Northern Ireland Assembly, 4 March 2002

124 contributions from 29 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to inform the House that I have received a requisition, signed by 30 Members, calling for an urgent meeting of the Assembly to debate and vote on a motion for exclusion from ministerial office of one of the parties in the Assembly. Thirty Members have signed the requisition. These procedures can be found in Standing Order 11(1).

I have considered the various aspects of the question and have decided to summon a meeting of the Assembly for the morning of Wednesday 6 March, at 10.30 am. I will discuss the details of how that will be conducted with the Business Committee in the usual way.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I would like to enquire about the timing of this motion. It is remarkable that it should come in on the day when the front-page story in the ‘News Letter’ predicts a further act of decommissioning. It also comes at the beginning of a week that, co-incidentally, ends with the annual general meeting of my party. I want to know if any indication was given to you, Mr Speaker, as to the reason for the timing of the motion. Was anything said that would give one reason to suspect that it is a stunt and is not serious, taking into account the annual general meeting of the Ulster Unionist Party? If the people who tabled the motion were serious, they would not be sharing power with Sinn Féin. They would not be in Government with Sinn Féin. If they had any integrity — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

I have given substantial thought to the question, because it does seem to me that it has a series of implications. The first question is the basis on which such a sitting can be called and such a motion debated.

First, the signatures of 30 Members are required. That is the requirement for a petition of concern in strand one, paragraph 5(d) of the agreement, which it describes as a "significant minority". In section 30(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a notice for such a motion of exclusion is specifically authorised if "supported by at least 30 members". Under section 42(1) of the 1998 Act, a petition of concern must also be signed by 30 Members expressing their concern. In Standing Order 11(1) the provision is made that "the Speaker shall" — not may — "as soon as may be, summon the Assembly to meet" if notice is given by the First and Deputy First Ministers or "not less than 30 Members".

It seems to me that the level of 30 Members is, for more than one reason, identified in the agreement, the 1998 Act and Standing Orders as "a significant minority". Of course, the provisions are established as safeguards. They are described in the agreement as a list of safeguards for the protection of minorities — not of any one minority, but of any minority that amounts to at least 30 Members.

The second question is whether the Speaker has leeway to judge a matter on the basis of whether there is "urgent public importance". Those are the words used in Standing Orders. A point of order was raised on that question on 10 April 2001 by Mr Eddie McGrady, who put it to the Deputy Speaker, Jane Morrice, that the matter under consideration was not a matter of urgent public importance. The Deputy Speaker ruled that if 30 Members regarded it as a matter of urgent public importance, there was little alternative but to treat it as such, since 30 Members are regarded in all these circumstances as a significant minority.

I have given consideration to the Deputy Speaker’s ruling in this regard. I think that she is right. It seems to me that the alternatives are even more serious. They are to suggest either that one deals with some minorities differently from others — not a position, I believe, that the Chair can adopt — or that if the Speaker felt it possible to overrule the belief of 30 Members that a matter was of urgent public importance, then, since the same paragraph refers to the right of the First and Deputy First Ministers to call a sitting, it would potentially put the Speaker at odds with the First and Deputy First Ministers over whether a matter was of importance. I do not believe that that would be a proper thing to do. Indeed, I see that the Member does not believe that that would be a proper issue.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am disagreeing with you.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I would perhaps be less keen on that than the First Minister would be. However, it is a matter of substantial difficulty. If, of course, such a procedure were to be used repeatedly, it could potentially bring the Assembly into disarray. However, the purpose in the agreement was to ensure that if any minority of 30 Members felt that they were not content to proceed with the operations of the Assembly, they were in a position to frustrate it. That was the intention behind the inclusion of this procedure. It seems to me that it would be difficult on any legal, or other, grounds for the Speaker to rule that a matter was not of urgent public importance simply because the Speaker was uncertain about it, even though 30 Members took the view that it was.

However, I was struck by the fact that the particulars of the urgency are identified in the requisition. The resolution refers to Sinn Féin, but the requisition for the meeting refers clearly to urgency, since it identifies that it wishes the meeting to be held before 9 March — [Interruption]. It seems to me that those who requisitioned the meeting felt that the urgency was occasioned, in some fashion, by the significance of that date. I cannot judge otherwise.

If the Assembly were to come to the conclusion that any of its procedures were being used to frustrate its proper wishes, it would be open to the Assembly — through the Committee on Procedures or otherwise — to make changes to Standing Orders so as to protect itself against any perceived abuse. As long as those were not contrary to the Belfast Agreement or to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which set up the Assembly, there is no reason why they should not be passed by cross-community support. In those circumstances, it is possible that the authority of the Speaker might be more fully clarified on that particular issue. The Committee on Procedures is perfectly at liberty to do that. In the absence of such a specific clarification, I believe that I have no alternative but to proceed with the sitting in the way that I have described.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is clear from what you have said that the people who have tabled the motion have identified that it is 9 March that is important to them. The Standing Orders refer to urgency. It is clear that the element of urgency has nothing to do with the substantive motion. It has nothing to do with Sinn Féin. The urgency is simply in regard to the annual general meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council. It is perfectly clear that this is a stunt. It is not meant seriously.

There is no urgency with regard to Sinn Féin, only with regard to the Ulster Unionist Council’s annual general meeting. I suggest that that is an abuse of procedure. I would have thought that it is an accepted principle that procedures cannot be used in that way for an ulterior purpose. Therefore, the decision to sit on Wednesday should be reconsidered. Indeed, it should be left to those who sit in the DUP corner to show that they really mean this by ceasing to share power with Sinn Féin and by ceasing to sit in the Assembly. If they had any guts, they would resign and walk out.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I find myself in something of a dilemma, because in other circumstances I find myself focusing on clarifying the motives and motivations of those with whom I work. In this circumstance, I must often caution myself against looking at those motives and motivations and stick to the Standing Orders, which it is my responsibility to maintain. I think that, within the substance of the Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it is entirely possible for a minority of 30 Members to frustrate the activities of the Assembly. If there is a wish to guard against abuse — I do not necessarily rule what the First Minister has said "out of court" — it is a matter for Standing Orders.

It is my job to uphold Standing Orders. If the Assembly believes that a Standing Order should be changed in order to ensure that Members use Standing Orders differently, it is for the Assembly to make that change. It is my responsibility to fulfil the Standing Orders only as they are. As I have said already, if Standing Orders are to be changed, they must be changed only in the spirit of the Belfast Agreement and the word of the 1998 Act. Standing Orders cannot go against the 1998 Act. I have already made that clear.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Before the First Minister busts a blood vessel, Mr Speaker, can you confirm that, in tabling the motion, the parties that have signed it and brought it before the House have played by the rules that were established both by the House and by the UUP, which is protesting too much this morning?

Furthermore, Mr Speaker, given that you have made several indications about motivation this morning, can you indicate that — from the First Minister’s comments — his motivation in protesting so loudly is that he has not got the guts to oppose Sinn Féin’s continuing in the Government of Northern Ireland and that because he wants to stay in Government, he refuses to oppose Sinn Féin?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. First, I am sure that the First Minister will be appreciative of the Member’s obvious concern for his well-being. I suggest that there have been excessive medical references, perhaps because I am in the Chair today, to psychological well-being and motivations and, indeed, to blood vessels and guts. It might be best to stick to politics, rather than medicine.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I was not questioning motivation at all. I was making it clear that it was not my responsibility, or even appropriate for me, to proceed in that way.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure you will be pleased that at least the electorate in Strangford were not baffled on the issues at the last election. As one of those involved with the requisition, I want to make it clear that, as far as the Democratic Unionist Party is concerned, the decision was made with regard to the diaries of those who were going to the United States and to other places over Easter. It was recognised that to get the best attendance for the debate —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If they are junkets, it is principally your party that goes on them. I am pleased to hear that dealings with the President and others are regarded by the Ulster Unionists as junkets.

As far as my party is concerned, the date was chosen to maximise the possible attendance at the debate. However, this is typical of the First Minister, who thinks that all life revolves around him and the Ulster Unionist Party. He should have learnt by now that less of the electorate is concerned about what the Ulster Unionist Party wants.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I trust that the proper matters of order have been sufficiently aired and addressed for the House to know that I have given them the fullest consideration that I can. I feel that in the present circumstances I have no alternative but to allow things to proceed under the Standing Orders. If others wish to change the Standing Orders, or the House wishes to change them, that is a matter for the House, and I will seek to implement whatever Standing Orders are in place at any particular time.

