Northern Ireland Assembly, 3 December 2001

98 contributions from 35 members. The official report.

Revised Budget (2002-03)

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the revised Budget.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement about the Executive’s revised Budget for 2002-03 and the Executive’s approach to the spending review next year.

The Budget statement, as opposed to the Budget document, contains some amended figures. An addendum with those changes has been sent to the Business Office, and a full revised version of the statement will be available to Members as soon as possible. This does not affect any of the Budget document figures.

The plans I am announcing today will underpin the Programme for Government, which has been sent to all Members this morning. The Executive have set clear priorities for action in the Programme for Government, and these are fully reflected in the Budget.

When I introduced the Executive’s position report in June and the draft Budget in September, I made it clear that 2002 was a transitional year in which the Executive’s Budget planning would be limited by the total resources made available by the Treasury in last year’s spending review. In December 2000 the Executive published indicative allocations for all public services for 2002-03, and these have been reviewed during the Budget process. The Executive are working within the same total, apart from additional allocations as a result of the Chancellor’s recent announcement — to which I will return later. Despite the absence of any significant change in the resources available, the Executive are determined to make a specific mark through the Budget for 2002-03.

It may be helpful if I remind Members about some of the features of the draft Budget presented in September. The Executive had £42·8 million available for allocation. This amount came from the Chancellor’s March Budget and as a result of reduced departmental requirements. The Executive proposed to supplement that amount with £48 million of planned carry-over from the in-year monitoring rounds in 2001-02. These amounts, together with a small reduction of £1·8 million in the indicative allocation for the Department for Social Development, gave the Executive £92·6 million to allocate.

In making use of this money, the Executive gave significant priority to health, schools and roads in the draft Budget plans. This is confirmed in the revised proposals I am announcing today. The Executive have been able to increase allocations for 2002-03 by £37·2 million and have been able to boost health spending in 2001-02 by £8 million. Later today I will announce the Executive’s decisions on the second round of allocations from the Executive programme funds. Taken together, these decisions will show that the Executive have acted clearly and decisively to address some of the key Programme for Government objectives.

The Executive have been determined to increase scope for comment and consultation on this year’s Budget process. Of course, Statutory Committees can question and analyse spending issues at any time. They do not need to await a starting pistol from me or from any Minister in order to initiate scrutiny on what areas Departments are spending money on, or on whether public services are serving the public in the best possible way. The range of issues that could be expressed will undoubtedly far exceed the time and scope available to Committees, even within the extended timetable for the Budget process. I encourage Committees to have an ongoing and continuous agenda of scrutiny in relation to aspects of spending programmes, including planning and targeting.

To facilitate the process of consultation and scrutiny, the Executive put forward a position report in June 2001 to draw out the main features of spending plans and provide a structured starting point for discussion. That was to ensure that when the draft Budget was presented in September, the Executive were not starting cold and that people in the Assembly and in the community could view the proposals against the backcloth of the issues that were presented in the position report.

Many people have responded positively and carefully to the Budget proposals presented in September. In particular, I thank the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has brought together a timely and important report, drawing out some major themes from its own deliberations and the comments and recommendations received from other Statutory Committees. On behalf of the Executive I thank the other Committees for their contribution to this important process. I hope that they share my belief that it has been a better process than was possible last year. Nevertheless, there are further lessons to be learnt from this cycle, and they will be valuable lessons in what will be an important process next year. I will talk more about that shortly.

I would be surprised if anyone who has attended any of our discussions on financial issues in recent weeks would disagree that there is extensive concern about the current level of health expenditure. Health and personal social services represent 40% of our expenditure. The Executive gave significant prioritisation to health spending in the draft Budget. Demands and expectations on health services in societies such as ours are expanding rapidly. People rightly want the best standard of care, treatment and service available for themselves and their loved ones to alleviate suffering, improve life expectancy and provide dignity and comfort in extreme circumstances.

The Executive have increased spending on health significantly since devolution. In 2002-03, spending will be £687 million more, or 37% higher, than it was in 1998-99. We also provided non-recurrent additions of £48 million during 2000-01 and £42 million in the two monitoring rounds so far in 2001-02.

These amounts are large, but the bulk of the extra money is required to meet the cost of providing essential services. The fact that the Executive have provided extra funding when we have many other demands for spending on public services shows clearly the importance we attach to the Health Service.

We have allocated to health everything that came to us via Barnett from the increases attributable to it in England in last year’s spending review, and more. However, because of the arithmetic of the Barnett formula, it still did not result in as big a percentage as that of the previous year in England. Yet the Health Service here has to address greater needs and hence costs more than it does in England. We must look at how it is managed and organised, and the Executive have asked for extensive work to be done on that.

The Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety are engaged in the most extensive and thorough analysis of health needs and expenditure that has been undertaken in Northern Ireland for many years. We depend on the health needs and effectiveness evaluation for guidance on how best to spend money on health in the future and to provide clear understanding of the differences between what happens here and elsewhere. For many years it was thought that health spending and standards of service were relatively high here. There is no doubt that they have been eroded over recent years. We cannot take that lightly, and thoughtful analysis and discussion are needed.

It is not enough simply to put money into the Health Service. Many people rightly ask how the resources that have already been provided have been used. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has provided detailed information on that, and the evaluation process will continue to explore it.

As with all public services, there are problems with management and efficiency which must be addressed. The way in which the services are organised begs many questions. Hard choices must be made which will affect the standard of care and the nature of hospital provision in the region. We must address these issues seriously and thoughtfully. The Executive, no less than the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, are determined to find the best way to proceed.

Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an additional £1 billion for the Health Service in the United Kingdom. As a result, we have received a Barnett amount of £27·8 million. Although we heard of this only after we had taken our own main decisions, the Executive moved quickly to confirm the way ahead. We are not obliged to make use of money from Barnett for the same purpose as such money is used in England — that is central to the point of devolution. No matter what we think of it otherwise, the Barnett system gives us the distinct advantage of regional discretion as a devolved Administration.

In the case of the Health Service, we have decided on an increase in funding which is significantly larger than the amount provided by the Treasury. Making use of our allocations — including the Executive programme fund allocations that I will announce later today — and new money from the Treasury, we are providing an extra £41 million over and above the amounts that were announced in the draft Budget. We are also acting straight away. Members may recall that the increase for health which was proposed in the draft Budget was made possible only by planning to carry over some money from 2001-02. Of the total of £48 million that we planned to handle in that way, £31·1 million was for health. Because of the additional provision that we are making for 2002-03, we can add £8 million to the health budget this year instead of holding it back until 2002-03. This means that the service and, more importantly, those in need of treatment and care can begin to benefit immediately from the extra money.

I emphasise that that has been made possible through the Executive’s planned additions to the health budget for next year. While the pre-Budget report has allowed those plans to be accelerated and the scale to be increased, we will not simply play follow-my-leader with the Treasury. The result is that the allocation for health in 2002-03 will be £72 million higher than the figures in the June position report, including the Executive programme fund allocations that I will announce this afternoon.

Despite very tight constraints, we have met more than half the health bids that were lodged at the time of the position report. Compared with the plans made this time last year for 2001-02, and including the two rounds of allocations from the Executive programme funds, there will be an increase of £224 million or 9·7%. On 25 September I explained that those figures include £19 million that was transferred from the social security budget. Thus, the true cash increase is £205 million or 8·9%. As in the past, most of that money is needed to cover rises in the costs of providing services, such as inflation rises over which we have limited control. However, it will provide some £41 million of service development for health and personal social services.

The new money will be used to provide several particular developments, including some £13 million for community services, which will allow additional community care places for older people. That will address some issues that have been raised about the appropriateness of care and the effect of deficiencies in community care on acute hospitals. It is vital that hospitals can use their services as effectively as possible, but that is difficult if the community care needs of older people are not being met.

An additional £12·4 million is being allocated to enable hospitals to address some critical issues, including the treatment of heart disease and cancer and the provision of extra beds so that more patients can receive urgent treatment. A further £2 million is being provided for much-needed children’s services and family services, especially for the most vulnerable people.

I am pleased to confirm that we can now proceed with the introduction of free nursing care for the elderly, subject to the necessary legislation’s being passed through the Assembly. That will cost some £4·5 million for 2002-03, although the full cost for the year will be about £9 million. That will surely be welcomed by all who care about the interests of older people.

The Executive’s proposals represent a major commitment to meeting the needs of the Health Service. No one pretends that those additions, substantial though they are, will solve all the problems in the Health Service. We must also take account of the important work on health funding and management that is being done in both England and the South to develop the best strategy for our context. How we proceed for the longer term remains to be decided. We must take account of the available resources and the conclusions of the needs and effectiveness evaluation next year.

There are only a few other changes from the spending allocations in the draft Budget. I confirm that the £2 million required by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure for the cost of job evaluation in libraries will be provided. As I briefly explained in my statement on the September monitoring rounds, it has become clear, through a job evaluation exercise undertaken by the education and library boards, that the pay of junior library personnel will have to be increased. The boards made a commitment to backdate the job evaluation to 1 January 1995. Now that that process is complete, those payments will be made. It was clearly impossible for the libraries’ budget to absorb that substantial additional cost. Several Members had concerns about that when the September monitoring round was announced. However, it represents a clear contractual entitlement based on an objective evaluation of the library staff’s work.

In addition, it is now possible to restore the £2 million of provision for the Department of the Environment’s resources grant to district councils. That will avoid the need for a reduction, and it will bring the increase for that Department’s budget up to 10% when compared to provision in 2001-02. The Executive concluded that it would be desirable to use the flexibility that has become available to ensure that full assistance to the poorest council areas is restored.

We have added £1·4 million to the social inclusion/ community regeneration fund to provide for a Department of Education bid for provision for primary two classroom assistants. That will be covered in detail in my statement on the Executive programme funds this afternoon.

The additional allocations in 2002-03 amount to £37·2 million, which, together with the £8 million for health in 2001-02, makes a total of £45·2 million. The resources required to cover those additions come from four sources. These are: the additional £27·8 million from the pre-Budget report, which we are allocating to health; the £5·4 million that has been made available through a reclassification of some costs relating to Laganside; the setting of targets for Departments to increase asset sales in 2002-03 by £5 million, which will release additional resources; and our anticipation that £7 million will be found from reduced requirements in some departmental allocations at a relatively early stage in 2002-03.

For the remaining Departments, and for the North/South bodies, the allocations agreed by the Executive in the revised Budget remain as proposed in September. The plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council on Friday 30 November adopted an initial opinion on the budgets for the six bodies for 2002. Those are reflected in the Budget proposals before the Assembly and will be kept under review in the in-year monitoring process, as will those for Departments.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s allocation will be £204 million, which includes provision for BSE testing.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will have a total of £256 million, although, as I indicated on 25 September, that will be kept under review to take account of the implications of changes in the economic context.

With an allocation of £117 million, the Department of Finance and Personnel will be funded to provide the central finance and personnel functions and the necessary support services for Departments and the public for which it is responsible.

The £619 million allocated to the Department for Employment and Learning will provide for the planned expansion of further and higher education places and measures to broaden access to further and higher education.

The Department for Regional Development has a 14·8% increase over its 2001-02 allocation, which includes substantial provision for the purchase of new trains. That is a clear demonstration of the priority that we are giving to roads and transport. The Chancellor’s decision to phase in the aggregates tax will lead to a cost saving for the Department, which shows that a difference can be made by ensuring that the Treasury addresses the regional consequences of taxation measures.

The Department for Social Development’s budget of £450 million represents a 7·5% increase over the 2001-02 provision. It includes substantial provision for welfare reform and modernisation, as well as for housing measures.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will have a budget of £33 million, which includes provision for key research on equality and policy effectiveness.

Some pressure has been applied, especially by the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and comment has been made that departmental estimating processes are not as good as they should be and that there is a pattern of monitoring rounds yielding additional room to manoeuvre. That is indeed the case, and the Executive are well aware of the issues that that highlights.

