless, with these limitations in mind, I can only conclude that this Budget is not what we would wish for.

I reiterate the comments made by my Colleague, Mr Close, and by others that we should get our priorities right. As the Alliance Party’s spokesperson on health, I want to concentrate on health issues, as many of my Colleagues have done. First and foremost, the Budget fails in its provision for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. There is no increase to help with the very serious problems in that Department. Total expenditure may rise by 8·1%, but this does not represent an increase in the money available for the Health Service.

In the Minister’s own words, it includes a transfer of expenditure that provides no new spending power for the Department. There will be no money available for the Department to introduce new service developments. There are many needs in the community and, for example, dwindling resources for people with learning difficulties throughout Northern Ireland.

Commitments that were made in the Programme for Government will be left unfulfilled. It is to be regretted that the Assembly is now unable to introduce free nursing care for the elderly, despite having given its full approval to such a scheme some time ago. Who suffers from such a deferral other than the senior citizens and frail, sick people? That simply is not good enough.

This winter will bring the inevitable hospital bed crisis — it has already begun. Services will not improve, advances will not be made, and the consequences will be more pain and suffering caused by extended waiting lists for many of our ill constituents.

More money must be found, and it must be better managed. It must not come from the Minister’s back pocket as a result of some underspending. It must be upfront and immediate. Also, there must be greater flexibility so that health and social service funding can be more effectively and efficiently used. This may be a matter for the trusts. However, it has already been mentioned in the Chamber. For example, it is indefensible that a hospital service should be subject to severe additional costs as a result of bed-blocking when relatively small amounts of additional expenditure on care-in-the-community schemes could relieve the problem. In the Ulster Hospital up to 70 people are awaiting discharge, but they cannot leave because there are no community-care packages. This must improve immediately, and I shall be taking this matter up with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

I am pleased to see the increase in spending for the Department for Regional Development. A sum of £8·7 million is to be used to improve roads. That is something that must be done, and we have been calling for it for some time. The rural electorate depends upon good roads for access to health care. Therefore I am relieved by the commitment to maintain and improve roads. I hope that my constituency of Strangford will benefit from the increase in funding.

When does the Minister plan to find the funds to implement the commitment that he made a year ago? When does he plan to find the money to avert, rather than manage, the annual winter health care crisis? When will he produce a Budget that will help to improve the health system for everyone? We know that our Minister of Health has asked for increased funding to provide better health facilities. There are many other financial and budgetary concerns, but the quality of our Health Service should be our first priority.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is a delight to hear local politicians debating something sensible after the acrimonious debate this morning and especially debating how we spend our money.

I welcome the increase in the Department of the Environment’s budget from £100·8 million to £108·9 million. That increase is a recognition of the pressures on the Department and will, I hope, support the Department in meeting its objective of improving the quality of life in Northern Ireland by protecting the environment through sustainable development and planning policies, promoting efficient local government and through improving road safety.

Further areas of special scientific interest must be designated and staff provided to monitor fully the existing sites. More finance is needed for that, otherwise the Department’s objective is only fine words.

The 12·5% increase in the previous expenditure for road safety is also welcomed. Road safety is an important part of the Department’s work. The number of vehicles on the road increases each year, and there has been a 1% increase from 1999. Unfortunately, the increase in the number of road vehicles has been accompanied by an increase in road accidents. During 1999-2000 and 2000-01, road traffic injuries increased by 7%, road casualties rose by 5%, and fatalities as a result of road accidents rose from 150 to 163. We cannot have that. More must be done with increased spending to reduce those levels. A sum of £1·4 million was mentioned for road safety. However, more money should be spent, with an emphasis on the training and education of young persons before they even get behind the wheel of a car.

I welcome the emphasis on waste management and the moneys that have been made available to enable the Department of the Environment to continue its programme of waste management and pollution control. There is a statement that ensures that Northern Ireland continues the work towards meeting EU Directives on waste management. The Budget allocation provides the Department with an additional £3·4 million on the previous Budget. However, I am concerned that £1·6 million has been reallocated from departmental resources to meet new pressures in that area. It sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Provision has been made for local government services to meet fully the cost of councils’ de-rating policies and to provide resource grants to poorer councils. However, because of EU Directives, there is a reduction of £2 million in that grant. That reduction will be acutely felt in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The resource grant for Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council will be reduced by £109,000; Fermanagh District Council’s grant will be reduced by £127,000.

That will inevitably lead to a domestic and non- domestic rate increase and will put more pressure on councils, on the commerce of the area and on the residents. That will be most unwelcome, because my constituents in that area are already under great economic pressure due to the differential in the exchange rate with the Republic of Ireland. That differential has hit petrol stations, the quarry industry and the textile industry. They have all felt it greatly. I shall not mention agriculture because it has already been debated.

Fermanagh has been particularly hard hit because of substantial job losses over the past year. The Department documented £0·9 million for planning; I expect that that is for ongoing planning pressures. However, I ask the Department to find more money to co-ordinate planning policies across Northern Ireland so that there is a similar approach to planning permission in all areas. I hope that these points are considered, and I welcome the opportunity to put them forward.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The Committee welcomes the significant increase of £42 million — representing 8% from 2001-02 — in the Department for Regional Development’s budget. That increase is a recognition of the years of underfunding that have occurred in our roads, water and public transport. Poor infrastructure has had an adverse affect on many aspects of our lives, and the situation will be rectified only through the provision of proper levels of sustained funding. This increase is a recognition that this must be done and that it will be done.

The importance of our infrastructure cannot be overestimated. The road network is critical to our economy. Ninety-nine per cent of Northern Ireland’s goods are transported by road. A well-maintained road network reduces the time taken to transport freight. That in turn helps to improve business profitability, competitiveness and efficiency. Improvements in the road system will also help to reduce the number of road accidents; something that we all acknowledge is unacceptably high.

The Regional Development Committee welcomed the announcement by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that an additional £40 million will be made available for the trans-European network routes, Larne to Belfast and Newry to Dundalk, as well as a significant contribution to the upgrading of the Westlink. That is very important, not just for Belfast but for the whole Northern Ireland economy.

The Committee would like to see the targeting of similar funding at other trans-European network routes in Northern Ireland, particularly those in areas not serviced by the rail network. I accept Gerry McHugh’s point that parts of this region look longingly at the money given to the development of the railway network.

Improved public transport helps to ease congestion by making people less dependent on their cars, and the extension and improvement of cycle lanes provides a healthier option than driving. Furthermore, reliable and accessible public transport will make a positive contribution to the promotion of social inclusion — a key priority of the Executive. This is particularly noticeable in rural areas where up to 30% of households do not have access to a motor vehicle.

Undoubtedly, investment in our water pipelines and sewerage systems will help to improve water quality and to avoid health risks such as the cryptosporidium outbreaks experienced in the past two years.

I could mention many other benefits, but I do not want to take up the House’s time by reciting a long list. However, I seek to explain the importance and benefits of a properly funded and maintained infrastructure to all of Northern Ireland society. Page 39 of the draft Programme for Government states:

"The provision of infrastructure and major public services such as public transport, roads, water and sewerage is essential for the social and economic well being of the region."

I fully endorse that. The Regional Development Committee wholeheartedly agrees with this statement. Improving our infrastructure must be a key priority for Government. There still exists an approximate £100 million backlog in road maintenance, while the Water Service also requires major capital investment to update the pipelines and sewerage systems. If we are to achieve our objective of a socially inclusive society, we must provide an efficient, accessible and affordable public transportation system.

As a positive step towards that goal, the Executive have earmarked £48 million in 2002-03 for the purchase of new train sets.

As with roads and water services, investment in the public transportation system is playing catch-up after many years of underinvestment. New train sets will undoubtedly make train travel more appealing, and the proposed Railway Safety Bill will help to ensure high standards. We cannot be complacent; there is much more to be done if rail travel is to become a major form of commuter transport. More money must be invested in train sets and in the improvement of access and facilities. The same is true of our buses.