Public Petition: Mobile Phone Mast at McCracken Memorial Church, Belfast

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Ms Monica McWilliams has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I beg leave to present a petition from residents of the Malone area of south Belfast. It refers to the proposed erection of telecommunications apparatus, consisting of internally mounted dual polar antennae, in an existing church tower. That will require external alterations to a listed building, with equipment and cabin to the rear of the McCracken Memorial Presbyterian Church, 161 Malone Road, Belfast. The petition has over 1,200 signatures from residents of the area who are strongly opposed to the development. Not only will the mobile phone mast destroy the character of the listed building, but conclusive evidence on the safety of the radiation emitted from such masts has yet to be produced. They are understandably concerned at the long-term effects on their community, and ask that you accept this petition.

Ms McWilliams moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of the Environment and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment.

Assembly Business: Suspension of Standing Orders

2002 Budget Timetable

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the 2002 Budget timetable.

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

I would like to make a statement on behalf of the Executive, setting out our proposed timetable for the key planning and financial events between now and December, when the Budget for 2003-04 must be agreed.

This year the cycle will cover the period 2003-04 to 2005-06, as the Executive makes plans for the three- year period covered by the Treasury’s spending review. The Budget and the processes surrounding it are evolving.

In presenting last year’s Budget, the Executive endeavoured to build on and refine the processes that were put in place during the first Budget. I intend to continue that process in drawing up this year’s Budget.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair)

I have carefully considered many of the comments and suggestions about the process, and, where possible, I have tried to take those into account in this year’s timetable. Last year, the Executive committed themselves to ensuring that they presented the draft Budget as soon as possible after the summer recess. That was intended to facilitate greater consultation on the draft Budget. The Executive found that additional consultation important in finalising the Budget, and we intend to work again towards presenting this year’s draft Budget as soon as possible after the summer recess.

This year is important in budgetary terms, because a UK spending review will take place. In July, the Chancellor will announce the financial envelope for the next three years for all Whitehall Departments and the three devolved Administrations, including Northern Ireland. Thus, we will know the total level of resources that Northern Ireland can expect to receive for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid confusion, I intend to use the terms "spending review" or "SR 2002" to refer to the UK-wide exercise, and the term "Budget 2002" to refer to our own exercise.

At this stage, the Executive do not know what outcome to expect from SR 2002. The current signals from the Treasury are not encouraging. However, the Executive are determined to make the strongest possible case, and they must plan in a realistic but flexible manner.

In setting out the first two Budgets, the Executive concentrated primarily on the following financial year and included only broadly indicative figures for subsequent years. That does not secure a satisfactory planning position for public services, because a Department’s financial position is not confirmed until the finalisation of the relevant Budget in December. Many aspects of our key services, such as capital projects and the education system, do not run on a financial-year basis, and we must make the transition from year to year as smooth as possible.

This year, the Executive will seek to establish, in the circumstances, the firmest possible three-year planning position. Therefore, in drawing up this year’s Budget, we aim to set out our expenditure proposals for the next three years. That will help Departments to make more long-term plans, because they should have firm figures for 2003-04 and indicative allocations for 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Executive intend to revisit those allocations in the Budget exercises in 2003 and 2004. If the Assembly achieves a better strategic plan for the Programme for Government and the Budget this year, there should be no need to have such a fundamental review of the spending plans in 2003 or 2004 as is envisaged for this year.

The process of preparing the new Budget runs from now until December. In December, the Executive will seek to settle an agreed Budget in line with the revised Programme for Government that will form the basis of spending plans for all Departments and other public sector bodies.

I remind Members of the need to complete work on the spending allocations for the financial year 2002-03. The Budget Bill was passed last week. It covers the Vote on Account for 2002-03 and is intended to enable expenditure to proceed until the Main Estimates are agreed and the related Budget (No 2) Bill is passed.

We intend to present the Main Estimates and introduce the relevant Supply resolution in late May or early June.

This year’s Budget timetable will be very demanding. It must be managed carefully if Members’ and Committee’s expectations for consultation are to be met, and if we are to meet our section 75 obligations. The position is complicated by the fact that the Chancellor will not announce the outcome of the UK spending review until the third week of July. We will not know until then what resources are available to us for the next three years. Nevertheless, the Executive wish to begin now to examine the strategic inter- and intradepartmental issues and priorities that they will face.

The next few months will be very important for the Executive as regards assessing priorities and drawing up a strategic framework for use once the outcome of the spending review 2002 is known. We need to complete the budgetary process before Christmas. With that in mind, the approach that I am setting out today will ensure that the Assembly has as much time as possible to consider the Budget proposals contained in the draft Budget 2002, in the context set by the Programme for Government. That will ensure that the spending proposals can be approved by December, after an acceptable period of scrutiny. This step should be seen as the main authorisation of spending plans. It follows that we should provide the best possible procedures for that purpose.

The proposals set out in the indicative timetable allow for much earlier involvement of the Assembly Committees in the budgetary process than was possible last year. Today’s statement marks the start of that process, although Committees are free to scrutinise financial performance and budgetary issues at any time.

I draw Members’ attention to the third item from the bottom of page 13. The item refers to the first consideration of the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget by the Executive, which should be done by 5 September 2002. That item is included incorrectly on that page. The entry can be found in its proper place at the top of page 15. Members may ignore the entry on page 13.

To set the process in motion, guidance is being issued which requires all Departments to submit a position report, providing a broad analysis of current performance in delivering the Executive’s priorities. Position reports will provide each Department with an opportunity to set out its overall purpose and strategy, identify its role in delivering the Executive’s priorities and set out its financial situations. The reports will also identify areas where Departments anticipate reduced requirements or expect to make savings which will allow for the redeployment of resources.

Clear links between the Programme for Government and public service agreements will be drawn out, and the focus will be on the assessment of output and outcomes. Equality and social need input will also be considered as central issues in the Budget cycle.

As before, the Executive will consult on the implications for equality and new TSN needs of the draft Budget in the autumn. However, to ensure that the draft Budget fulfils our determination to promote equality of opportunity and new TSN, those issues will need attention at every stage of the process in Departments and during the consideration of the issues by Committees.

The guidance states clearly that Committees should have a proper opportunity to scrutinise their Departments’ position reports before they are submitted to my Department and the Economic Policy Unit. That meets a concern expressed by Committees last year that they wished to be involved in the process at an earlier stage in the cycle than was possible last year.

In providing this opportunity for earlier engagement and scrutiny, I hope that Committees will view their Departments’ position in the widest possible context and consider the level of resources that are likely to be available. I also urge Committees not to lose sight of the full range of issues that all public services are faced with, or to become preoccupied with any bids for additional resources that may emerge. At this stage we must focus on determining what our strategic priorities should be. It is for that reason that we decided to produce a position report early in the financial planning cycle.

We must form a more strategic view of Departments’ overall spending. If we are to make a substantial difference to spending patterns, we must examine what is being secured for the large amounts of spending on mainstream public services. We are working on several means to help with this process — for example, the public service agreement targets set out in the Programme for Government provide a good basis for some inquiries. The needs and effectiveness evaluations will provide a more systematic analysis of the issues in six major sectors.

Those tools do not provide multiple-choice answers that we can simply mark with a tick or a cross. They can inform our judgements, but those judgements must be made first by the Executive, in their preparation of the draft Budget, and then by the Assembly. In doing so, Committees may wish to consider departmental plans and the public service agreement targets set out in the Programme for Government. Committees must also consider how priorities set out in the Programme for Government may be refined and developed in the light of experience in the last year.

It is important that Committees also consider the implications for equality and new targeting social need and that they should be informed by the scrutiny of other material available to them. In that way, we can ensure effective examination and identification of changing financial priorities at departmental level and at a wider strategic level.

