Northern Ireland Assembly, 11 February 2002
55 contributions from 18 members. The official report.
HRH the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
It is my sad duty to advise the House of the death on Saturday past, 9 February, of Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. As Speaker, I have written today to Her Majesty The Queen to express condolences to her, to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and to the whole of the Royal Family on their sad loss.
As a token of our respect, I propose that all business be postponed and that the House do now, by leave, suspend for one hour, resuming the business at 1.00 pm. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.
The sitting was suspended at 12.03 pm.
On resuming —
Assembly Business
Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to explain to the House why, in the past, the House stood in silence for people and then commented on their passing — we had the deaths of the First Minister of Scotland, a journalist and a postal worker — and yet on the death of the only sister of the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, it did not stand in silence to observe her passing? Can you assure me that it was not because of threats from certain Members of the House that, if that took place, they would see to it that they would be seated and would not take part in such a thing? Can you also explain to us why the Union flag is not flying at half mast on the Building today?
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
First of all, there was of course the death of one individual that was commemorated here, to which I think the Member did not refer. That is the death of a Member, Mr Tom Benson. As I recall, although I stand open to correction as ever, the deaths to which the Member referred were not all dealt with in the same way. In the case of Mr Benson and the First Minister of Scotland, I believe that there was a motion that was spoken to. In the other cases, I believe, there was a short period of silence. It does not seem appropriate that the passing of Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret should be commemorated in exactly the same way, but rather in a different way. That has been done by the suspension of the House.
The second question that the Member asked was whether there was any threat, and I am sure that he means was it conveyed to me in any way — not just by word of mouth or in writing — and the answer is that there was not. No one spoke to me or raised the question with me. I try to use my best judgement to be the servant of the House, but no one raised any such questions.
The third question that the Member raised was on the flying of the flag. I enquired on Saturday morning as to whether there were any flag orders from the palace. I was advised that that was not the case. Subsequently, I made enquiries with the Parliaments in Westminster and Edinburgh, the Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Dublin, none of which had made any decisions, but all were considering the matter this morning. I gave instruction that, if there was an order, the flag should fly at half mast, but, if there was not, that understanding from the palace should also be accepted.
It is my understanding that it is intended that the flag will fly at half mast throughout the country on the day of the funeral, which I understand to be Friday 15 February at St George’s Chapel. That is why the flag is not flying at half mast today. However, I expect there to be an order in respect of Friday 15 February, when the flag will fly at half mast.
Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)
On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Hansard reports that the House observed two minutes’ silence when the First Minister of Scotland died.
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
I believe that a motion was tabled on that occasion.
Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)
That is correct.
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
That is the point I am making. The matter has been given some consideration. All deaths are in some way the same; that is one of the great levellers. However, there is another sense in which not all deaths have precisely the same meaning, and so they are handled differently. The Member will also notice, since I think he has Hansard to hand — and this may not be so well known to members of the public — that in certain circumstances a black border surrounds the relevant pages and, earlier this morning, I gave instructions that that should be done today.
Royal Assent
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
I wish to inform the House that Royal Assent has been signified to the Industrial Development Act (Northern Ireland) 2002. The Act became law on 7 February 2002.
Assembly Business: Suspension of Standing Orders
Supply Resolutions: Spring Supplementary Estimates (2001-02) and Vote on Account (2002-03)
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
As the two motions relate to Supply resolutions, I propose to conduct one debate. I shall ask the Minister to move the first motion. The debate will then take place on both motions. At the end of the debate, the House will vote on the first motion. The Minister will then move the second motion formally, and the House will vote on it. The Business Committee has not imposed a time limit on the debate, and I do not intend to propose any limit on the length of Members’ contributions, hence the motion to suspend Standing Orders.
Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)
I beg to move
That this Assembly approves that a further sum not exceeding £198,035,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 and that further resources, not exceeding £574,419,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 2(b) and 3(b) of Table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates 2001-02 that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002.
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £3,936,009,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund on account for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 and that resources, not exceeding £4,486,387,000, be authorised, on account, for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4 and 6 of Table 1 in the Vote on Account 2002-03 document that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel.]
Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)
I introduce two important resolutions of the budgetary cycle. The first resolution seeks the approval of the Assembly to the issue of a further sum of £198 million from the Consolidated Fund and the use of additional resources amounting to £574 million for the 2001-02 financial year, as detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates booklet.
The second resolution seeks the Assembly’s approval on the issue of a cash sum of £3,936 million on account for the 2002-03 financial year. It also seeks the Assembly’s authority for the use of resources amounting to £4,486 million on account in the 2002-03 financial year.
Before moving to the detail of those resolutions, I wish to acknowledge the confirmation by the Committee for Finance and Personnel that there has been adequate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals reflected in those resolutions. I am aware of the Committee’s keen and proper interest in finance issues, and I look forward to working with the Committee in the coming months. I hope to build on the constructive and positive relationship established by my predecessor, Mark Durkan, and to see what more we can do to improve the consultative process and enhance the scrutiny role of the Assembly and its Committees.
As an Assembly, one of our fundamental responsibilities is to authorise expenditure and to hold Departments to account for how it is used. Resolutions such as those that I am introducing today are the basis on which the legislature, in the form of the Assembly, authorises the spending of the Departments, the Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and other bodies for the exercise of their various functions. That is one of the main means we have of ensuring that we deliver on our agreed plans and, in due course, deliver the Executive’s Programme for Government.
The scope of the debate covers expenditure in 2001-02 and 2002-03. The first of the two resolutions is the means by which Supplementary Estimates can be examined by the Assembly. As was the case with the Main Estimates for 2001-02, and as is now the normal practice, those Supplementary Estimates are also presented on a resource basis. The Supplementary Estimates are the main means of implementing and confirming the decisions by the Executive on the allocation of resources brought forward from 2000-01 under the end-year flexibility arrangements, and on the reallocation of resources through the in-year monitoring rounds in June, September and December. It also includes decisions that have been made in relation to the second tranche of the Executive programme funds, which my predecessor, Mark Durkan, announced on 3 December. Therefore, the Supplementary Estimates represent the implementation of financial decisions that we have taken since the Assembly agreed the opening position when it approved the Main Estimates last June.
I wish to emphasise a fundamentally important aspect of the first resolution: we are not dealing with new proposals; we are merely giving effect to decisions that have already been made and brought to the attention of the Assembly.
The second resolution is the usual means by which, at this point in the financial cycle, Departments’ ongoing financial commitments are authorised during the period between the beginning of the 2002-03 financial year and the presentation to the Assembly of the Main Estimates for that year, which will take place in June. In general, the cash and resource amounts required on account have been calculated as 45% of the 2001-02 total voted provision.
As its name suggests, the Vote on Account is not intended to seek the Assembly’s final approval of the allocations for 2002-03, since less than half of the total proposed Budget is being sought in this Budget Bill. It seeks sufficient resources and cash to allow services to proceed until the detailed work on the Main Estimates has been completed in the late spring. At that stage there will be a full opportunity to deal with the details of the spending plans for 2002-03. Last year there was prior discussion between my Department and the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the Main Estimates, and I propose to continue that practice. Thus, today I propose to focus on the issues relating to 2001-02, as this is the last major opportunity for discussion on that period before the end of the financial year.
This is only the second time that Supplementary Estimates have been presented to the Assembly, and it might be helpful if I remind Members of some important aspects of the Estimates that differ from the Budget and the monitoring rounds. First, the Estimates include all aspects of departmental expenditure that are subject to the authorisation of resources and associated cash appropriation. This means that they include annually managed expenditure as well as that which falls within the departmental expenditure limit. Because we receive automatic adjustment of estimated requirements for annually managed expenditure from the Treasury — and have to return any resources that we do not need to the Treasury — these items are not included in the scope of the public expenditure monitoring rounds, which the Executive conduct and which are regularly announced to the Assembly. The main items in this category are social security benefits — some of which are subject to annual appropriation or authorisation — and others that are charged under legislation to the National Insurance fund, and, hence, do not feature in the voting process. Annually managed expenditure also contains the major non-cash elements of departmental budgets arising from the transition to resource-based budgeting — principally depreciation and the cost of capital charges. Lastly, expenditure under the common agricultural policy also falls into this category because it is fully funded by the European agricultural guarantee and guidance fund.
As well as these annually managed expenditure items, there are some aspects of expenditure that were nominally attached to the departmental expenditure limit, but which are ring-fenced by the Treasury. [Interruption].
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
Order. I fear that Members will have some difficulty following the complexity of this statement if they do not listen. They will also ensure that other Members do not hear the complexity of the statement.
Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your intervention.
As we have no discretion in the use of these resources, they have not been included in our monitoring rounds. These include expenditure under the EU Peace programmes, and a special addition provided some years ago to cover the costs of the Moyle electricity interconnector. The Supplementary Estimates contain several reduced requirements under the EU Peace programmes that are needed to align with actual expenditure under the programmes. The funding will be made available again in future years and will not be lost to Northern Ireland.
I have already mentioned that some expenditure on social security is handled outside the voting system. This is because there are standing authorisations, in the form of specific legislation, which allow money to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund, or another fund, to provide the particular service. A further example arises when a Department makes a loan under a statutory power. Often under the cash regime the issue of the loan will count towards the departmental expenditure limit, but in some cases this would not need to come through the Estimates and voting system because there is a standing authorisation for the making of loans outside the vote.
Some of the important sources of room to manoeuvre are outside the appropriation system; in particular, receipts from house sales are outside the Department for Social Development votes. The total that determines what we can do is the departmental expenditure limit set by the Treasury. The house sales release some of that spending power, which makes it possible to afford an increase in the cash spending and hence helps us to afford the Supplementary Estimates.
We must also bear in mind the convention that Estimates are not reduced as the year progresses, even if it is clear that the Department concerned will not require the full extent of the Main Estimates cover. By their nature, the figures are estimates, and the sense of the resolution is that the Executive and the Departments are seeking authorisation for spending up to the figure quoted in the Estimates. I appreciate that it is difficult to fully take in all the parameters that surround the spending procedures, but, nonetheless, they are important for the record, and Members should have received the published statement.
The final complication that I need to mention is that there can be agreed transfers of resources between Departments, among Departments of the Executive and the Northern Ireland Office or between Departments here and Whitehall Departments. By convention, if responsibility for a function transfers, the departmental expenditure limit spending provision transfers with it.
All these factors are important. They affect how the figures that are discussed and set out in the Budget planning documents and in the subsequent monitoring rounds are in the end reflected in the final amounts, which must be authorised for issue from the Consolidated Fund to cover the approved expenditure. This is undeniably complex but essential in order to meet the twin requirements that we keep expenditure within the overall Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit and seek authorisation for no greater amount of expenditure than is set out in the Estimates.
The approval of the Main Estimates for 2001-02 by the Assembly last June provided the detailed basis for the allocation and use of resources for the specific purposes described in the Estimates. Since then there have been in-year monitoring rounds in June, September and December, which resulted in decisions to make changes in these allocations, as well as a further announcement of funding from the Executive programme funds.
The in-year monitoring exercises provide an important means — indeed, usually the only means — by which we can respond to new pressures by taking advantage of any easements that emerge. I know that there has been some disquiet among Members about the substantial sums that have become available during monitoring rounds, and I have indicated that the Executive have agreed that we should examine the financial monitoring systems to see if there is room to improve our forecasting.
Let me address at this point a fundamental issue regarding the monitoring process, particularly as there has been an attempt to misrepresent how such moneys could, and should, be used. When Departments underspend on their budgets, those moneys are surrendered to the centre, where they can be reallocated according to the Executive’s priorities. They are not available for reallocation by Ministers within Departments. That would be wrong, as by their nature monitoring moneys are short term, and it would be politically dishonest to suggest that such funds could be used to address long-term policy issues. Some Members have suggested that underspent money in the Department for Employment and Learning, for example, could have been redirected towards student support.
Allegations of wastage have been made against that Department. Not only are such allegations factually incorrect in the amounts of money referred to with regard to underspends, but in making these misrepresentations a disservice is being rendered to the genuine cause of students’ welfare, to which the House has already directed considerable attention and resources.
In addressing these issues, particularly monitoring rounds, we must bear in mind the length of the financial planning cycle. We must also encourage Departments to continue to identify easements as early in the financial year as possible so that they can ensure that they are deployed to the best possible effect. A good example of this is the final monitoring round of the financial year, which is held in February. Practical opportunities to spend at that time are limited. Furthermore, decisions are made on the monitoring round after the Supplementary Estimates have been agreed. Therefore, there is limited scope to deploy funds. It is problematic if Departments make large surrenders at that stage, as the opportunities to allow other Departments to take advantage of the funding are limited.
The outcomes of the monitoring rounds and the decisions on the Executive programme funds have been accompanied by detailed statements to the Assembly at each stage. Although it is not possible to have prior consultations with the Committee for Finance and Personnel before announcing the Executive’s decisions on those monitoring rounds, Mark Durkan and I have been available to explain the position, and there has been scope since each monitoring round for any scrutiny that may have been required. In this context, I want to repeat Mark Durkan’s advice that Committees do not need a starting gun from the Department of Finance and Personnel to ask their Departments about emerging spending pressures, or to scrutinise performance at any time throughout the year. As I said, they have the liberty and the capacity to do so.
The total amount of the Supplementary Estimates is £574 million in resource terms and an associated cash requirement of £198 million for the year ending 31 March 2002. The detailed allocations contained in the booklets have been determined by Departments after careful consideration and approval by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Ministers will be better placed than I to explain and justify some of the detail, but, in so far as I can do so today, I shall try to deal with any of the matters raised by Members. If I cannot, I shall refer the matter to the relevant Minister for more detailed consideration.
To gain a picture of how the figures of £574 million and £198 million in resources and cash respectively are made up, one must go back to the decisions taken after the monitoring rounds. First, there is on this occasion a significant difference between the resource and cash requirements, as the figures show. That is largely due to an increase of £300 million of resources — but not cash — sought by the Department for Regional Development to reflect a reassessment of the value of the road network.
For the reasons that I have given, the amounts reallocated do not correspond exactly to the net surplus after monitoring, since several technical adjustments are also made at those stages.