We will consider carefully, in the course of next year’s spending review, how best to take account of the pattern of underspending, and we will take steps to ensure that our resource planning is as effective and sound as possible. Money should be directed to where it is really needed, and our priorities should be fulfilled. The pattern of recent monitoring rounds suggests that it is entirely prudent to make use of a sum on the scale of £7 million.

However, there are always some uncertainties that cannot be covered in the Budget allocations. These include some technical issues in the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that may give rise to monitoring bids next year. These, and the routine costs of the Departments, non-departmental public bodies and the North/South bodies must be taken into account. The possibility of developments in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s budget, which is always more difficult to predict than the more routine recurrent budgets of other Departments, must also be taken into account.

In September, we decided to plan on the basis that some underspending would be carried from this year to next year in order to part-finance next year’s plans. That is necessary to ensure that the cost pressures identified for the year ahead can be covered adequately. It is a responsible use of the end-year flexibility arrangements that are designed to make the best use of the resources available, rather than their being drawn to areas of opportunity as opposed to areas of priority. In next year’s spending review, we must consider how best to adapt that approach for the future.

That concludes my proposals for the spending allocations for 2002-03. They represent a clear statement of the Executive’s determination to address the problems in the Health Service and to maximise the resources available to public services. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am in favour of public services, and I believe that my successor will carry forward the determined work to ensure that we can make the most of our Budget.

I remind the Assembly that there will be a full-scale spending review by the Treasury next year. It will address the spending plans for the period from 2003-04 to 2005-06. Our work, within our departmental expenditure limit will take place in that context. The review is likely to affect the total resources available to us in that period. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that we cannot expect as rapid a period of growth in spending as has been the case since 1999-2000, which was the first year of the plans set in the 1998 comprehensive spending review.

In many ways, the devolved Administration had the good fortune of coming into office when spending was growing rapidly. As I said on 25 September, we cannot expect that to continue, and we must be able to adapt our ways to deal with a different situation.

The Executive are determined to use the opportunity of next year’s spending review to make a clear and significant difference to spending plans for Northern Ireland’s public services. The work will be informed by the needs and effectiveness evaluations. These already cover health, schools, vocational education and training, industry and housing and amount to 70% of the total departmental expenditure limit. The Executive recently agreed that there should also be a study of the programmes of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

In addition to these six evaluations, we will take account of the work on the future of the agrifood sector by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s vision group and the work of the Department for Regional Development on the regional transportation strategy. These strands of detailed analysis, together with the usual processes of bidding and scrutiny for all services, will ensure that the spending review will be truly fundamental.

A spending review should mean change — changing priorities to take account of what our society needs and wants most. We have an immense responsibility to address that seriously and thoughtfully. The answers are not obvious, nor will the decisions be easy.

To emphasise our determination to make a difference, we are publishing indicative minima, rather than spending plans, for allocations to Departments for 2003-04. We have taken about £125 million from the previous departmental indicative figures. That will be held by the Executive for allocation next September following a thorough root-and-branch analysis of where the money is needed most. It will take time for Departments, Executive Ministers, Assembly Committees and others to work through the analysis. The process is likely to lead to radical decisions being made on spending allocations. I invite the Assembly to view the process as beginning today. It is a major challenge that will give us a substantial opportunity to make our mark on public services.

The amounts allocated to all Departments for 2003-04 are well below the amounts required to sustain the level of service that we propose for 2002-03. That does not mean that we intend to make spending cuts. On the contrary, we are determined to ensure the growth of public services, so we need to ask which programmes need resources most and in what areas we most want to develop public services. It is likely that some reductions will be required in areas in which money can be better used in new or different ways. Certain objectives that took priority may have been broadly achieved. We do not look for change for change’s sake, but for change that will benefit public services.

We have calculated the indicative minima in ways that take account of each aspect of the Budget. We have also taken into account the spending patterns that will be set in 2002-03; those include some substantial changes from the current year. It follows that the indicative plans that we published last year are no longer valid and need a radical overhaul. Spending can go down as well as up. That does not mean that something was wrong — it simply shows that priorities change, and we must adjust if we are to respond to need and get the best from the public services.

I shall not detail how the indicative figures were derived. It suffices to say that they take account of the characteristics of Budgets — pay bills are difficult to change quickly, and it is easier to make adjustments to capital.

In setting the indicative minima, we have held back a lower proportion of the amounts allocated to health and schools. That recognises the fact that, as well as having the characteristics that apply to all Departments, those two services are particular priorities, and it would be unrealistic to hold back a substantial percentage of the amounts set aside for them. However, there is no question of their facing less demanding scrutiny. On the contrary, we have given priority to them in the needs and effectiveness evaluations, because it is vital that their large share of the Budget is used as effectively as possible. Evaluations become more important as the amounts increase.

I must emphasise that the amount held for allocation, which we call the Executive’s SR2002 allocation, is in two distinct parts: one for resources and one for capital. That shows our determination to ensure that the amount for capital will be allocated to capital. If possible, we should seek to move some provision from resources to capital to increase the level of activity. That could proceed in conjunction with further work on public-private partnerships (PPPs), depending on the conclusions that we reach after the PPP review next year.

In setting indicative minima, our approach included all the Departments of the Executive and the North/ South bodies. I invite the appropriate authorities in the Assembly to consider whether a similar approach to the spending of the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Audit Office might be appropriate, so that next year’s spending review makes the best possible plans for the longer term.

The next spending review will mark the end of the beginning of devolution. The conclusions that we reach this time next year will give us a new direction that will assist us in 2005-06. That will coincide with the conclusion of the existing round of EU structural funds. It will be a vital period of planning for our society, one in which we can address the major economic and social issues that affect our region. The Executive remain determined to deliver on the objectives set out in the Programme for Government, and it will become increasingly clear that our spending plans follow the priorities set out in the Programme for Government.

It has been my privilege to present and explain the Executive’s financial decisions to the Assembly on many occasions. I thank Members for the attention and care that they have given to those issues during my time as Minister of Finance and Personnel. I know that I can rely on Members to give my successor a similarly thoughtful and questioning response. I commend the proposals to the Assembly. Members have a week to discuss and consider them further before I put down a motion to seek approval of the revised Budget on Tuesday 11 December.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. It shows that the Executive, and the Minister in particular, have been listening to the Assembly and have paid attention to Committee reports — especially those from the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

Does the Minister agree that the fact that he has been able to put additional money into health, over and above the amount allocated by the Chancellor, shows that a review of the Barnett formula is necessary and that having a local Assembly gives us the opportunity to make our own decisions, especially on health issues? Can he ensure that the money that has been ring-fenced for health — as announced by the Chancellor — will go to health? Patients are real people, and they need real care. We need new money — and real money — to ensure that that vital service is maintained.

Can the Minister also confirm that the allocation of £8 million of direct money that was announced today is over and above the £14 million that he announced in the September review?

I welcome the reinstatement of the general grant to the 16 poorer councils. Does the Minister agree that a reduction in the resources grant, together with a rate rise, would have had a devastating effect and would have created a real crisis for many councils whose resources are already under pressure? In relation to the potential review – [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Although the Member is the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and, as such, is allowed more leeway when questioning the Minister, as is the case with all Committee Chairpersons, this is an opportunity for one or two, rather than a raft of, questions.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle, I am asking questions on behalf of the Committee, which has many Members.

What steps will the Minister and the Executive consider taking before negotiations begin on the 2002 spending review, with its likely constraints, to ensure that allocations meet future needs?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Molloy for his initial comments. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I have been happy to listen carefully to debates in the Chamber and to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. That is not only an indication that I am a good listener; it is also an indication that good points have been raised. The Executive have been able to reflect positively those issues in the revised Budget. We have been able to translate our stated priority for health into further allocations, which I believe is welcome.

As Mr Molloy pointed out, if the Barnett formula worked differently and more in our favour, we would be able to allocate even more money to health and to our regional priority. There has been some misunderstanding about that — every penny that we receive from the Barnett formula for health goes to health. Moreover, we allocate still more, as the revised Budget shows. I can confirm that the £8 million that will be allocated to this year’s health budget is additional to the £14·3 million that was allocated in the September monitoring round.

Therefore, since the draft Budget a further £22 million has been allocated to health this year and a further £41 million to the health budget for next year.

Work on the needs and effectiveness evaluation is laying the groundwork for the consideration we shall undertake for the 2002 spending review. I hope that Committees will soon start to address the 2002 spending review from their perspective.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister confirm that he recognises that the Department for Social Development deals with the most marginalised in this society? He has often said so. Will he explain to the House why it appears that that Department’s budget is the only one that has been reduced since the draft proposals were published in September? Will he confirm that the cut is in the field of urban regeneration and community development and comes at a time when investment is desperately needed in places such as north Belfast to help and support local communities?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

No budget has been cut. Since the draft Budget, the total budget for the Department for Social Development has been increased by 7·5%. No departmental allocation has been cut — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If the Member wishes to intervene, the Minister is content to allow the intervention.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

In September’s draft Budget, the total allocation to the Department for Social Development was £450·5 million. The new allocation is £449·7 million, which is a reduction in that Department’s overall budget.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

My statement referred to a technical change that has led to a reduced requirement of £5·4 million for Laganside. That £5·4 million is part of the additional moneys that were available to us. The Department declared that change. The impression seems to be that some drive-by cuts are taking place by my, or somebody else’s, hands. The £5·4 million reduced requirement has been used to make the changes that we have now presented in the revised Budget.

I also indicated that we recognise that certain Northern Ireland Housing Executive issues are likely to give rise to further claims on in-year monitoring allocations.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially on health allocations. I welcome the £13 million for community services. Those include the additional community care places for older people, which will reduce the massive pressure on beds, the introduction of free nursing care for the elderly and the extra £8 million already mentioned.

Bearing in mind the gross underfunding of the Health Service over the years and the ongoing daily crisis, will the Minister agree that all money directly allocated for health by central Government should be spent on health in Northern Ireland? In England, 2% more is spent on health. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an additional £1 billion for health. How much of the £27·8 million received as a result is going to health in Northern Ireland?

Without knowing the Executive programme funds allocation, it is difficult to work out how much of that £27·8 million is going to health. I appreciate that there will be a statement later on Executive programme funds. However, with that new money and the money from the programme funds, can the Minister assure us that he and his Executive Colleagues will give total support to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in acquiring the necessary funding to set up the new cancer unit at Belfast City Hospital?

Extra money is welcome, but does the Minister agree that we are still £50 million short of the Department’s bids for the extra £122 million needed to maintain the services in 2002-03? Those services may continue to deteriorate. I welcome the Minister’s positive statement.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Executive have used every penny — and more — that was allocated for health in the Barnett formula to improve services. Let us be clear about that. I have said that a total of £27·8 million will go towards health. In fact, we can now allocate £41 million more for health for next year than was allocated in the draft Budget, which means £72 million more than was reflected in the position report. That goes a long way towards meeting more than half of the bids referred to by the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That £41 million extra for next year will allow for service development in several areas.

I said in the draft Budget that the allocation would not be sufficient to allow much service development and that services would just stand still. However, that allocation has been raised to allow for service development. The Member’s assertion that £50 million more is needed just to maintain existing services is not true. Approximately £41 million of real service development can take place as a result of the additional allocations in the revised Budget.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There is only one hour for questions, so if a question has been answered, Members should not feel pressed to ask it again, thus inviting the Minister to give the same response. It is a different matter if a Member wishes to press the Minister on an unsatisfactory answer. However, a simple repetition of questions and answers is not the best use of our time.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

When the chairperson of the vision group met my Committee, my Committee was flabbergasted to hear that no money has been allocated to put recommendations into operation. It is a waste of time and money for Committees to be appointed to make recommendations when no money is available to implement those recommendations.

On Friday, my Committee was staggered to hear that there is almost an epidemic of tuberculosis and brucellosis here, with 180 herds now closed. Some £22 million was paid in compensation in the previous financial year, and that may rise this year. Did the Department raise that with the Minister, and was there a request for further allocations for those important matters?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As I pointed out previously, the work carried out by the vision group is the subject of consultation, and final detailed proposals will emerge from that. It is not the only review exercise of that nature that could have resource implications, depending on the final proposals. As with the other exercises, the decisions on financial allocations will be made in the light of the proposals that we have received. I have made no secret of the fact that the Budget does not include additional resources for the outcome of the vision exercise. The Executive have already agreed that the need for resources will be considered following the consultation exercise. People may have accused us of pre-empting the outcome if we had fixed a particular allocation. In spring, when the results of that exercise become available and a draft action plan has been developed, the Executive will address the resource issues. That will be one of the major issues for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the 2002 spending review.