By encouraging commuters out of their cars and into trains and buses, we shall alleviate congestion, particularly in the Belfast metropolitan area, as well as contribute to the economy and the environment. A reliable and efficient bus network is especially critical to those people who live in rural areas. There are genuine concerns that rural bus services may be significantly reduced if private operators continue to target the more profitable routes, thus forcing Translink to reduce services on the less profitable rural routes. Consequently, the Committee for Regional Development encourages Government to provide additional funding to improve the Northern Ireland bus fleet and to aim at reducing the average age of buses in line with the UK target.

The Committee for Regional Development is conscious of the funding pressures on the Northern Ireland block, and it believes that new approaches to funding should be considered. The possibility of leasing trains for public transportation and the development of the railway network should be considered. The Committee knows of leasing arrangements in the UK. If leasing were introduced, it would release funds for investment in other infrastructure improvements.

I note that health expenditure has increased by about 8%. That represents more than 40% of the Budget. However, standards are falling; we see underperformance in practically every area of the Health Service. The public should know why that is happening in spite of the fact that health services receive the largest share of the Budget and have received an increase in spending. There must be an explanation; it cannot simply be the lack of funding.

There are 19 trusts in an area with a population equivalent to that of Greater Birmingham. Is that the most efficient way to administer the Health Service? Does that not prevent the efficiencies that we desire? Does that not eat up valuable money and resources that we need to apply to health and to other areas? I have no answers to those questions. However, I pose the question that people are asking — if so much money is spent on health, why do we not see the results?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I apologise for my poor attendance at this debate. I may be unable to stay because a school in my constituency has been threatened with closure, and there is a meeting about that tonight.

The Committee of the Centre scrutinised the draft Budget at the beginning of October and has discussed several concerns with the junior Ministers. The concerns centred on the approach that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had adopted towards the bidding process and the inadequate funding of several important programmes. The Committee noted that the draft Budget that was presented to the Assembly on 25 September had been developed in the context of the priorities and principles of the Programme for Government. The Committee is not convinced that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be able to deliver on its Programme for Government priorities with the funding in the draft Budget.

During the discussion with the junior Ministers, the Committee was advised that much of the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is of a cross-cutting nature and deals with many sensitive issues. The Committee endorses that assessment, but it adds to our concerns about the Office’s ability to make progress on work in many high priority areas. There should have been a more vigorous approach to bidding to secure baseline funding, at least, for the children’s commissioner post, the review of public administration and the implementation of the cross- departmental strategy for the promotion of community relations.

The draft Budget provides for increases in expenditure in five areas: £300,000 for work on the Single Equality Bill; £200,000 for the Civic Forum; £200,000 for the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington; £100,000 for TSN research and evaluation; and £100,000 for the establishment of a new strategic issues unit. The Committee questions the priority given to several of those areas and the benefits that that additional funding will provide. We also question whether the right balance has been struck between those and other high priorities, such as the Economic Policy Unit.

The Committee was concerned to learn, during the discussions with the junior Ministers, that the draft Budget did not contain sufficient provision for an increase in the cost of running the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. There will be a shortfall of about £200,000. The Committee was advised that, in order to meet the costs, the Department would, in the first instance, consider the outcome of the ongoing staff review. The Committee welcomes that. However, the Minister should explain how the pressure will be dealt with. For example, the cost of the children’s commissioner is estimated to be between £1 million and £2 million. The review of public administration may cost £2 million, and a second permanent secretary post for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has recently been advertised. How will those costs be met without cuts in high-priority programmes?

The Programme for Government gives a target date of June 2002 for appointment to the post of children’s commissioner, but the Budget does not contain any funding for it. The junior Ministers said that they might be able to get money from the Executive programme funds. However, a considerable proportion of those funds has already been used in the Budget, and any funding that might have been expected to come from the Executive programme funds is already accounted for.

In the past, substantial Executive programme funds came from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment as a result of the declining need for large-scale investment in attracting jobs. However, because of the worldwide downturn in the economy and the effect of the events of 11 September, that money may not be available to the same extent, and the Executive programme funds will come under greater pressure.

The need for a children’s commissioner may not be considered to be so great if there is less money available from the Executive programme funds. There are also continuing needs in the Health Service that will have to be dealt with. I want to highlight that potential problem now. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has not presented the case for funding for the children’s commissioner post well enough.

From the outset of the Assembly, when 11 Departments were created, a radical review of public administration was promised to offset the cost of having five additional Departments. We were promised root and branch reform, that the quangos would be cut to an absolute minimum and that the core issues would be examined. However, we have dragged on and on, and, to date, we have no funding set aside for the review of public administration. How can we have a proper review if we do not dedicate any resources to it? That issue will not be dealt with in the Assembly’s lifetime. However, it must be dealt with — a radical review of public administration is important for the credibility of this institution, although it does not have much credibility at the moment. We want those programmes to begin without further delay.

The Committee was pleased to learn that a late bid of £750,000 for Executive programme funds for victims was lodged after we raised the matter with the Ministers. It was alarming that the Committee knew that a second tranche of Executive programme funds was available, of which neither of the Ministers appeared to be aware. It was only when the Committee raised the matter with the Ministers that the bid was lodged. I hope that it is successful. The victims’ unit needs support; it is a big issue, and we want the victims to get as much support as possible.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Mr Speaker, I admire not only the patience and long suffering of the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, but also your stamina. You are showing remarkable endurance.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

What about the rest of us?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Speaker, you have the honour to listen to the rest of us. I acknowledge the efforts of Mr Leslie on behalf of his Committee. Those efforts have resulted in a more satisfactory amount of time being made available for Committees to consider this important matter in detail and to carry out their statutory duties. I hope that similar arrangements are put in place for the next round of Executive programme funds. I ask the Minister to comment on that.

My Committee welcomes the additional £20 million allocated to education over and above the original indicative figures. That represents a real increase of 4·8% on this year, which will enable most, but not all, the inescapable education bids to be met. My Committee has considered proposals from the Department of Education to cover those inescapable bids that have not been met. Those amount to £4·6 million. In general, my Committee supports the proposals. However, it does not wish to see a reduction in the maintenance budget for schools for longer than a year, as that would have an adverse effect and, in the longer term, could lead to increased capital costs. As Members are aware, we already face a huge capital-building problem.

I am pleased that the Executive acknowledge that, as education is one of the services faced with the most difficulties, it must be given high priority. My Committee believes that education must be given top priority because it is a foundation for a strong, vibrant and growing economy in Northern Ireland and that funding it is a long-term investment in the future of Northern Ireland. The pressures that schools face are very great, and therefore the proposals in the draft Budget are essential.

The Education Committee wishes to highlight that this funding enables schools to meet only identified, inescapable pressures, and to mark time. It does not provide any scope to improve or expand services, which is a concern. We are also concerned that some schools appear to be struggling on an ongoing basis and are not receiving the core funding necessary to provide essential services and the core curriculum for all pupils. This was a recurring theme during evidence taken by the Education Committee in respect of the primary and post-primary funding arrangements.

The Committee will therefore be looking for a substantial increase to improve school budgets in the next comprehensive spending review. In my view that will also be crucial if the reviews of LMS funding and post-primary education are to be brought forward.

The Education Committee is firmly of the view that early learning, early intervention initiatives and capital building investment must continue to be given a high priority for funding. The draft Budget will enable the pre-school initiative to continue, but it does not allow for expansion or improvement beyond what was already scheduled to take place. Members found that extremely disappointing. Similarly, the small increase for capital spending will not allow swift progress in addressing the problems with school buildings.

Given the amount of money spent on education administration, the Committee is concerned that there has been no clarification, or detailed timescale, produced for the review of public administration; a point touched on by other Members. The Executive must take this forward as a top priority, and the review must begin as quickly as possible to enable important decisions to be taken urgently. The Committee believes that an evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of all non-school activities must be carried out to ensure that the Department of Education focuses on the key priorities. The Committee also recommends that further work be carried out to establish clearer links between public- service agreement and service-delivery agreement targets.