For the reasons that I gave, the amounts reallocated do not correspond exactly to the net surplus after monitoring, because technical adjustments are made at those stages. However, during the monitoring rounds the Departments declared some £146·2 million as easements, which were weighed against bids for additional resources totalling £415·5 million. Inevitably, there is some double counting in the figures for bids, because unsuccessful bids in one round are likely to be repeated later. A further £30 million for Departments was also announced through the Executive programme funds. Those figures help to illustrate the process. I will say more about how individual allocations to individual Departments will be affected later.
As with the approval of the Main Estimates last June and the agreement of the Budget for 2002-03 in December, decisions about the allocation of resources have been influenced by equality requirements, as set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and policy precepts such as New TSN and the Programme for Government.
I know from the interest that Members and Committees demonstrated, especially the Committee for Finance and Personnel, that the responsibility that we fulfil today is not assumed lightly. As an Executive and an Assembly, we have a duty to ensure the highest standards of propriety in respect of public finances. That is an aspect of the authorisation, management and control of expenditure by the Assembly, the Departments and the bodies that they fund. The efficient use of resources is no less important as we strive to deliver the highest- quality public services from the funds available.
Those are matters in which the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have a particular interest. They can examine how public sector bodies perform in meeting their objectives and ensure that they do so with propriety and efficiency. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I acknowledge the important function that they perform and the interest, proposals and work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel.
I do not propose to discuss line by line the changes to the allocations for individual Departments, because the introduction to each departmental Estimate within the Supplementary Estimates booklet sets out in detail — some might say in too much detail — the main changes that are sought. I will, however, highlight some of the key changes.
The total net additional resource requirement of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is £54·5 million. In request for resources A, which provides for ongoing services and support measures, an additional £15·8 million net resource requirement is sought. Additions of £32 million are necessary. Those cover costs relating to animal disease, including foot-and-mouth disease, brucellosis, tuberculosis and BSE, as well as the funding required for the national element of the agrimonetary package. Those additions are offset by reductions totalling £16·2 million, including those resulting from a delay in the Northern Ireland scrapie plan as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, from the beef quality initiative, and the processing and marketing grants, which were affected by a delay in obtaining state aids approval. There are also reduced requirements for the funding of rural development grants, the European Union Peace programme, capital charges and depreciation costs.
In request for resources B, which provides for the work of the Rivers Agency, the Forest Service and sea fisheries, an additional £38·7 million net resource requirement is sought. Additions of £40·8 million are necessary, of which £38·7 million is for capital charges and depreciation costs attributable to revaluation of the assets of the Rivers Agency. Other additions arise in respect of foot-and-mouth-disease costs and the Forest Service.
These additions are offset by reductions totalling £2·1 million, which are mainly in respect of the European Union Peace programme. When the additional resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking additional cash of £17·6 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is £13·2 million. The major additions are £10 million for the public library service to meet the one-off costs of the arrears arising from the job evaluation review, as well as ongoing costs, and an additional £1·6 million for the Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) to address deficits and health-and-safety-related maintenance work.
The additions are offset by a reduction of £1 million through rescheduling of expenditure in the European Union Peace programme, and a number of smaller technical adjustments totalling £0·6 million. When the additional resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking additional cash of £12·3 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
An increase of £13·6 million is sought by the Department of Education in request for resources A, which covers schools. That includes an increase of £16·4 million in capital provision, which is mainly for schools and includes provision of £2 million for disabled access. A sum of £10·2 million is being provided for teachers’ pay, £3 million for infrastructure provision for the Classroom 2000 project and £1·2 million for school fuel costs.
Those increases are offset principally by reduced requirements of £13 million on threshold payments to teachers, as, in accrual terms, certain threshold payments relate to the 2000-01 financial year, not the 2001-02 financial year. Other reduced requirements relate to the European Union Peace programme and the deferment of the introduction of the revised Northern Ireland curriculum from September 2003 to September 2004.
In request for resources B, which covers the Youth Service and community relations for young people, an increase of some £3·5 million is sought. This includes £1 million in mainstream Youth Service provision, including £0·1 million for support measures in north Belfast, as well as other additions totalling £3 million for capital programmes, European Union programmes and the Executive programme funds for the Youth Service. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking a cash increase of some £20·2 million to fund expenditure in the Estimate.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is £10·8 million. In request for resources A, which provides for the Department’s economic and regeneration measures, an additional net £12·2 million is sought. Additions include £16·5 million being carried forward from 2000-01 under end-year flexibility arrangements for the Moyle interconnector, £7 million for payments under the European Union Peace I programme, and £2 million to enable LEDU to meet an increase in demand for grants by the small business sector. Those additions have been offset by a reduced requirement of £13·6 million from the Industrial Development Board, arising from the economic downturn.
In request for resources B, which provides for equality, policy and regulatory measures, there is a net decrease of £1·4 million made up of a technical reallocation of £2·8 million to request for resources A for depreciation and capital charges and a further reallocation from request for resources A to request for resources B to meet administration, legal and consultancy costs. When the additional resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking additional cash of £12·8 million to fund expenditure on this Estimate.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas is £0·3 million. This includes additional provision to cover salary and associated costs on gas-related work and results in a cash requirement of £0·2 million to fund expenditure on this Estimate.
The Department for Regional Development is seeking an increase of just over £306 million in the total net resource requirement. There is a reduction of under £5 million in the total provision to meet direct expenditure on the purchase of assets and investment in capital projects. The Department’s request for resources A covers roads, transport and strategic planning functions with related central administration. The increase of approximately £315 million is attributable mainly to an increase in non-cash costs such as depreciation and capital charges after a revaluation of the road network. Additional resources of just under £11 million are being made available for structural maintenance and essential bridge maintenance as well as to meet the increased costs of certain oil-based products. These additional costs are partly offset by an increase of £1 million in income, mainly from car-parking charges.
Provision for capital expenditure by the Roads Service is reduced by £1·7 million due to delays in the progress of some road schemes. An increase of £1·4 million is for the purchase of the new Strangford ferry and reflects a redistribution of resources in the Roads Service. On the transport side there are increases of £2·8 million for the public service obligation compensation payable to Northern Ireland Railways and £3 million for grants to the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company for rail and bus fare concessions. Request for resources A also includes an additional £5 million to fund capital expenditure by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company.
In the Department’s request for resources B, which relates to the provision of water and sewerage services, there is an overall reduction in the total net resource requirement. That largely reflects a reassessment of depreciation and the cost of capital charges and other non-cash costs. An increase of £2·5 million is sought to cover increased salary and wage costs as well as an increase of £3·3 million to meet additional costs incurred for sludge disposal and odour reduction measures. Those increases are partly offset by additional income of £1 million, mainly from metered water charges.
On the capital side, the increase in provision of £1·4 million includes an additional £0·8 million for the purchase of information technology equipment, together with a redistribution of resources. When accruals to cash adjustments are made, the Department for Regional Development’s net cash requirement for the year is increased by £19 million to £528 million.
The Department for Employment and Learning is seeking an increase of £3·2 million in request for resources A covering higher and further education and student support. The increase is to provide disabled people with access to higher and further education institutions, to cover a higher than expected pay award for further education lecturers, additional grant for Lisburn College and additional private finance initiative (PFI) costs, and to take account of carry forward of unspent capital budget under the end-year flexibility scheme.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is £94·9 million. In request for resources A, which mainly provides for ongoing departmental administration costs, an additional £1 million net resource requirement is being sought. That includes funding for the Occupational Health Service, £0·2 million for additional staff, and cover for reduced income. It is offset by a reduction in the Health Estates Agency.
An additional £92·9 million net resource requirement is being sought in request for resources B, which provides for the health and personal social services programme. This includes £49·6 million, which is a non-cash adjustment with neutral impact on the overall spending power. Additional funds have been made available to the Health Service at each monitoring round during the current financial year and include £28 million towards hospital and community care pressures.
Ten million pounds was made available for health and social services trust deficits. Decisions made by the Executive, coupled with careful financial management and monitoring, mean that positive steps have been taken to ensure that the financial management of the Health Service has been put onto a firmer footing and that expenditure will be managed within the resources available. Funding has also gone towards increasing access to new treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and to cardiac surgery, and towards measures to facilitate earlier discharge from hospital and to prevent avoidable admission.
Other significant increases within this request for resources include £5 million for demand-led family health services, £2 million towards clinical negligence settlements, £3 million for drug strategy projects and action to combat drugs, and £1·4 million for grants available under the EU Peace programme. The total increase in this area has been offset by £9 million additional receipts from Health Service contributions.
Request for resources C contains an additional £1 million for the Fire Authority towards staff pension costs. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is seeking an additional £46 million to fund expenditure on this Estimate.
The Department for Social Development is seeking increases in its three requests for resources. An increase of £14 million is being sought in request for resources A, which covers the Department’s social security and child support programmes. That is made up of additional non-contributory and income-related benefit expenditure of £9 million due to increased requirements for a range of benefits and payments. A further £1 million is required for administration, and £4 million for certain non-cash items.
In request for resources B, which covers the Department’s housing programme, additional resources of £5 million are being sought, mainly in the revenue grant to the Housing Executive.
Additional resources of £14·5 million are being sought in request for resources C, which covers the Department’s urban regeneration and community development programme. Those include additional funding for Making Belfast Work and the Derry Regeneration Initiative’s programme expenditure, the EU programmes, the Executive programme funds and administration costs. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking an additional £34 million cash to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
I now turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel, where an additional £24,000 is being sought in request for resources A to cover additional running costs in the central finance group.
An additional £6·1 million is required in request for resources B, which covers support for public sector business performance. That covers the net effect of the increased costs of running the Government estate and the census, the provision of research and statistical services, and the provision of purchasing services, which are funded by transfers by other Departments. The sum of £49,000 is required in request for resources C, arising from the implementation of the final phase of the Valuation and Lands Agency’s grade and structure review.
The Department of Finance and Personnel seeks an additional £19·3 million to meet higher than anticipated costs associated with the operation of the Civil Service superannuation scheme. I emphasise that those costs are borne in annually managed expenditure and, therefore, do not restrict the resources available for allocation by the Executive. The main reasons for the increase are the higher than anticipated transfer-out costs — where members leave the superannuation scheme — and the increasing numbers reaching normal retirement age.
An increase in resources of £3·8 million is sought for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Some £2 million of that increase relates to provision for the North/South Ministerial Council, the Civic Forum, the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission. The balance is required to meet the cost of departmental administration, foot-and-mouth-disease advertisements, the increased provision for the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the European Union Peace programme.
When the additional resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy Minister is seeking an additional cash sum of £3·6 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Northern Ireland Assembly is £1·4 million. That reflects the transfer of provision from resources to capital of £7·9 million arising from the purchase and refurbishment of additional accommodation — principally, Ormiston House — and an increase in depreciation and capital charges of £9·3 million after the revaluation of existing assets and the purchase of additional assets. When the additional resources requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, the Northern Ireland Assembly is seeking additional cash of £90,000 to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
In respect of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, there are small increases of £49,000 and £13,000 respectively.
That deals with the resolution for the spring Supplementary Estimates. I will endeavour to answer Members’ questions.
I will turn now to the second Supply resolution for the issue of an amount — that is, a cash sum — of £3,936 million to be granted on account towards defraying the costs incurred by Departments and the use of resources of some £4,486 million for the same purposes in the year 2002-03. The cash sum and the resource totals for which approval is sought represent a Vote on Account, pending the bringing forward of the Main Estimates to the Assembly in June. A Vote on Account at this point in the financial year, prior to the year in which the cash or resources will be used, is a normal feature of Government financial management. It arises because, after the Assembly’s approval of the Budget in December, detailed work has to be undertaken by Departments, and by the Department of Finance and Personnel, to disaggregate and allocate resource requirements for individual purposes, often through narrowly defined line entries.
The Vote on Account reflects both the allocation of cash to Departments and the allocation, up to a limit, for the use of resources. As already explained, the Vote on Account takes account of the levels of expenditure agreed by the Assembly in the Budget and will be consistent with the figure work brought forward in the Main Estimates later this year. There will, of course, be an opportunity for a full debate on the details at that stage.
In the interim, the Vote on Account will fund Departments to implement the ongoing programmes and services for which they are responsible and which form part of the Budget decisions that were taken last December.
As I have said, this is the second occasion on which a Minister of Finance and Personnel has presented Supplementary Estimates to the Assembly. The devolved Assembly has again been able to make decisions for a complete financial year. We have also announced the first allocations from the Executive programme funds in this financial year. However, the Executive are conscious of the need to ensure that resources are targeted effectively. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I intend to ensure that future financial recommendations continue to be subject to careful and detailed scrutiny — and to challenge, if necessary.
The Assembly and the Committees have a vital role to play in these processes. I am committed to doing all that is possible to ensure that Members can fulfil their responsibilities effectively. In that context, I have noted that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has expressed several concerns about the process, the documentation and the time available for consideration of matters.
I fully understand those concerns, and I acknowledge the need for further developments. We face real difficulties as a result of the timescale to which we must work. I will examine the scope for improvement, and I will work with the Committee to achieve that end in the months ahead. To assist us to ensure that we are targeting funding in the most appropriate way possible, we are carrying out a review of the Executive programme funds, which will inform our shaping of the future management and direction of those funds. We will continue to attach the highest priority to ensuring that we manage and control the resources that are available to us.
Through the Programme for Government and the Budget, we have the opportunity to set out our priorities and plans. Our challenge is to provide the highest-quality services to our citizens.
The detail of my statement is complex by its nature — perhaps it is made more complex by looking backwards while planning for the future, but it is appropriate that we do so. The Executive and the Assembly have achieved much in the past two years. We are getting to grips with the challenge of setting our own spending priorities and directing resources towards them. Our challenge is to continue to spend money in an efficient and effective way, so that the people whom we serve can see that we are making a difference. We have made a good start, and the advantages of devolution are on display in the Chamber this afternoon.
Achieving our aims for the future will not be easy or straightforward, and this will not be a comfortable year financially. We face a crucial spending review, which will conclude in the summer. Many Members appreciate that challenging the Barnett formula is not a no-risk option. Ministers and I will weigh these matters carefully before proceeding, and I will continue to value the advice of the departmental Committee and the Assembly before doing so.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and detailed explanation of the spring Supplementary Estimates. At its meeting on 5 February, the Committee for Finance and Personnel considered the near final proof document of the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02 and the Vote on Account for 2002-03. Department of Finance and Personnel officials appeared before the Committee to answer questions and to help it to navigate its way through those difficult issues. The documentation involved is dense.