I have no doubt that the other issues raised by the Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee will make their way to me or my successor when the Department and the Minister feel that it is appropriate.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I acknowledge the attempt made by the Executive to give greater recognition to the needs of the most vulnerable and weak in our society through the further increase in the allocation to healthcare provision. Will the additional allocation for community care packages be sufficient to end bed blocking in our hospitals? If not, what extra money would be required to achieve that goal?

I welcome the Minister’s statement on free nursing care, but we need to know where nursing care ends and personal care begins. How much additional money would be required to end discrimination and ageism in healthcare provision?

Paragraph 32 of the Minister’s statement says that

"the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will have a budget of £31·9 million".

The Minister said that the Budget would be £33 million. Which is the correct figure? The Minister also said that the increase to the Department for Social Development’s budget is 7·5%; the figure that we have in front of us is 8·6%.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I advised Members at the start of my statement that a couple of figures — not in the Budget document, but in the statement — were wrong. I corrected those figures, and a corrected version of the statement will be made available to Members. The figures that I read out were correct. I have no doubt that Mr Close will be scandalised by that and will call on me to resign. I shall consider my position.

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

Shortly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In the near future.

We have tried to prioritise health in several ways. Provision is made in the Budget to begin the introduction of free nursing care in October 2002, assuming that the relevant legislation is passed by the Assembly before that date. The full-year costs would be £9 million. It is not for me, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, to define a precise borderline between personal care and nursing care. We use the terms that are used by Departments.

I am glad that the Member welcomes the fact that we have been able to make that positive move, rectifying a regrettable consequence of the constraints that we faced in the draft Budget. I hope that Members will give what practical support they can, as we try to get the necessary legislation through the Assembly.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I shall be as succinct as possible.

I understand and recognise the hard job that the Minister has had to do, and I also recognise that some of the decisions have not been of his own making due to the lack of investment in the past 30 years. Can the Minister say when he is going to consider reallocating the money that is currently given to the trusts and boards under the health budget, given that we now have a Committee, an Assembly of 108 Members, and a Health Department? The money would be better spent on health than on the administration of health boards.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question and his reflection on the historic background to those decisions.

It is not for me, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, to start proposing structures for health and personal social services. The issue of the number of trusts and boards et cetera is touched on in the Hayes report, which is the subject of consultation. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will introduce the relevant proposals on that. The Executive will initiate a review of public administration in a wholesale way next spring, and that has implications for those issues. We are determined to ensure that as much money as possible goes to the services and not to the structures.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The Minister will be aware that the Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee has said publicly on at least two occasions recently that our Health Service is on the brink of disaster. It is also a matter of public record that our waiting lists for acute services — heart, cancer and orthopaedic treatment — are longer than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, elective orthopaedic services have been suspended for lengthy periods in the three major orthopaedic units.

In paragraph 10 of his statement, the Minister says that

"In 2002-03, spending will be £687 million more".

However, the money spent to date has not alleviated, but rather increased, our difficulties. In paragraph 38, the Minister says that

"In many ways, the devolved administration has had the good fortune of coming into office at a time when spending was growing rapidly."

There is a hint that spending will be cut back in the next spending review. In those circumstances, does the Minister think that the current provision for health will do anything significant, in the absence of fundamental reform, to increase the quality of the Health Service?

Bed blocking was the subject of the £1 billion payment announced by the Chancellor in England and the allocation of £13 million to community care services. Is the Minister aware that a bed occupied in an acute hospital costs about £1,200 per week and that a bed in a private nursing home could be obtained for less than half that? The beds are not being filled because of the absence of reform in hospital administration and because of the multiplicity of trusts.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member has raised several points. In budgetary terms, considerably more money is being spent on health this year than was the case in the year before devolution, and that was reflected in my statement. The Member suggests that that money makes the problem worse. Extra money does not make any problems worse. Yes, it is true that not all the problems are to do with funding; there are issues that relate to planning, management and service structures.

It is for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to deal with those issues. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am dealing with budgetary issues, working with my Executive Colleagues. Many of the points that the Member has raised are for my ministerial Colleagues to answer.

It is clear that the additional money now being allocated to community services should be of assistance in regard to bed blocking. This goes back to the initiative taken by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in December 1999, when there were acute winter pressures. Various reviews were undertaken, and we are now seeing the outworking of some of those considerations in the allocations that we are making.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to the spending review in his statement. I welcome that if it means that we are moving away from the failures of past spending patterns and will be developing more vigorous spending plans that accurately reflect need. Does the Minister agree that, to date, the Executive have failed to prioritise health and to address adequately the needs of a Health Service in crisis? Go raibh maith agat.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not accept that the Executive have failed to prioritise health. In circumstances where health spending next year will be 37% higher than it was before the Executive existed, no one can say that we have failed, in budgetary terms, to prioritise health. We have always been honest with the Assembly about the difficulties of getting the room to manoeuvre in order to prioritise effectively.

The Member’s comments on the spending review are correct. We must make more of our total allocation available to meet, and to focus more heavily on, our regional priorities. However, making money available in that way is not easy when Members, across all parties and Committees, move defensively to insist that the previous Budget lines of their particular Departments must be protected. Many people work on the assumption that prioritisation is something that is done with new additional money and not by looking at whether all baselines can continue to be justified in the light of pressing priorities. Given what Dr O’Hagan has said, I look forward next year to hearing her and many other Colleagues joining with the Executive to ensure that we look seriously at spending in all Departments so that we can release as much money as possible to the most pressing priorities.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the allocation, additional to the draft Budget, of £72 million to health and social services, and particularly the 17·3% increase in the allocation to personal social services. In his statement the Minister referred to the extensive work undertaken by the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on an assessment of how health services are managed and organised. Can he tell the House when this analysis will be completed, so that we can have greater confidence in the effectiveness of health expenditure?

Will the Minister also assure the House that in such a review he will address the inequality in the current system of allocating community health and social services funding? It has produced huge variations between different community health and social services trusts and has resulted in the underfunding of the Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust, which serves my constituency.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I want to clarify that £72 million more has been made available than was indicated in the position report. It is £41 million more than was in the draft Budget. Both figures are significant and welcome improvements.

Bearing in mind next year’s spending review and considering that many Members have mentioned the Barnett formula, our first concern in the needs and effectiveness evaluation exercise is to come forward with details on needs. We hope to do that early in the new year. The further detailed work on effectiveness will take another couple of months. It is not that that work has not begun, but that we had to ensure, in getting to grips with all the issues, that we had sufficient information on need to commence our discussions on the Treasury spending review. Therefore, the effectiveness evaluation will come forward later in the spring and will be available for the Executive and the Committees to work on.

The allocations within Departments — as between trusts — is not a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel. All Departments have their equality schemes and obligations. All spending should be equality proofed, but the responsibility for that falls to each Department and not to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

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

I compliment the Minister for the clarity and precision of the revised Budget statement. All Members who have spoken so far have welcomed the substantive additional funding given to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Can the Minister tell us when a report on the joint review set up in February 2001, involving the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Finance and Personnel, will be made. While all Members have welcomed the additional substantive money being added to the health budget in the current year and next year, there is concern about how effectively it is being spent.

The Minister said that he hopes that the needs and effectiveness review will be completed soon. Does he agree that that will set different patterns of expenditure in the future and that it will perhaps do away with, or break, the pre-devolution, predetermined expenditure that Departments currently appear to have as their dogma?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The needs and effectiveness evaluation covers a range of programmes across various Departments — over 70% of the total Budget. The Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety are working together in relation to health and social services. It is hoped that findings on need can be brought forward early in the new year, with findings on effectiveness following in the spring.

It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the precise implications of that, and I do not want to speak out of turn, given the role of a particular Department and another Minister here. However, it is our shared intent that the outcome of the needs and effectiveness evaluation will mean that the Executive are better able to assure themselves and the Assembly that they are matching resources to need and using resources to meet need rather than to sustain inherited patterns.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On 25 September, as Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I asked a question on the justice of the proposal to cut £2 million from the resources grant payable to the poorest district councils. No one at that time could understand the unwarranted intrusion into the poorest district council funds or how the Department could even contemplate it, so it was condemned. The effective working of the Committee for the Environment exposed that iniquity, and the Committee can be proud of its success in bringing the matter to the forefront of debate. However, one issue still concerns the Committee.

Can the Minister assure the House that the allocation necessary for compliance with EU legislation on waste management will be ring-fenced and that none of it will be handed back by the Department, as happened this year? That is causing considerable concern, bearing in mind that we are facing infraction proceedings from Europe on waste management.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member is correct on the first point. He drew attention to this matter on 25 September by quoting the Minister of the Environment, who had referred to the point in his press release that day. Various representations have been received since then. It was precisely due to pressures on environmental issues, particularly waste management, that the Department — based on what looked like being the draft Budget allocation — had to concentrate on meeting EU requirements. That led to the squeeze in the resource grant; it was not a question of anyone’s deciding to cut the council resource grant. With additional money, we have now been able to reverse that particular implication.

As far as ring-fencing is concerned, money allocated for a particular purpose is used for that purpose. Ring-fencing means that if money cannot be spent for a particular purpose, the money is handed back. Keeping money to do what one wants with it is not ring-fencing. If the Member wants assurance that money is given for a purpose — with a determination that it be spent on that purpose — this is the view of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Finance and Personnel.

If, for whatever reason, spending levels are not able to use all that money in a year, that will declare itself in a monitoring round. That is the right and proper way of maintaining Budget scrutiny and is consistent with many other points that have been made in the Chamber.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I too welcome the Minister’s statement. However, with regard to the Budget allocation for the Department for Social Development, if our aim is to tackle disadvantage and build communities, how does the Minister expect to see the achievement of this worthwhile aspiration if he cuts the budget for objective C, Urban Regeneration/ Community Development?

There has been a decrease in the Department for Social Development’s budget, and that is made worse in real terms by the increase in spending on administration. Therefore, there is less money to be spent on the ground. I refer the Minister to paragraph 33 of his statement where he stated that money should go where it is really needed. It is needed for housing and community development and for the improvement of the social well-being of the most disadvantaged in our society, and not necessarily for administration fees.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I refer Ms Gildernew to the answer I gave to Fred Cobain. What is being identified here as a cut is a technical change in the treatment of Laganside expenditure and was brought forward by the Department for Social Development. Members must remember that Laganside spending comes under objective C. Some of that spending would not necessarily be what many of us might regard as frontline community development and community regeneration expenditure. People assume that only particular types of services and spend are being hit in this way.

The Executive have tried to address the prevailing concern of prioritisation and targeting need in health that has been expressed in the House.

Considerable spending continues on housing through the Housing Executive and housing associations. My statement also reflected the fact that, due to some technical issues regarding the Housing Executive, we anticipate that there will be further in-year bids for housing, as has been the case previously. The Executive will continue to make good their commitments to meet housing need. Obviously, housing is one of the programmes subject to the needs and effectiveness evaluation. We will give further consideration to the longer-term housing issues when we receive the benefit of that evaluation.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

The Minister hinted that there would be some form of accountability in spending the money. What systems of accountability will he put in place to ensure that these allocations finance the services for which they have been allocated and do not become confetti currency in the boards?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

None of these moneys will be treated as confetti currency. If any Committee has reason to believe that a Department is treating money in that way, I rely on that Committee to bring the problem to light.

As I said in reply to Dr McCrea, moneys are allocated for specific purposes, and where Departments diverge significantly from that because they are not able to spend in a particular area, that should be declared. When variations are disclosed, Members should not make it a big issue. It is good financial management for Departments to make such savings known, and the Executive are then able to redirect available money to other programme areas. Members may feel more reassured that spending management is in line with stated plans when the needs and effectiveness evaluation results feed into the spending review.