The recent assurance given by the Minister of Finance and Personnel to the Assembly that he remains determined to seek improvements to the Barnett formula is welcome. The application of the formula has had a significant affect on the allocation of money to schools, and it raises issues of basic equality. Northern Ireland schools perceive that they are being treated less favourably than schools in England, and this must be addressed.

The Education Committee welcomes the extra funding for education provided in the draft Budget. This is clearly in line with the Programme for Government priorities and is an investment in the future of our children and our economy. However, we are disappointed that this level of real funding will enable schools and education initiatives to meet only existing pressures, and to mark time. It will not enable improvement or expansion of the services to take place. However, we endorse the motion.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

We are witnessing the slow disintegration of important aspects of the Health Service in Northern Ireland, and previous speakers have mentioned that. The morale of patients and staff is at an all-time low. Waiting lists are increasing, and the unacceptable practice of patients being placed on trolleys continues. In many areas, service availability fails to meet demand. Recently Monica McWilliams and I visited the Ulster Hospital’s accident and emergency and intensive care units, and we were appalled at what we saw. Patients were on trolleys and sitting on chairs. No more trolleys were available, and that was a daily occurrence. Staff members were under so much pressure that they could not deal adequately with patients.

The position is the same at accident and emergency departments throughout Northern Ireland. If extra funding is not found, then the closure of accident and emergency departments at times is a distinct possibility in the future. The Royal Victoria Hospital is the main trauma hospital for Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there is meant to be cover for major trauma every day, seven days a week. A senior consultant recently told me that there is now only adequate cover every other 24 hours. I cannot go into details, but that is a serious situation.

Elective surgery is being cancelled routinely in many hospitals because of a shortage of beds. There is also a chronic shortage of specialist theatre nurses in areas such as orthopaedics and neurology, with the resulting cancellations of theatre lists. Cancer patients are regularly inconvenienced by the breakdown of old equipment at Belvoir Park Hospital, and the funding has not yet been identified for the planned regional cancer centre at Belfast City Hospital. The saga of the planned regional maternity hospital also continues, even though the Jubilee was closed and demolished some time ago.

The Committee is greatly concerned that the annual percentage increases in health spending over the next two years are over 2% less than those in England. In 2002-03 the figure is 7·2% as opposed to 9·3%, and in 2003-04 it is 5·4% as opposed to 8%. The bulk of costs are driven by developments in England, such as in the areas of pay, drugs and clinical and other standards. Unless there is match-funding, there will be a continuing deterioration in the levels of service here compared to those in England.

None of the figures takes into account the higher levels of need and demand in Northern Ireland, compared to those in England. My Committee fully supported the Minister of Health in her bid for an extra £122 million, and it is greatly concerned that only £31·6 million was allocated. Although it was hoped that the latter figure would cover essential expenditure, it is now apparent that the cost of junior doctors’ pay will be £3·5 million more than was estimated, and that the care cost for people with learning disabilities will be an extra £2 million.

The total inescapable bids are therefore £37 million — some £5 million short of what has been allocated. The remaining £91 million was to be for developments to help the Health Service to maintain its current levels. It has been noted by the Committee that the overall spending for 2002-03 is proportionately on a par with the current year. There is not, therefore, a proportionate increase in the health share of the Northern Ireland block, despite the ever increasing demands. In his Budget speech to the Assembly on 25 September, the Minister of Finance said that the Executive had come

"to the view that health, education and roads were among the services that face the most acute difficulties".

I pay tribute to the Minister and his Colleagues for giving that emphasis. Nevertheless, while I appreciate that all Departments need more money, it is time for all of us — and for the Executive in particular — to sit up and look at the current situation in the Health Service.

We are concerned that the draft Budget will do nothing to reverse the increase in waiting lists. It is alarming to note that the recent draft Programme for Government has a target, by March 2003, to maintain the waiting lists at the March 2002 level.

No one knows what the latter figure will be, so it is not possible for my Committee to accept such a target. The trend is upwards — the latest figure is 54,000. The first Programme for Government, published earlier this year, had a figure of 48,000. That was to be reduced to 39,000 by March 2004. Clearly, that target will not be met, bearing in mind the current spending proposals for the next two years.

Another major problem is the bed-blocking system. There is no extra money to provide sufficient community- care packages. With an average stay per patient, other than for those requiring community-care packages, of approximately seven days, it is estimated that the waiting list could be reduced by at least 7,500 per year if that problem could be solved.

I welcome the fact that my Colleague, Alban Maginness, talked about the structures of the Health Service. There has also been talk about the review of public administration. We have raised that issue here before. The review of public administration seems to be years away. The Health Service cannot wait that long. I urge not only the Minister present, but the Executive, to co-operate and encourage the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety at least to take an initial look at the structures of the Health Service. Our Committee persuaded Dr Maurice Hayes in his acute hospitals report to look at those structures.

The point has already been made that there are 19 trusts for a population the size of Greater Birmingham. The Committee also believes that free personal care for the elderly should be made available. It is most concerned therefore to note that, not only is this service not to be provided, but that free nursing care is to be deferred. With the prospect of even fewer available resources in 2003-04, it appears that free nursing care could be a long way off.

I have already mentioned the regional cancer centre. We all know the number of people in Northern Ireland who are dying of cancer. Cancer death rates will soon be higher than coronary artery disease death rates. We have had a number of meetings with people from Belfast City Hospital and Belvoir Park Hospital. We have visited both centres; we visited Belvoir Park Hospital quite recently, and I sympathise with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety regarding funding for Belvoir Park Hospital. It is going to take three years to build the dedicated regional cancer centre. In the meantime, should the Minister spend money on it, or should she wait for the new unit in Belfast City Hospital? It will take three years to build the new unit in Belfast City Hospital, but that is three years from the date when the financial package is worked out. I understand that that package has not yet been worked out.

Monica McWilliams made reference to the infrastructure funds. In our last meeting with the Minister, we put great emphasis on those funds. Over the next couple of years, £51 million should be made available. I therefore hope that those funds will be used, and that all Ministers in the Executive will support the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Services in freeing those funds for the building of that cancer centre for all the people of Northern Ireland.

I mentioned free personal care for the elderly. There is also a great need to find funding for many facilities and services, including £1·1 billion for the implementation of the acute hospitals review.

Members of my Committee and I are unhappy with the whole overview of health spending. I appreciate the massive job that the Minister and her Department have to do. We understand that, but I sometimes get the feeling that with all the boards and trusts, people seem to be going round in circles. Of course there is a huge shortage of funding, but it is difficult to see how people’s health would be improved even if funding were increased. Our Committee has discussed whether we should ask the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland to examine the Health Service in that regard. I am not sure that we have the right to do that, but we have asked our Clerk to look into that matter.

Even if the Department’s budget bid of £122 million had been fully met, the standard of service for the people of Northern Ireland would be lower that that to be provided in Scotland and England. With only £31·6 million being provided for 2002-03, the service must fall even further behind here. Our Committee is therefore concerned that whatever extra funding for health is announced in England, the Northern Ireland share does not go directly to the Health Service here. It is redistributed through the Northern Ireland block, and invariably the full amount is not allocated to health. There is a question mark over that; I am sure the Minister will clarify the matter. This would result in Northern Ireland falling further and further behind comparable standards of service. I respectfully ask the Minister and his Colleagues in the Executive to declare that the Health Service is the number-one priority in Northern Ireland.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

James Leslie said at the beginning of the debate that, along with other Committees, the Social Development Committee formally responded to the Finance and Personnel Committee on the draft Budget for next year. The element of the draft Budget with which we are specifically concerned is the suggested overall increase by 8·6% in the Department for Social Development’s budget. On the face of it, such an increase is not bad, until you note that the departmental running costs will have increased by almost 12% this year. The disparity in these increases seems inappropriate, given that the Department’s aim is to tackle social disadvantage and build communities.