To put that into context, it is worth remembering that we will not know the implications of the 2002 spending review until the Chancellor’s announcement in late July, although current signals from the Treasury suggest that this will be a tough spending review. We will make our case to the Treasury in the coming months, but we must be realistic about the possible outcome. That is why the Executive established indicative minima for Departments when preparing for this year’s Budget. By doing so, we were able to set aside an allocation of £125 million, to be known as the Executive spending review allocation. We will have to make decisions about this allocation, regardless of the outcome of this year’s spending review. Our decision to hold back the allocation represents a prudent approach to financial management, as well as being a clear signal of our determination to look for change in the way that spending is allocated. We must recognise that this allocation of £125 million, plus the consequences of any allocations made by the Chancellor in his April 2002 Budget, and any reduced requirements declared by Departments, could be the main resources available for allocation. I therefore emphasise the need for realism in our approach to the task ahead.

Of course, before then we will need to conclude our consideration of the Barnett mechanism. Over recent months we have been undertaking a detailed and, indeed, rigorous scrutiny of the Barnett formula, looking carefully to see whether it meets our needs sufficiently now and, more importantly, whether it will meet them in the future. We cannot accept a situation in which priority services provision here, such as health, education and transport, is clearly less favourable than in England, which appears to be the consequence of Barnett. I am sure that Members will accept that now is not the time to state publicly all that we have in mind for the negotiations that are about to begin, but I can assure the Assembly that we are determined to seek an appropriate and fair outcome to this year’s spending review and that the case will be pressed at the highest levels.

Challenging Barnett is not something we will undertake lightly, and it is not, as I have said before, a "no risk" option. We can be sure that any challenge will lead to strong pressure from the Treasury that we should pay our own way more fully, and I do not have to remind Members that this will mean looking hard at the rates and at the financing of water and sewerage services. This will apply especially if the Chancellor increases taxation to finance health spending.

In the months ahead we will also be assessing the outcome of the six needs and effectiveness evaluations before the summer, covering health and social care, education, training, housing, selective financial assistance and culture, arts and leisure, which cover some 75% of our total expenditure. We will also be considering a number of other strategic issues including the Burns Report, the Hayes and acute hospitals review, the regional transportation strategy, the task force on long-term unemployment, the interdepartmental work on research and development, proposals in relation to the Water Service and the rural visioning report.

These are all complex pieces of work, which will provide us with a good deal of information about what we are achieving with what we are spending and will serve to inform future expenditure decisions. However, we do not expect the evaluations to provide us with easy answers. They are more likely to identify areas where we will need to review our policies and what we are doing. Nevertheless, they will provide a valuable analysis of what we are achieving with current expenditure and valuable information that will inform future spending decisions.

Clearly, we all face an intensive period of work, which will culminate in the presentation of the Executive’s position report to the Assembly in late May. It is important that we conclude this work as soon as possible before the summer, so that the Executive’s conclusions about the key issues facing the Administration are understood and can be the subject of debate in the Assembly and between Departments and Assembly Committees.

It is likely that the publication of the position report in late May will coincide with Assembly business on the Main Estimates for 2002-03. I want to make it clear that these are two distinct processes, and I hope that the timing of the business can be managed in a way that helps to mark that distinction. In brief, we will need to debate and vote on the main motion seeking approval of the Main Estimates for 2002-03 and then consider the stages of the Budget (No 2) Bill.

The key point is that those relate to 2002-03. The Budget process that is set out in the timetable that I am announcing today begins the cycle for 2003-04.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel will have an important role to play throughout the next phase, and it may be able to assist by drawing together the key themes and conclusions of each Committee. I will welcome, therefore, the advice and assistance of that Committee throughout the process, especially at several key stages, and I will be discussing that in detail with it.

Once the position report has been published the Committees will have until August to consult on, and consider, the departmental proposals. Obviously, we want to achieve as much as possible before the recess so that the Executive will be properly informed during the summer, when it considers the revision of the Programme for Government and begins to construct a draft Budget. The Committee for Finance and Personnel will again play a key role in co-ordinating any views expressed during that period. I look forward to receiving any comments or conclusions before the end of August, when we will prepare the updated Programme for Government and the draft Budget.

Last year we used the period between the end of August and mid-September to develop and refine proposals for the Programme for Government and the draft Budget before introducing the drafts to the Assembly in late September. We propose to follow a similar process this autumn. The Executive found the debate on the draft Budget on foot of a motion from the Committee for Finance and Personnel to be a helpful opportunity to hear Members’ concerns. That debate will supplement the work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which, in parallel, will take evidence on the draft Budget from other Statutory Committees during the autumn.

Consultation on equality implications will take place in October or early November, when Committees will also consider the revised Programme for Government and the public service agreements (PSAs). I hope that the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be able to report to me its views on the draft Budget as early as possible in November. That would allow me to ensure that that Committee’s views will be taken into account in the drawing up of a paper on the revised Budget, for consideration by the Executive in mid-November. We are working towards making a Budget statement in early December, with an Assembly debate and vote to take place by 10 December.

In preparing our Budget 2002-03, we will also have to take account of the final stage of the implementation of resource budgeting in the 2002 Budget. That will involve several changes to the budgeting regime of Departments, including the movement of a significant element of non-cash costs — appreciation, cost of capital, management of assets and provisions — from the annually managed expenditure to the departmental expenditure limit. In addition, capital grants from central Government to the private sector will score as resource rather than capital expenditure — that will have a profound effect on the management of our resources. As a result of those changes, the Assembly will receive better-focused information about how resources are used to meet objectives and on whether taxpayers are receiving value for money. That will result in enhanced accountability to the Assembly.

I am aware, however, that the move to resource budgeting has been seen to complicate some of our financial processes. It will take time for us to become familiar with the new concepts and presentations of information and figures. I want to work with the Assembly to help it to get to grips with that change. My officials have already held two seminars on some aspects of that work, and it will hold more in the coming months. I urge Members to become as familiar as possible with the issues.

The preparation of the annual Budget is usually a complex and challenging exercise. This year will be especially difficult. We will be seeking to put a three- year budgetary framework in place, and we will need to take account of the needs and effectiveness evaluations and consider how best to address the issues they will raise. We will also be considering how to deal with the increasing difficulties associated with the Barnett formula. However, we must be realistic about the signals emerging from the Treasury, and we must prepare ourselves for a situation where we do not have sufficient resources to fund all the activities that we would wish to fund.

I ask for the Assembly’s and the Committees’ forbearance in this process. There will be limited time available at each stage during the first part of the year. All those stages are, in practice, preparations for the main statutory stage of Assembly involvement in the autumn. Hence, we do not need the final views of Committees in the constrained periods for input into the position reports from Departments in April and in response to the overall position report in the late spring and early summer. At both stages, Departments and the Executive will have to move on at, or close to, the stated times.

It may appear that the stages are rushed — but they are not the decision-making stages. If there were one point that I would emphasise most strongly, it would be the value and necessity of the Committees providing clear views on priorities, so that the Committee for Finance and Personnel can advise me on those by mid-August. That will mean that when the Executive address the issues of allocations within the departmental expenditure limit in early September, we can reflect on the views of the Assembly.

Even if that, in practice, means completing the work before the summer recess, clearly there is substantial time before then for it to happen. All other stages should serve, rather than obscure, that key point.

The main events associated with the preparation of the Programme for Government and the Budget 2002 include Departments preparing position reports setting out the main issues they will face in the three years from 2003-04 and the presentation of the Executive’s position report in late May. That will then be available to the Committee for Finance and Personnel, other departmental Committees and the wider community. I will seek the views of the Committee for Finance and Personnel by the end of August on its consultations with other Committees. The outcome of the six needs and effectiveness evaluations will be carefully considered in drawing up the Programme for Government and the draft Budget.

The Executive will develop and consider the Programme for Government and the draft Budget, which will seek to put in place a financial framework for the next three years, in early September. An updated version of the Programme for Government and the draft Budget will be introduced to the Assembly in late September. Following this the Committee for Finance and Personnel will take evidence from the Department of Finance and Personnel and other Statutory Committees on the draft Budget.