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

I add my voice of welcome to the Minister’s statement, considering that this is his second Budget and, probably, his last.

There should be no doubt about the Minister’s commitment to health and education. Can he summarise how much additional money has been given to these Departments since devolution?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not have precise figures at my fingertips. It depends whether we are considering two Budgets or three, as I provided a carry-over Budget in December 1999. We will make the figures available to the Member. There has been a significant increase in health spending.

Those two Departments are dealing with serious pressures, and the additional money that we have made available will not alleviate all those pressures. Rising costs in existing services and demands for new services have been factors, and acute pressures express themselves in different areas. I will not imply that we have done enough for those services and priorities, just as I recognise that there are many services in other Departments for which Members would like to see more funding.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister has made a lengthy statement about the Health Service, and many people have concerns about the funding of that Department. The Minister said that the Barnett formula would give some £27 million extra. Can he advise whether the money given to the Health Service will be sufficient to bring it into line with the UK mainland? My information is that our health budget is already 9% shy of the UK average. Does the announced increase bring us into line with the national average?

In paragraph 17 of his statement the Minister referred to £13 million for community services and the provision of care places for older people. This year, the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust needs £3 million simply to cover costs. It is playing catch up. Does the Minister believe that £13 million is a sufficient allocation for 19 trusts and four board areas? What funding will be made available for winter provision? The Health Service has increased problems at this time of the year, relating to flu and other such ailments. What funding will be made available to provide extra nursing homes, beds, and step-down packages?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As I have pointed out to other Members, much of the detail of Mr Shannon’s questions are for another Minister. It is not for me, therefore, to explain how that money will be spent, particularly with regard to boards and trusts. The relevant Minister and Department make those allocations through the appropriate structures.

No one is pretending that any allocation is adequate to cover every need that arises. The draft Budget allocation for health did not allow for service development. A further allocation now allows for that development. However, I do not pretend that all service needs will be met. There were other bids from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that could not be met. The further allocation for community care is aimed at supporting additional residential placements and domiciliary care packages. The effectiveness and extent of the impact of those services depends on how they are delivered.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I am delighted that the Budget allocation for fuel poverty has increased from £4 million to £8 million. That is a wonderful example of how the Assembly can correct a problem that is particular to the Province, which has high fuel costs and a high level of fuel poverty.

I do not suggest that the Minister resign, as so many have tried that already. However, I am concerned about the discrepancy between figures that he gave to the Assembly previously and those that appear in the Budget — Laganside, for example, and the Housing Executive. I wish to make a special plea about the Housing Executive. I do not have the figures, but I do recall that in the last year’s Budget statement the revenue created by the sale of Housing Executive houses was over £100 million. Departments other than the Department for Social Development benefited from about 50% of that money. The technical bid in the monitoring rounds will be for housing. I hope that more than 50% of the proceeds of house sales will go towards the Department for Social Development.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for a nice try.

That point has been discussed before on the housing programme and the moneys raised from house sales. In setting a Budget, the Executive must make an assumption about the amount of revenue raised from the sale of Housing Executive houses, just as an amount of money is assumed from Housing Executive rents. When the Budget is examined, it should be realised that it is a public expenditure commitment. Other moneys will go into the total housing programme. I do not believe that I can give a commitment about a specific percentage or fixed proportion of any additional revenue from house sales that should go towards the housing programme.

It is well known that not every Department or service generates revenue as the housing programme does through house sales. Underinvestment in many other services is often said to have occurred when the Government’s investment priority was, rightly, to invest in housing. Now that some of that investment is resulting in house sales and is generating revenue, it could be said that services which lost out before have a right to call on the additional revenue. The Executive will make those decisions in the light of prevailing pressures, patterns of need in housing and the needs of other Departments.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the restoration of £2 million from the Department of the Environment to the district councils and the significant extra allocation for health. I congratulate the Minister for providing the resources to implement free nursing care for the elderly. Can he confirm that he and his Colleagues in the Executive will encourage the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to move on the legislation that is required to bring this policy to life?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On the last point, I understand that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety intends to bring forward the necessary legislation. I hope that all Members who support the extension of free nursing care to the elderly will give every support and facility to expedite the legislation through the House so that the money that the Executive are allocating can be used.

The allocation is intended to allow free nursing care to begin in October 2002. I make that point in case anyone should claim that I promised it earlier. It will take some time to get the legislation through.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development — sorry, the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, Mr Poots.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will not take Alban’s job just yet, Mr Speaker.

We all welcome the funding that has been put into health. We cannot sniff at 37% over three years. We need to see that being delivered; we need to see the waiting lists being cut and bed blocking eradicated. Social funds must be freed to deliver better health care than we have at present.

I would like the Minister to ensure that there is equality in the distribution of moneys for health and that the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust, in my constituency, receives the money that it is due under its capitation formula. At present, its funding is £2 million short.

What is the state of the Minister’s forward planning in relation to the children’s commissioner and the review of public administration? The review of public administration is due to commence in March or April 2002, but it has not been provided for in the Budget. The children’s commissioner is due to be appointed in June, yet there is no provision in the Budget for that. I am concerned that there has been no forward planning for those matters.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member’s last two points were dealt with previously. I have said, on the record, that the cost of the review of public administration will be covered by an in-year monitoring bid rather than by the Budget. That does not mean that there is no pre-planning, rather that the Executive are not taxing the Budget plans with the cost of the review of public administration at this stage. If anything, the amount of money from the Budget that is wasted on such reviews would be remarked on. Therefore, we are making the call for the review of public administration in that way.

Similarly, I have dealt with the question about the children’s commissioner previously. I am getting repeat questions on some issues. I welcome the Member’s recognition of the fact that since devolution we have been able to increase significantly our spending on health.

The precise distribution of that is not a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel, but for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Reference was made to the increase over the period of devolution. To return to Ms Lewsley’s point on health and education, if the cash budget for health and personal social services and the cash budget for schools in 1999-2000, are compared with the resource budgets for 2002-03, it will be seen that there are rises of 31% and 27% respectively.

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

I welcome the increased allocation of 14·8% for the Department for Regional Development. That recognises the underinvestment in infrastructure that has occurred over the years, especially in roads and transport. I also welcome the Minister’s announcement that the Department for Regional Development will have a cost saving through the Chancellor’s decision to phase in the aggregates tax. I congratulate the Executive on persuading the Chancellor to do that. Will that cost saving be retained within the Department to help address other departmental pressures?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The 14·8% increase was provided for in the draft Budget. That is a significant commitment, which reflects, as the Committee Chairperson rightly pointed out, the historic underinvestment that we are trying to overcome.

As I said, there will now be some easement for the Department for Regional Development as a result of the Chancellor’s decision to phase in the aggregates tax. The benefits of that easement will fall entirely to that Department’s programme. There will be no attempt to move those benefits to another Department. That, of itself, is a further benefit. It should mean that, for the same significant 14·8% increase, people will see more programme outcome.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement on health care, money for the homeless and housing, but I shall not comment on those issues. I am concerned about paragraph 40 of the Minister’s statement, dealing with agriculture, which reads:

"In addition to these six evaluations, we are also going to take account of the work of the Vision Steering Group on the future of the agri-food sector".

That would be all very well if we were living in normal times, but the agriculture industry has come through a difficult period in recent years. I have read the vision group’s report, and I do not believe that its recommendations will resolve the problems.

The vision group will have to report back to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I hope that the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, will take account of the Agriculture Committee’s views and that the vision group’s views will not overrule those of the Committee. The vision group is fine in its place, but it is employed by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to do a job. The members of the Agriculture Committee also have a job to do. The important aspect of that job is to ensure a viable agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. That must be the end result.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The vision group’s report is now under consultation. The Executive anticipate that they will give the group’s work further consideration in the future; consideration of resources will also feature in that. I understand why people criticise the Executive for trying to pre-empt the vision group’s recommendations by fixing an allocation.

Therefore, what is happening with the Budget in the vision group is no different from what will happen with, for example, the Hayes review or the Burns report. Because consultation and consideration are still taking place, we cannot begin to specify what the resource implications of such reviews will be. When the Executive take decisions, Ministers usually reflect the views and priorities of the Committees, and the Executive as a whole try to pay attention to them. None of us can pledge that everything advocated by every Committee will form part of the outcome. We could not afford to do that financially, never mind in respect of administration or legislation.

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

I welcome the Minister’s lengthy and detailed statement and congratulate him and his staff for all the hard work that has gone into it.

I draw attention to the Minister’s extra expenditure in the past two years on health and education. Is it possible to have scrutiny of that expenditure, especially in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, to ensure that there is no waste or overspending? I refer particularly to some subsections —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has expressed so much effusive thanks and congratulations to the Minister that he was unable to complete his question. I must ask the Minister to respond in writing to the question because time is up.

North/South Ministerial Council: Food Safety and Health Sector

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is mian liom tuairisc a thabhairt don Tionól faoin Chomhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas a tháinig le chéile i bhformáid earnáileach i mBéal Feirste Dé hAoine 16 Samhain. Bhí gnóthaí a bhain le sábháilteacht bia agus le comhoibriú i gcúrsaí sláinte faoi chaibidil ag an chruinniú.

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

I ndiaidh domh féin agus don Uasal Dermot Nesbitt, CTR, Aire in Oifig an Chéad-Aire agus an LeasChéad- Aire, a bheith ainmnithe ag an Chéad-Aire agus ag an LeasChéad-Aire, d’freastail muid an tríú cruinniú den Chomhairle sna hearnálacha shábhailteacht bia agus sláinte. Bhí an tUasal Micheál Martin, an tAire a bhfuil cúram na Roinne Sláinte agus Leanaí air agus a chomhghleacaí, an Dr Thomas Moffatt, Aire Stáit, a bhfuil cúram Sábháilteacht Bia agus Daoine Scothaosta air, ag feidhmiú ar son Rialtas na hÉireann.

Cheadaigh an tUasal Dermot Nesbitt an ráiteas seo, agus tá sé á dhéanamh ar a shon fosta.

Fuair an Chomhairle tuairisc ar an dul chun cinn atá déanta ag an Bhord um Chur Chun Cinn Sábháilteachta Bia sna nithe seo leanas: caiteachas don bhliain 2000, cóiríocht, fostú foirne, forbairt suímh ghréasáin, feachtais feasachta, na conarthaí taighde a bronnadh agus fóram ar chúrsaí cothaithe. Cheadaigh an Chomhairle straitéis chorporáideach agus plean eatramhach an bhoird don bhliain 2001 agus thug dá haire an moladh go gceapfar plean ilbhliantúil trí bliana, rud a chuirfear faoi bhráid na Comhairle nuair a bheas sé réidh. Cheadaigh an Chomhairle an grádú agus na tuarastail a bheas ag an chéad ghrúpa de 20 ball foirne atá le fostú agus thug dá haire moltaí go ndéanfar measúnú ar na riachtanais foirne i gcomhthéacs an phlean trí bliana. Sa reachtaíocht faoina rialtaítear an bord, déantar socrú do choiste comhairleach atá le ceapadh ag an Chomhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas, coiste ar a mbeidh saineolaithe eolaíocha agus ionadaithe ó réimse leathan de pháirtithe leasmhara a bhaineann le sábháilteacht bia.

Ag an chruinniú dheireannach a bhí aici, phléigh an Chomhairle an ról agus an déanamh a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ag coiste comhairleach de chuid an Bhoird um Chur Chun Cinn Sábhailteachta Bia; coiste a chuirfidh comhairle eolaíoch agus theicniúil ar fáil don bhord. Ag an chruinniú seo d’aontaigh an Chomhairle gur cheart go mbeadh 16 ball ar an choiste arb ionadaithe iad ó éagsúlacht mhór de pháirtithe leasmhara agus de dhisciplíní, lena n-áirítear tomhaltóirí agus an tionscal bia. D’aontaigh an Chomhairle ansin ar na baill a cheapfaí ar an choiste agus gurbh é an tOllamh Seán Strain a cheapfaí mar chathaoirleach. Cheadaigh an Chomhairle go gcuirfí dréachtscéim chomhionannais an bhoird agus an plean gníomhaíochta nua-aimsiú riachtanas sóisialta faoi chomhairliúchán poiblí. Ag an deireadh, d’aontaigh an Chomhairle i bprionsabal go raibh an t-iarrthóir a moladh mar phríomhfheidhmeannach, i ndiaidh phróiseas roghnúcháin don phost, inghlactha.