The Social Security Agency provides front-line services, and the Committee acknowledges the difficult role it plays, but we are concerned about the continued increase in its running costs. The administration of the benefits system should run smoothly, and those who are entitled to benefits should receive the correct level of financial support at the right time. The Committee has been told that the agency required short-term investment to make efficiency savings through measures that would also improve levels of service. I hope that the increase for next year will lead to efficiency savings, and the Committee has urged the Department for Social Development to ensure that it does.

The Assembly will not be surprised to learn that the Committee has again felt the need to register concerns about the proposed allocation of funding to tackle fuel poverty and housing needs. The Warm Homes Scheme is a one-off capital cost. It has no recurring implications. If it were to be properly and urgently funded, it would have positive effects not only on the standard of housing, but on people’s health and well-being. There would be consequential savings for the Department of Health. I urge the Minister of Finance and Personnel and his colleagues on the Executive to think long and hard about that.

The Executive and the Assembly claim to be working for the most marginalised in our community, and towards equality. Are those who live in social housing not among the most marginalised in this society — do they not deserve help? Is it right that people in social housing should have to endure longer waiting lists for the replacement of Economy 7 and room heaters? Is it right that kitchen and bathroom replacement work should be deferred because of a shortfall in the budget? I do not think so, and neither do my colleagues on the Social Development Committee.

We should not overlook the fact that my colleagues on the Committee come from parties other than mine. Like me, they have constituents to answer to. Our opinions might differ in some regards, but we are united in the view that the housing element of the Department for Social Development’s budget must not be allowed to decline. Constituents who are already socially excluded and disadvantaged will remain so if this Budget is adopted.

Much has been made of the housing strategy for North Belfast, the constituency of three Social Development Committee members and the recently reinstalled Minister for Social Development. However, no provision for that strategy is made in the draft Budget. That concerns us all, and the Committee has drawn the matter to the attention of the Finance and Personnel Committee. Recently, the former Minister for Social Development, Mr Morrow, made a statement in Belfast Castle in which he promised that the £137 million for the North Belfast strategy had already been acquired. That does not seem to be the case. I urge the Minister for Finance and Personnel to ensure that that money is made available over the next six or seven years to regenerate what was described by an independent survey as "the worst housing in western Europe."

I welcome back Mr Dodds to his ministerial position, and I assure him that the Committee will continue to press him on this and other issues. He can also expect to rely on our support in his bid for a decent housing programme. During his opening remarks, the Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee also mentioned the Executive programme funds and the continued lack of consultation in that regard.

I raised that matter with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in April. In a written reply to AQO 1345/00 I was assured that there would be proper and early consultation. Clearly, that did not happen. I accept that we can and should be proactive in encouraging the Department, but the Committee should not get into the game of putting together detailed proposals. We do not have the resources to do that, and it is not our role. However, had the Social Development Committee been consulted, we would have encouraged, indeed urged, the Social Development Minister to seek Executive programme funds to tackle fuel poverty more extensively and to address the growing problem of homelessness.

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

I congratulate the Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee on tabling the motion, the Committee members on their efforts, and the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Executive for consulting the House on the stages of the draft Budget and the draft Programme for Government.

I am pleased to be able to discuss the draft Budget today in spite of the attempts on Friday by a small minority of Members to derail the institutions and to subvert the will of the people. In the words of the draft Programme for Government, the thrust of this Budget is to "make a difference", and the Budget lives up to that commitment in many key areas. I will comment on a few issues.

First, I welcome back Mr PeterRobinson as the Minister for Regional Development. I hope that this time he will be allowed to stay in office for as long as the previous incumbent, his Colleague MrCampbell. In general I welcome the increase by 14·8% in the allocated budget for the Department and the planned expenditure of £538million on roads, transport, water, and sewerage infrastructure.

During direct rule the North’s infrastructure was developed unevenly and was concentrated primarily in the north-east of the region. That has led to a sense of social exclusion and an infrastructural deficit in other parts of NorthernIreland. Now that we have devolved power, the improvement of the North’s infrastructure must take place in a balanced fashion throughout the region, so that all of our citizens have equal access to good quality roads, transport, water and sewerage services, and also to develop the competitiveness of the region’s economy.

I am pleased that an additional £8·7million will be made available to the roads programme to avoid any reductions in planned service levels and to compensate for the effects of the aggregates tax. The capital schemes to improve some key strategic routes are also welcome. That is vital in attracting inward investment, enabling local firms to expand and enhancing safety for motorists.

The improvements to the A4 between Ballygawley and Dungannon, a trans-European network status (TENS) road, which will be financed by the Executive programme funds, are most welcome. However, I remind the Department that other important routes should not be overlooked, such as the M2/A5 TENS road, which should also be upgraded. In the constituency of West Tyrone, we have neither a mile of motorway nor a mile of dual carriageway.

I also welcome the £48million for the purchase of new railway rolling stock. The railway network in Northern Ireland has suffered from serious underinvestment for many years, and that has compromised efficiency, passenger comfort and safety.

I am pleased that the Department for Employment and Learning’s budget will increase by 6·1%. I welcome, in particular, the additional £37·3million that is designed to increase the number of further and higher education places, as it is important for the development of the economy that we encourage more students to remain in NorthernIreland. The additional money allocated to higher and further education and student support includes resources to provide for the expansion of further and higher education places. It will also promote access to these sectors through improved student support measures that target those on low incomes and those in need of additional assistance, such as childcare support.

Improvement in the skills level of the workforce is important to create a vibrant economy, but it is also important to ensure that resources are properly targeted so that people such as the long-term unemployed are not exploited. Therefore I welcome the Minister’s recent decision to conduct a review into the individual learning account (ILA) scheme which is open to possible exploitation by some unscrupulous ILA providers. Owing to the large number of adults in the North who lack basic literacy and numeracy skills, it is important that we implement a skills programme that encourages lifelong learning — it must be properly resourced and targeted to those most in need.

I am concerned that the planned budget for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for 2002-03 will decrease by 1·6%, especially given the effects of the events of 11 September on Northern Ireland’s aerospace industry and the general economic slow down that we are experiencing. However, I am pleased that the Executive have given a clear commitment to increase investment significantly should the need or opportunity arise.

I also welcome the planned increase of 3% in the Department of Finance and Personnel’s expenditure. It is important for the Department to be properly resourced so that it can provide effectively for the range of services to other Departments. The commitment to complete the major reviews of promotion and recruitment to senior positions in the Civil Service, a review of accommodation policy and the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs is particularly welcome. The decentralisation of Civil Service jobs, as I have said here, is something which the SDLP has consistently lobbied for over the past two years. The SDLP believes that the Executive should lead by example and relocate entire sections of Departments from Belfast to other main urban hubs. Such a policy would help to achieve more balanced growth beyond Greater Belfast.

I welcome the overall 7% increase on departmental spending programmes compared with 2001-02. I have some concern about the £48 million earmarked spending within departmental budget plans but which is coming from anticipated monitoring-round reviews which take place quarterly. There is concern that some double accounting has gone on.

I am also concerned about the £2 million cut in local government spending for the incoming year, particularly about how it affects some district councils. There is concern among some of them. Smaller councils are particularly concerned that they are expected to bear significant cuts in their central government contribution. Based on last year’s percentage local government grant, Omagh District Council will suffer to the tune of £109,000, Strabane District Council, also in my constituency, will lose to the tune of £120,000, and some of the other smaller councils will lose between £65,000 and £100,000. Many of the smaller councils have a low district rates base of revenue income. It would be bad if some of them were to lose out now when we are trying to implement New TSN.

I welcome the fact that the draft Budget provides for a 3% increase in overall departmental expenditure and that the Executive have made a commitment to ensure that New TSN will affect policy decisions across all Departments. New TSN and the statutory equality legislation are essential tools which should inform spending decisions in the 11 Departments and ensure that all Departments deliver upon commitments given in the draft Programme for Government to create a cohesive, inclusive and economically vibrant society.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is a valuable way of hearing and considering the issues that concern all Members in relation to next year’s spending plans. I am sure that those who have taken part in the debate, and all those who contributed at Committee level, will join me in thanking the Committee for Finance and Personnel for the efforts it has made, and will continue to make, in drawing all those issues together, not least those that were raised during today’s debate.