The Executive would again welcome a further debate on the Budget should the Committee for Finance and Personnel decide to introduce this. There will be consultation on the equality implications of the Programme for Government and the draft Budget. Concurrently, Committee consideration will be taking place on the revised Programme for Government and public service agreements, reporting back on those to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Our aim is that the revised Budget will be announced to the Assembly in early December and debated and voted on a week thereafter. I trust that Members will find this somewhat lengthy explanation of the intended procedures and timetable helpful in preparing for the work of the coming months.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the new Deputy Speaker to the Chair. I thank the Minister for his detailed statement on the 2002 Budget at this early stage of the year. The Committee for Finance and Personnel advised the Department that the Budget cycle and the timetable employed last year was an improvement on previous years, but that small improvements could be made, and I welcome that these have been taken on board and have been pointed out in the statement.

Will the Minister confirm what assistance Committees will be receiving when deliberating on the departmental position reports? Will they receive the detailed guidance that Departments receive — a copy of the commissioning letter for explanation? How does the Minister foresee Committees gaining a full knowledge of their role in the process considering that the Budget is covering a three- year expenditure plan? Does he agree that information seminars could benefit Committees involved in the Budget process? Would his officials be willing to participate and guide Committee members through their role? The Minister has mentioned seminars. Seminars on the spending review and the Budget 2002 would be helpful.

Is the Minister satisfied that withholding the £125 million allocation referred to in the Executive spending review allocation will not prejudice his negotiating position with the Treasury in the run-up to the 2002 spending review? Is there any danger that the Treasury will penalise us for not having allocated that money, and in those circumstances would it not have been better to have allocated the money to priority areas such as health, education and infrastructure?

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

I thank the Chairperson for his comments and questions. I assure him, and Members, that my statement places significant importance on the contributions that Committees can make to the process.

In several statements and comments I have been urging Committees to involve themselves now in the planning process through their interrogation of the Departments. Detailed guidance concerning position reports will be issued later this week. As I have already said, officials will be available to provide information and guidance to Members on resource accounting and budgeting in the most appropriate format, whether it be at Committees, or in some other format suggested, on all issues related to new approaches to budgeting. We could link the spending review process with that.

The £125 million, described as the Executive’s allocation, is related to our key priorities — health, education and transport. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel has been pointing to fears about how that might be viewed by the Treasury, but I do not have any such fears. I said in my statement that it was a prudent move on the Executive’s part to acquire authority for the £125 million so that we could signal to ourselves and in general terms the priority we attach to these three key areas of spending.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I wish you well in your new post, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Minister’s detailed statement was a very useful introduction to what will be a critical spending review. I hope that there will not be too much blood spilt on the carpet as the various Departments argue over the size of their allocations.

The Minister mentioned various tools that can be used to design the outcome. In particular, reference is made to the needs and effectiveness evaluations. As I understand them, these monitor the level of per capita spending in policy areas here relative to Great Britain and the effectiveness of outputs gained from that spending. Can the Minister tell the House when the outcomes of those six needs and effectiveness evaluations will be available to the Committees? Those evaluations have a strategic role in informing how the money should be divided up between and within Departments.

The Minister referred to the Economic Policy Unit (EPU). Can he expand on the role of the EPU as regards his Department in this Budget cycle?

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

Six needs and effectiveness evaluations are currently under way, and each is scheduled to produce a final report by May 2002. I said earlier that the studies are particularly complex, especially with regard to the attempt to measure effectiveness in a manner that will enable us to make useful comparisons. It is much easier to identify our needs and then to establish the levels of available expenditure in comparison with those available to others. However, the measurement of effectiveness is a much more complex exercise.

Although I have said that a final report should be available by May, Committee members will have the opportunity to interrogate the Departments on their work with regard to needs and effectiveness measurement.

The role of the EPU, which is part of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is one of close collaboration with officials from my Department, particularly in respect of overall strategic matters and most notably reflected in the work that produced the Programme for Government and its subsequent revisions.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and wish you well in your endeavours.

The Minister outlined a plan for financial growth until December 2002, which is welcome. What flexibility exists in the Budget timetable?

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

I thank the Member for his expression of an expectation of continued economic growth. I trust that all that we will do will support in positive ways the economic growth and development that has been happening in Northern Ireland recently. On flexibility, close examination of the timetable shows that it is a fairly tight one, but it is comprehensive, and it is intended to alert Members to key stages and developments in the whole process through to the Christmas recess. We will present and vote on our Budget in mid-December. Any flexibility will be limited.

We are presenting the timetable much earlier than was possible for my predecessor. We are doing so to put Members on notice about the kind of commitment that we want to see from Committees and the work that they can, and should, become involved in with the Departments and the Committee for Finance and Personnel — and, through that Committee, the Department of Finance and Personnel. The process is taking place in a critical year as far as our spending planning is concerned.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Like other Members, I congratulate you on your elevation, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I wish you well in your new position. I would also like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement on the Budget timetable for 2002. Does he agree that we are attempting a mission impossible, given that we are in an important year in budgetary terms? We are expecting the spending review results but will not have them until July. The Minister said that the Executive want to establish the firmest possible three-year planning position.

As Dr Birnie said, we will not have the results of the needs and effectiveness evaluations until May. When will the Finance and Personnel Committee know the outcome of the consideration that the Executive have been giving to the Barnett formula and its implications for rates, water and sewerage? Other reviews are ongoing, and they should all be dovetailed into the exercise.

What provision of staff and time does the Minister intend to make to enable Committees to meet, as per his schedule, during the summer recess? If they are not meeting during that time, I fail to understand when and how the work will be done. Am I right that it is anticipated that during July and August the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be discussing the Executive position report, which we do not yet have? It will also be receiving preliminary responses from other Committees on the Executive position reports, which the other Committees have not yet seen, and which, therefore, will have to come during July and August. This will all have to be dovetailed into the outcome of the spending review 2002, which is coming in July.

I said that it was a mission impossible. If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. The necessary time needs to be allocated to the respective Committees to enable them to perform the scrutiny role. It strikes me that scrutiny is being stretched to breaking point yet again.

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

If it is a mission impossible, then I am not sure what the Member and I are doing here. Nonetheless, it is our responsibility to turn what he describes as a mission impossible into a mission possible. We have the means, and we will make sure that we have as much time as possible. However, I cannot stretch the days and months, desirable as that may be.

I will speak to the Finance and Personnel Committee soon about our approach to the Barnett formula and outline what the Executive have determined in that respect. We all know that the final reports on the needs and effectiveness evaluations will not be available until May, and I want to emphasise that Committees can get involved with their Departments in matters related to the needs and effectiveness exercise and, indeed, on all other matters, particularly strategic planning. In recent weeks I have been urging Committees to begin the process of engagement; perhaps they already have. I am not privy to the details of every Committee’s engagement with its relevant Department. Nonetheless, I am sure that Members appreciate the need for that to be under way.

We shall be making a vigorous approach to the Treasury to convince it of the scale of our needs and the deficits in investment in various forms of infrastructure, including water and sewerage. We shall address our revenue streams with regard to their effectiveness in meeting some of those needs. We shall adopt a vigorous approach, and I assure Mr Close that time will be made available — certainly on my part — to engage with Committees. If Committees face particular difficulties, they should itemise them and note the support they need to engage meaningfully in this exercise. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, the amount of time that I will have for vacations over the summer will not be great. However, if my officials and I are to be involved, I am sure that Committees will make a considerable investment in assisting us through what will be a challenging period to ensure that we make available spending resources commensurate with our needs.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Members will have noted that a gremlin has come with me to the Speaker’s Chair and has visited our clocks. We shall do our best to continue without the technology.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome you to your new position. It is not a simple task, as you will have noticed this morning.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the issues that it covered. Scrutiny is of particular importance to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, as is the need to cover all these issues due to their financial implications.

I note the significance of areas such as health, education and unemployment in the six needs and effectiveness evaluations. What relevance will be given to the objectives and actions necessary for the implementation of initiatives such as the vision report in the years ahead?

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

The fact that a number of these key issues have been identified in the report indicates that the Executive place a significant emphasis upon them. My statement today shows that I share that approach. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is in the process of developing action plans associated with the vision report. The associated costings will be brought to the Executive in due course and given considerable attention. A first presentation on some of the key issues in the vision report was given at the last Executive meeting. However, we await the costings associated with the action plans that the Minister intends to formulate as a result of that important piece of work. Our approach to the spending plans for the coming years will take that into consideration.