The Committee acknowledges that the format of the Estimates is naturally detailed and that the Minister inherited the current versions. The Committee also accepts that the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting has added a layer of detail to what was already a complicated financial document. The Committee is concerned about the short period provided for Committees to scrutinise the Estimates. It is also essential that the format of the Estimates be user-friendly so that the Assembly and its Committees can do their job effectively. Appropriate guidance must be made available to enable Members to make sense of the Estimates, which they are expected to approve, and to inform the public. Department of Finance and Personnel officials share that concern and have undertaken to address it. The Committee is concerned that that matter be progressed urgently and that the improvements are in place before the Main Estimates in June.
The timing of the debate and the arrival only this morning of the final version of the Estimates and the Vote on Account leave much to be desired. The Committee must not be taken for granted. It will not continue simply to be a rubber stamp for accelerated passage of the Budget Bill unless the Executive provide sufficient opportunity for consultation and scrutiny. That is a crucial issue. Last week the Committee considered the matter in detail before it approved the Bill’s accelerated passage.
The Assembly must find ways to help Committees. Departments must co-operate with them to ensure that that happens. The Committee welcomed the Minister’s recent decision to review the effectiveness of the in-year monitoring procedure against the considerable quantum of reallocations. Departments already have problems in quantifying their budget needs. There is a danger that resources are being deployed and not spent. Those resources could be spent by other Departments and might have been more effectively allocated elsewhere in the first instance. The Assembly must examine budgeting and how it is followed up so that it targets the Departments that are most in need.
The Committee urges the Minister to complete his review in time for the first monitoring round of the new financial year. It will look carefully at any proposals that emerge. The Committee accepts that the Estimates documentation may remain dense and complicated. There may be some advantage in the Department of Finance and Personnel providing for Committees and Members a training and awareness seminar on the subject. I wrote to the Minister to highlight those issues on 7 February. I hope that he will be able to respond positively to the Committee’s concerns. Although the Committee for Finance and Personnel accepted the accounting nature of the Supply Resolutions and has formally written to the Speaker to approve the accelerated passage of the Budget Bill under Standing Order 42, the Minister and the Executive must reflect on the concerns that were raised, and about which I spoke earlier. The process must be remedied in time so that the situation can be rectified before the Main Estimates in June.
Speaking as a Member from west of the Bann, not as a Committee Chairperson, I reiterate some issues. The Assembly must examine the lack of health facilities, poor infrastructure, poor school buildings and all the other issues that were targeted as priorities in the Programme for Government. Proper budgeting by Departments is necessary. It is noticeable that £198 million is reallocated in various ways by Committees under the monitoring rounds. That money is recycled several times. If, at the outset, that money had been allocated in Budget form to the Department that needed it most, the continuous monitoring rounds might involve less money. This is not new money — as the Minister said several times — it is money that has been regurgitated. We must examine this issue.
The Assembly has three priorities, health, education and infrastructure, and these are needed most west of the Bann. The money must be correctly allocated, and I am glad that the Minister agrees that there must be a review of that procedure. The Assembly must address the imbalance that exists between the areas east and west of the Bann. The west of the Bann has been neglected for years by Unionists in the old Stormont Parliament and by the British Government during direct rule. This situation must be changed if the Assembly is to signal new ways of moving forward. We must redress the balance.
We must ensure that New TSN is not just about the three letters "T", "S" and "N". We must ensure that we are targeting social need where it arises. Unfortunately, this approach was not followed during the allocations of European funding. Although that is not the Minister’s direct responsibility in his present role, it is part of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s remit. How is a situation dealt with whereby an area west of the Bann is depopulated over years and then population is used as an indicator for allocating European funds? The indicator has been a failure. Depopulation has caused the west to suffer in relation to jobs, housing, infrastructure and economic development. If budgets are to target social need, the Assembly must put itself in a position to address this problem. The present system is not doing that. We are simply doing what has been done in the past and following the same patterns.
Timescales are too short. Committees do not have enough time to scrutinise Budgets and develop their ideas. Departments do not have time to think through new policies. I had hoped that this could have happened with respect to the Executive programme funds, but it has not. Executive programme funds are being allocated in the same way as normal budgeting rounds.
I will return to the monitoring rounds. A total of £198 million is being recycled year after year. If health were to be prioritised, we could allocate that money to the Department at the beginning of the budgeting round to address the imbalance. Over time we could prioritise housing, education and infrastructure instead of simply recycling money. If the Assembly did that, it would start to redress the balance of the past. If it cannot do that, the Assembly will fail.
In the new rounds each Department and Committee must take this situation into account when they are in the bidding process, and not simply wait until this stage, which is merely a rubber-stamping exercise. We must look at departmental bids. Are they targeting social need? Is the money going where it should, or are Departments budgeting for things that they may want to implement but cannot deliver?
I ask Committee members to ensure that they are involved in the process and that they receive the information. I hear, through the Chairpersons Liaison Committee, that Members cannot get information from relevant Departments. Members are entitled to that information. I urge them to get the relevant information and become involved in the bidding process, so that the Assembly is not simply rubber-stamping the Budget at the end of the process. In that way, we can address the imbalance and make good progress for the future. Go raibh maith agat.
Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)
I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the Minister of Finance and Personnel for the detailed presentation of the spring Supplementary Estimates, and also for touching on the Budget for 2002-03.
One of the greatest problems in any Budget debate in Northern Ireland is that we are, as someone recently put it, seeking pieces of a pre-baked cake, in that we have very little or almost no ability to expand our revenue and hence to expand our expenditure. Quite correctly, there are, and will be, considerable tensions between Departments in seeking the maximum share of the cake.
I assume — and I hope that the Minister will confirm this — that it is the Executive’s collective responsibility to determine the priorities to which the various sectors of the cake are allocated. In other words, is there corporate responsibility within the Executive for the budgets now being put before us? Added revenue resulting from each proposition made by any Department must, because of the finite cake, be taken from some other Department or cause. It is incumbent on any Minister or any Member who asks for additional resources to have the courage to indicate where those resources should come from. Otherwise it is a glib question, and we should not raise people’s hopes on various financial matters that are not in the control of the Assembly or the Executive.
In that frame of mind, I assume that the Minister can confirm that the Minister for each Department agrees with the Budget, with the Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02 and the proposals for 2002-03.
Time and time again I am surprised when certain individual Ministers claim that in some way they have been deprived of resources to do x, y or z. I have always assumed — and if I am wrong I hope that the Minister will correct me — that each Minister agrees to his or her own budget and to the totality of the Budget. In that process there must be give and take, but that is the position, and we must therefore desist from passing the buck to other Departments or Ministers. Otherwise, the Minister should explain that our 10 Departments are independent and not related at all, but I do not believe that for a minute.
In general terms, however, we must question where we can expand the resources available to us. We should pursue possible alternative sources of revenue, either within or without our jurisdiction. I am not ashamed to admit that I would seek additional resources from other countries on the grounds that they understand our problems, that they have been sympathetic and that they have contributed in the past. Only now do we evaluate the huge shortfall in almost every Department as a result of the years of direct rule. Time and again the enormity of the lack of infrastructure and basic capital expenditure during that time comes to the fore. I note that the Minister in his introduction indicated at least an amber light in respect of the Barnett formula, although he advised us to weigh up the risk options when dealing with that problem. However, off the cuff it looks as if that is the only option we have at the moment — risks and all — whether we like it or not, in the hope that fair play and justice will win in the end.
On top of that, multimillion pounds of additional funding are announced from time to time for roads or health by the Exchequer in London. Does an appropriate part of that filter down to the Government and Departments in Northern Ireland? I am not very sure that it does.
Maximising parallel funding is another important area that we should engage in strenuously, not only at Executive administrative level but at local government level. Time and time again I hear rumours — although I seldom hear the facts — that European funding, which requires parallel funding from the Exchequer, cannot come into play either because of the absence of parallel funding or, sometimes, because of the lack of efficient administration and appropriate application. The Assembly has a duty to assist local authorities, of whatever nature, when they seek external funding. We must offer them expertise and advice, and open their lines of communication.
The Minister said that the amount indicated for 2002–03 is not the final allocation, and I am sure that we shall return to the various sectors during debates in the early summer and the autumn.
It would be inappropriate for a Member to speak in such a debate and to be completely global in his or her remarks. Therefore, it may be that I have an excuse to be slightly parochial for a moment, but I shall try to apply a general thesis. Will the Minister, or the appropriate Minister, confirm that, if a hospital construction is programmed to take place immediately after the Hayes review, it should be specific in the Estimates for 2002-03 at this stage? If not, I presume that any comment to the contrary would be false, especially in view of the fact that the money for Downe Hospital has, allegedly, been available for four years. However, as I am unaware of its being reallocated to another project, I presume that it was never there. That is another story.
There is also the question of the strong promises that were made for the Mourne health facility that was demolished six years ago and was to have been replaced. Again, that is not the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s responsibility, but if after six years it is not in a funding programme, I wonder whether the project is capable of delivery in the allocated time frame.
Is there any scope to introduce free residential care for the elderly? The issue is twofold. First, there is the obvious benefit that residential care creates. Secondly, Members know that many beds that could serve other purposes are tied up locally because hospitals are unable to discharge the elderly into their communities.
Mr Molloy mentioned educational allocation. Is the concept of equality proofing and rural proofing fully applied to all the allocations across the sectors? Mr Molloy referred to some sectors; I refer to all sectors because it must be applied to all Departments.
Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)
Is the hon Gentleman clear about what rural proofing really means? We have been seeking a definition from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for many months, and we have not been given an answer.
Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)
I do not know whether to thank the Member for his intervention, because I cannot answer his question.
We have a concept of rural proofing. I know what I mean when I use the term "rural proofing". I am not aware of any departmental definition of the term, but it has been talked about a great deal in the Executive’s Programme for Government and in relation to the concept of equality. The Noble indices have been introduced to show shortfalls in social resources, and my guess is that rural communities, in particular, are under-represented as regards allocations. It is easier to focus on the visible deprivation in urban areas, but deprivation is often not as apparent in rural communities. That is why I am anxious that this aspect of rural proofing be applied urgently to the allocations in all Departments.
Equality and rural proofing are also relevant to the Department for Regional Development. The Assembly has recently debated the Department’s transport policy and other policies and, speaking as a representative of south-east Ulster, I think that it is becoming apparent that there is a shortfall in allocations to these programmes and intentions in that area. I cannot go into detail about that.
Fishing is often not mentioned, although it is the responsibility of the same Department as agriculture. Fishing is a major industry in my constituency. Will there be provision in the 2002-03 Estimates for a new policy for agricultural development? There is a vision group paper on the subject, which is at consultation stage and which will be addressed in detail in the next couple of months. However, in the aftermath of BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and the crisis with international exchange rates and the green pound, it is essential that we have a definitive policy, backed by finance, to allow those who wish to retire from farming to do so with dignity and a degree of financial and social security.
We must also have the ability to introduce new blood to the agriculture industry by providing, for example, a scheme similar to the Dutch one. Such a scheme would allow new entrants who are well trained, well versed in farming, modern technologies and trade techniques to be brought into the farming industry. Unless we have such a vision for agriculture, backed by finance, we will simply be treading water.
It is very tempting to speak about all Departments, Mr Speaker, but you will frown upon me if I speak for much longer. I hope that we have an opportunity to address some fundamental policy issues so that we can re-resource and reallocate funding for 2002-03. Aside from the urgent need to spend current Budget allocations within the current financial year, of which there are about five or six weeks remaining, there is not much that we can do about initiating and paying for new schemes.
Given the often-repeated announcements from the Blair/Brown axis that millions of pounds of additional resources are being put into roads, education and health, can we be assured that we will get a real and meaningful share of that money, backed up by compensation for the shortfall that we suffered under years of direct rule? That is my central concern.
Can we also look for alternative resources with which to build a bigger cake, so that Departments can be given a bigger slice to deal with their various requirements? The principles of the Barnett formula are difficult to grasp, but there is no point in dealing with that issue today. However, I hope that at the end of that we will have an outcome that will substantially enhance the resources available to Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister confirm that the spring Supplementary Estimates, and the Estimates for 2002-03, are the consequences of an agreed Budget, reflecting the input of every Minister who signs up to and agrees with it? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that, in principle, it is totally wrong for a Minister to say that they were not given x or y by another Minister? Responsibility for the Budget is either collegiate or it is not. If it is not, I would like to know that so that I can handle the matter differently. If responsibility is collegiate, Ministers making statements outside the House should show more honesty and integrity.
John (Speaker, Belfast East)
The House will know that we must interrupt the debate at 2.30 pm for Question Time. I am therefore hesitant to call the next Member on my list — the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr Paisley — because I suspect that he would barely be getting into his stride when I would have to interrupt him. Of course, he could resume his remarks after 4.00 pm, but I think that it would fairer to him, and to the House, if we were to make clear that he will be called at 4.00 pm. In the meantime, the House will take its leisure for a few minutes.
Supply Resolutions:
Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)
The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has recommended over and over again that there should be an increase in Budget funds for animal disease compensation. I am glad that that problem has been mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates, and that there has been a call for extra funding. Neither I nor anyone else wants to be involved in the enormous subsidisation of a disease. We want the disease to be eradicated. However, the situation in the Province as regards brucellosis and TB is serious, and incidences of those diseases are on the rise.
The Public Accounts Committee has highlighted the cost of brucellosis. However, TB is also an expensive disease. At a recent meeting of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, it was revealed that £9·3 million had been paid in compensation for brucellosis, and £9 million for TB. An additional sum of £8·24 million was spent on testing and compensation administration costs. The Committee asked the question: if that is the expenditure, and the diseases are spreading, does the Department have the finances to continue to compensate farmers if their herds have those diseases? The reply was that the money would run out.
I want to know whether the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, having taken a reading of what will happen with regard to those diseases, and if they continue to spread, has asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if the money will be there? I am sure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel, coming from a rural district, knows what farmers would think if they had those diseases on their farms and animals had to be slaughtered. What will a farmer think if his neighbour receives compensation, and the Department turns round and tells him that the kitty has run out? Has the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development made the Minister officially aware of this problem? Is the request for increased finance likely to be enough to deal with the situation?
Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)
Does the Member appreciate that there are several farmers in Northern Ireland whose herds have been scrutinised by departmental officials, and that those officials, having evaluated the herds, have indicated in writing their value and, after the herd has been slaughtered, have withdrawn those offers of compensation? Does the Member accept that that causes severe problems for the image of the Department in the farming community, and severe problems for farmers in their relations with the banks?
Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)
I am aware of such situations, because they have happened in my constituency, which my son also represents in the House. We are all aware of such situations, and they constitute a serious matter. An even worse case was presented to me today. There was a foot-and-mouth disease scare, and the sale of certain cattle had been agreed.
The animals were not paid for, but they were moved to the purchaser’s farm. However, the Department slaughtered all of them before he could pay for them. The man said that he had not paid for the animals, that they belonged to so-and-so and that therefore, technically, he was the owner. The owner then wrote to the Department and said that his herd had been slaughtered without his being informed. He said that he expected compensation, but the Department said that it could not pay him.
Those are the constituency matters that we deal with, and that is why it is so important that we know exactly what is happening. We take these matters up with the Minister and the Department because that is the first place we can go. We cannot expect the Finance Minister, with all his talents, brains and flatteries, to wave a magic wand. However, it is a matter of grave concern for farmers, and we should be concerned about the spread of brucellosis and TB. There was a time when the incidence of brucellosis and TB in the Province was very low. We have lost out badly. We need to eradicate diseases rather than compensate farmers with those diseases on their farms, and provision must be made for that.
My Committee has questioned if money will be available should the Minister decide that the vision report is to be acted upon and that the recommendations from the report are to move from the page and become reality. We have been told that there is no money available. The Minister set up a body to introduce important proposals on difficult situations in agriculture, yet no provision has been made to make money available to introduce the report’s recommendations. That too is very important.
There is a matter I wish to raise without wearing my Chairperson’s hat, although all members of the Committee are concerned about it. There is a need for a retirement scheme and a new entrants scheme for farmers. On the opposite Bench another man with great talents also raised the issue — and how could he not be with great talents, for we both sit in another place together? He made a very strong plea on the matter, and I want to back that up. There are men who have spent their days, and hoped to end their days quite comfortably, in farming, but that hope has been smashed. We all know about the state of agriculture. Can these men, in the last days of their lives, not retire with dignity and honour and have enough to live comfortably for whatever years are left to them? Is it unreasonable for us to say that they should?
We also need new entrants, but many of the regulations that govern agriculture put a barricade in their way. We must oil the hinges, take off the locks, open the door and let new entrants in with a helping hand so that they can get to a place where they can earn a living from the soil.
This is an important issue, and I trust that the Minister will soon announce that it has been considered and that money will be available so that we can have a proper retirement scheme. It will cost a great deal of money, but new entrants to farming will ensure that the industry has a future.
I hope that the next time we discuss this matter we will have good news about brucellosis and tuberculosis. People are working hard and are spending time carrying out tests and investigations. This is an important matter — £8·24 million has been spent. This will be a thorough review of the situation, and I hope that they are successful. It is to be hoped that we will have the pleasant knowledge that brucellosis and tuberculosis have been conquered.
Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)
It has been said that a year is a long time in politics, and that time passes very quickly when one is enjoying oneself. It does not feel like a year since the last time we were discussing spring Supplementary Estimates, which was on 19 February 2001. I stress that date, and I ask Members to bear it in mind.
I remember the date vividly. At that time I drew attention to the need for change in how the Assembly went about its budgets and Supplementary Estimates. I remember drawing attention to the need for Members to have more time to analyse, scrutinise and deal with the topic in front of them. I also drew attention to the need for proper consultation, openness and transparency. I referred to the cold, harsh fact that we see the results of monitoring rounds retrospectively — as a fait accompli.
At that time, the then Minister acknowledged these shortcomings, and he pointed out that resource accounting was coming on board and that it would enhance the accountability of Departments and help to address many concerns raised by Members. Today is 11 February 2002 — less than a year has passed. We have had less time to give the matter full scrutiny and less time for consultation. As I stressed, the equivalent debate last year took place on 19 February.
We have a full set of resource accounts for this year’s spring Supplementary Estimates. We have masses of figures in front of us — and I concede that point most willingly. However, I also openly admit to being more than a little blinded by the science of these figures. Again, I stress that more time should have been afforded to Members to properly get their heads around the new system of resource accounting.
It has been said that it is an improved system, and I acknowledge that. However, the system is improved only if it enlightens Members and helps them understand — on behalf of the taxpayer — the intricacies and accountability that is necessary if we are to perform a proper service on behalf of those who send us here.
It is a complex system; a fact that has been recognised by the Minister, and I thank him for that recognition. However, we must continue to press, at Committee level and on the Floor of the House, for more transparency rather than allow transparency to appear to be an illusion.
The spring Supplementary Estimates are effectively the consolidation of a done deal that, through the associated Budget Act, will provide the legislative authority to the Executive to spend taxpayers’ money.
I stress again that we need to keep the pressure on, on the Floor of the House and at Committee level, in an attempt to prise open the vice-like grip on information that is held by someone or other.
Last year, I highlighted other similarities, and I must question them again this year. The total figure in the Supplementary Estimate last year was £196 million — approximately 2% to 2·5% of the Main Estimate. I drew attention to that figure, as it was similar in percentage terms to that of the previous year. The figure this year is £198 million of cash required. Are these figures an amazing coincidence — is it lightning striking, not once or twice, but three times? Or are these figures, as I suspect, a planned calculation?
I was advised last year that different factors that could not be predicted led to Supplementary Estimates of 2% to 2·5% of Main Estimate provisions. That may well be so, but I am not convinced that the current system leads to the best use of taxpayers’ money. I will expand on that point.
Members may recall that last year I called on each Department to consider releasing £10 million of its budget to assist in the crisis in the Health Service. That would have produced an additional £100 million to ease that crisis. The Ministers responded with shock and horror. I was told that it could not be done; it could not be afforded. The Executive acknowledged that health was recognised as a priority, and we all endorsed it, yet the other Departments needed every single penny they could get their hands on and knew how they were going to spend it on important issues. Yet, today, in the consolidation of the monitoring rounds, £198 million of easements are available in the system for reallocation.
The Minister said that monitoring rounds are effectively short-term money. I accept that.
Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)
Does the Member agree that when a financial crisis or issue arises in one of the Departments, miraculously, as I once described it, millions of pounds can be found down the side of the sofa and behind the clock? Is that what the Member is referring to?
Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)
That is my point. I will go further than that. We have such a crisis in our number one priority that greater effort needs to be made in the lead-up to the beginning of the year to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to that priority to deal with the pressures. We all know that those pressures are going to build up throughout the year.
As I said before, each Department can put up a good argument as to why it should receive more money. That is not disputed — Northern Ireland has been underfunded for years. However, if we believe in a number one priority, then the Assembly must back up those words with resources. That has not been done, and continues to be neglected.
Lead-in for financial resources requires time and planning to enable money to be spent. That is nowhere more obvious than in the Health Service. Over the past two years the funding has not been made available, and the crisis is getting worse.
Recently, I received a letter from the chairperson of the Northern Ireland office of the British Medical Association (BMA) which stated that
"the crisis within the Health Service in Northern Ireland is escalating … I write to you to highlight the deep frustration and concern felt throughout the medical profession about the continuing crisis within the health service in Northern Ireland".
The letter makes several recommendations. I hope that all Members will concur with the recommendation that there should be an immediate review of the system of allocating funding in Northern Ireland, with the aim of replacing it with a more effective and accountable system. We should all say, "Hear, hear" to that. We have an opportunity to try to ensure that money is given according to our aspirations.
If we continue to follow what the previous Minister of Finance called "the silo mentality", we will continue to push the problem down the pipe, rather than resolving it. We continue to fail to give proper prioritisation to the need for spending where it is needed. It hurts me that the Executive are still reticent to examine, recognise and grasp the necessity to implement the necessary changes. I hear words, but, after several years, I must question their sincerity.
We have a new Minister of Finance. However, to clarify my point about words, when the Finance Committee was dealing with the Budget Bill, it received a letter on 15 February 2001 from the Department of Finance and Personnel and signed by the then Minister, Mr Durkan. It says that
"We have sought to provide as full a scope for discussion with the Committee for Finance and Personnel as has been possible in the context of this financial year. I will want to work with the Committee to provide for further analysis and discussion of these issues in future and to continue to improve the approach for future years as far as possible. I am very grateful for the assistance of the Committee on these issues."
On 5 February 2002, the Committee received a letter from the new Minister, Mr Farren, which stated
"We have sought to provide as full a scope for discussion with the Committee for Finance and Personnel as has been possible in the context of this financial year. I will want to work with the Committee to provide for further analysis and discussion of these issues in future, and to continue to improve the approach for future years as far as possible. I am very grateful for the assistance of the Committee on these issues."
Members will recognise that those paragraphs are identical. I read them out to illustrate my point and to ask where the new thinking is. I want to stress the necessity for new thinking, rather than the repetition of words that are often meaningless. It is time for new thinking and for new ideas to be put to the test, rather than to continue with the patterns and the words of the past. It is time for change.
Mr McGrady called for new funds from outside Northern Ireland. I accept his points. Greater priority must be given to the needs of Northern Ireland, on a UK, a European and a worldwide basis. We are told that money is scarce. However, we have seen billions of pounds spent on war and killing, while the Health Service continues to crumble.
I have just received the ‘Service Agreement Monthly Monitoring Report’ for December 2001 from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. With regard to fractures, it says that
"In late December early January the fracture figures began to escalate again. This situation was deemed critical".
Turning to operating theatres, it says that
"The difficulties with theatre staffing in the Trust mean that many elective lists are having to be cancelled routinely".
On in-patient and day-case waiting lists by specialty and waiting times, it says that
"At 31 December 2001, there were 29,952 EHSSB residents on waiting lists for elective surgery. Of these 4,061 have been waiting longer than the Charter limit".
The situation regarding delayed discharges and community care waiting lists is that
"both delayed patients and delay days at December end 2001 were 33% higher than at December 2000 … 136 people were reported as waiting for care packages due to non-availability of funding in December".
I could go on. All hospitals have reported bed availability problems as a result of delayed discharges. At the end of December 2001, community trusts reported that 136 elderly people were waiting for care packages, or for uplift to existing packages, due to no funding being available. Last year that figure was 126.
Dr Paisley spoke at length about concerns for animal health. That is justifiable. However, I emphasise the need for human health, and the need for the Assembly to deal with its resources in a more appropriate and effective manner that creates transparency and accountability and, more importantly, gives meaningful resolution to the problems that we face.
I referred to the need for external sources of funding. Again, I point to sources of funds within departmental budgets. Two or more years ago, the Executive talked about releasing funding because of the over-administration of Northern Ireland. Is there one less quango in Northern Ireland than there was when the Assembly was elected in 1998? The answer is "No." We still have the skins of the onion — the 26 local authorities, the many trusts, the health boards and the education boards — the layer upon layer of administration that is costing the taxpayer money. Examine the Estimates. Without exception, Departments’ administrative costs are increasing. Those are the areas on which the Assembly must concentrate in order to bring about some resolution. Unless that is done, the Assembly is kidding itself — and, more importantly, it is kidding the people that it is supposed to represent.
Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)
Like many other Members, I spent the weekend poring over these figures. They threw up more questions than answers. I want to ask those questions in detail today. However, I would like to begin by pointing out the features of the document that the Women’s Coalition regards as positive in relation to the needs of Northern Ireland.
The party welcomes the additional money that is going towards disabled access to, for example, schools and universities. That is a valuable area of expenditure. We welcome new expenditure on issues such as energy efficiency in schools. I hope that that is being extended to hospitals, particularly in the light of the high fuel costs indicated in the Budget. We also welcome additional funds for access to treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Finally, I want to welcome the additional support for youth, community and housing security measures in north Belfast. Those are features of the Supplementary Estimates that I believe are valuable and that underline that the Assembly is working for the people of Northern Ireland.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
I am afraid that it goes downhill from there. There are areas of general concern in the document. Mr Close described that well when he spoke of being "blinded by the science". Every Member has mentioned the highly complex procedure that they have been asked to comment on this afternoon — the monitoring, the Supplementary Estimates, the inclusion of Executive programme funds, and the new resource approach. All are highly complex. Every Member will echo my appeal to the Minister to adopt a much more user-friendly approach to reduce the complexity of those issues, and to make the process much more accessible and transparent, not only to ourselves but to members of the public. That is vital if we are to move forward in that area.
Given the figures, certain Departments appear to be getting their sums right, yet others appear to be getting their sums badly wrong. I would appreciate some explanation for that. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of the Environment are two Departments that have not asked for any additional funding. I assume that they are to be congratulated on getting their sums right. If that is incorrect, I would appreciate an explanation. With new resource accounting, the Department for Regional Development must account for roads. I appreciate the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s explanation of that in his opening statement. Health is obviously a crisis-led issue that I shall deal with later.
We assume that the Department of Finance and Personnel would surely get its sums right, as opposed to any other, as it is in the lead role in that area. However, that Department has asked for an additional £33 million because it did not get its sums right. I want that explained. That sum includes £19 million for pension payments and lump-sum benefits. The Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety also have sections on pensions and lump-sum benefits, but those Departments are not asking for additional money for those purposes. Am I to assume that civil servants are more in need of that additional money than teachers or nurses? I would appreciate an explanation of that, and of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s mathematical skills in particular.
During Question Time, I asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel about the reduction, by many millions of pounds, of funding under Peace I, which the report mentions, and whether European moneys have been returned to Brussels as a result of underspend. In his opening statement, the Minister guaranteed that that money will not go back to Brussels. I would appreciate hearing that again and again.
I shall go into more detail and cover each Department as it appears in the report. First, I turn to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Dr Paisley highlighted the money that is to be spent on animal health, animal disease and compensation. I especially want to look at the £3·5 million compensation paid out for brucellosis cases. The Minister is surely aware that the Public Accounts Committee is looking into that. The Committee has certain serious concerns about the brucellosis compensation and how it works. I underline that concern.
I have not numbered the page to which I am about to refer, so I cannot quote the exact wording. However, I think that I am right in saying that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is looking for an additional £500,000 for what are called legal costs and consultancy fees for work on the introduction of the euro. That obviously fascinated me. Has that money already been spent? If so, how was it spent in advising the public about the introduction of the euro? Has the money yet to be spent? I would certainly welcome it if that were the case, but I want to know what will happen to that money when it becomes available.