Fuair an Chomhairle tuairiscí breise faoin dul chun cinn a rinneadh san obair a bhain le feidhmiú an chláir oibre a cheadaigh sí ag na cruinnithe a bhí ann roimhe; clár oibre do gach ceann de na cúig réimsí a aimsíodh mar chinn a bheadh oiriúnach do chomhoibriú. Ba iad na tosaíochtaí a aimsíoidh le haghaidh comhoibriú: seirbhísí taismí agus éigeandálaí, pleanáil le haghaidh olléigeandálaí, comhoibriú ar threalamh ardteicneolaíochta, taighde ar ailse agus cur chun cinn sláinte.

I réimse na seirbhísí taismí agus éigeandálaí, thug an Chomhairle dá haire na moltaí go gcuirfí le ballraíocht an ghrúpa um sheirbhísí ospidéal réigiúnach. D’iarr an Chomhairle ar an ghrúpa fosta tuarascáil an ghrúpa athbhreithnithe ar ospidéil ghéarmhíochaine sa Tuaisceart a bhreithniú.

Thug an Chomhairle dá haire an moladh gur cheart iarracht a dhéanamh réimsí seirbhíse/speisialtachtaí a aimsiú ina dtiocfadh le comhoibriú trasteorann nó uile-oileáin bheith le leas frithpháirteach na seirbhísí a bheadh i gceist agus le leas na n-othar.

Thacaigh an Chomhairle leis an obair a rinneadh go dtí seo agus leis na pleananna i gcomhair obair bhreise i réimse na pleanála le haghaidh olléigeandálaí. I dtaca le comhoibriú i gcúrsaí ardteicneolaíochta, thacaigh an Chomhairle le ceapachán na mball chuig grúpa comhpháirteach um theicneolaíocht sláinte. Thacaigh an Chomhairle fosta le clár oibre don ghrúpa.

Thug an Chomhairle dá haire an comhoibriú atá ann faoi láthair sa taighde ar ailse, go háirithe an comhoibriú i seoladh na tuarascála ar an líon daoine a bhfuil ailse orthu ar fud na hÉireann.

I dtaca le cur chun cinn na sláinte, thug an Chomhairle dá haire go bhfuil an dá Roinn ag obair i bpáirt le chéile le comhchlár do chur chun cinn na sláinte, a phleanáilfear go straitéiseach, agus acmhainn oiliúna a cheapadh.

D’aontaigh an Chomhairle go mbeadh an chéad chruinniú eile sna formáidí earnáileacha seo sa Deisceart i mí Feabhra 2002.

D’aontaigh an Chomhairle ar théacs na teachtaireachta a eisíodh i ndiaidh an chruinnithe. Cuireadh cóip den teachtaireacht i Leabharlann an Tionóil.

I wish to report to the Assembly on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council that was held in sectoral format in Belfast on Friday 16 November. Issues relating to food safety and co-operation on health matters were considered at the meeting.

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, junior Minister, Mr Nesbitt, and I attended the third meeting of the Council in the food safety and health sectors. Mr Micheál Martin, the Minister for Health and Children, and his departmental colleague Dr Thomas Moffatt, Minister of State with responsibility for food safety and older people, represented the Irish Government.

The following statement was approved by Mr Dermot Nesbitt and is made on his behalf.

The Council received a progress report on the work of the Food Safety Promotion Board on issues covering the financial out-turn for 2000, accommodation, the employment of staff, development of the web site, awareness campaigns, the award of research contracts and a forum on nutrition. The Council approved the board’s corporate strategy and interim plan for 2001 and noted a proposal to develop a three-year, multi-annual plan, which will be submitted to the Council when complete. The Council approved the grading and remuneration of an initial tranche of 20 staff and noted proposals to assess the overall staffing needs in the context of the three-year plan. The legislation covering and governing the board provides for an advisory committee that will include scientific experts and representatives of broader food safety interests who will be appointed by the North/South Ministerial Council.

At its last meeting, the Council discussed the possible role and composition of the Food Safety Promotion Board’s advisory committee, which will provide scientific and technical advice to that body. The Council agreed that the committee should have a membership of 16, representing a wide variety of interests and disciplines, including the consumer and the food industry. The Council agreed the membership of the committee and that Prof Seán Strain should be its chairperson. It approved the board’s draft equality scheme and the New TSN action plan for public consultation. Finally, the Council accepted, in principle, the candidate who was recommended following a selection process for the post of chief executive to the Food Safety Promotion Board.

The Council received further reports on the progress made in implementing the programme of work that it had approved at the earlier meetings for each of the five areas identified as suitable for co-operation. Those areas are: accident and emergency services; planning for major emergencies; co-operation on high-technology equipment; cancer research; and health promotion.

With regard to accident and emergency services, the North/South Ministerial Council noted the proposal to expand the membership of the regional hospitals services group. The Council requested that the group consider the report of the group reviewing acute hospital services in the North. It also noted the proposal to identify additional service areas or specialities in which cross-border or all-island co-operation could be of mutual benefit to the respective services and would help patients.

The North/South Ministerial Council endorsed the work that had been done so far and the plans for further work on planning for major emergencies. The Council endorsed the membership of a joint health technology group and agreed a work programme for it. It noted the present co-operation on cancer research and, in particular, the launch of the all-Ireland cancer incidence report. The Council also noted that the two Health Departments were working together to develop a joint, strategically- planned health promotion programme and training resource.

The North/South Ministerial Council agreed that its next meeting in those sectoral formats would take place in the South in February 2002. The text of the communiqué that was issued following the meeting was agreed, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement, and I welcome the fact that the North/South Ministerial Council noted that the two Health Departments were working together to develop a joint, strategically planned health promotion programme.

On page 2 of the Minister’s statement, it reads:

"The Council received further reports on progress in implementing the programme of work it had approved at the earlier meetings in each of the five areas identified as suitable for co-operation."

One of those areas is accident and emergency services, which are under massive pressure throughout Northern Ireland. The Royal Victoria Hospital, which is the main trauma hospital for Northern Ireland, is not coping — it is falling well below the level at which it should operate, through no fault of the staff. Elderly people with fractures of the neck or femur must wait five or six days for surgery. A patient with such a fracture should be operated on within 24 hours. Given those facts, and bearing in mind the further reports that the Council received about accident and emergency services, what progress has been made on co-operation between Altnagelvin Hospital and Letterkenny General Hospital, between Sligo General Hospital and the Erne Hospital and between Daisy Hill Hospital and Louth County Hospital?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

At the bilateral meeting that replaced the North/South Ministerial Council meeting that had been due to take place but did not, we heard a report from the co-operation and working together (CAWT) partners on the work done to date and the development of further work relating to the hospitals that Dr Hendron mentioned. The issue did not arise again in detail at the meeting on which I am reporting. The report at that meeting referred to the North/South regional hospital services group and the discussions that it has been involved in because of its members’ expertise in certain cross-border, specialised areas of service. The report also said that, at its next meeting, the group would review progress and set an agreed programme of work for next year. CAWT would have the opportunity to provide an update on its work.

I am sure that we shall hear more about that at the next North/South Ministerial Council meeting.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the report. Further to the Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee’s comments on accident and emergency services, and on planning for major emergencies, does that planning include an examination of the possible provision of an air ambulance for use throughout the island. I understand that that matter was on the agenda at an earlier North/South Ministerial Council meeting?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes, the working group has examined the suggested survey relating to the feasibility study on commissioning an air ambulance. When the North/South Ministerial Council reconvened, it was able to endorse the work to date of the emergency planning group and, specifically, the joint commissioning approach to a feasibility study. In the next few weeks, we shall invite companies to submit tenders for the air ambulance feasibility study, with the aim of getting it under way by March 2002 and of having the completed report by May 2002. That report will also examine possible locations for such a service.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. My question about the progress that has been made towards establishing an air ambulance service has already been answered. When the air ambulance service is set up, all areas should be investigated as a possible location, and the service should be centrally funded.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We shall examine the feasibility of providing such a service when we get the results of the study. ‘The Report of the Strategic Review of the Ambulance Service’ concluded that the financial implications of running a dedicated air ambulance service were substantial and that, in the face of so many competing priorities, the service was unlikely to attract Government funding. The feasibility study being commissioned will provide an objective assessment of the costs and benefits of an air ambulance or helicopter emergency medical service to be run on an all-island basis and of whether we could provide such a service. The results of the feasibility study will inform future decisions on the profile of ambulance services.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Does the Minister intend to follow up the recommendations of a North/South report into inequalities between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in respect of health? As a result of that report, does she intend to commission any study aimed at reducing those inequalities?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Council did not discuss such details at its most recent meeting. We examined health promotion, and the issue of inequality arose in the context of nutrition during our discussion on the Food Safety Promotion Board. I am sure that at future meetings we shall re-examine the work of the all-island Institute of Public Health in Ireland. The institute was not set up specifically under the remit of the North/South Ministerial Council, but it is viewed in that context. I am sure that we shall advance the work of the institute, specifically its priorities in regard to health inequalities. That is a major point in the Executive’s Investing for Health strategy, which we are progressing.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

With regard to accident and emergency services, I note that the Council is asking the regional hospital services group to consider the report of the Hayes review group in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the Hayes group should also consider developments in accident and emergency cover in Sligo and Cavan and the south-west area in general?

The Council endorsed the work so far and the plans for further work on planning for major emergencies. When we see major emergencies worldwide, we see the wide range of bodies that are brought in to assist — whether those be emergency services, military or policing services. Can the Minister inform us of the range of consultation involved in planning for major emergencies?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

First, Members will be aware that I had to put the Hayes report out for an initial period of consultation. Officials are looking at the substantial responses, and after consideration by Executive Colleagues of matters that arise, the proposals will go out for consultation. However, it was also clear that it was worthwhile for the regional hospital services group to look at the report also. Although not discussed at the meeting, I understand that the review group considered the potential for hospitals in the South to complement a new hospital in the south-west. I shall look carefully at that aspect of the group’s report along with views expressed during the initial consultation period.

The meeting on 16 November looked at planning for major emergencies and noted the initiatives that are underway. A programme of cross-border emergency planning training courses to cover the medical response to a major incident is already in place. We are developing integrated communication protocols to activate hospital and community responses in a major emergency. Costing proposals are being drawn up for further work required for hospital and community emergency planning. Those proposals will include the development of comprehensive resource mapping analysis for the trusts and health boards along the border, joint planning for cross-border live exercises and the development of a language register, which is a list of interpreters available to attend at emergencies. They will also include the work being done by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, which is taking the lead on the matter of interpreters and language.

We are developing an agreed template and glossary of terms for major emergency plans, proposals for the introduction of first responder schemes and an evaluation of the helicopter emergency medical service. We talked about the development of a road traffic accident response strategy for fire brigades in border areas and looked at proposals for, and the cost of, piloting fire safety awareness education in schools in all border area education authorities.

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

Although I strongly welcome the many wonderful ideas in the Minister’s statement and the progress that has been made, I just wonder if at some stage we could get down to practical matters that would make a difference to ordinary people’s lives. There are a couple of things that I would like to see done.

Will it soon be possible to have mutual recognition of medical licensing, North and South? Medical people register with separate bodies; although movement between North and South is possible, it is not easy, and they need to reregister. I wish to see registrars and senior registrars who work in Dublin being able to work in Belfast and vice versa, because that would be of mutual benefit.