Without stepping into my Colleague’s shoes, allow me to say that it is an important report, eagerly awaited by the farming and rural community. The report has considerable relevance for future planning.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I also congratulate you on your new position and hope that you have a long and happy time in it.

I am alarmed at the picture painted by the Minister of how the Government plan their finances. In regard to proper planning, it is ridiculous that our Departments will know the details of their spending allocations only in December. I appreciate the Minister’s efforts to minimise these difficulties.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has come through a difficult time, with efforts being made to eliminate diseases such as BSE, brucellosis and botulism. The efforts to eliminate these diseases through R&D, especially in animals, need to be 100%, because we are an exporting country. Will the Minister assure us that his Department will do everything it can to assist the R&D focused on these problems?

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

I assure the Member that the programme, as set out, is intended to provide maximum opportunity for Members to become involved with us in the whole planning process, both in the Assembly and through their Committees. The Chancellor’s spending review will not be completed until mid-July. Therefore, we cannot plan our Budget in any detail until then. However, a great deal of preparatory work can be undertaken. The Member can be assured that the Executive and my Department are conscious of the needs of agriculture and rural development. As far as possible, resources will be made available to deal with the problems the Member identified in relation to animal disease control and elimination.

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

I welcome you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I wish you all the best.

The Minister has outlined a timetable for the 2002 spending review. As has been said already, the outcome of that review will be known around mid-July. Can the Minister confirm that the Barnett formula will be subjected to rigorous challenge as part of his efforts to secure a positive outcome for Northern Ireland in the spending review?

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

As I attempted to say in my statement, I assure the Member and the House that a close and rigorous examination of the Barnett formula is already under way. It is the responsibility of the Executive, and of the Department of Finance and Personnel in particular, to ensure that we carry out a detailed analysis of the resource implications of the working of Barnett; to challenge any perceived weaknesses that can be identified in the manner of Barnett’s operation in our regard; to build up our case, especially that which is based on our assessment of needs; and, allied with that assessment, to evaluate the effectiveness with which our resourses are expended.

That will ensure that we have satisfied ourselves initially that we have not ignored any aspect of the way in which the resources that are allocated under Barnett are made available. It will also ensure that we can answer any questions put to us by the Treasury, advance strongly our case for essential resources for the delivery of services and infrastructure and make good the deficits that currently exist in those services.

North/South Ministerial Council: Special EU Programmes

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on special EU programmes held on 20 February 2002 in Ballymena.

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

Before I make my statement on the Council meeting, I wish to correct an omission from the opening of my previous statement. I wish to join other Members in welcoming you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Chair, and I extend to you my good wishes on your new position.

The sixth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in sectoral format on special EU programmes was held in Ballymena on Wednesday 20 February 2002. Mr Dermot Nesbitt and I attended that meeting, and this report has been approved by Mr Nesbitt and is made also on his behalf. Mr Charlie McCreevy TD, Minister for Finance, represented the Irish Government. This meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in this sector was my first as Minister of Finance and Personnel. I was pleased to host the meeting in Ballymena. A substantial range of business was covered at the meeting, reflecting the statutory and corporate responsibilities of the Special EU Programmes Body.

The chief executive of the body gave an oral report to the Council on the developments since the last meeting in this sector on 30 October 2001. The report covered a range of topics, including the progress made in implementing the Peace II and INTERREG III programmes, and the LEADER+, URBAN II and EQUAL community initiatives, all of which have an important impact on local communities and help to promote social inclusion and cross-border co-operation. The chief executive advised that the closure of the Peace I and INTERREG II programmes was progressing well and that the final reports for both programmes would be forwarded to the Finance Departments for submission to the European Commission by the required date of June 2002. The chief executive also advised the Council of the progress made on several corporate issues, including the final stages of the recruitment process for permanent staff and relocation of the headquarters to new premises in Belfast.

The Council emphasised the importance of the work of the body in implementing the new programmes, welcomed the progress made since the last meeting on several important issues, such as developing the network of channels through which European Union funds support individual projects, and highlighted the importance of those projects in building bridges of peace and reconciliation across communities and maximising the social and economic benefits on the island, especially in border areas.

In accordance with the statutory requirements of the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, the Special EU Programmes Body submitted to the Council the annual report and accounts for the period ending 31 December 2000. These were the first annual report and accounts produced by the body and covered the 13-month period from December 1999 to December 2000. The Comptrollers and Auditors General in the North and in the South have audited the accounts. I am pleased to report that they were certified without qualification. The Council approved the annual report and accounts and agreed to have them laid before the Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Council considered and approved the corporate plan for the body for 2002-04 and the business plan for 2002. It was the second corporate plan that had been submitted to the Council since the establishment of the body, the first having been approved by the North/South Ministerial Council at the sectoral meeting in this format in November 2000. The corporate plan detailed the strategic objectives for the body with regard to each of its functional areas. The Council was advised that it was the intention of the chief executive to revise the corporate plan once the full senior management team was in place, and that the revised plan would be presented to the Council later in the year. The Council was advised of the substantial progress made by the body in recruiting a full complement of permanent staff. Of the 31 posts approved by the North/South Ministerial Council, 23 have already been filled with permanent appointees. It is expected that the remaining vacancies will be filled by May 2002.

The Council considered a paper prepared by the Special EU Programmes Body that detailed the progress that had been made in the implementation of the Peace II programme. The Council noted that all 26 local strategy partnerships in Northern Ireland had been set up and formally approved by the body. Of those, six have had their local strategies and action plans approved by the body. The Council was also advised that the Executive had approved allocations to the local strategy partnerships, and that interim contract negotiations between the programmes body and the local strategy partnerships had begun.

The Council was then told of the progress that has been made in setting up the county council-led task forces in the border region. The chief executive advised the Council of progress made in closing the gap funding arrangements. He indicated that an expected 70% of all gap-funded projects will be assessed under full applications by the end of March. The Council noted the progress and asked if the body would consider a possible presentation, to include examples of projects funded under the programme, to the Council at its next sectoral meeting in this format.

The Council considered a report by the EU Special Programmes Body on the progress made on the INTERREG IIIA operational programme and was pleased to note that the final structure of the programme had been agreed with the Commission at the end of December and that formal approval of the INTERREG III programme is expected shortly.

The Council was advised that the body was assisting the development of the INTERREG III partnerships. It welcomed the imminent approval of the programme and the progress made to date and stressed the urgency of having the programme operational as quickly as possible.

The final paper considered by the Council was a progress report on work under the common chapter. In line with the recommendations of the ‘Common Chapter Working Group Report’, which was adopted by the Council at the EU sectoral meeting in October 2001, a common chapter joint steering group has been set up to provide a link between central departments, finance departments and the Special EU Programmes Body, North and South.

The Council was advised that the joint steering group has met twice and has agreed terms of reference that will enable the Special EU Programmes Body to discharge its responsibilities under the common chapter. The Council was also told that the establishment of a common chapter working group under the community support frameworks, North and South, has been agreed. The chief executive will prepare a paper detailing the group’s structure, membership and terms of reference for consideration by members of the monitoring committees. The Council asked for regular reports so that it can continually review progress on implementing the common chapter.

It was agreed that the Council will meet again in sectoral format in Northern Ireland in May or June. The venue for the meeting has yet to be confirmed. The text of a joint communiqué was agreed and was issued following the meeting. A copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister said that the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland has audited the accounts for December 1999 to December 2000 and certified them without qualification. That is good news. When will the accounts for subsequent years be released so that we can be confident that subsequent spending was also in order?

I declare an interest as a member of the Carrickfergus local strategy partnership. The Minister said that six of the local strategy partnerships’ action plans have been approved. Have all local strategic partnerships submitted their interim local strategies and action plans for consideration?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, was there a question about strategy plans, or was the Member just saying that he had noted the plans?

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Will you repeat the question, Mr Beggs?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can the Minister confirm if all local strategic partnerships have submitted their interim local strategic plans and actions plans for consideration? Six have been formally approved. Have all partnerships submitted their plans?

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

I cannot say if all local strategic partnerships have submitted their plans at this time.