Moving to page 82 of the document, there are some concerns about the Department for Employment and Learning. In particular — and I imagine that having come from that Department the Minister well knows the subject — point (xii) states that New Deal provision is being reduced by some £5 million. I would appreciate an explanation of that. Long-term unemployment is a serious issue here, so should the Department’s strategic planning for tackling it not be better, with staff in place who could understand and deal with the backlog of some 7,000 applicants?
With regard to Health, Social Services and Public Safety on page 94, my concern relates to a £10 million additional provision towards reducing the deficits of health and social services trusts. I understand that this is the first time such provision has been seen, and we voice our alarm at it. What is it? Does it involve GP fundholders or practices? An explanation would be appreciated.
Another concern is the £4·87 million increased provision
"to meet further Criminal Negligence settlements and to increase spending on the Northern Ireland Drugs Strategy;"
Why is that needed? I would appreciate further detail.
Page 142 deals with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. What struck me there was the decrease in provision by £105,000
"reflecting the transfer of resources for victims to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety."
Why is money being moved from the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? Does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister no longer have a budget for victims? Has its responsibility for victims been removed? What exactly happens to that money? Why is £105,000 being transferred, when the Budget provision is £150,000? An explanation would be appreciated.
Finally, the Assembly itself is dealt with on page 152. In respect of increased provision, I should appreciate a breakdown of the request for £1·4 million in additional funding for
"capital charges and depreciation following the revaluation of existing assets and the purchase of additional assets."
Some £90,000 of the £1·39 million is needed in cash, and I would appreciate a breakdown of Assembly expenditure in that area.
That completes my list of concerns. We went through the document with a fine toothcomb, and it was important to make those points.
To conclude, I agree with Mr Close that the knee-jerk, crisis-in-management approach to Budgets is inappropriate. Such adjustments and shifting about undoubtedly point to a greater need for a strategic approach to budgetary provision.
I repeat some figures that I used in the debate on the regional transport strategy last week. The 12,000 road traffic accidents, casualties and deaths per year in Northern Ireland cost the economy £450 million per year. Those figures must be mentioned on the Floor of the Assembly. I do not agree with Mr Close that money is scarce, but the lack of strategic provision is. Why do we spend time on crisis management, picking people out of the river, when it would be better to put someone upstream to stop them jumping in in the first place?
Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)
I rise entirely mindful that nothing that I might say, or indeed anything that anyone who appears to be vaguely critical of the proposals might say, will have the slightest effect. Come the vote, the marshalled ranks of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP will ensure that the motions are carried.
We heard two interesting speeches from the previous two contributors. However, they were interesting in entirely different ways. Mr Close addressed some of the fundamental issues that relate to the governance of Northern Ireland; Ms Morrice gave a virtuoso performance in the art of financial and political nit-picking. Of course, one can go through their accounts and pick up this, that and the other thing, but the major issues must be addressed.
In financial and governance terms, Northern Ireland is a total mess. As a member of the electorate said to me recently, the Assembly appears to be a sort of theme park. It is a Disneyland, in which the political classes of Northern Ireland can play.
As far as the financial background of the governance of Northern Ireland is concerned, the fundamental mistake was made when those major parties involved in negotiating the Belfast Agreement failed to extract from the British Government a substantial contribution, amounting to billions of pounds, to address the shortfall in infrastructure that had occurred in the previous 10, 20 or, as has been suggested by some, 30 years. That shortfall was believed to be in the region of £9 billion.
One lot was so interested in getting a devolved Assembly in order to get its hands on the levers of power that it entirely ignored that shortfall. The other lot was so interested in getting what it believed to be the extracting of transitional institutions for a united Ireland that it did not address the problem either.
The result, and the major financial problem with which the Assembly must cope, is how, on a limited budget, it can maintain the day-to-day financial demands and requirements without ever having the capital to address the huge deficit in infrastructure that it will never be able to address by saving money out of the annual operational costs in the block grant.
Take, for example, some of the problems in the Health Service to which Mr Close referred. Members know about the dreadful state of the orthopaedic services, paediatric services and cardiac units in Northern Ireland. It is not simply a question of pumping money for additional running cost into those institutions. Many of them do not have the appropriate capital investment in their infrastructure to deliver. I know of the recent case of a patient — not a National Health Service patient, but a BUPA patient. He was a senior figure in the accountancy world who had advised Governments; he was once the chairperson of a health trust. According to his cardiologist, he required cardiac surgery within seven days.
The earliest that the surgery could be performed in Northern Ireland, even if he were to pay for it, was in two and a half months’ time. The surgery was supposed to be performed within seven days. The cardiac surgeon advised him that he might have had to wait two years if he were a National Health Service patient. The problem was the total absence of the infrastructure that would have enabled cardiac surgeons, if they were available, to carry out the operation.
Mr Close gave a litany of defaults in the orthopaedic service. Many of our major orthopaedic units have suspended all elective operations for hip replacements for the elderly and other remedial surgery. There is no money for those.
The motion gives an estimated figure of £574,419,000, which is based, presumably, on 45% of what will be required for the full year. The cost of administering Government through the Assembly and the 10 Departments over the coming year will probably be in the region of £1·2 billion. Upwards of 10% of the entire block grant will be spent on administration — on the additional cost of 10 Departments, which are not designated as such on the basis of any economic approach or on grounds of efficiency or effectiveness. There are 10 Departments because a cobbled-together political arrangement required 10 Departments. The money will be spent not only on the additional cost of those Departments but on the additional costs of the Departments’ liaising with each other, and on the organisation of a traumatised and wrecked Civil Service, whose staff have oscillated from old Departments to new Departments. There is a whole range of additional costs. It costs approximately £1·2 billion to run this place.
Mr Close mentioned bureaucracy and increased government. None of the quangos, which we were promised would go when the tier of Government represented by the Assembly was established, have gone. All we have done is multiply the bureaucracy, the furnishings, the deep-pile plush carpets and reserved spaces, and create a bureaucracy that is stifling the governance of the Province.
In addition to the 26 councils and umpteen quangos, we have the biggest quango of all — here — a quango that is going to absorb in the region of £45 million in the coming year. Not only is this Assembly a quango by its very existence, the number of Members it contains cannot conceivably be justified on the basis of any rational comparison with any of the other devolved institutions in the United Kingdom. It certainly cannot be justified when compared with Scotland, which has far greater powers and a wider range of tax-raising abilities than we have. The Scottish Parliament has 129 Members for 5·5 million people. In addition to our 26 local councils, we have 108 Members for 1·6 million people. Wales has 60 Members for 3 million people. So much of the misgovernment of Northern Ireland has emanated from basing decisions, not on what was best for the governance of Northern Ireland, but on what was the most suitable political playpen for the political classes and on how the greatest possible number could participate in it.
However, we must not just look to the Health Service — there is also Mr Empey’s Department. Mr Empey is presiding over a financial empire that is in total decline. One need only read the brief for tomorrow’s debate on job losses in East Antrim to see what that Department is doing. It is estimated that there will be 4,000 job losses in that area.
Did the Department of Agriculture, for example, do a great deal to rescue the pork industry? It certainly minimised the effects of foot-and-mouth disease, aided by the fact that we are separated from the mainland by 21 miles of water. However, as Dr Paisley pointed out, what has it done to help the agriculture industry?
This Province has perhaps the best grammar school system in the UK, with an enormous number of children from both communities in Northern Ireland going to our own distinguished universities and to some of the most distinguished universities on the mainland and abroad. That system is about to be butchered on the shrine of some form of misguided political correctness, some sort of equality issue that states that the world is equal. It will be butchered, not on the basis of equality of opportunity, which we would all endorse, but on the basis of reducing every opportunity to some form of equality pap that everyone can ingest.
When we examine the Assembly’s function and what it was designed to do — namely, to provide good governance for all the people in Northern Ireland — and consider the money that has been provided and that is being used, not in relation to some aspiration to maintain the Union or any equal aspiration to create Irish unity, we find that it is failing miserably because the very basis of governance is directed to fulfilling the ambitions of the political class in this Disney theme park that passes for Government.
Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)
Earlier I pointed out some things that are valuable, such as provision of disabled access to schools, energy efficiency in schools, access to rheumatoid arthritis treatment, help for north Belfast and youth and community work. Does the Member agree that those good works show the value of what we are doing here?
Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)
All those issues, while important and valuable in themselves, are absolutely peripheral and marginal to the essential governance of Northern Ireland.
What are the main services that people in a modern society look to their Government to provide? Health, for one — the Health Service is a mess. That is acknowledged by everyone, whether Unionist, Nationalist or any other variety of politician. It is the worst mess in the United Kingdom. Our waiting lists are 50% longer than those in the rest of the UK, where waiting lists are already considered to be a disgrace.
We are on the verge of wrecking a perfectly good education system. I am not talking about the abolition of the 11-plus — I believe that that needs to be looked at.
I am not talking about preserving grammar schools just because that is where middle-class children are educated. I received such an education, and I was certainly not middle class, as were many others. Instead of fiddling about waging some sort of class war on education, whether we are in Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party, or any other party, we should be looking at how we can improve that part of our educational system that is not functioning as it should be, rather than taking a hatchet to that part which is good. That is not happening because political battles are being fought about other issues.
Value for money is very much the order of the day. Is the public getting value for money from this Assembly? The Assembly was supposed to provide more accessible, more sensitive, more effective, more accountable Government — it is doing none of those things. All the major services that the people expect a Government to provide have got far worse instead of better under devolved Government. Now this is not necessarily an attack on devolved Government as an abstract philosophy; it is an attack upon devolved Government as practised in this Assembly, and based upon a system which is not democratic at all. [Interruption].
Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)
Order. I cannot allow conversations to develop.
Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)
For example, look at the cost of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for last year, which was £35·5 million, give or take a few thousand — only marginally less than the cost of running the entire Assembly. What does the office administer, and what does it do? Money is being wasted on maladministration here. I see an hon Member smiling. Perhaps he would not be smiling if he was one of the 136 elderly folk who cannot get a community care package because of maladministration. Bed blocking costs £1,500 to £2,000 a time, but if a fair sum was paid to private nursing care, the cost could be a third of that price — but that is quango control.
The Assembly has done absolutely nothing to attack the cost of bureaucracy in administration and so reform its finances. We had a nicely delivered speech from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, but was it his speech, or was it the speech of the army of bureaucrats that are preparing everything? This is not devolved Government — this place is a bureaucrats’ paradise. Nothing in that speech addressed the sort of problems that Mr Close mentioned. We need fundamental reform of the financial system and better use of the funds available to us. I am not an admirer of devolution — certainly not in the form of this Assembly. However, we have devolution, and I am a democrat. Regardless of party, we should look very carefully at how devolution, as practised in Northern Ireland, is serving the people. There is little in these Estimates to indicate that it is doing that efficiently.
John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)
I hesitate to follow Bob McCartney, but much of what he said about how we are delivering, or trying to deliver and perhaps not succeeding, is correct. However, I want to take up his last point about a public administration review. In January 1999, we were told that this public review would be undertaken. Three years later there is not one quango fewer, not one trust fewer and not one board fewer.
No Department can plan anything until the matter of public administration has been resolved. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education cannot be blamed for all the ills. However, they do get the blame; and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in particular, is blamed for the waiting lists, the lack of orthopaedic surgery and the lack of cardiac surgery.
Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)
The Member will acknowledge that in my speech or my criticism I never mentioned the Minister once.
John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)
I am not suggesting that the Member did. I am merely saying that until the review of public administration has been sorted out, every Department will be hampered in how it advances its particular agenda. That is all I was saying.
The Member is right when he says that we are overburdened in comparison to Scotland or Wales. However, we must take into account the special circumstances and the fact that this Assembly came into being to resolve a political question rather than an economic or a social one — although we are attempting to address those along the way.
At the core of this — and this was touched on — is the lack of collective responsibility and of a concerted approach at the centre to resolve pressing social, economic, health, education and housing problems. The fact that a public administration review has been taking place since January 1999 without having advanced one iota indicates the lack of collective responsibility for resolving these matters.
Certainly, there may be difficulties with one party, which is prepared and happy to live off the largesse of the Good Friday Agreement without bearing the responsibilities that derive from the agreement, a party whose members put their fingers and thumbs into the political pie of the Good Friday Agreement and pull out the political plums without bearing their share of collective responsibility.
During the last big debate about health in this Chamber, it was said over and over again that health was being starved of money. Seamus Close said that Mark Durkan acknowledged that health was the priority in the Programme for Government when he introduced his Budget. Yet health still remains to be prioritised for funding. During the Budget debate Mark Durkan said that what he was giving to health would allow the health programme merely not to stand still. Bob McCartney and other Members have made it clear that it must do more than not stand still. If we care, if our function is to meet the social needs of the people whom we are elected to serve, health must be at the very centre of how we deliver our responsibilities. If the Executive cannot get their act together on their collective responsibility to health, then how can they get their act together in dealing with other responsibilities?
The Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Services (NICON), which is at the core of the Health Service, has already indicated that the Health Service requires an extra £100 million a year, or £1 billion over 10 years. That sum is necessary to allow the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to plan a strategy that can deliver at the point of need and that can address the serious shortcomings in all the disciplines in the medical services, such as orthopaedics, cardiac surgery and cancer in all its manifestations. The Health Service is badly behind in its infrastructure and is unable to address long waiting lists and delays in dealing with cancer. We have had and continue to have —
Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)
The Member raises an interesting point that I referred to earlier. He said that the Ministers in the Executive must get their act together. I presume that he means that they have not yet got their act together. Secondly, is it not the case that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, as other Ministers, agreed with the Minister of Finance and Personnel the budget for her Department? Does the Member confirm that? In other words, each Minister takes responsibility for what he or she has already agreed.
John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)
Yes, but in attempting to address the Health Service, not in the short term or on a day-to-day basis —
Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)
Long term.
John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)
Yes, the long-term aspect has not been addressed. As a priority in the Programme for Government, the Executive undertook to address the long-term ability to deal with the shortcomings in the Health Service. If any Minister goes to the Executive to plead for their particular area of responsibility, they will get only what they ask for. There needs to be a commitment at the centre of Government, not just one Department, to this area that affects everyone; it affects the social, economic and health well-being of the community. There should be a collective responsibility in addressing that issue and the obvious shortcomings in that particular Department. That has not been done.