The draft Budget was developed to deliver the Programme for Government. The allocation of resources proposed in the draft has been designed to secure the objectives and priorities of the programme. I have listened carefully to the contributions made to the debate, just as I listened carefully to the points that were made to me in questions after my original statement. With my Colleagues in the Executive I will reflect on the issues and concerns raised by Members today and also in the long-term consultative feedback that we will continue to receive.

We will also look at any constructive suggestions that have been made, particularly at Committee level. When the Committee for Finance and Personnel prepares its conclusions it will find those suggestions helpful in reaching a better understanding of the full range of opinions that have been expressed in the Assembly and in Committees. I look forward to the report and to the Committee reaching conclusions and recommendations based on the exhortations the Assembly has heard today.

Some Members referred to the fact that we produced the draft Budget earlier this year than last, allowing more time for consideration. We also used the Executive position report to set out many issues and questions for the Assembly and the Committees. It was also made available for public consultation. The Executive position report was exactly the same document that was made available to the Executive, to the Assembly and to the wider public within days of Ministers receiving it.

The process has been more open and transparent than it was before, and that is only partly due to the shift of dates for the draft Budget. In future, Executive position reports could benefit from Committees focusing more sharply than they were able to this year on the issues that have been reflected here. Many of those questions were not particular to each Committee. Many concerned key priorities for all Committees to address. I hope Members will reflect on the points that they have recommended to Ministers. They should not simply look to their own Departments but to the full range of services and broader range of responsibilities of the Assembly and its Committees in their consideration of these matters.

The revised Budget will be introduced on 3 December 2001. It will include some clarification and adjustment of the figures that go with the territory in an exercise such as the draft Budget. The Executive will consider whether changes could be made to improve the balance between spending areas. The views of the Assembly are important. However, with a fixed departmental expenditure limit, any increase will be offset by a corresponding decrease. All of us need to examine departmental planning figures for savings that could be redeployed. It is an important principle that money not required for the purpose for which it was originally allocated should be made available for reallocation by the Executive and the Assembly.

We have to use our limited resources in the best possible way and ensure that action is taken to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Actions must be targeted on a priority basis; a fact constantly emphasised in the Programme for Government and in the Budget. I am glad that it is increasingly being emphasised in the Chamber, and that people are not questioning us on what we are trying to do but on whether we are succeeding and if we are trying hard enough. That is the focus the Assembly should be bringing to bear on these issues.

We need to work together to maximise our advantage — if such it is — in relation to the Treasury. We must also ensure that lessons learnt from the audit process are used to improve value for money, as several Members have already mentioned. It is important that Committees follow up on areas that the Public Accounts Committee has highlighted as requiring room for improvement. That would ensure more joined-up scrutiny as we move towards the audit and accountability legislation. It would ensure that areas that, as Ms McWilliams said, have been the subject of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and which have in turn been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, are factored into our Budget considerations and that the reports are not just disappearing. It would show that we are checking that the recommendations are being followed. The Department of Finance and Personnel is meant to monitor the situation, but there is room for improvement and joining up the scrutiny role of the Executive. Departments may not welcome that, but it would be helpful.

I hope that Members appreciate that the Executive have to be convinced that the benefits of any proposed changes will outweigh the sacrifices that have to be made in other service areas. Many Members have said that there should be only one priority and have then proceeded to speak about others. They have welcomed the bigger increases that other Departments have received compared with the Department that they were complaining about. When speaking about priorities we need to be using that word more in the singular if we are to be serious about our efforts.

We are working in a relatively benign context. Mr Leslie referred to the departmental expenditure limits (DEL) as set by the Treasury, which show a rise for 2002-03 of 5·8%, or around 3% above general inflation. I recognise — and several Members have mentioned — that many of the costs that affect public services are rising at a much faster rate than general inflation. No one can make a special claim, and it should be no political boast for the Executive or myself, when some of these costs rise at a much faster rate than general inflation. The same argument applies equally when people make a case for inflation-busting rate increases because those increases are to support the additional expenditure on public services that we need. If people are saying that inflation should be the rule of thumb in one area it is very difficult if they then insist that it has to be disregarded and treated as irrelevant in another. There is more consistency in the Executive’s approach to this matter compared with some of the people who are criticising us.

The allocations for next year build on what was a 5·5% real-terms increase in 2001-02. Departments have been able to initiate important work in the Programme for Government. As I stated in my draft Budget statement, we cannot expect spending to continue to rise at that rate for much longer. The type of scenario that we have been in has been as good as it gets. I would like to be able to claim credit for this and say that the significant increase has happened while I was Minister of Finance and Personnel. However, it is fortuitous that my term of office and the Executive’s work on the last two Budgets has coincided with what the spending review has given us. As we move into a spending review next year and see global economic conditions recovering from what they were prior to 11September, but even more uncertainly since then, we must recognise that the choices will become harder. Making a real meaning out of priorities will become more testing for us as an Assembly.

Several Members referred to issues relating to the Executive programme funds (EPFs). In opening the debate, Mr Leslie referred to the Finance and Personnel Committee’s report on EPFs. The EPFs are the key means by which the Executive are determined to break away from the spending patterns that they inherited. We must try to ensure that resources are targeted in line with the Executive’s strategic priorities.

Many people are unconvinced by the evidence, but EPFs are designed to promote cross-cutting working in line with the Programme for Government’s priorities. I agree with observations that were made by some Members, notably Dr Birnie, that we must do more to promote interdepartmental co-operation in the delivery of services, and that must be reflected in the way in which we plan EPFs. I accept the point made by the Committee and others that we must ensure that the processes for managing and allocating the funds are as effective and efficient as possible. Simply throwing open EPF bids to Committees at an earlier stage will not necessarily be the best, or the only, way to do that if it just adds to the mono-departmental-focus syndrome that some people claim already exists.

We must look at whether we are using the right substructure or processes at Executive level to ensure that a cross-cutting priority comes through in planning. I have received a helpful report on EPFs from the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and my Executive Colleagues and I will consider it before responding.

Several Members of the Committee for Agriculture, especially the Chairperson, Dr Paisley, asked about provision for the findings of the vision group. The draft Budget does not include any additional resources for the provisions in the vision report. That is because the public consultation process on the report will continue until the end of December. After the consultation process, the Minister will publish a plan of action for the strategic development of the agrifood industry. At that stage, firm bids for the implementation of the report’s recommendations can be developed and considered with access to the EPFs as appropriate.

Those plans must also take account of any re-prioritisation of resources within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. As Mr Leslie warned, we must ensure that in this or any other area we do not implement any new structures, policies or processes until we are sure that they will deliver the desired outcomes. That, again, echoes a point that the Committee for Finance and Personnel made in its report on the Executive programme funds.

In that report the Committee suggested that the Executive were, in some ways, making funding allocations on spec because they wanted to pursue proposals in a particular area but did not have specific measures. The Committee suggested that allocations should not precede the firmer proposals with all the relevant appraisals. That would be a pertinent area of interest for the Committee for Public Accounts, which regularly questions Departments as to whether allocations have preceded firm plans. We are trying to ensure that we follow through on some of the points raised by the various Committees.

A number of Members, of whom James Leslie was the first, asked if there was greater scope for the Health Service to depart from policies that are determined in Westminster. I agree that we should try to determine and deliver policies that meet the needs of citizens in our region. We should not slavishly follow what is done elsewhere. There are already some good examples of that. There has been an integrated health and social services system for a number of years, but that is not to say that there are not gaps within that, nor that it meshes as well as the theory suggests.

As a result of that, the health action zones, for instance, include social services. They are more comprehensive and are probably better developed than those in other areas. Our response to the new arrangements for primary care involves local health and social care groups that can turn out to be more sophisticated and more comprehensive than elsewhere. However, I readily acknowledge the point that all Members will make that the resources must be there to match the structural proposals.