People in Donegal should be able to avail themselves of services at Altnagelvin Hospital, and cancer patients from Donegal should be able to access the world-class services at the Belfast City Hospital. My colleagues in Donegal have expressed interest, but the bureaucracy is extremely complicated. They would also like to have some funding mechanism that accompanies patients so that they can avail themselves of services in the North. However, that question needs to be addressed in the South.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The question of obstacles to mobility was addressed by the North/South Ministerial Council on 30 November and could possibly be taken up again. We noted the progress in joint training, staff development and exchange opportunities in radiotherapy services, for example. We also noted the proposal to identify additional service areas and specialities for which cross-border or all-island co-operation could be of mutual benefit to patients, and any suggestions are welcome.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Council noted that the two Health Departments are working together to develop a joint strategy on health promotion and training resources. What are the proposals and when will they be in place?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The two Departments and the Health Promotion Agency are specifically developing the programme and training resources at present, and, therefore, I cannot give the Member a full outline of the proposals until a later date.

The Council noted at its meeting on 16 November that the folic acid campaign, which was jointly launched, has been very successful, especially in the North. The jointly launched physical activity campaign, which ran from May to June and again in the early autumn, has also just finished. There is collaboration on smoking. We are considering an all-Ireland healthy eating circle award scheme, which could include people’s homes as well as specific catering establishments.

The Council noted concern about the suicide leaflet, which was originally developed here, but which the Irish Association of Suicidology agreed should be launched on an all-island basis. Mr Martin, the Irish Health Minister, and I jointly launched the leaflet on 10 October 2001, which was World Mental Health Day.

We have been able to work together in those areas, and we hope to develop strategically in the future. The Department of Health and Children has nominated a representative, Mr Kevin Devine, to sit on our working group on tobacco, which is developing an action plan to tackle smoking. There is a considerable amount of work at present, and the Departments will meet in the next month to discuss opportunities for all-Ireland research into public health. Officials will meet in the new year to advance the development of the programme that the Member mentioned.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement this morning and the fact that she is now able to carry out that crucial area of work after her exile from the North/ South Ministerial Council. I also welcome the present co-operation on cancer research, particularly in the light of the high rate of cancer in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. How does the Minister expect that area of work to develop?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We shall develop the issue of cancer research in the context of the tripartite arrangement, and particularly in the context of the memorandum of understanding. That memorandum was launched following its signing in October 1999 by the National Cancer Institute in the United States, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the North and the Department of Health and Children in the South. The memorandum was a result of detailed consultation between the various Administrations and recognised that cancer is a major public health and healthcare problem causing premature morbidity and mortality in all three jurisdictions.

The consortium will, in the first instance, exist for five years. The type of work that we shall undertake will be in that context — for example, we are making progress toward the development of an all-Ireland clinical trials network. It is important to have access to that, as clinical trials become the global standard for effective cancer prevention and care. We have an ongoing successful scholar exchange programme, which commenced during 2000, to help develop a core of well-trained cancer research specialists. In addition, a number of epidemiology fellowships have been established, which will continue to develop.

Through the consortium, the informatics infrastructure in both parts of the island is being enhanced to support co-ordinated clinical trials between hospitals and cancer centres. A valuable tool in that exercise is the introduction of telesynergy. I was delighted during the summer to announce funding totalling £150,000 for the Belfast City Hospital arm of that resource. That is the way in which we are trying to move forward following the Campbell report. At the meeting of 16 November, the Council endorsed the steps to date: the development of the hospitals infrastructure; the conducting of high-quality cancer clinical trials; the planned developments to co-ordinate all-Ireland clinical trial activity; the development of the telesynergy communications link structure; and the scholar exchange programme. That programme has already been established, and, as I have already said, we hope to extend it.

The sitting was suspended at 2.08 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Executive Programme Funds

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I shall make a statement on behalf of the Executive on the second set of allocations from the Executive programme funds. The allocations come from three of the five funds and are summarised in the table attached to the copies of the statement that have been given to Members. The details are also included in the Budget document that was presented to the Assembly today.

The Assembly will recall that our aim in establishing the Executive programme funds was to assist the development of new policies and programmes and to improve public services in accordance with the priorities that were identified in the first Programme for Government. We also set up the funds to help us to break away from the patterns of spending that applied under direct rule, so that local solutions could be applied to local problems.

There are five Executive programme funds: the social inclusion and community regeneration fund; the new directions fund; the infrastructure and capital renewal fund; the service modernisation fund; and the children’s fund. In total, more than £370 million has been made available for the five funds in the three years from 2001-02 to 2003-04.

The Executive decided to have two rounds of allocations this year to allow time for experience to be gained in the operation of the funds and to avoid committing all the available resources in the first round of allocations. It was our intention that there should simply be one allocation round each year, after this first year of operation. In the case of the infrastructure and capital renewal fund, it was necessary to commit resources in good time earlier this year to permit investment to proceed in 2001-02. Hence, the Executive decided at the outset not to make any further allocations from that fund, even in this first year.

The Executive are making no allocations from the children’s fund now, as we have agreed to consult widely on the arrangements for involving the community and voluntary sectors in that fund operation. Further allocations will be made next year, when we have considered the results of the consultation, which closes on 11 January 2002.

The purposes of the funds have been set out fully in the Programme for Government and Budget documents. Details of the criteria that we adopted to guide bidding and selection process have also been issued to Assembly Committees. Bids were sought in July, with a deadline of 24 September. Clear guidelines were issued to Departments on the principles underlying the funds, including the general criteria applicable to bids for any fund and the more specific criteria for each fund.

Departments lodged 89 bids across the three funds, totalling almost £144 million over three years. All bids have been scrutinised carefully against the criteria to receive funds by the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Equality Unit, working closely with all Departments. Among other things, an assessment was made as to whether the proposals were consistent with the principles of New TSN and the statutory equality duty imposed by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Executive have been able to draw on that analysis in considering all the bids.

For the second tranche of allocations in the 2001-02 financial year, the Executive have decided that 31 proposals, amounting to slightly more than £39 million over three years, should be supported from the three funds. That figure includes the extra £1·4 million made available to the social inclusion fund from the revised Budget announced earlier today.

Rather than go into detail on every project I shall concentrate on how those allocations will support the priorities collectively agreed by the Executive. The establishment of the new directions fund signalled the Executive’s determination to promote new and innovative ways to develop and deliver public services. We received 31 bids and propose support for 12. Those funds amount to £16·7 million over the three years 2001-02 to 2003-04.

The allocations announced today will provide innovative and modern technology for the Fire Service and the Ambulance Service. The digital trunk radio system will enable an integrated response to emergencies and facilitate closer co-operation between the police, fire, ambulance and coastguard services. It should also lead to a more equitable provision of emergency services in rural areas.

New technology will also be provided in the Health Service to promote interdependence among vulnerable groups through the Department of Health, Social Service and Public Safety’s and the Department for Social Development’s joint venture, Getting Home Staying Home. Hospital appointment booking will be improved by better information and communication technology (ICT) equipment, and better sharing of data among different professional groups will enable care professionals to deliver services more efficiently.

The survival rate of victims of head injuries should be significantly enhanced by provision of funding for the acquired brain injury unit, while an allocation for the community psychological service should reduce referrals to primary and secondary care services.

We shall invest in education in several ways. The purchase of recently developed equipment will improve support for children with severe learning and physical difficulties, enabling many to communicate, often for the first time.

The employers for children scheme provides a bridge between employers and employees. It funds a range of innovative childcare solutions to enable more parents, especially women, to take up, and stay in, jobs. The funding announced today will provide the 35% required to match the European building for sustainable prosperity (BSP) contribution to this scheme.

Funding will be provided for the Department for Employment and Learning to introduce a rapid advancement programme in electronic engineering, which will be targeted at unemployed graduates.

The emerging soccer strategy is currently the subject of public consultation, and we shall provide support for that. The strategic proposals put forward by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure seek to provide an infrastructure for soccer development. On completion of the current consultation exercise early in 2002, funding commitments must be further assessed in the light of the draft strategy and accompanying business plan.

In respect of the service modernisation fund, we have sought to find the means to promote efficiency and innovation in the delivery of public sector services. Our focus has been on how to make a difference in the management and delivery of services for the ultimate benefit of the public. A total of 27 bids for the fund were presented by nine Departments, and it is proposed that seven should be supported in that tranche at a cost of £7 million over three years.

The development of e-government was a major theme supported in the first tranche of this year’s funding. The five proposals supported in that tranche should further enhance its progress. The bid by the Department of Culture, Arts, and Leisure to provide for the integration of information management across public services will meet the requirements of freedom of information and will provide the public with electronic access to records held in the Public Record Office. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will also advance the theme through its project for the electronic management of document records.

The modernisation of health services is a major feature of the recommended bids. The electronic management of materials in the Health Service will free up both finance and staff time for the provision of services to the public. The dedicated medicines risk management function in six major hospitals should become self-financing. That will provide better and safer services for patients.

Two further allocations will lead to significant improvements in the Health Service. The introduction of a team of "rapid responders" in each health board area will significantly enhance services to the public by reducing ambulance response times in rural areas. The purchase of one replacement and one additional MRI scanner will also enhance services by reducing waiting times and providing a consequential reduction in the number of operations.

We provided support for the electronic libraries private finance initiative (PFI) project in the first round of the fund, and, as we indicated then, we now seek to build on that initiative and significantly improve the service that school libraries can provide.

The purpose of the fund for social inclusion and community regeneration is to support actions against poverty and the development of effective community measures in urban and rural settings, as well as to support actions on community relations and for cultural diversity. Some 12 of the 31 bids submitted will be supported. Of those, three allocations will tackle different forms of disadvantage and exclusion.

We are allocating funds to the Department of Education to match funding provided by the Department of Education and Science in the South to build a centre of excellence for action on autism. That project will provide a unique and innovative centre to assist those with severe autistic disorders.

Funding is being provided to support cross-cutting outreach work, involving health trusts, youth and community groups, the police and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. The programme has a proven track record in the Shankill and in other parts of west Belfast. The Executive’s assistance will enable the scheme to continue to be extended to north and east Belfast. Subject to further evaluation, we may consider extending the programme to south Belfast and other areas.

We are also providing some support to extend the successful Making a Good Start scheme from primary one to primary two in those schools with the lowest performance figures. That will provide funds to recruit additional classroom assistants in those areas with greatest need.

Several measures are proposed to promote equality at different levels in society. The provision of match funding for the Department for Employment and Learning’s EQUAL programme will test new ways of combating inequalities in the labour market.

Support for the cross-departmental Investing for Health group will help to establish four investing for health partnerships with the goal of reducing health inequalities. Support will also be provided to develop better language translation services, so that ethnic minorities may find it easier to use the Health Service. That scheme offers the potential to meet wider needs across public services.

Under the auspices of the Department for Social Development, the outer north integrated development operation in Derry will advance the pilot project — funded by the first tranche of Executive programme funds — and take account of the experience gained. Elsewhere, through the development of an outreach strategy, the programme will target those communities that are most in need. By making full use of existing skills and information in the public and voluntary sectors, it has the potential to minimise consultancy costs. The programme will be enhanced by the provision of timely and consistent statistics at neighbourhood level.

We are providing resources for the creation of a victims’ fund to support the forthcoming cross-departmental victims strategy. The fund will be orientated at encouraging the development of partnerships.

After two rounds of bids, the Executive have agreed that it would be timely to reflect on the way that the funds have operated so far. The funds have the potential to provide one of the most effective ways of promoting cross-cutting work and supporting initiatives introduced by groups of Ministers working together. However, we must be sure that the resources that we have set aside are being directed effectively towards the objectives that we hope to achieve.

The first round of allocations is already making a significant impact, and that will be enhanced by the allocations announced today. However, we have concluded that it would be sensible to take stock and complete a short review of the arrangements before we make any further allocations. That will ensure that we deliver on our priorities and commitments.

In that context, we have looked carefully at the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s constructive report on the Executive programme funds, which Members will have read. The Committee provided a useful commentary on the funds and offered some positive proposals for improvement.

Informed by the report, the Executive have agreed to undertake a review that seeks to improve on current arrangements. We shall consider improvements such as a more top-down approach, which may give more direction to the development of future allocations. That could be done through the establishment of ministerial subcommittees or by other means. We may also wish to review of the number of funds and their remits. There may be scope to merge two or more funds. The Executive wish to set out the strategic direction and intent of each fund as clearly as possible. We may need to place a greater emphasis on ensuring that bids are made with clear Executive and departmental priorities in mind. The funds were designed around Executive priorities and are not for luxuries. We also want to streamline procedures to reduce bureaucracy and speed up the allocation process. The Committee for Finance and Personnel made particularly pertinent points in relation to that.