Those indicated in my statement have been submitted, and others are in the course of submission. I was present at meetings in Dungannon and in Enniskillen on 28 February at which the plans for local strategy partnerships were handed over to the chief executive. That information can be made available to the Member as soon as possible. However, I expect all plans to be lodged in the near future.

The accounts for last year should be lodged by the autumn of this year.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the comprehensive activities covered by the Special EU Programmes Body. Will he outline the terms of reference for the working group on the common chapter, and will he tell the House when further progress can be expected on a possible programme of work?

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

The common chapter is contained in the structural funds planned for Northern Ireland and Ireland’s National Development Plan 2000-06. It sets out a strategic framework for North/South and east-west co-operation across a broad range of sectors and activities. The common chapter provides scope for cross-border co-operation along the border corridor between Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland, North and South in the island of Ireland, and east-west between the island of Ireland, Great Britain and Europe and internationally.

The North/South Ministerial Council provides a strategic focus and basis for the implementation of the common chapter, and the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) has a statutory responsibility for monitoring and promoting that. To clarify how that would be carried out the North/ South Ministerial Council established a common chapter working group. The group provided recommendations covering the respective roles of the North/South Ministerial Council, the SEUPB and the structural funds monitoring committees.

Progress has been made on co-ordination arrangements, and I am pleased to report that it was agreed at a meeting of the Northern Ireland community structural funds monitoring committee on 6 February, which I chair, that the chief executive of the SEUPB, as a member of the structural funds committees North and South, will, in consultation with monitoring committee members, prepare proposals for membership structure and draft terms of reference of the joint community structural fund working group for consideration by both monitoring committees.

Overall, the joint steering group, which will liaise with the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department of Finance in Dublin and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, will provide a joint forum to which the SEUPB can report on a regular basis in respect of its common chapter activities in the context of the European structural funds.

I have given a broad outline of the nature of the working group and its main responsibilities.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your appointment, and I hope that you have an interesting time in the Chair.

Will the Minister confirm that this was the first North/ South Ministerial Council meeting in this sector since October? It indicates the genuine level of concern there is about special EU programmes and perhaps an altogether different agenda for the body. On the first page of his statement the Minister claimed that a substantial range of business was covered. Does he agree that since the meeting lasted for less than two and a half hours it is doubtful that anything of any substance occurred, other than the filling of the faces of Dublin Ministers at that meeting in the Adair Arms Hotel?

Can he confirm the costs of the meeting and who paid them? Other than being a lunch club for Nationalists, can the Minister detail any substantial or tangible measure that delivers assistance to my constituents as a result of the meeting? Can he confirm that he and his North/South body refused funding to the Gaslight project, which helps the disabled in North Antrim, as a result of the gap funding criteria mentioned in his statement? Does the Minister agree that the decision to hold the meeting in Ballymena was nothing more than a stunt? Does he agree that it was an attempt to rub the noses of Unionists in that Loyalist town given that such a meeting was taking place at such short notice?

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

My statement outlined the considerable volume of business that was addressed at the meeting, and I invite the Member to reread it in order to appreciate that. Like all meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council, the meeting received reports from officials and those associated with the various bodies on their work on the matters under their remit. The Member will be aware of the volume of activity and projects that rely on the availability of resources from Europe, each of which was itemised in my report.

The meeting was not a stunt. It was scheduled to take place. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I was privileged to co-host the meeting with my Colleague Dermot Nesbitt on behalf of the Executive. As a representative for North Antrim, I was proud to bring the meeting to Ballymena, a town with a large number of pro-agreement representatives.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

That is rubbish. The majority of councillors are anti-agreement.

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

If one adds the number of pro-agreement Unionist councillors in Ballymena to the number of SDLP councillors, who can be described as pro-agreement, the answer shows that it is not the town that the Member described.

Many of those who attended from the South were pleased with the warmth of the welcome that was extended to them by the deputy mayor of the borough, who was accompanied by another council member and its chief executive officer. In the light of the warm welcome, many of them expressed a genuine desire to visit further the beauties of North Antrim. If it falls within my power, when it is next my turn to co-host the meeting — [Interruption].

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Order.

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

— I shall seek to locate it again in some of the most beautiful parts of Northern Ireland.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I agree with the Minister’s desire to hold the North/South Ministerial Council’s next meeting in Ballymena. The issues that were discussed are as important to the people and community groups in Ballymena as they are to people elsewhere. I am glad that Ian Paisley Jnr indicated that the meetings should be extended in order to allow the North/South Ministerial Council to become more effective.

Given that out of 300 applications to a rural programme only 14 farmers received funding, can the Minister confirm whether the European funding to which he referred and the Peace II package will achieve their objective of helping the local strategy groups and those people who have been waiting a considerable time for gap funding?

That gives some idea of how difficult it is to complete those forms. What will be done to improve the situation so that the programme can achieve its original objective?

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

We cannot predict success because we are at the early stages of implementing the various EU programmes. However, we plan for success, and we have every hope that we will achieve the aims and objectives of the various programmes. I assure the Member that, although some concerns have been raised about the application process, assistance is available. For example, the intermediate funding bodies are charged with providing technical assistance, which includes helping people find their way through the application process. The bodies are given resources to provide that assistance.

At this early stage of the application process, I do not have any evidence of applications that have not been successful under the Peace II or other programmes. I assure the Member that applications are being, and will be, rigorously scrutinised to ensure that they meet the criteria. In that way, we can be assured that the finances are made available on a basis that is as fair and equitable as possible and that they address real needs in our communities.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I add my congratulations to those of other Members on your appointment, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also welcome the Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is the first time that I have spoken to him since he was appointed.

Unlike some Members, I think that this is a comprehensive piece of work. Like many Members, I have been concerned about the work of the EU programmes and their progress. I am glad to see that work is being done in this area.

Following on from Mr McHugh’s question, I would like to ask about gap funding. In his statement, the Minister said that around 70% of all gap-funded projects will be assessed under full applications by the end of March. Can I, and the groups that will be directly affected, be assured that the gap-funding arrangements will address the concerns of those organisations whose very futures have been threatened by the transition to Peace II?

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

There is concern about gap funding, some of which is understandable, and some of which is not well-founded. Gap funding was made available to address problems created by the unfortunate delay to the development and implementation of Peace II funding. The deadline for the end of gap funding has been extended for the third time. When all of the finances have been drawn down under that provision, the necessary decisions will be taken by the end of April, which is the date for the closure of allocations under gap funding. We are determined to meet that deadline.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I too congratulate you on your appointment.

I welcome the Minister’s statement. I would like to pick up on some of the negative comments Ian Paisley Jnr made in his contribution. Does the Minister agree that the DUP may be suffering from a multiple-personality disorder, given that the DUP mayor initially accepted an invitation to attend the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in Ballymena, only to pull out at the last minute? Can the Minister offer any logical explanation as to why other DUP councillors have complained that they were not informed of the meeting, when their colleague, the mayor, knew all the details, and Ian Paisley Jnr was publicly snubbing the event in a blaze of publicity? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that the only thing certain with the DUP is that it enjoys the benefits of the Good Friday Agreement while pretending to remain outside it?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Members cannot make points of order during a ministerial statement.

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

Unlike the Speaker, I do not have the power to analyse the psychological or psychiatric condition of any party or Member. However, the reaction of the DUP to the meeting in Ballymena was curious. Members of the DUP participate in local strategy partnerships, which are mechanisms through which European funding is made available, and they also participate in district partnerships. Communities represented by DUP councillors and Members benefit considerably from measures funded by European Union programmes and administered by the Special EU Programmes Body. As a lay person who does not have the Speaker’s professional insight, it seems to me that some DUP party members suffer from a degree of schizophrenia with respect to the European Union project and the manner in which it is administered in Northern Ireland and in the South through the assistance of the Special EU Programmes Body.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and see it in the positive light of the European Community’s good work in serving the needs of the people in Northern Ireland. I hope that my supplementary question illustrates that positive aspect. Can the Minister confirm that substantial progress has been made with all elements of European funding under the control of the Special EU Programmes Body and that local communities are now beginning to see the benefits of funding?

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

All of the European Union programmes under the current round of structural funds are progressing well. Under the Peace II programme, intermediary funding bodies and local strategy partnerships have been appointed, and the first funds are expected to flow between now and the end of April. The other programmes — LEADER+, EQUAL, URBAN and INTERREG III — are progressing, and we expect the formal adoption of INTERREG III by the European Commission shortly.