Dr Paisley, George Savage and Gerry McHugh raised points about retirement schemes for farmers. Early retirement and new entrants schemes are discretionary measures that are provided by the EU rural development regulation. Such schemes, as Members will appreciate, are expensive to run. Nevertheless, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development commissioned a study of their value and effectiveness. The study was not conclusive, largely reflecting a lack of research in that area. On foot of that, the Minister commissioned further research from Queen’s University in conjunction with University College Dublin into the economic, social and environmental aspects of such schemes. The results of that research will be available in the summer of 2002.

George Savage then drew attention to modulation and match-funding as a source of money for early retirement schemes for farmers. Again, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is considering that, but it is important to remember that any such scheme will be expensive. It should also be remembered that modulation money, for our purposes in the Assembly, is outside the departmental expenditure limit. There are constraints, not least because of EU policy on how modulation money and match-funding can be used.

Quite a number of Members mentioned the Barnett formula. The Executive are certainly committed to addressing all those issues with determination. We must do so, not least if we are to be serious about tackling the backlog of underinvestment in infrastructure and the funding difficulties in health, education, transport and other services that many Members raised, particularly the Chairpersons of the relevant Committees.

We tell ourselves how bad the Barnett formula is, and how badly underfunded it leaves us, but we cannot ignore the fact that spending per person here is much higher than it is in England. The Treasury will point to particular areas where our spending is markedly higher and will argue that we must reprioritise.

The political reality is that the perceived wisdom across the water is that the Barnett formula is highly favourable to us. Many people there would argue that we should receive a lower share of public spending or that the tapering effect that the Barnett formula has on our future spending plans is exactly the way things should be going.

We must remember that others do not see the problem as we see it. In all political exercises we must bear in mind that not everyone will automatically move over to see things from our perspective.

As regards services for which we are responsible and which are covered by our departmental expenditure limit (DEL), we were able to spend 25%-30% more per capita than in England in 2000-01. People elsewhere will not miss that point. No matter how often we make the points about need and coming out of conflict we must remember that in some areas of the debate on the Barnett formula we will have an uphill argument.

The EU peace programme is extra to our allocation. Again, in a sense, it is easy for the Treasury to argue that that is a generous concession in relation to public spending and reflects the fact that we are coming out of conflict. To that extent they count it as part of their contribution to the peace dividend. The Treasury will also point out, in relation to the debate on the Barnett formula, that the Chancellor’s initiative offered us further facilities, such as asset sales, and that the Assembly chose not to use some of those. Let us be clear: the arguments will not be all one-way. The warning was well made by Mr Leslie.

Séamus Close promised that he was going to make a new point — not one on familiar territory — so I listened closely and carefully to what he said about prioritisation. Shock, horror — I agree with him. We must consider our priorities very carefully now and more fully in next year’s spending review. That is what the Programme for Government and Budget processes should be about. We have the right to choose to spend more in some areas than is spent in England. However, the corollary is that we would have to spend less in other areas — either less than is the case in England, or less than we have allocated in the past.

Mr Close said that we should not slavishly follow what has gone before and suggested we were doing just that. He talked about money being locked up in Departments, and about Departments holding on to money. I have complained elsewhere that there is a danger in that for all of us. It is not just the Departments, the Civil Service, or at ministerial level, it is also at departmental Committee level. We have had some evidence of it in the debate.

It is very easy for Departments, Ministers and departmental Committees to get locked into the "Does my budget look big in this?" syndrome. It then becomes a matter of comparing their increases with other people’s. It becomes a matter of saying that, because a budget line has existed, it must continue to exist and be increased. Therefore existing budget baselines are not scrutinised, and everyone competes for additional bids.

I hope that the point will come when the Assembly will see the same degree of interest in what Departments do with the moneys they already have in their baselines as there seems to be in what happens to new bids. There is a great interest in chasing bids, particular those that have not been met, whereas the most important financial decisions relate to the moneys in the baseline. Members have said that they want more scrutiny and openness in relation to Executive programme funds. The proportion of the total Budget represented by the Executive programme funds shows that Departments are making decisions on much bigger sums of money that are not the subject of a report or scrutiny in the House or by the Committees. Therefore, the broader processes show that there is more for us to think about.

Séamus Close remarked that we were slavishly following what had gone before. He then attacked the Executive programme funds and said that we could do without them. The establishment of the Executive programme funds, following devolution, means that money does not automatically go to Departments by the traditional route. The funds allow for a more cross-cutting approach. Executive programme funds have been used for some major regional strategic initiatives such as the road improvements that Alban Maginness referred to and the gas pipeline decisions that other Members referred to. We can make those longer-term commitments because of the Executive programme funds.

Members spoke of the amount of money that is tied up in the Executive programme funds. They must remember that that money applies to next year and to the year after; it is not available for one year’s Budget, as some Members seem to think.

Dara O’Hagan and others raised a point about the regional rate and tax-varying powers. We have covered a lot of that ground before. The projected increases suggest that the regional rate will rise by about £332 million in the 2002-03 financial year. Obviously, that contributes to all of the spending that we try to undertake. I have no problem if Members want to identify priority areas that that money could go to. I recognise that there is a lot of unhappiness about, and criticism of, the rating system — not only about how the rating policy operates, but how we deal with the issues in the budgetary process. I recognise — indeed I would be a fool to not recognise — that it is not a popular area of the financial process, but it is necessary. We need to contribute to public spending.

As a Minister of Finance who wants money to be spent on public services and who is in favour of public expenditure, I defend the rate mechanism facility as a way of supplementing what we agreed would otherwise be inadequate resources. If the Barnett formula does not give us what people say that we need and deserve, and as Members are rightly stressing the plight of many services, we must find additional money from elsewhere. There is no point in fighting the end, if we do not will the means. The Executive can spend only what they have. They cannot make money appear from nowhere. Any reduction in rates, or capping of rates increases to inflation, will not give us the money that we need and will weaken our case for additional money from the Treasury.

Joan Carson, Joe Byrne and Gerry McHugh expressed concern about the position of district councils following the decision to reallocate £2 million from the resources element of the general Exchequer grant. I am happy for the Assembly, and the relevant Committees, to consider further whether that is the best way ahead. However, as Joan Carson pointed out, the draft Budget provides an 8·1 % increase in planned spending power for the Department of the Environment. That equates to a real increase of 5%. That was planned last year to ensure further progress in the compliance with EU environmental Directives. The costs of planned actions have proved tighter than anticipated, and that is not the only area where that has happened.

The Executive concluded that with demands on other services, such as health, education and roads, it was not possible for us to improve on the substantial, real increase provided for the Department of the Environment for 2002-03. That was one of those instances where it counts as to whether health is given priority. There is a choice, therefore, in relation to reducing support for councils, moving more slowly on environmental issues or imposing restrictions on historic building grants. I noticed that some Members questioned whether environment and heritage services needed money. That is an example of a situation where hard decisions must be made. The sentiments expressed in the Chamber show that there are competing priorities.

Sue Ramsey, Kieran McCarthy and Joe Hendron were among the Members who raised the question about the deferral of free nursing care for the elderly in nursing homes. In May 2001, the Executive agreed in principle to introduce such care from April 2002. However, as many Members have pointed out, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety faces a range of pressures, and it is unable to meet all the demands that are already placed upon it. In that context, compared to the indicative figures that were published last December with the revised Budget, some £30 million was added to the allocation for health for 2002-03. That amounted to an increase of 8·1% over 2001-02. In the Budget statement, I made the point that that was not a full extra 8·1% because there is a technical switch from the Department for Social Development, which accounts for part of that figure. Members, and the Department, have pointed that out, but they are not pointing out anything that I had not already been upfront in saying in my original statement to the House.

Such are the pressures on health and personal social services that there are not sufficient funds available to provide free nursing care without making cutbacks in existing services. The money that was allocated to the health and personal social services baseline for free nursing care is still there, but it is needed to meet other pressures as well. That decision was not taken lightly, and we recognised the fact with great reluctance. However, it would be dishonest not to represent the situation clearly to the Assembly. That deferral releases about £9 million to help maintain existing services elsewhere. It was not a decision not to give additional money — it was a decision whereby additional money, originally given for free nursing care, will go to meet other pressures in health and social services.