In their Programme for Government, the Executive have failed to prioritise health and in the collective responsibility to address health. It is clear to most people that that has not been addressed. If it had been seriously addressed, then we would not have the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ and all health disciplines continually complaining about a lack of funding. The sad fact is that the people at the coalface, those who are most anxious to see an end to waiting lists in whatever discipline, are those who are suffering the most.
It is not good enough to suggest that a budget that is brought before the Executive satisfies a particular Minister. It is not the responsibility of one Minister. The Executive are responsible for addressing health issues and the way in which they are failing the Health Service. I will not make a plea on behalf of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Everyone is aware of the state of health provision in our community.
There is no point in tying the hands of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and then sniping from the sidelines. Health is a priority, so let us get the funding right. Let us get on with the review of public administration that we have been waiting for, and let us allow the Health Minister to get on with her job.
George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)
I have listened carefully to Members’ comments. Some interesting statistics were quoted.
As a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I have heard how much money is needed to deal with brucellosis, tuberculosis and other diseases — the figures are shocking. What could we do with that money if we had it today? Veterinary scientists who know as much about the matter as some of our departmental specialists have asked me whether the vaccination of all farm animals has been considered. All two- or three-day-old cattle must be vaccinated against various diseases. The need to vaccinate animals becomes clearer every day, but insufficient thought has been given to the matter. The millions of pounds that are spent at the moment are a drain of resources from the country. That money could be put to better use.
Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the Assembly quorate?
Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)
Yes.
George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)
I listened to the questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety today, and I asked her an important question. I also attended an event at the Long Gallery today during which cancer and the work of Macmillan Cancer Relief were discussed. I do not want to compare the two discussions. The number of doctors per capita in Northern Ireland by comparison to the equivalent figures for other countries does not bear thinking about. It almost seems as if people here do not care.
An environmental point that was not made is that if nothing is done about the pollution of this country we will gradually poison ourselves. It used to be possible to use water from a well, but that is no longer the case, because everything is at risk of pollution.
I hope that the Departments get their act together. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I would have liked to have had the opportunity to propose how much money is needed for specific purposes. Although I do not miss many meetings, I did not have the opportunity to make my case. In December 2000 we put forward a case for an early retirement scheme and long-term low-interest loans for the agriculture sector. Not enough serious thought has been put into those issues. However, bearing in mind what is happening in various sectors, a time will come when the people who come after us will say that we had our opportunity and did not take it.
Mr Close and Ms Morrice talked about the number of accidents on our roads. What have we been doing to counteract that? What cost do you put on a life? People have talked about how much it costs to run the Assembly. What is the cost of saving one life, five lives, or ten lives? It is bound to bear fruit eventually. There are many things that the Assembly could be taking a greater interest in.
Look at the size of the budget we have to discuss — and see how few Members are sitting in the House today. Those who are not here should be ashamed of themselves. I do not know where they are. Ministers — with their big Departments — should be here today to fight their corner. They should show more interest. They need not leave it to the Back-Benchers to do it for them. That will not happen. I will not take the blame for people who should be making more of an effort to debate the matters that come before us.
We have talked about the many issues that face this country at present. Mr John Kelly pointed to the three main questions — health, standards of living and food protection. We can do something about those matters. With all due respect to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and her Department, it would not matter who held that post. The Minister and the Department must address the crisis. There is a large backlog — and we have had a mild winter. I dread to think what might have happened in our hospitals had the winter been a rough one.
One of the big hospitals — Craigavon Area Hospital — is in my constituency. Problems are emerging there week in, week out. If that hospital had the facilities and the nursing manpower, it could do something about the existing problems. The nurses there are heavily overworked, and the hospital does not have the facilities to cope with the number of patients coming through its doors. More money should be put into recruiting young doctors, because there is a scarcity of them. Doctors will not come into the Health Service unless they are going to be able to provide proper care and attention. When you consider the challenges they face and the hours they have to work you cannot blame them for not going down the Health Service route. Dr Adamson, who is sitting behind me, is a very experienced doctor, and I am sure he will bear out what I am saying.
I wish that Ministers would take Committees more into their confidence and allow them to have a greater input into determining budgets. We must be realistic: if we are not, then the work of the last three or four years will have been in vain.
John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)
There are some technical matters that I would like to address, the first of which relates to the Northern Ireland Audit Office spring Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02. The Audit Committee has statutory responsibility for agreeing and presenting the Audit Office Estimate, and as Chairperson, I am speaking in support of its bid for a Supplementary Estimate of £49,000. That amount was included in its original submission to the Audit Committee for its 2001-02 funding. However, for technical reasons, it was not possible for the money to be included in the Main Estimates, and it was agreed with the Department of Finance and Personnel that it should be provided by a Supplementary Estimate. The Audit Committee has agreed the amount requested in the Supplementary Estimate, and I commend it for the approval of the Assembly.
The second matter concerns the Northern Ireland Audit Office Vote on Account for 2002-03. The amounts requested for the Vote on Account are £2,096,000 in cash and £2,320,000 in resources. The Audit Committee will soon meet with the Comptroller and Auditor General to discuss his office’s spending plans for 2002-03. In the meantime, I am satisfied that the amounts have been calculated using the standard formulae, and I commend them to the Assembly for approval.
Now that that formality is out of the way, I wish to remove my Chairperson’s hat and speak as a Member of the Assembly — [Interruption].
Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)
and make yourself more money.
John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)
I am just regulating the technicalities. The budget of approximately £4·5 million is a huge sum of money that must be spent in the way in which it was intended. There must be no flaws in the procurement procedures, and it must be clearly shown that the public gets excellent value for money. The task of verifying that money is properly spent falls to the Northern Ireland Audit Office under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I want to place on record my total confidence in the Audit Office and its staff. The reports that the office has produced have enabled the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise public spending in a way that was not possible under direct rule. The Public Accounts Committee has tackled its job without fear or favour, and it deserves the support of the entire Assembly. I am sorry that it does not always receive that support. The reports are, without exception, balanced and fair. I have left it to others to express concerns about health, education, agriculture and other issues that have been discussed.
I want to use my limited time to highlight the absolute need to ensure that all Government Departments and non-departmental Government bodies play their part in rebuilding this economy that has been so damaged under direct rule. During that time bad practices crept in, accountability was less than acceptable, and on some occasions a degree of arrogance evolved when money and, indeed, people were being dealt with. Reports prepared by the Audit Office are agreed and signed off by the accounting officer responsible for the Department to which the report relates. There is a genuine wish that reports are not delayed before they are signed off. It is fundamental that the reports are published quickly, so that the Public Accounts Committee has the opportunity to scrutinise them with the Comptroller and Auditor General before arranging a public hearing at which the relevant Department’s accounting officer has an opportunity to answer questions. That is fundamental to change for the better.
I believe that I have the full support of the Assembly when I say that Members will take it seriously if they discover that reports are held up unnecessarily. If that were to become widespread, it would cause enormous damage to the work of the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The problem is not widespread by any means, but there is concern that a report relating to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has not been signed off in order that it could be published this week. As I have said, that concerns me and, no doubt, others.
The Minister recently undertook to ensure, as far as is practical, that reports are not unduly held up. I draw that fact to the Assembly’s attention in the belief that the current delay will be brief.
William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
As Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I note the Department of the Environment’s overall planned expenditure rise of 10% to £110·9 million for 2002-03.
Members of the House will recall that my Committee successfully fought to restore the proposed £2 million that was cut from the local resources grant. The cut would have applied to the 16 poorest councils. That would have been a major injustice that would have directly contradicted the Executive’s targeting social need policy. It is interesting to note that the proposal to cut district council resources arose because of inescapable new pressures — some £2 million — on EU international obligations. My Committee examined the nature of those new pressures and fully supported the priority that the Department attached to them. For example, there was pressure applied to advance long overdue action on waste management. I shall return to that subject later.
I shall explain to the House what my Committee did to scrutinise the Department of the Environment’s budget proposals for 2002-03. We obtained the full breakdown of the Department’s discretionary expenditure of £14·6 million, having set aside inescapable expenditure such as salaries, EU obligations, local government derating and the resources grant. We questioned senior officials to justify that expenditure, having categorised it by priority — high, medium and low — and to explain the consequences of not meeting each item of expenditure. We scrutinised the Department’s potential asset sales, the scope to increase the use of receipts to fund baseline expenditure and the potential to fast-track EU compliance expenditure for 2002-03 to utilise moneys being surrendered in this financial year.
I noticed that some Members in the House feel that their Committees have not been able to get enough information from Ministers or from Departments. If they accept such a situation, that says more about them than about the Departments, as I assure the House that when my Committee desires to have information, we are not put off easily.
The Committee concluded that there was little scope or flexibility in the Department’s budget to make savings or switch resources. It is essential to protect the sizeable budget element, to implement EU obligations, and to maintain and build on much needed services, such as planning services, where there is a clear increase in demand. In the light of the Committee’s conclusion, and the reality of emerging EU international obligation budget pressures, I ask the new Minister of Finance and Personnel, along with his Colleague the Minister of the Environment, to consider ring-fencing the provision for local government services and the EU international obligation provision within the Department of the Environment’s budget.
District councils are at the forefront of many important initiatives under way to protect our environment that link directly to EU Directives. For example, waste management plans and the local air quality schemes are important issues. Therefore, to ring-fence the local government budget would provide the financial stability to allow councils to implement quickly that essential work, which would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland. My Committee has taken a particular interest in recent months in getting the three regional waste management plans funded and operational.
We questioned representatives from the three groups and also departmental officials on two separate occasions in an endeavour to find ways to hasten their work and to help them to meet their EU obligations. Members of the Committee welcomed the long-awaited launch of the plans last week, and I assure the House that my Committee will continue its monitoring and will do whatever is necessary to ensure that those plans are delivered quickly.
The Committee was alarmed to learn that £1 million of the Department’s budget for waste management was surrendered in October 2001. Having pressed the Department of the Environment and the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Committee has received written assurances that any shortfall in the waste management budget for 2002-03 will be favourably treated in in-year bids, bearing in mind that the work is essential to meet EU obligations. The Committee was reminded of the importance of that work last week, when it was advised that failure to meet the EU Directive on waste management could incur United Kingdom fines of £400,000 a day at the end of the year. The Northern Ireland Executive Budget would contribute directly to such fines if Northern Ireland failed to implement the Directive.
The Committee recognises the strong case for increasing expenditure in some other Departments but makes the point that a sizeable increase in the £111 million allocated to the Department of the Environment’s baseline would be marginal in the Northern Ireland block of over £6 billion. That increase would, however, have a significant impact on the protection of the environment — a Cinderella during direct rule. The Assembly should consider allocating proper funding to secure and sustain Northern Ireland’s primary asset before it is too late.
I shall remove the hat of the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment and speak on other issues.
Mr John Kelly stated that we were overburdened and that additional resources were necessary and quick action was needed on the public administration review. Coming from Sinn Féin those are interesting remarks. It was to please Sinn Féin party sponsors that the Assembly was overburdened, in relation to the size of Northern Ireland, with 108 elected Members. It was to placate Sinn Féin’s greed that 10 Departments were formed instead of six. That was to allow Sinn Féin to get its greedy hands on two ministries. It was also to placate the idealism of so-called Sinn Féin that over £50 million is being spent on cross-border bodies. All of this was at the insistence of Sinn Féin and its fellow travellers. It is rather rich, to say the least, for Sinn Féin to lecture the Assembly about the need for allocating money to Departments for which it has responsibility.
There is no doubt that people’s health is a priority, and the House has recognised that in allocating resources in the past, and I trust that it will do so in the future. I have said it before, and I shall say it again — it is not simply the allocation of resources that makes an effective Department. One of the major catastrophes of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not just lack of funding in the past but that the Department is without leadership. The ship is rudderless because the Minister is totally ineffective, without vision or effort.
We have a crisis in the Health Service. Mr Close mentioned the British Medical Association. Much of the Department’s work has been dictated by various Royal College instructions and diktats, rather than by a consideration of the whole picture and the needs of acute services throughout the community.
For example, the elderly feel forsaken. We had several debates on that issue in the Chamber. We allocated money for nursing care for the elderly in nursing homes. However, we have been told that the elderly will continue to be drained of their savings until October. It will be another eight to ten months before the will of the Assembly will be implemented.
It was the Assembly’s will that the Department should take the responsibility for nursing costs. The Department will not take that responsibility immediately. The Minister tells us that the elderly will have to wait until October. They will have to pay for their own care, and their resources will be drained away while the Assembly’s resolution that the elderly should be relieved of that financial burden is set aside until October.
I have heard the fanciful statements about who is to blame. New Labour blames the Conservatives for everything. Certainly, there are problems for which the Conservatives must carry the blame. However, we have had direct rule under the Conservatives and under Labour. The lack of resources is the responsibility of the Labour Government as well as of the former Conservative Government.
Recently the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ published an article showing that six years ago, under direct Conservative rule, there were 22,000 nurses in Northern Ireland. However, under the Assembly and the Minister there are 16,000 nurses. Surely there is something wrong. It cannot be blamed on the then Conservative Government, because the figure of 22,000 refers to the period when the Conservatives left office. The lower figure refers to the period under the new Labour Administration and then the Assembly. If the figures are correct — and they have been in the public arena — the Department of Health ought to hang its head in shame.
This is why our nurses are overworked and why many of them are at the end of their personal resources and suffering health breakdowns. That decline did not happen under the Conservative Government, behind which the Minister seems to hide, but under her stewardship. The bottom line is that the Minister is not capable of doing the job.
If we want more resources, we should look at the 10 Departments, the constant stream of finance that goes to the cross-border bodies, and the number of elected representatives in this Chamber. There are quangos and a public administration review that does not seem to get off the ground. Many people heralded that the Assembly would grasp the quangos and the public administration by the neck and arrest the decline in our public services.
That has not been the reality. We have gone in the opposite direction. The stream of finance to the quangos flows on; money flows into more quangos and cross- border bodies, which are not answerable to this Chamber of elected representatives.
The increase in finances being pumped into the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must be examined. Resources must be scrutinised carefully in order to determine the purpose for which they are being used.