In addition to improving procedures in Departments and the Executive, we shall be giving further consideration to the role of departmental Committees and responding substantively to the proposals from the Committee for Finance and Personnel. We have agreed to consult the Committee further on that and take its views into account before making any decisions.

The Executive set out to make a difference through the creation of the Executive programme funds. The allocations that we announce today are further evidence that we are beginning to work in new and distinctive ways. We have been able to address needs in a range of services and provide support for the development of improvements, especially in the Health Service. There is widespread support for that. It is important to maximise the opportunities provided by the funds and to make the most of the resources that we have.

I shall discuss the proposals that I have announced today with the Committee for Finance and Personnel. In particular, the Executive shall consult that Committee on the review that we are undertaking.

I commend the proposals to the Assembly on behalf of the Executive.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the additional allocations and the decision to conduct a review of how the funds are operating. Have the Executive programme funds been unsuccessful because cross-cutting measures have not been introduced and because they have failed to generate innovative ideas? What evaluation process has been built into the allocation process to determine any positive impact that the funds are having?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The funds have been successful as a means of driving a wedge into our spending patterns. They have enabled us to move away from the patterns that we inherited and to create new ones.

We want to improve aspects of the Executive programme funds, and that was positively and constructively reflected by the Committee for Finance and Personnel. We want to encourage more cross-cutting, interdepartmental bids and proposals than we have had to date, and one way to achieve that could be through the use of Executive subcommittees that could, in turn, stimulate much more interdepartmental planning and collaboration in raising proposals.

However, although there may not have been as many cross-cutting proposals as we would have liked, many of the measures being proposed by Departments not only have an impact on their own departmental programmes but offer consequential benefits to other programme areas. In future, we want to ensure that we maximise the benefits from Executive programme fund allocations.

In the context of the review work that we are undertaking, we shall try to establish what more can be done to ensure that we benefit fully from better evaluation of any measures that are funded. Given that some of the projects that we have funded in advance have been pilot projects, good evaluation will be a key element. In today’s announcement, we can already see how further allocations, such as the outer north integrated development operation allocation to Derry through the Department for Social Development, follow through on earlier pilot schemes that received funding in a previous round. Again, that shows the importance of good evaluation on good pilot schemes.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Like the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I welcome the programme that has been set out. I agree with his remarks about what has been said in Committee. The Minister is aware of our belief that a genuine cross-cutting element should be developed as the use of those funds develops.

However, I wish to express my disappointment at one of the allocations. Paragraph 25 notes the introduction of a digital trunk radio system. I welcome that, but there is concern about the need for digital hearing aids in the Health Service. I wonder how the Health Service can be awarded support for one digital technology, while at that same time being denied finance for another digital technology essential to the service that it provides.

The Minister’s statement mentions equity, New TSN, service modernisation, and innovative and modern technology. I urge him to tell me whether he will be able to advise his successor that that matter must be considered in the near future — be it as part of the Executive programme funds or in a future monitoring round.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Given the amounts of money that we allocate, we clearly cannot meet all the bids. The Member has identified one bid that, at this stage, we have not met. Obviously, Departments are not precluded from re-examining their own prioritisation when providing services to those people who would have benefited from the equipment that was bid for on this occasion. We cannot be made to feel obliged to meet all digital bids simply because we have made provision for one form of digital equipment in response to one bid.

We simply could not make allocations on that basis. I am confident that the bid we have met for the fire and ambulance services will help to improve services to many people, especially in rural areas.

It is not possible to meet all of the bids at present. I cannot argue against the bid to fund the modernisation of audiology services. That would provide a worthwhile service, and I am sure that the Executive will want to look at that in the future. I am also sure that the Department will want to examine that as well. However, if the service is as essential as everybody says, the question is whether it should be an Executive programme funds bid anyway?

We get the cyclical argument from people that there should be cross-cutting bids — and then the bids they identify come from a particular Department. I have no problem with looking at any bid in the context of Executive programme funds allocations.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the innovative and modern technology proposed under the new directions fund for the fire and ambulance services, which will lead to a more equitable provision of emergency services in rural areas. The same applies to intensive care treatment in hospitals. The Minister mentioned head injury survival rates, and rapid response units in each health board, which will help the ambulance service to help people in remote areas. Those services are extremely important.

In paragraph 35 of his statement, the Minister mentions the purchase of one replacement and one additional MRI scanner — that is magnificent news. I understand that the replacement scanner is for the Royal Victoria Hospital, and many people from across the Province who attend that hospital will welcome that. I understand that the new scanner is for the Belfast City Hospital, which is where the new cancer unit is to be. I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating the Friends of Montgomery House — the old Belvoir Park Hospital — because Mrs Christine Lynch informed me on Friday evening that they have now acquired funding, over time, for a new MRI scanner for Belvoir Park Hospital. That, together with the Minister’s announcement of a new scanner for the Belfast City Hospital and a replacement scanner for the Royal Victoria Hospital, is a major step forward for cancer services. I am sure that the Minister will agree.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I appreciate the particular interest that the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has taken, particularly on cancer services and the implementation of the regional cancer strategy. The Chairperson has a dedicated interest in that area, and I welcome the fact that, on behalf of the Committee, he is able to welcome the various allocations we are making to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety through Executive programme funds.

I appreciate the important contribution that scanners provide, especially in cancer services. I hope that the fact that we are able to replace a scanner, and fund a new one, will go some way to making good some of the pressures that we have identified. We hope that that will help reduce waiting times, times of worry for patients and the number of operations. No matter where such scanners are located, they make a significant contribution, not only to patient care, but to hospital performance.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

As Chairperson of the Environment Committee, I must record my disappointment that the Department of the Environment’s services modernisation fund bid to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the Planning Service has not been approved. Several representations from organisations and individuals have been made to the Committee, outlining the need to enhance and reform the planning system to enable the Department to complete the work of dealing with the backlog of planning applications. During a meeting with the Confederation of British Industry, the business community expressed concern regarding the Planning Service’s capacity to cope with the current levels of economic activity. The bid has, however, been unsuccessful.

The Committee is also disappointed that the new directions fund bid to establish and resource a Northern Ireland coastal forum has not been successful, especially as the proposal received widespread support in the Assembly and from the Minister.

The Committee is disappointed that the Department of the Environment’s bid to promote sustainable development was not approved. I cannot understand why such a practical, innovative bid, which would help all Departments to integrate social and environmental objectives for the development of the Northern Ireland economy in a sustainable way, has not been met. The Department of the Environment’s bids do not feature at all in today’s list of Executive programme funds. Since April, only the road safety bid has been successful. Surely that is unacceptable treatment of the Department of the Environment. Can the Minister inform the Committee how those matters will be taken forward?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I remind Members that these announcements are taking place against the backdrop of this morning’s Budget announcement, which includes an increase of 10% for next year in the budget for the Department of the Environment. That follows a high increase in this year’s budget, so over two years there is a 25% increase in the Department of the Environment’s budget. That provision includes increased allocations aimed specifically at making good many of the identified pressures in the Planning Service. In the context of possibly re-examining some of the criticisms and questions that have been raised about the Executive programme funds — how far they are meeting new and distinctive needs and how far they are meeting cross-cutting needs — people may wish to look at the points raised by the Member.

On the Planning Service, some issues arose in relation to the costings that were provided and whether they were containable. Given that the bid appeared to relate to policy and strategy issues, it was felt that it should be seen more as part of normal departmental work. Also, the bid was not supported by a business case. I make the point again, however, that the Planning Service is benefiting from a 25% increase in funding. I hope, therefore, that it can find ways of addressing the issues that were identified in the context of the modern office bid.

On the coastal forum, it has not yet been possible to establish any quantification of outcomes, so no allocation has been made at this stage. That does not mean that consideration in future bidding rounds might not be appropriate once the results of the scoping exercise currently being undertaken by the Department are known. I point Members to the report by the Committee for Finance and Personnel. It clearly states that we should not allocate moneys from the Executive programme funds on a speculative basis. There must be a clear case, and clear expectations as to outcomes, when we make allocations.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his attempt — which was not totally fruitless — to throw some light on what is increasingly being perceived as a rather grey area of public expenditure. Is he really satisfied that Executive programme funds are achieving the purposes for which they were established? He has made references to the need for cross-cutting. However, there is a large cloud of confusion surrounding these funds. Does he not agree that to have Departments operating on allocations of Executive programme funds while simultaneously dealing with budget allocations and monitoring rounds only adds to the confusion?

It also adds to the bureaucracy surrounding the implementation of these funds and thus clouds their purpose and intent. It diminishes any possibility for proper accountability and transparency. Does he not further agree that in dealing with Executive programme funds, to spread the butter too thinly leads to a rather tasteless and bland sandwich?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Close has raised a number of points. First, I do not accept that the Executive programme funds are a rather grey area of public expenditure: they are one of the most transparent areas. They receive a degree of scrutiny and declaration. Executive programme funds decisions are fully discussed and agreed by the Executive and are, in turn, fully communicated and scrutinised in the Chamber. Executive programme funds represent a fraction of the Budget. Considering the allocations that go out through Departments — all of the precise and particular allocations made by Departments, which are not the subject of announcements or scrutiny in the Chamber — I do not accept the premise that Executive programme funds, which are washed through with more scrutiny than any other area of public expenditure, are a grey area.

The Executive programme funds can be improved. I have already reflected that the Executive recognise that, and I have expressed appreciation for some of the points and suggestions that have come from the Committee for Finance and Personnel to that end. We want to improve things.

This year, the first year of Executive programme funds, we said that we would have two allocation rounds simply so that we could learn from the first and try to improve in the second. We would see what lessons could be learnt from both allocations and try to make improvements. In future there will be only one tranche per year from the Executive programme funds. The plan is to try to take them at a time when they are distinct from the Budget, although the allocations will have to be reflected properly in any Budget statements that come forward. Those plans are afoot.

At the start, many people asked whether we needed Executive programme funds and questioned their value. People are now asking how we can improve the funds and make them work more effectively and meaningfully. That is the right question for us to ask. We have work to do in that regard.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The Minister in his previous replies has partially addressed my concern about the lack of a significant number of multidepartmental activities in the current round of Executive programme funds.

I have two questions relating to the Department for Employment and Learning. First, when did the Minister receive the Department’s bid relating to the rapid advancement programme? I ask that because this particular outcome has come as a surprise to my Committee since the bids detailed to us by the Department as recently as September made no mention of the rapid advance programme bid.

Secondly, does the Minister agree that the problems surrounding adult basic skills are still such a fundamental social and economic problem that they deserve further Executive programme funding? I recognise and welcome what they received in the first round — albeit a small amount.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Anything that helps to improve adult basic skills is worthy of funding — by whatever means we can afford it, whether it is through standard Budget rounds or Executive programme funds. Improvements in that area involve the work of more than just the Department for Employment and Learning and will have benefits that extend to programmes and services outside that Department. However, that area will continue to be an eligible candidate for support from the Executive programme funds. I will get back to the Member on the precise date for receipt of applications, and he might also check with the Department for Employment and Learning.

New issues emerge in these rounds, and even though there are clear deadlines and cut-off dates, consequential developments emerge. While not running a loose regime, we have to be alert and adept in addressing other points that emerge. I hope that that clarifies matters with regard to the calendar of bids.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the statement and the additional resources in the Executive programme funds. I particularly welcome the provision of funding for the acquired brain injury unit and the introduction of a dedicated medicine risk management function in six major hospitals.