In relation to the transnational strand of INTERREG IIIB, a publicity seminar will be held in Templepatrick on 6 March 2002.

Since Mr Paisley Jnr seems to think that I cannot identify any project that has benefited, I will take this opportunity to say that after the meeting in Ballymena I visited a special school in that town. The staff expressed considerable appreciation for the assistance given through EU funds, which enabled a specialist music teacher to be appointed. This teacher has done considerable work on behalf of children experiencing disability and learning problems. The staff were most gracious in their welcome and in the appreciation that they extended. Had we had time, there are many other projects in north Antrim and elsewhere to which we could have brought our visitors, so that they could have seen at first hand the benefit that these funds are bringing to both communities and, indeed, to the North and South as well.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A LeasCheann Comhairle, can you clarify the position regarding Members wearing or not wearing jackets when addressing the House. My party leader and I have previously been asked to put on a jacket when we rose to speak. I support the right of any Member to wear or not to wear a jacket when addressing the House, but I want the policy applied consistently.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair.)

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am most relieved at the profound concern of the Member about proper order in the Chamber. On this occasion the Member concerned raised the matter personally with the Speaker. Out of an undue concern for the matters arising in the Chamber this morning, he had left his home in Omagh without a jacket. In those circumstances it seemed unreasonable to me that he should either miss the extraordinarily important events of the Chamber or have to return to Omagh to acquire his jacket.

Of course, if the Member who raised the point of order has a spare jacket of a similar size I have no doubt that the degree of inter-party co-operation in the Chamber would mean that Mr Byrne could be supplied appropriately.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

On a constituency basis.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That too. Point of order, Mr Paisley Jnr. If the Member is going to offer his jacket I am sure it would be acceptable.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

During the previous question and answer session I was under the impression that Members who are not in attendance for a statement are not usually entitled to ask a question. Perhaps you could clarify that. A question was asked by the Member for East Londonderry, Mr Dallat, who yo-yoed in and out the side Door during the course of Dr Farren’s boring statement. He was not here when the statement was being made, and I do not understand why he was called to ask a question, which was completely superfluous to the issue being addressed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Clause 2 (Services to carers)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Molaim leasú uimhir 1.

I beg to move amendment No 1: In clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out

"who is aged 16 or over".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: New Clause

After clause 3 insert —

"Assessments and services for children who are carers

After Article 17 of the Children Order there shall be inserted —

‘Assessments and services for children who are carers

17A. —(1) If —

(a) a child ("the carer") provides or intends to provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for a person aged 18 or over;

(b) the child requests an authority to carry out an assessment for the purposes of determining whether he is to be taken to be in need for the purposes of this Part; and

the authority —

(i) shall carry out such an assessment; and

(ii) taking the results of that assessment into account, shall determine whether the child is to be taken to be in need for the purposes of this Part.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply if the child provides or will provide the care in question —

(a) by virtue of a contract of employment or other contract with any person; or

(b) as a volunteer for a voluntary organisation.

(3) Subject to any directions given by the Department to the authority under —

(a) Article 17 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (in the case of a Board); or

(b) paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (NI 1)(in the case of an HSS trust),

an assessment under this Article is to be carried out in such manner, and is to take such form, as the authority considers appropriate.’." — [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.]

No 6: In clause 8, page 9, line 13, after "individual" insert "aged 16 or over". — [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.]

Creidim go dtugann an leasú seo aitheantas do leanbh-chúramóirí agus go dtugann sé aghaidh ar a gcuid riachtanas. Is é polasaí mo Roinne caitheamh le leanbh-chúramóirí mar leanaí ar dtús agus ansin mar chúramóirí. Ní maith liom go nglacfadh leanaí freagrachtaí cúraim chucu féin a chuirfeadh as dá n-oideachas agus dá bhforás.

Is é aidhm an leasaithe seo, a chuireann alt 17A nua san Ordú Leanaí (Tuaisceart Éireann) 1995, ligean do leanbh-chúramóirí measúnú a lorg. Cinnfidh an measúnú ar cé acu is "leanbh le riachtanais" an leanbh- chúramóir chun críocha alt 18 den Ordú Leanaí. Má mheasúnaítear riachtanais a bheith ag an leanbh, ceadóidh alt 18 den Ordú Leanaí don iontaobhas seirbhísí a sholáthar.

Baineann an leasú le gach cúramóir faoi bhun 18 agus ligfidh sé mar sin do chúramóirí de 16 agus 17 a bheith á measúnú faoin Bhille seo agus faoin Ordú Leanaí. Is é m’aidhm nach rachfaí i muinín an Bhille ach go hannamh nuair a bheifí ag amharc ar riachtanais cúramóirí atá 16 agus 17. Ba chóir go mbeadh seirbhísí tacaíochta á gcur ar fáil sa ghnáthshlí don duine fhásta atá faoi mhíchumas lena chinntiú nach mbeidh an duine óg ag gabháil do fhreagrachtaí troma cúraim go rialta

Aithním, áfach, go mb’fhéidir go roghnóidh duine óg de 16 nó 17 bliana in imthosca áirithe freagrachtaí cúraim a ghlacadh, nuair a bhíos tinneas báis ar thuismitheoir, mar shampla. Sna himthosca sin, is dóigh liom go mbeadh sé cuí seirbhísí a thairiscint don duine óg le tacú leis ina ról cúraim.

This amendment recognises child carers and addresses their needs. My Department’s policy is to treat all child carers as children first and carers second. I do not want children to assume responsibility for levels of caring that could impact on their education and development. The purpose of the amendment, which would insert a new article, 17A, in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, is to allow child carers to request an assessment.

The assessment will determine whether the child carer is a child in need for the purposes of article 18 of the 1995 Order. If the child is assessed as being in need, article 18 of the 1995 Order will allow the trust to provide services. The amendment applies to all carers under 18 and so will allow for 16- and 17-year old carers to be assessed both under this Bill and under the 1995 Order.

I intend that this Bill should be used only rarely when looking at the needs of 16- and 17-year-olds. Support services should normally be provided for disabled adults to ensure that young people do not undertake regular and substantial caring responsibilities. However, I recognise that a young person of 16 or 17 may choose in some circumstances to assume caring responsibilities — for example, when a parent is terminally ill. In those circumstances, it is appropriate that services be offered to such a young person to provide support in that caring role.

The amendment to clause 2, line 21 is consequent on the amendment to the definition of carer in clause 8, line 13. The effect of those amendments is to restrict the application of clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill to carers over the age of 16. The new article 17A of the 1995 Order will cover carers under the age of 16.

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

The Committee took evidence on the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill from a range of organisations that will be affected by it. Among them were Barnardo’s, Carers Northern Ireland and the Children’s Law Centre. They were asked to return to the Committee after the Committee Stage of the Bill so that the late concerns that they had raised could be discussed. That has been part of the democratic learning curve for groups dealing with the Assembly. Those discussions have led to proposals for amendments to the Bill, and I thank all who contributed to the process.

The amendments tabled by the Committee were, of necessity, drafted without the benefit of expert legislative drafting advice, so I welcome the Minister’s bringing forward the amendments before us today in response to the Committee’s concerns. These amendments will make several important improvements to the Bill in relation to the short title, information on assessments and the rights of children under 16 who must act as carers. They reflect the Committee’s concerns but are technically more competent than the amendments that the Committee drafted, and for that reason the Committee was content to withdraw its amendments.

I thank Barnardo’s, Carers Northern Ireland and the Children’s Law Centre for raising their concerns about the Bill’s failure to identify children acting as carers with the Committee. Although it was late in the day, the Committee and the Department worked hard to discuss the impact of the changes on the Bill and to bring these amendments to the Floor of the Chamber. The Minister’s action today reflects the power of Committees, aided and abetted by the public, to make necessary and important changes to legislation. The Minister’s amendments would not have happened if the voluntary organisations had not brought these serious omissions in the Bill to the attention of the Committee and if the Committee had not considered their concerns and agreed that there were deficiencies in the Bill. But for that process, the Bill would be the poorer.