Esmond Birnie emphasised the importance of research as a key investment for future prosperity. The Executive recognise that university research is an important investment. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Employment and Learning are jointly leading the preparation of a regional innovation strategy, and it should be available early next year. Higher education funding has been increased by 5%, and that includes provision for the support programme for university research (SPUR), which will receive £40 million, funded on a pound-for- pound basis with the private sector, over the next five years. A further £7 million investment for science research was announced in February 2001.

Éamonn ONeill, on behalf of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, raised several points about areas, such as the arts, museums and libraries budget, that the Committee felt were not getting the increases in funding that were needed. Those areas fared relatively well in 2001-02 in comparison with the previous year. Between them, they received an increase of £3·4 million. That significant increase has been carried forward into 2002-03. As in other areas, that does not take account of possible assistance from Executive programme funds.

I understand that development plans for the Grand Opera House, together with other capital development proposals, are being considered by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, in association with other interested parties, in an attempt to establish priorities for Belfast in the context of the bid to be European city of culture 2008. We have already identified the best way to deal with such issues as they mature, in discussions with the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Members often ask us not to make allocations until we have full business plans and appraisals; on other occasions, we are exhorted to make allocations before we receive those plans. We cannot do both.

I agree with Ms Ramsey and Ms McWilliams about the health issues that they raised. They gave graphic descriptions of the pressure on the Health Service, which puts many of the smaller issues into perspective. Perhaps the Executive and Members who spoke on behalf of other Committees about other issues might reflect on that. However, we cannot simply say that money that might go elsewhere should be spent on health. As Ms McWilliams said, there is scope to examine the budget of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to see whether it is managed and organised in the best way. We should consider not only the issues relating to the overall structures of the Health Service that were raised by Dr Hendron and Mr Maginness, but the methods and means that are used.

I am glad to hear that Members and Committees are considering how we might achieve efficiency savings that would allow us to use the money in other areas. I welcome any advice on that. For example, the case was made that appropriate practices in community care would relieve some of the pressure on the acute services sector. The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive would not be averse to such an exercise. However, we must ensure that we work on the basis of evidence. We need a database, and work has already been done on a needs and effectiveness evaluation of health and personal social services. We must continue such work if we are to get stuck into the Barnett formula issue in the way that people want us to. It would also be useful for our own purposes, allowing us to see whether we are responding successfully to demands.

The budget for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not the only one that contributes to health provision. The public health strategy and other cross-cutting measures have shown that other Departments make a contribution. Perhaps, when Members suggest that we should simply tax the budgets of all other Departments at a flat rate of £10 million, we should remember that other Departments’ spending programmes contribute to health outcomes. For example, spending on road safety by the Department of the Environment contributes to health outcomes, as will spending on structural maintenance or improvements to roads by the Department for Regional Development if it helps to reduce accidents.

Work is going on in other Departments that has a bearing on health and safety issues too. We need to recognise that a cross-cutting device such as the Executive programme funds does not just help health in those services managed by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; it has a bearing on our health achievements as well.

Ms McWilliams, as well as Mr Cobain on behalf of the Committee for Social Development, referred to the increases in departmental running costs for the Department for Social Development. The Social Security Agency is obviously playing a leading role in the welfare reforms and modernisation programme, which includes working alongside other Departments to deliver more modern, integrated, efficient and customer-focused services in the area of social welfare needs. Clearly that requires an investment in departmental running costs, which is really what we are looking at when people talk about this. This programme is expected to deliver significant benefits and administrative cost savings. A ring-fenced budget of £130 million over five years has been agreed with the Treasury to ensure that the programme is delivered, which accounts for the increase that has caught the eye of so many.

Several Members, in the course of making observations on other issues, pointed to the global downturn and the impact it is having on our economy, and Mrs Courtney focused on this in particular. Obviously the downturn is something that has had an impact already, and it is likely to have a further impact no matter how resilient we hope our regional economy can be. We have already seen some job losses, but it will affect us in the longer term in two main ways. We are obviously a significant beneficiary of direct foreign investment. Therefore, in so far as the downturn inhibits and reduces that which will affect us, our export sales are also clearly going to be harmed too. A lot of this is going to be dependent on the fortunes of the US economy.

Members such as Mr Byrne have emphasised their concerns about linking this to the possible or slight reduction next year in the budget for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. However, in all of this we must underscore a commitment we previously made that the Executive will be sensitive to the need to take any opportunities to support investment, especially in the difficult context that we have.

We also have to look at how effective we can be using all our policies. We need to remember that some of the issues that could arise as a result of the global downturn are not ones that call on the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s budget and the sort of programmes it runs alone. Indeed, the Department for Employment and Learning could very well find some of its programmes and services being called on to deal with some of the effects and exigencies of a downturn if the worst fears being expressed by some Members are realised. It is not just the spending on direct support to industry that matters. In trying to make longer-term investments in our competitiveness and seeing beyond the recessionary cycle that we all fear we are looking at now, it is clearly important that we sustain investment in infrastructure as well so that we will be in a better position to pick things up in the future.

In dealing with the wider economic context, people should remember that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is not the only Department that is, in many ways, contributing to the economy. Other Departments do so as well. That is one of the reasons the Executive are investing in infrastructure and transport. By making such an investment we recognise that, although it is hard for us to find the money in the Budget that we want to spend on infrastructure, roads and transport systems, we know that we cannot spend the amounts of money needed equally across the region.

There are projects that attract particular priority, and we cannot even out, in a perfectly arithmetic way, the priority that we attach to every road or connection. I take the point that was made by Gerry McHugh, Joe Byrne and others that many areas feel they are still missing out on investment. However, if we are going to invest seriously in some major roads, we should marshal the resources for them wherever possible and then concentrate on trying to find the resources for the other roads. Spending many small amounts on all roads is a less strategic investment and is exactly the sort of thing that we are trying to get away from, because underinvestment will not advance the equality agenda. We need to develop good targeted investment and spread it over time.

Alban Maginness referred to Water Service funding. In the Budget for this year there was an extra £14·5 million to deal with the most pressing needs. That is retained in the draft Budget for next year, with a small increase of 1·5%, so Water Service spending is just short of £221 million. We have to provide that money out of the Budget with absolutely no provision for it in our old friend the Barnett formula, because water and sewerage is not part of public expenditure across the water. We get no money for it.

There will be serious health problems and added pressures if we do not make provision. That area of expenditure clearly has a health-related outcome, as we saw with cryptosporidium, but we do not receive any money from Barnett. People need to set that against some of the concerns that are raised about rates. If we get less in Barnett than we need for the services for which Barnett allocates money, and we have to fund other services that Barnett does not provide for, we have to be realistic about the sort of money that we want to add to what Barnett gives us.

Alban Maginness also raised the matter of train replacement. This is a follow-through from significant allocations made in the last Budget, and I welcome the fact that procurement has proceeded. Leasing of trains was commended by many and was considered, but outright purchase represented better value for money. It is not that leasing was not looked at.

Edwin Poots raised several points on behalf of the Committee of the Centre. First of all, the draft Budget does provide additional resources in various areas for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. A bid for funding will be made next year for the review of public administration, and that is clearly understood by the Executive. I have no hesitation in sharing that with the Assembly. We clearly understand that there will be a bid for that next year.

A children’s commissioner is another area that is the subject of consultation, not least in the context of the wider children’s strategy. The intention is clearly to appoint a commissioner for children in spring 2002, thus making progress there. Some Members, Monica McWilliams in particular, were worried that the fact that there is no discernible provision for it here in the draft Budget could mean that that appointment was somehow going to be hostage to financial issues and could be deferred on that basis. I want to give an assurance that that will not be the case.