Let us consider the roads. I appreciate that the Minister is right in relation to finances for particular schemes. However, the Minister cannot evade his responsibility in relation to the infrastructure. Unless money is allocated to the Department for Regional Development, the need to enhance the infrastructure throughout the Province cannot become a reality. Members agree that transport — roads and rail — has in the past been a disaster with regard to finances. Transport was put on the back-burner, as were many other things. However, that is no excuse for the Assembly not providing for, or meeting, the challenge.
I mentioned the Magherafelt bypass. The bypass would not only enhance the economic future of my own district of Magherafelt but also that of Cookstown, which is where all traffic must go in order to reach the seaports and airports. The constant blockages and the time wasted sitting in traffic in Magherafelt are detrimental to the economic development of the Cookstown district as well as Magherafelt. Adequate finances must be made available, and that is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
Farming has been mentioned already. I reiterate the demand for a retirement scheme that will allow farmers to retire with dignity. Many of the problems facing that industry, more so than any other, have not come about as a result of the irresponsibility or neglect of the farming community in Northern Ireland, which has produced primary goods and given us its best. Many of the challenges that have arisen, such as BSE and other problems in the pig and sheep sectors, have been out of the control of farmers. Farmers looked to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for guidance. They were given guidance, to which they adhered. Unfortunately, farmers paid the price for listening to that advice.
A retirement scheme would allow farmers to retire with dignity and honour. However, there must be a young entrants scheme so that the young people of the Province’s rural community can see a future and a vision for farming. If Northern Ireland’s farmers do not provide food, farmers in some other part of the EU will do so instead. Why should our farmers have their backs to the wall because of negativity in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and in the Administration?
Farmers are being assisted elsewhere. When Northern Ireland’s pig farmers had their backs to the wall, the Department was unwilling to help them. We were told that EU regulations would not allow that. France is in the EU, and it was one of the guiding fathers of those regulations, yet the French Government were able to help their farmers. The French Government provided resources for their farmers and bailed them out when their backs were against the wall. Ministers told me that EU rules could not be broken. Of course, France and the Irish Republic can break the rules, but Northern Ireland cannot. In the end, those farmers who were supported by their Government managed to stay in the field.
They continued and, in actual fact, their financial position has been enhanced. It is sad to say that our Government let many farmers go to the wall. It is also sad to say that many of the banks and finance houses in this country that goaded the farmers into debt turned on them when their backs were against the wall and looked for their pound of flesh, rather than assisting them.
I want to speak on a subject as an elected representative for my constituency. It is very difficult to get through even as many as eight questions in Question Time, especially questions on health. A person speaks in gibberish and then in English, and that is given as an excuse for not answering questions. Fewer questions are answered because it takes double the time.
The Minister of Education, in reply to a question, talked much today about our children being equal. I invite any Member of the Assembly to visit schools in Magherafelt and see if our children are equal. There is a primary school and a secondary school in Magherafelt in the state, or controlled, sector that are in deplorable conditions. In the maintained sector, millions of pounds have been spent in St Mary’s. Millions of pounds have also been spent, and are currently being spent, in St Pius’s. In the person’s own constituency, however, Magherafelt High School is in a deplorable condition.
Children are not equal. Protestant children in that constituency are being discriminated against. We are compiling the figures, because they will speak for themselves. When equality of treatment for all schoolchildren is paraded as a supposed ideal, I, as a public representative, must ensure that equality of treatment for all schoolchildren — in the controlled, maintained and independent sectors — will be a reality and that discrimination against the state or controlled sector will be brought to an end.
All is not well in education — far from it. Even in this debate I trust that, as an elected representative, I have the opportunity of blowing the trumpet with a very certain sound to ensure that we have action rather than pious words.
Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)
We know, as the wider public knows, that the resources from the Treasury are not sufficient to meet the needs of this society. One of the few ways of raising funds for health, education, roads and all other services that have been mentioned today that are needed by people in our constituencies is through the rates. Although no one in the House likes to raise the issue of rates, realistically we must depend on rates to raise much needed revenue. It is, of course, essential to develop innovative means of funding and efficiency so that we can reduce our dependence upon rates.
I welcome the Minister’s statement. I am very aware of the pressures faced by the Executive in meeting demands with limited resources. As a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I am heartened by the statement. It is clear that the new Minister is as committed to making those funds go a long way as his predecessor was. It is important that we support and approve the actions of the Minister of Finance and Personnel. His job is a difficult and complex one, and he is doing it fairly and professionally. However, it is insufficient just to offer congratulations from these Benches.
All Members, and particularly those in the Executive and the Committees, must work ceaselessly in pursuit of the goals of everyone in our community. We must be watchful of expenditures that do not meet existing priorities. We must continually question the use of resources in every Department and ask if such use represents value for money. The pressures on the Health Service have been discussed today and have been recognised by the Minister and the Executive. In the 2001 Budget, the whole allocation of £27·8 million for Northern Ireland announced in the pre-Budget statement went on health, together with an immediate cash injection of £8 million for this year. In total the amount allocated to health for the next year represents an increase of 9·7% on the current year’s provision. That must be welcomed.
It has been said before that the Health Service needs resources, but the House must be assured that funds are being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. I, therefore, welcome the needs and effectiveness evaluations that have been undertaken in several Departments. Will the Minister tell us when those reviews will be completed?
The Minister said that the reviews of the Executive programme funds were under way. I agree with the concept of those funds; they are a sign that the new Administration is committed to using the funds in an innovative way that truly supports cross-departmental actions. In reviewing the Executive programme funds, I ask the Minister to ensure that the concept remains intact. What is the timetable for the completion of that review?
I appreciate that the Barnett formula can be misunderstood. It is not simply a case of seeking a review of the formula, with the subsequent assumption that we will receive a larger share of the block grant. Members should take into account the risk involved in pressing for a re-examination of the Barnett formula — it could end up with a negative result. I ask the Minister to address the issue in his summing-up and to outline how the Executive intend to take it forward.
I welcome the changes brought about by the monitoring process and budgets, which we decided for ourselves. Local decision-making is beginning to take effect, and we can set our own priorities. Again, everyone should welcome that.
I share some of the frustrations expressed about the process and timing of the Supplementary Estimates. The issues are difficult, and Members want to understand them fully and contribute to the process. Perhaps the Minister will consider providing a summary of the decisions or take steps to assist us in fully buying into the budgetary process.
I support the Supply resolution, and ask the House to do the same, and more, to build a resource base for the future.
Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)
At this point much of what had to be said about the general issues surrounding the allocation of resources has been said. I do not want to make a plea for special cases in areas in which I am particularly interested or which would benefit the constituency and the groupings that I represent. That plea ought to be made, but I will look first at the general concept of the debate.
Many Members spoke about the opportunity to scrutinise. Ms Lewsley said that we must work ceaselessly and be watchful of expenditure that does not meet priorities. Mr Savage wanted a bigger input into determining the Budget. I listened to special cases for health, for cutting waiting lists, for dealing with the environment, farming issues and all the other areas of disadvantage. I find it difficult to believe that Members want to have a bigger input into the Budget but also want to examine matters that should not be priorities. What priorities do they have in their minds?
How enslaved are they to their party Whips?
Is it a bigger priority to spend over £50 million on the political correctness of cross-border bodies than it is to spend the money on hospitals so that people who are hobbling about in pain can have hip replacements? Is it a bigger priority to give the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister a budget equivalent to that required to run the Assembly? The Programme for Government states that its budget should be used to
"assist the Executive in making and implementing well-informed and timely policy decisions and improving public services".
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is allocated almost £16 million to do that. Is that really a priority? Are those things a priority in the minds of Members? Those are just a few examples.
Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)
I am sure that the Member will remember from his previous professional expertise that there is a strong argument that the significant demand for healthcare is practically infinite in the United Kingdom because it is provided free at the point of use. Can he help the House by outlining how many extra millions are necessary for healthcare? All the £50 million from the North/South bodies could be put into the health system, only to find that it makes little difference.
Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)
I am glad that the Member raised that point, because I intend to speak about resources. We could, perhaps, pump another £50 million into the Health Service and find that it is still not enough. However, even if that were the case, I should prefer to see that money put into services that affect the lives of constituents than see it go to politically correct institutions that are in place only to satisfy the demands of Sinn Féin and the SDLP.
The question of whether the Assembly has made the Administration accountable has not been asked. Either that or Members really do have a skewed sense of what is important. My Colleague Dr McCrea reminded us that we were told that there would be an assault on quangos. Quangos, to use his words, would be "grasped by the neck". They have been grasped by the neck — they have been hugged.
The two main parties in the Assembly have definitely hugged them. They could not wait to set quangos up and put some of their prime members on them. They did not want to do away with quangos; they wanted to institute more of them.
Has the Assembly addressed the way in which the costs of administration have burgeoned? It has not.
One of the reasons for that is that the Assembly’s pro-agreement parties have put in place layers of administration to suit their own political demands. Some are too afraid to upset the others and are therefore whipped into backing certain views. Their words in the House show that they are not happy that money should be spent in such a way. However, their votes in the Lobbies belie their words, because they vote for the very things that they say they oppose. This should be a significant debate — it should be a debate about priorities and resources. At the end of the debate, Members should vote according to how they have spoken. That will not happen, because they will find someone else to blame. Mr John Kelly epitomises that approach.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has received a big increase in resources, as Dr Birnie mentioned. Nevertheless, we are told that there is still a crisis. They used to be able to blame the Brits. There are still Members who blame direct rule, even though direct rule ended four years ago, just as the Labour Party still blames the Conservatives. Mr John Kelly has refined that approach; he no longer blames the Minister responsible, but the Executive. Someone else is always to blame. He should consider how the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has used resources. She seems more interested in employing linguists to do her interpretations than she is in employing doctors and nurses to do what patients need; yet we still hear criticism and people crying and moaning that they need more resources.
Certain areas must be addressed. I shall not say a great deal about this matter — I said that I would not make pleas for special cases. However, we must consider housing provision. I say that because I am on the Social Development Committee and have a special interest in that matter. It is wrong to think that we can rejuvenate run-down areas of Northern Ireland if we do not put money into urban regeneration, including housing. It is fair to ask for additional resources. I have not been pleading many special cases. On occasions, I have made pleas for more money for the roads network or for schools — I recently tabled a motion on the need for additional capital for school buildings. However, it is not enough continually to hold out our hands to the Exchequer and say that the Barnett formula must be improved or changed. I would dread the Exchequer’s doing that.
Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)
The Member says that it is not enough simply to hold our hands out to the Exchequer, and he spoke about people saying one thing in the Chamber and voting for another in the Lobbies. Does he recall that when an attempt was made to raise additional capital by raising the regional rate he and his Colleagues walked through the "Noes" Lobby?
Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)
It is not enough to dip our hands into the pockets of people who struggle from day to day to pay their bills and to keep their businesses going. It is not enough to pick money out of the wallets of people who are living just above the threshold of benefit support and say that we expect them to pay the bill for our folly. I have already outlined in the Assembly ways in which we could change the spending priorities that would not require us to put small businesses and vulnerable people on low or medium incomes in greater difficulty. The Member should not say that I simply walked through the "Noes" Lobby and left the problem to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
We have suggested ways. Of course, the easy way out is to simply go along with the present pattern of expenditure and say, "Let the poor ratepayer pay for it". However, that is not an answer, and, at the end of the day, that will cause great difficulty.
William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
Does my hon Friend agree that it would be more honourable to tell people that they are being taxed? The SDLP suggested another form of taxation, but that was to be introduced through the back door and not in an honourable way. It is far better to be honourable and tell people that you are taxing them — then at least they will know whether to support you.
Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)
Thank you for that useful intervention.
I now turn to some of the points that Dr Birnie made. We must look for innovative ways of obtaining the additional resources needed to deliver public services. Perhaps the Assembly should be a little more innovative and should examine how current ways of delivering services could be changed to bring in additional finance.
There has been recent discussion about raising money through bonds to bring in additional revenue to deal with some of the capital and service requirements in Northern Ireland. That also requires a radical examination of how those services are delivered and whether they are delivered solely through the public sector. I have no problem with that. I believe that many people in Northern Ireland do not care whether their services are directed solely by a public body or whether they are delivered by a body at arm’s length from the public sector, which is run on a non-profit-making basis and which can draw down extra resources, provided — and this is the important thing — that they get a decent service. People are interested in the outcome; not where the input comes from. There is a range of services that we could deal with in that way.
I have heard opposition in the Assembly to PFI because it puts money in the hands of private contractors. I have no great difficulty with PFI schemes and, indeed, if more capital projects can be delivered in that way, I am quite happy to consider it.
The Assembly must look beyond dipping its hands into the pockets of the taxpayers, many of whom cannot afford it, and holding out a begging bowl to Westminster. If it can be proved through needs assessment that we are entitled to more money then we should be arguing the case. However, we cannot always rely on saying "We deserve this", whether justified or not.
The fundamental issues of the Assembly have been addressed in the debate: whether the Assembly has a mechanism which holds the Executive accountable; whether Members are so constrained by their party Whips that they do not vote in the way that they speak, and whether we are prepared to address the radical issue of how we obtain additional resources beyond the two main ways that we addressed the issue in the past, in order to deliver some of the services that are much needed.
Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)
Before I call the Minister to respond, I would like to make an observation that I have made at other times in the House — that it is unfortunate that Members who have asked questions of the Minister do not have the courtesy to remain when he responds.
Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)
I have listened with great interest to the points that have been raised by Members, and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The debate has been used to make general and particular points relevant to the Budget. Many Members have used it for wider purposes, rehearsing well-worn arguments on the nature of our political institutions and their origin — but that is the nature of such debates. In my response, I shall attempt to focus on those matters that directly pertain to issues raised in my introductory remarks.
Today’s debate provides a further valuable opportunity to hear and consider Members’ concerns about our spending plans. This is only the second occasion on which we have presented Supplementary Estimates to the Assembly. In many areas, our budgetary process is in the early stages of development and is still evolving. Undoubtedly, it will evolve taking note of the recommendations and points made by Members in their contributions. I am no guardian of the kind of status quo that some allege we have, and I share with Members the desire and the conviction that ran through many of the contributions — ensuring that the Government are efficient and effective in meeting the needs of all our people.