I also welcome the resources being made available to the Department of Education to extend the Making a Good Start scheme for primary two children. Will the Minister confirm that investing in children is consistent with the principles of building for the future and also consistent with his actions in caring for the children in Holy Cross Girls’ Primary School in north Belfast?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I appreciate Mrs Courtney’s welcome for the measures supported by these allocations, not least those in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in which she has a particular interest. I also welcome her support for the allocation to extend the Making a Good Start scheme. The Minister of Education and his Department attach a great deal of importance to this programme. The Executive have agreed that supporting children in schools at that young age — particularly in areas of greatest need — and trying to make a difference to the educational achievements and outcomes that they can expect is a worthwhile investment.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

It was encouraging to note in the Minister’s statement this morning an increase of 14·8% in the budget for the Department for Regional Development. However, a massive gap remains in the Department’s funding if it is to address the infrastructure maintenance backlog. Perhaps the only way this can be tackled is by identifying other methods of funding.

It is disappointing to note that the Department for Regional Development was not successful in its bid to set up a central unit to examine alternative methods of funding. Does the Minister agree that this small amount of funding would have been money well spent, given the potential revenue it could generate? If further funds become available in the future, can the Department for Regional Development’s bid be given sympathetic consideration?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Executive have allocated money to try to ensure that they can do more to maximise the potential for public-private partnerships and to make sure that they make the most of whatever alternative sources of funding may be available. They have also established a working group on public-private partnerships on behalf of the Executive, and that involves representatives of different Departments, including the Department for Regional Development.

Its aim is to establish an overall framework for our approach to the issue. Depending on the outcome of that approach, it is possible that further departmental measures might be supported through Executive commitments. However, at this stage, the Executive are ensuring that there is a joined-up approach to developing and exploring the possibilities for alternative sources of funding and public-private partnerships. Several Departments have presented their own ideas, and we welcome their initiative and interest. However, we believe that those are best followed through in our collective effort. That does not preclude further distinctive approaches being taken by different Departments.

Although the Department for Regional Development will be disappointed at its lack of success in this round of Executive programme funds — the Deputy Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee has already registered his disappointment in that regard — that Department is a significant bidder for the infrastructure fund, which is not the subject of allocations at this stage.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly because the three bids by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure were successful. The freedom of information (Public Record Office of Northern Ireland) and the Culture Northern Ireland web site bids were significant. However, the support for the soccer strategy must be seen as a major encouragement to all those who have contributed to that strategy and are working so hard to do something about soccer in Northern Ireland.

Does the Minister agree that this good work, and the funding in particular, represents further evidence that, with care and wisdom, we can work together, irrespective of our parties, for the common good? The Minister has been particularly prominent in this regard.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Member’s support for some of the announcements in today’s statement. All Departments carry out important work. Not every initiative could be so well developed without a facility such as the Executive programme funds, a distinctive concept that was created by the Executive last year in their first home-grown Budget as a way in which to open up the strategic opportunities available to us. As well as allowing us to have more strategic discretion than we might otherwise have as an Executive, any opportunity that the programme funds give us for deliberating together on the best use of such moneys is beneficial politically.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister stated that the £16·7 million to be allocated over the next three years to the new directions fund marks the Executive’s determination to promote new and innovative ways to develop action against poverty in rural and urban areas. Will young farmers benefit from this regeneration fund? If so, what percentage of those funds are they likely to receive?

In regard to health, is the Minister aware that the funding needed to buy a scanner for the South Tyrone Hospital has been available for many years, but that there are no staff available to maintain that equipment? It is important that hospitals have up-to-date equipment, but it is of little use without staff. We need change that will benefit the entire public.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On the first point, the Executive have made it clear that they want to support actions in urban and rural areas through the social inclusion and community regeneration funds. That applies also in regard to the new directions fund. I cannot, however, pre-specify the proportion of the fund that will be allocated to rural or urban areas.

In many cases such decisions will be for the Departments or whoever is handling the money in the course of implementing the allocations. It will also be relevant to the Departments’ consideration in preparing bids. If Departments could articulate more clearly occasions where particular bids would have a beneficial impact on needs in rural areas, I would be happy for that to be made more manifest when the bids are made.

I am not au fait with the funding that was available in the past for the South Tyrone Hospital. Details about hospital services fall to another Department so it is not for me, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, to address those issues. However, the Executive, through several in-year monitoring rounds — and announced by me on the Executive’s behalf — made allocations to deal with some of the consequential impacts of the South Tyrone Hospital situation because it has put pressures on services elsewhere. Although we have been dealing with some of the financial consequences of the South Tyrone Hospital situation, it is not for my Department or me to deal with the hospital issue itself.

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

Will the Minister confirm that there are still some hard choices to be made and that the Committees have an important role to play in scrutinising their departmental budgets to ensure that money is spent effectively? Will the Minister go further and urge that all Committees should, as a matter of policy, closely consider reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee? Many of their reports have been highly critical of departmental spending, particularly during the years of direct rule when proper scrutiny was not possible.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In my Budget statement today I said that I hoped Committees would do their bit and exercise their responsibilities by scrutinising spending and the quality of the targeting and planning of public expenditure.

The announcements that I make in the Chamber and the type of scrutiny that such statements are subjected to by questioning, and the subsequent scrutiny in Committees, scratches only the surface of major issues of public expenditure. The more scrutiny that can be applied at departmental level, the more effective it will be.

I remind Mr Dallat of the point I made earlier in relation to Seamus Close’s assertion that Executive programme funds are a grey area of public expenditure. They receive more scrutiny and accountability in the Assembly than the much bigger allocation decisions that are routinely taken by Departments. However, anything more that Committees can do to ensure greater scrutiny of public expenditure and to assure the public that best use of public money is being made would be well placed.

It is right that the relevant Committees should pay close attention to the reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee, particularly in relation to the future work on audit and accountability.

I would like to see whether the Executive could provide more joined-up scrutiny in the Assembly by allowing the Public Accounts Committee to highlight budget lines where there have been particular concerns. In turn, the relevant Committee, knowing that there has been an issue, could follow up those budget lines over a period of some years. One must consider that in little over a year and a half there could be significant changes in the Chamber and in Committee memberships. This device would ensure that a concern raised at one point could be followed through over some years to ensure that recommendations are followed and implemented properly, which would be beneficial. More joined- up scrutiny would be an achievement for the Assembly.

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

I join other Members to welcome the Executive programme fund spending for next year. It is interesting that this innovative manner of dealing with cameo spending has been introduced in the Assembly and that it comes as a consequence of devolution.

It is also interesting to note that there has been a great acceptance of this process, contrary to that evidenced in the Chamber when it was first introduced. I congratulate the Minister in presenting a clear budget for the Executive programme funds.

I want to ask a rather oblique question. Is there any mechanism by which bids can be made for Executive programme funding other than through Departments? In other words, can community groups apply directly to the Executive for funding? I have some experience of the particular requirement of cross-cutting departmental boundaries, where Departments are reluctant to take a lead in getting together. The area of New TSN is highly significant; it involves section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and it is cross-cutting — so how can we handle this if a Department is not prepared to take the lead on a particular issue?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I acknowledge the positive observations made by Eddie McGrady about how the role of Executive programme funds is now better understood, and I recognised that earlier.

Given the amounts of money involved in some of the tranches, it would not be feasible to open up the Executive programme funds to random bidding. Due to the fact that they are Executive programme funds, it is right that we ask Departments to advance bids, either on their own or working together.

However, when bids are brought forward, there is no reason why a Department would not effectively be acting as a sponsor for another group, whether they are non-departmental public bodies or, in some cases, relevant partners in the community and voluntary sector. We are taking that approach partly to avoid creating a bureaucracy around these funds. Some members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel appear concerned that there is a degree of bureaucracy even with the current shorthand approach. Those concerns would be more real if we were to open up the programme funds to general bidding. It would also make us less efficient in our allocation time.

The one exception to that in the Executive programme funds has been the children’s fund. When the children’s fund was established, we deliberately said that an arm of the fund should be directly amenable to bidding by the community and voluntary sector. We are making good that commitment through a current consultation exercise to find the best way of providing for that — whether through some kind of intermediary funding body arrangement or through several other mechanisms that are set out in the consultation paper. It is important to do this and not just copy the Chancellor’s children’s fund across the water, as we are putting more money into it than would carry across from the Chancellor’s children’s fund.

However, we believe that when it comes to innovation in children’s services and dealing with children in need and youth at risk, the community and voluntary sector are in a position to make distinctive proposals. The result of that consultation will inform the next allocation from the children’s fund.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the provision for children with severe learning and physical difficulties to have access to information and communication technology. The Committee believed that that provision should have been an important feature of the Executive programme funds, and it is welcomed that the Minister has found funds for it.

I am also pleased that the Minister has provided money for outreach workers in the upper Shankill and west, north and east Belfast. However, is the Minister aware that the Committee expressed concern at the inequality of provision, in view of the problems with youths right across the city? The unattached youth workers who will be funded by these programmes are an important component in dealing with that problem. There will be nine workers for upper Shankill and west Belfast and only five to cover all of east and north Belfast. The Committee asked for equality of provision, and I want to know why that was not listened to.

Mr Dallat said that Committees ought to scrutinise how Departments spend money, and he is quite right. In the Executive programme funds I notice that, once again, the Minister is targeting money on the youngsters who are most vulnerable in the education system, with the Making a Good Start scheme being extended from primary one to primary two. That is in line with how the Minister has targeted money in previous announcements. However, is he aware that, despite all the extra money being spent, the Department of Education has reduced its targets for youngsters achieving satisfactory grades at Key Stage 2? The extra money is designed to help those children and youngsters who are truants at secondary school level. What scrutiny has the Minister’s Department undertaken to ensure that the funds help to raise targets? Targets should not be reduced at the same time that money is given.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Some of the Member’s points are not for my Department, but rather for the Minister of Education and his Department. I reiterate that just because the Executive allocate money, the Department of Finance and Personnel recommends those allocations and I am presenting this statement, that does not make us responsible for micromanaging and micromonitoring every area of expenditure in each programme. It is up to the Departments to undertake and discharge their responsibilities. The Committees can make a contribution.

We understood and were conscious that the Making a Good Start scheme was well supported by the Committee. We hope that we are making a contribution to improving prospects for children’s achievements and educational outcomes. We will pay attention to any evidence that the Committee or anyone else provides.

With respect to the outreach youth workers, the provision for upper Shankill and west Belfast is continued funding for something that is already there, and I note the Member’s appreciation for the work involved. The funding for north and east Belfast is to extend the programme. At this stage I cannot prejudge whether there will be further allocations to develop that programme in the future.

The Committee may wish to look at the wider issue of whether money is being used effectively. As I pointed out this morning, there are several needs and effectiveness evaluations under way, and one of those relates to schools. The Department of Education, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Economic Policy Unit are considering some of these matters. I hope that, when we produce work on needs and effectiveness, the Committee will make some useful contributions to our thinking.

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly agrees that the date for the report of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to consider —

(a) the proposal for a draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill; and

(b) the criminal justice review implementation plan be changed from 11 December 2001 to 14 January 2002.

Following the resolution of the Assembly on 19 November 2001, the Ad Hoc Committee held its first meeting, and I was elected Chairperson.

At that meeting, the Committee discussed its terms of reference and came to the unanimous conclusion that, as a Committee, we could not properly discharge our responsibilities to the Assembly — and to our constituents — if we were to consider such crucial and detailed proposals and report within the timescale that was set down. Mr Des Browne, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, has extended the consultation date to 7 January; that timescale is still unworkable.

The Committee is not oblivious to the bigger picture. It has considered that it can best make its input if it is given the opportunity to make its report by 14 January 2002. I believe that we can make our proposals and report by 14 January. That will give time for the views of the Committee and the views of this House to be taken into consideration in time for any necessary amendments to the Bill at Westminster.

The Secretary of State gave the House an extremely limited period in which to consider crucial reforms to the system of criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland. The reforms will be of enormous significance for many years. It was absurd to bounce the House into dealing with the matter in three to four weeks. Rightly, the Committee felt that the Government should be told that the House would not be bounced in that way. We will take the time that we feel is necessary to deal appropriately with such matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly agrees that the date for the report of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to consider —

(a) the proposal for a draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill; and

(b) the criminal justice review implementation plan be changed from 11 December 2001 to 14 January 2002.

Adjourned at 5.09 pm.