Edwin Poots also raised the matter of funding for victims. He identified the fact that a further bid of £750,000 is being considered in relation to the social inclusion Executive programme fund. It would be wrong for me to speculate or give any advance indication on what is likely to happen there. The Executive published a consultation document on a victims’ strategy in August. We have contributed almost £1·7 million to the Peace II victims’ measure. That will address needs in a variety of ways, and £500,000 from the social inclusion Executive programme fund will be available to the victims’ unit this year and in each of the next two years. I hope that Members do not labour, as some people do, under the false impression that the Executive have done nothing in this area. Because they are aware of a new bid, they assume that no existing moneys have already been given.

Fred Cobain raised issues relating to the north Belfast housing strategy. There is a funding package of £5·5 million available to Ministers for the purchase of sites for the first phase of the Housing Executive’s strategy to tackle serious housing problems. This total strategy has been costed at £133 million over a seven-year period. That is the type of exercise that we are looking at. Nobody is under any illusions that that strategy or the types of resources that it is going to require are going to be made good in just one Budget. Also, the URBAN II funding is being specifically directed to North Belfast. That is worth a total of £8·7 million.

There were a couple of points that were partly particular but raised some more general questions. Joe Hendron suggested, on behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, that the benefits from extra money for the Health Service in England were not coming through to health here, but were somehow being diverted elsewhere. The Executive have allocated more money to the Health Service than we received as a Barnett consequential of the increases in England. That is not to say that we have been able to match the sort of increases that there have been in England, but if people look at the exact amount that we got for health through Barnett, they will find that that and more has gone into the Health Service. We have not taken anything from the Barnett consequential that we get for health; we have been able to add to it.

To have made that sort of addition in health, as we did previously in education, in circumstances in which we were also having to carve out of the Barnett allocation money for water and sewerage and such like, shows that we are trying to prioritise. It also demonstrates that the Executive are trying to alleviate the difficult pressures facing the Health Service and, in particular, the very acute needs that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is trying, with her officials and services, to meet.

That effort has not yet provided the resources needed by the health and social services sector. I recognised this in the original Budget statement, and I have not gone into denial on the issue since then. We need to face several major issues relating not only to the draft Budget, but, more importantly, to next year’s spending review. I hope that Members and Committees will be understanding of the Executive’s decisions. We have already detected that Members are making a big deal of a slight decrease in one Department’s budget.

We will not be able to take the spending review seriously if we lock ourselves into a position where there can be no decrease, where the spending patterns that we have inherited cannot be reviewed, or where we cannot review whether current expenditure is achieving the intended results. For example, if we can recognise that the intended results have been achieved, then we can afford to lessen priority in those areas and focus expenditure elsewhere.

Finally, Joe Byrne expressed a general concern about double accounting and the projection of £48 million into next year’s Budget from moneys released this year. There is no question of double accounting; we have been upfront on the matter and have stated clearly that, based on our statement in the Executive’s position report, we have been able to achieve slightly broader scope for manoeuvre. That has been done by calculating the level of moneys in this year’s remaining monitoring rounds which could be carried over into next year’s Budget. It is not a question of double accounting; we have received moneys in the past through monitoring rounds. However, the level of moneys available in monitoring rounds of recent years will not necessarily continue.

Members will recall that we have already retained some moneys from the June monitoring round, and, given our knowledge of the patterns that exist, we felt that we could project a level of some £48 million. That figure is based partly on a £13 million projected underspend by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment this year. We have also been using the Executive programme funds as an additional guarantee. When people tell us to wipe out the Executive programme funds they must remember that that funding is taken into consideration when projecting that £48 million. That figure provides more room to manoeuvre than was available before. I hope that there is no question of double accounting.

I will respond in writing, or during a further consideration of the Budget, to other Members’ questions. I appreciate Members’ comments. I look forward to seeing the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s digest of their points and its cogent advice on where the real priorities should lie, where we should be drawing lines through issues, and where we should be trying to move forward. As an Assembly we are becoming much more thoughtful and strategic in our approach to certain budgetary issues.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Members for their contributions to what has proved a very useful debate. I thank the Minister for his comments, and I thank those Members who have endured until the death. My recollection is that the Minister entertained us for an hour and seven minutes last year. It would be welcome if he could stick to a 7% reduction each year, but I thank him for the thorough way in which he has dealt with all the points. It does have the advantage that Members will get less from me, because they have had more from him.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel will publish a report in mid-November. That report will emphasise the points made by the Committees in their written submissions and matters that have arisen today.

I would like to comment on the conceptual issues that a number of points highlighted, rather than on specific finance matters. Some Members who made exceedingly pointed remarks to me as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel assumed that that Committee allocates the money. That is not the case. If you regard the Minister and the Executive Committee as Butch Cassidy and the Hole in the Wall Gang, we in the Committee are organising the posse. We can try to influence events, but we do not have carriage of the outcome.

The Minister referred to comments made about the Barnett formula, which I remarked on earlier. When people ask for a review of Barnett, that is usually a coded request for more money. It is always nice to have more money, but in debating and allocating the Budget, we can focus only on what we have. It is not particularly useful to go on and on about the need for more money. We would always be able to spend more money if we had it.

If we do want more money, there are only three ways to get it: we can raise the rates, about which we have had plenty of debates; we can increase taxes, which we have also debated from time to time; or we can apply the principle of "user pays". Mr Maginness did not mention that principle in his remarks about transport and infrastructure, but we shall have to look at it in a serious way if we want to increase our overall level of spending.

Sadly, Mr McHugh has left us. Therefore, I will make the point to Sinn Féin. Its Members always invite us to copy the wonderful example of what happened south of the border. They should address themselves to what happened south of the border in the late ’70s and early ’80s when tax levels were increased to penal levels and a huge number of high earners fled the country. I was working in Dublin in the early ’80s and observed that. It became more apparent as the ’80s progressed. One of the key planks in the Republic of Ireland’s economic growth in the past decade has been a reversal of those penal taxation rates. There is an obvious lesson to be learnt there.

Mr Close raised a conceptual issue with an overall resonance about sticking to the inherited formula. Mr ONeill made the point that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure was landed with a commitment from the Department of Education to provide an extra £10 million for a library review. I am not sure if that means that Mr ONeill thinks that they should not do that. It is however, an example of that principle. Mr McHugh was the only person to make the point that the focus should be on outcomes rather than on inputs.

That points in the same direction as the remarks made by Mr Close. I relate that to what Mr Kennedy said about education. The general thrust of the debate was that the key priority of the Executive is health. Mr Kennedy proposed that education was the number one priority and that economic benefits can evolve from education that may enable us to address other problems.

The two areas have something in common. If children are taught to grow up healthier, the Health Service will not, in due course, have to meet the same bills as it does now. I appreciate that we have to pay for the consequences of what has gone before and that it will take some years to get that out of the system — to work the ill health out of people’s systems.

If education were to be made the priority, the priorities within education would be for children to learn how to be healthier and how to protect the environment by learning not to throw litter all over the place. Councils spend enormous amounts of money collecting that litter. Children should learn about recycling waste, sustainable energy and a number of other related matters which, taken together, would make a considerable financial saving to the public service in Northern Ireland. One only needs to look at the situation in New Zealand — an example I often quote in the Chamber — to see how much better things can be done. However, the process has to be started at the beginning of the education cycle.

The Planning Service — another favourite example of mine — is constantly sucking in resources. It has received a considerable increase in resources over the last two or three years and is still looking for more. If the planning rules relating to rural development were tightened to the English levels, for instance, and if those relating to urban and industrial development were eased, the planning process would be considerably simplified. That would make it cheaper to administer, and you would get the stimuli in the right places. I say that with some hesitation with my good friend Mr Savage sitting beside me. However, I also live in a rural area, and if the people who live in those areas bore the true costs of living there, most of them would not. That is something Members can conjure with for a while.

The Minister has undertaken to take full account of the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report. It is the Committee’s duty to ensure that he does. When the final Budget comes forward in December following consideration of all these matters, I trust that it will reflect the issues that have been raised in the Committee’s written submissions and in today’s debate. I look forward to debating the matters in further detail at that time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly takes note of the Draft Budget announced on 25 September 2001 by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Adjourned at 7.39 pm.