The spring Supplementary Estimates draw together the spending decisions made by the Executive during the year. Some Members seem to be approaching these Supply resolutions as if they were being presented for their consideration for the very first time. Of course, that is not the case. We have been through these issues in statements on the monitoring rounds and in the considerable period allocated to the consideration of the Budget before it was adopted before Christmas. That period allowed all Members, both in Plenary and in Committee, considerable scrutiny and consideration of the priorities in today’s Supply resolutions. I remind Members that these same issues have been before them for consideration in much the same terms as they are being presented today. Members should not speak as if this were the first time.
Several points and questions were raised during the debate, and I shall cover as many as I can now. Other, more detailed, questions, such as those posed by Ms Morrice, will require a more considered response later. Mr Molloy, Mr Close and others again raised concerns that people have not had enough time to consider the Supplementary Estimates; I have already dealt with that. I want to reaffirm what Mr Close said: we continue to look for improvements in scrutinising the spending allocations and the Estimates. I want to address the point fairly and frankly. There will never be much more time for Committee and Assembly scrutiny at this stage of the cycle, which falls tightly between decisions on December monitoring and the need for completing the approved process before the end of the year.
However, I reiterate that there is much more time to examine the issues, at several stages. First, the most important stage in each cycle is the autumn, when the Assembly can consider the issues that arise between the draft Budget and the revised Budget. Secondly, there is a considerable period between now and the debate on the Main Estimates in June. The motion covers an amount on account for 2002-03; the Main Estimates will simply complete that process in more detail.
Committees can, and should, take up issues relating to the Estimates for 2002-03 between now and the debates about them in June. There is a considerable amount of time left, therefore I do not accept the complaint of some Members that there is not always sufficient time to scrutinise the matters fully. I recognise that the timescale in this part of the cycle is tight, but we are revisiting issues in respect of which there has been much opportunity for debate and scrutiny.
Finally, and most importantly, we are about to begin an important spending review. In looking to the future, Committees and the Assembly can now begin to scrutinise and analyse spending plans for 2003-04. Seamus Close pointed out that the Estimates were prepared on a resource basis, as were the Main Estimates last June, and cover allocations previously announced after the June, September and December monitoring rounds, all of which were the subject of detailed statements to the Assembly. The Estimates also cover the second round of allocations from the Executive programme funds, which were the subject of a statement to the House on 3 December.
Information on all the significant issues that were addressed today has been available to the Committees. The Committees could have pursued any matter with their Departments through the available channels on the basis of information that was provided in the context of earlier monitoring decisions and Budget proposals.
I was impressed by the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment’s point that that Committee had set about prioritising and, in consultation with the Department, addressing the priorities that had been set by the Department and itself. He said that there should be no reason why other Committees might not adopt a similar approach and that it should not be difficult to obtain the level of access to departmental officials that the Environment Committee had to its Department. I believe that it is. Therefore, we should examine carefully how Committees contribute to the prioritisation and scrutiny process, both in retrospect and in prospect.
I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the views that were expressed, particularly the need to allow more time for consideration of the issues and to provide more user-friendly documentation. We will re-examine the issue and consider what improvements we could make. I will continue to take on board the Finance and Personnel Committee’s views in that regard. I trust that the Committee will acknowledge that in my short period in office I have lost no time in making myself available to it when my presence was requested. I have also made myself available to the Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson.
I again emphasise that Committees are free to ask questions at any stage of the processes that are now being concluded in these Estimates. That applies equally to discussions about the annual Budget and each monitoring round. Committee members do not need a signal from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that they may begin their scrutiny.
Several members have reasonably pointed out the sheer complexity and comparison of the material in front of us. I share the sense that there are more questions than answers, and that answers are sometimes hard to find. The details in the Estimates are necessary to fulfil the legislative obligations on Departments and on the Department of Finance and Personnel, which mirrors practice elsewhere. I wonder what Members’ reactions would be if we were to provide less information. I imagine that the point would rightly be made that we were concealing details that Members were entitled to have access to as regards how we spend the finances available to us. So, regrettably there is a degree of detail and complexity in the documentation before us. That follows a requirement that I — and I would like to think that many, if not all, Members of the Assembly — would want to see upheld. We should be fully accountable; and we should provide all of the detail necessary to be accountable to the House for all of the expenditure that is undertaken in its name.
There is still a case of a fundamental review of our processes, but we must confirm this in terms of resources and capital — as now required under resource budgeting — and deal with the varied responsibilities of different organisations in Departments, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), North/South bodies, et cetera, all of which affect the complexity of the material in front of us. I have no difficulty with the proposition that we should continually review and update our processes in all of these regards.
Francie Molloy and Seamus Close expressed concerns about the amounts of funding that have regularly become available for in-year allocation. It is clearly an important principle that money not required for the purpose for which it was originally allocated should be made available for reallocation by the Executive and the Assembly. The nature of the in-year monitoring process also means that it is important that Departments identify easements as early as possible in the year, so that the funding can be deployed elsewhere. Monitoring rounds are therefore designed to deal with short-term, emerging spending pressures and easements. They are not a proper means of addressing longer-term, strategic spending priorities, and successful in-year bids do not imply that the additional resources will be available in subsequent years.
However, I imagine that, just as in the spending plans of almost any institution, if we were not in a position to address immediate pressures — emergencies — which cannot by their nature be anticipated when the detailed budgeting exercise is carried out, there would be significant complaints and concerns raised. If we were not to have the kind of flexibility that in-year monitoring provides us with, we would have to resort to an exercise such as reducing expenditure on programmes that were already in train. Members would find themselves faced with unenviable choices in that situation.
While we endeavour to ensure that our budgetary planning is as precise and as focused as possible — I made this point to the Committee, and I did not hear any resiling from it — it is almost impossible to imagine a situation in which expenditure planned considerably in advance is going to be carried out in precisely the manner and to the last pound that it was planned for at that initial point.
As I explained in my opening remarks, the financial planning and budgetary cycle is lengthy. We are also in a time of transition, with new Departments undertaking new areas of work, and that can make it difficult to forecast accurately in advance. The Executive have agreed that we should look at our financial monitoring systems to see if we can understand the reasons for those underspends, with the aim of improving our forecasting.
The Executive programme funds referred to by Patricia Lewsley are a means by which the Executive are determined to break away from inherited spending patterns and to ensure that resources are targeted in line with the Executive’s strategic priorities. They are a clear response to the demand, frequently heard in this Chamber, that we should be innovative and break away from the old patterns of expenditure. I do not believe that we can break away completely. Many Members, upon scrutiny of current expenditure, would agree that much of it is well justified and necessary in order to ensure that the services that it is there to provide can continue to be delivered.
Notwithstanding that, the Executive have clearly stated that they want, within those constraints, to be innovative. We welcome views from Committees, and from the Floor of the House, with respect to how we might more effectively target Executive programme funds in future. Those funds represent a significant financial investment, and we need to be sure that they are achieving their objectives. We also wish to ensure that the processes for managing and allocating the funds are as efficient and effective as possible.
That is why the Executive are carrying out a review of the operation of the Executive programme funds. That review has been informed by the report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. While the Executive have still to consider the review, there are some issues that will need to be addressed, such as the promotion of cross-cutting work by Departments and greater administrative simplicity.
Many Members, including Seamus Close, John Kelly and Jane Morrice, referred to the problems in health and personal social services. I should not forget to add to that list Robert McCartney, who made one of his infrequent appearances among us this afternoon. Those problems are of great concern to the Executive, and we recognise that there are very real problems that need to be addressed. Next year, health spending will be some £224 million higher than the provision for the current year. That is almost 10% — 9·7%, for those who are keen on mathematical accuracy. That represents a very significant addition and clearly demonstrates the importance that we attach to that area. I recognise that some Members may not consider that level of funding to be anywhere near adequate.
As an Executive, we have to live within our overall budget, and additional funding for health and social care means less funding for some other area. The scale of the challenge facing the Executive has been made very clear today by the number of calls for increased spending on a variety of different programmes.
I also remind Members of the positive steps which the Executive have taken to control deficits and to try to ensure proper financial management and control in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. In response to a point raised by Jane Morrice, I confirm that the need for resources of £10 million for trust deficits was drawn to the Assembly’s attention in Mark Durkan’s statement on June monitoring. It is not something new that has been sprung upon us today. The Executive’s decision was made public during the summer recess.
We also need to recognise that additional resources represent only part of the solution. We must ensure that the expenditure that we are allocating is used to the greatest possible effect. To that end, we are carrying out a needs and effectiveness evaluation into health and social care so that we can better understand what we achieve with what we spend.
Members will appreciate that there are no easy answers. We will be paying careful attention to the question of health expenditure in our analysis of next year’s spending review. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel questioned the proposed local strategic partnership formula. This issue has caused concern, and I attempted to address it earlier during Question Time. I can confirm that the proposed allocations are consistent with the overall objectives of the Peace II programme, and that the use of population weighted by deprivation is a specific European Commission requirement in the operational programme.
Francie Molloy also called for greater investment west of the Bann, invoking new targeting social need as the basis for his call. The policy aims to tackle social need and social exclusion throughout Northern Ireland. This will mean using more of our existing resources to benefit people and areas in greatest objective social need. It also means delivering our policies in ways that are more helpful to those in need. New targeting social need is implemented through a range of policies and programmes, and I am confident that it will have a positive impact on tackling unemployment and addressing inequality wherever those problems exist.
Eddie McGrady raised the question of additional funding announcements for English programmes such as health, education and transport. I can confirm that my officials closely monitor those areas as part of their regular liaison with the Treasury. Of course, any resultant resources are referred to the Executive for decisions on allocation, usually in the next available monitoring round, rather than simply going to the comparable programme here. However, I caution Members to read the small print when they hear announcements made in Whitehall or elsewhere before making points about an immediate consequential allocation here, proportionate to what may or may not have been announced across the water.
Mr McGrady asked whether funding was available for the implementation of the Hayes review. The Executive will shortly be considering how to take that review forward and will be carefully examining the potential expenditure implications over the coming months. Mr McGrady also asked about residential care for the elderly. Last year, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety established an interdepartmental working group to examine the costs and implications of introducing free personal care. Once this group reports its findings, the Executive will need to consider the implications of this policy in light of their other priorities.
The same Member also raised the identification of additional sources of funding for public services. This is a key area for further consideration, and its importance to the Executive is evidenced by its inclusion as a priority in the Programme for Government, with actions on such issues as public-private partnerships and a review of rating policy.
Eddie McGrady, Rev Dr Ian Paisley and Rev Dr William McCrea raised the issue of funding for agricultural development in 2002-03. The position on the vision group has been advised to the Assembly on several occasions. The consultation period has ended, and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has begun to draw up a strategic plan of action to take the process forward. Early retirement and new entrants schemes will be considered as part of the action plan. As yet, no funds have been allocated to implement the vision group’s recommendations in 2002-03. As Members will appreciate from what I have just said, a great deal of the hard work is being undertaken to formulate the precise proposals that arise out of the vision group’s report.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley raised the issue of a definition of rural proofing. Executive approval to a formal definition of rural proofing has not yet been given. However, the concept of rural proofing is a process that ensures that all relevant Executive policies are examined carefully and objectively to determine whether they have a different impact in rural areas. It examines the characteristics of rural areas and, where necessary, what policy adjustments may be made to reflect rural needs and to ensure that, as far as possible, public services are accessible on a fair basis to the rural community.
Ian Paisley Jnr and Jane Morrice asked why payments in respect of animal disease compensation have risen sharply in recent years, and George Savage also raised the issue of variations. It has been normal practice to allocate additional resources to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in-year to meet pressures in that area. However, steps were taken in the 2000 spending review to enable the baseline to reflect the needs more accurately. Reviews of all aspects of control measures for brucellosis and tuberculosis are currently under way, and consideration will be given to the introduction of further, or different, measures to lower their incidences. The reviews will be completed in two to three months.
Jane Morrice sought confirmation that no moneys would be returned to Brussels from the Peace I programme. Our latest estimates show that we expect to achieve a full spend under the programme, although it will be some time before we receive formal confirmation of that. With respect to pensions and their allocation in the Department of Finance and Personnel budget, the costs are borne in annually managed expenditure and, therefore, do not restrict or affect the pressures available for allocation by the Executive.
With regard to the detail, the main reason for the £19 million rise is increased transfer costs — in other words, scheme members who transfer to other schemes. The second reason for the increase is the early retirement of members who have reached 60 years of age. They fall within the scope of the scheme for the first time. The age profile of the Civil Service and a consequent higher number of staff reaching retirement age also contribute to the increase.
Rev Dr William McCrea raised a point about nurses. Some years ago there was a reduction in the numbers entering training for nursing, which has led to a decline in the numbers entering the profession. The Department recently increased the numbers to be admitted to training, but it will take some time to increase the numbers working in the profession. Sammy Wilson suggested that better use of resources allocated to North/South bodies could be achieved by channelling those resources elsewhere, especially to health.
I remind Members of the Assembly that — as I have attempted to underline several times — health is a priority of the Executive. However, that is not to say that we should spend all of our money on health and none on anything else.
As Members will be aware through reports brought to the Floor of the House by Ministers attending meetings of the Council, the North/South Ministerial Council is developing programmes of considerable benefit in a wide range of areas, from trade, to education, to cultural matters of benefit to communities North and South. As the projects associated with the plans of the North/South Ministerial Council and its various implementation bodies roll out, the establishment of the Council will be vindicated by the benefits which will be felt, particularly in border areas, and throughout the North and South.
I have attempted to cover almost all of the main points made by Members in their contributions. However, I am aware that I have been unable to cover all of the points that they have raised. Those that have not been touched upon in my concluding remarks will receive a written response, either from myself or from the Minister directly responsible.
Once again, I want to acknowledge that I regard this debate as having been significant, certainly for myself, as I am still in my infant days with regard to the responsibilities in the Department of Finance and Personnel. The learning curve is steep, but it has been a helpful contribution to progressing up that curve, whether from Members whose remarks were highly critical of what I, as spokesperson for the Executive today, am attempting to do or from the smaller number whose remarks were complimentary. Nonetheless, I acknowledge Members’ contributions in both respects.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That this Assembly approves that a further sum not exceeding £198,035,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 and that further resources, not exceeding £574,419,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 2(b) and 3(b) of Table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2001-02 that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £3,936,009,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund on account for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 and that resources, not exceeding £4,486,387,000, be authorised, on account, for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4 and 6 of Table 1 in the Vote on Account 2002-03 document that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel.]
Adjourned at 6.51 pm.