Amendments 1 and 6, which we support, are consequential changes, and I will not comment on them. Amendment 2 provides for a completely new and substantial clause that sets out the rights of child carers. As I stressed earlier, this illustrates the power of Committees to change a Bill for the better. The new clause, "Assessments and services for children who are carers", is to protect the rights of children. The Committee tabled its amendment on this, and I am pleased that the Minister’s amendment adopts the Committee’s position.

The amendment is intended to ensure that children who must act as carers will be assessed under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 rather than under the Bill. They will be assessed as children first and carers second, an important distinction. Children should first and foremost be treated as children, especially when they have to act as a carer to someone, such as a parent. The amendment will ensure that a child is free to ask for an assessment to determine whether he, a child acting as a carer, should be taken to be a child in need under the 1995 Order. Trusts will then provide the carer with support services appropriate to a child carer. The Committee supports amendments 1, 2 and 6.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I endorse the comments made by the Chairperson of the Health Committee. He pointed out that the Minister and the Department recognise that some children are carers first. That concern was brought to the Committee’s attention by Barnardo’s, Carers Northern Ireland and the Children’s Law Centre. I am happy that the Minister has taken on board their concerns. The Committee proposed amendments to the Bill, and I recognise the work done by the Minister and her officials — some of whom are here today. The Committee gave them a hard time on some occasions.

On advice from the Committee Clerk, the Committee agreed to withdraw its amendments on the basis that the Minister’s amendments covered them and also went a bit further. That proves that interested groups — from all related fields — can come to Committees at Consideration Stage, make an impact and change legislation on the Floor of the Assembly. That positive message from the Assembly today will impact on vulnerable members of our society.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Our Committee was anxious that once this legislation was passed, children should get not only assessments, but resources to carry out their work. The Committee made the point that it would be passing legislation in the Assembly that places a duty on organisations to carry out much-needed and long-called-for assessments for carers and the disabled.

Irrespective of those assessments being carried out with community care, resources for the implementation of those packages may not be available. I am pleased that the Committee advanced those amendments.

Mr Speaker, you may be pleased to know that outside organisations are learning how to initiate amendments and are coming forward — albeit a little late in the day — with some of their concerns. Those concerns that highlight the need to change the legislation can be developed in the Committee. That is why we advanced this amendment. It was difficult, because the core of the problem lay with the policy of the Department, which argued that children under 16 are children and not carers.

I visited the Mater Hospital with the Health Committee. In the maternity unit I saw a child of 14 who had just given birth. If that baby had been born with a disability, would the mother have been a carer? Therein lies of the crux of the problem. At what age do we consider someone to be a carer? Although that mother was 14 and may have been taken into consideration under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, it was the Committee’s view that she was a carer and should be assessed accordingly.

Having heard representations from Barnardo’s, Carers Northern Ireland and the Children’s Law Centre, the Committee is pleased that it pursued this line and held to it. The Department has agreed with the Committee’s proposals and accepted this amendment.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I recognise the contribution of the representative organisations. I was happy to meet their concerns, expressed through the Committee, and I am grateful to all for their work.

Amendment No 1 agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question,

New clause to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Assessments: persons with parental responsibility for disabled children)

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We shall now debate the second group of amendments. With amendment 3, it will be convenient to take amendment 5 and amendment 7.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Molaim leasú 3. I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 4, line 40, leave out "1972 Order" and insert "Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (NI 14)".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 5: In clause 8, page 9, line 11, at end insert

"‘area’, in relation to an authority, has the same meaning as in the Children Order;". — [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.]

No 7: In clause 8, page 9, line 25, leave out "operational". — [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.]

The purpose of amendment 3 is to correct a drafting point. The title of the 1972 Order needs to be given in full, because that expression is not defined in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

The purpose of amendment 5 is to insert a new definition that is required because of new information provisions. Amendment 7 is consequential on the references to "area" in the information provision.

Amendment No 3 agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Molaim leasú 4. I beg to move amendment No 4: After clause 5, insert the following new clause:

"Information for carers

— (1) An authority shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure —

(a) that information is generally available in its area concerning the right of a carer to request an assessment under section 1(1) or (2); and

(b) that those in its area who might benefit from such an assessment receive the information relevant to them;

and nothing in subsection (2) or (3) prejudices the generality of this subsection.

(2) Where it appears to an authority that —

(a) an adult is cared for by a carer; and

(b) the adult is a person for whom the authority may provide personal social services,

the authority shall notify the carer that he may be entitled to request an assessment under section 1(1).

(3) Where —

(a) an authority proposes to carry out an assessment under the 1972 Order of the needs of a person for personal social services; and

(b) it appears to the authority that that person is cared for by a carer,

the authority shall notify the carer that he may be entitled to request an assessment under section 1(2).

(4) After Article 18C of the Children Order (inserted by section 7) there shall be inserted —

‘Information for carers

18D. — (1) An authority shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure —

(a) that information is generally available in its area concerning the right of a person to request an assessment under Article 17A or 18A; and

(b) that those in its area who might benefit from such an assessment receive the information relevant to them;

and nothing in paragraph (2) or (3) prejudices the generality of this paragraph.

(2) Where it appears to an authority that —

(a) a child ("the carer") provides or intends to provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for a person aged 18 or over; and

(b) the person cared for is someone for whom it may provide personal social services,

the authority shall notify the carer that he may be entitled to request an assessment under Article 17A(1).

(3) Where it appears to an authority that —

(a) a disabled child is cared for by a carer who has parental responsibility for the child; and

(b) the disabled child and his family are persons for whom the authority may provide services under Article18,

the authority shall notify the carer that he may be entitled to request an assessment under Article 18A(1).

(4) Where —

(a) an authority proposes to carry out an assessment of the needs of a disabled child for the purposes of this Part or section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 53); and

(b) it appears to the authority that that child is cared for by a carer,

the authority shall notify the carer that he may be entitled to request an assessment under Article 18A(2).’."

Some concern was expressed in Committee Stage that carers might not be aware of their right to request an assessment. I wish to ensure that carers are aware of their rights. The purpose of the amendment is to require trusts to provide information to carers. The amendment requires trusts to make information generally available in their areas about the rights of carers to request an assessment and to take steps to ensure that carers have access to such information.

In addition, the amendment requires that where a trust is aware that someone is providing care, the trust must notify that carer specifically of his or her right to request an assessment. The duty to provide information will apply not only to the rights of carers to an assessment under the Bill but under the new provision to be inserted by the Bill in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

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

As the Minister says, amendment 4 provides for a new clause that sets out, in a more competent form, the wording of the Committee’s withdrawn amendment. The amendment addresses the Bill’s failure to place a duty on authorities to take action to provide information to carers, including children and young people, about their right to an assessment and to seek out those carers.

The Committee decided that the matter was too important to leave to trusts to provide separate guidance. The amendment rectifies that serious omission, especially for children, by amending the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, and places a duty on authorities to identify those children who are caring for a parent and tell them of their right to an assessment under that Order. The Committee supports the amendment.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister and the Department for tabling the amendment. When the Committee heard submissions from the carers’ representatives, it was clear that many carers were concerned about the lack of information that they received from the trusts and, indeed, about the way that information varied between trusts. The Committee was of the view that carers had a right to the information and that the Bill should make it clear that the authorities have a duty to provide that information.

The Bill did not put that duty clearly on the authorities. However, it is now much clearer. The Committee is happy to withdraw its amendment in favour of that proposed by the Department about the duty that authorities now have to make information on rights available to carers.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Speaker, I am conscious of the many times when you have ruled that Members should not repeat one another in the Chamber, and I do not intend to do that. I support the comments of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee and the discussions we have had on the Bill. The Department, the Minister and her officials have taken the issue on board, and rather than assuming that carers are aware of their rights, that duty will be placed on boards and trusts. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Department have taken our comments on board and have proposed amendments to the Bill. I welcome the amendment.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Chairperson and Members of the Committee for their contributions. I have been able to go further than the Committee asked by providing for general and specific information for carers.

Question,

New clause to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Interpretation and regulations)

Amendment No 5 made:

"‘area’", in relation to an authority, has the same meaning as in the Children Order;"

Amendment No 6 made:

Amendment No 7 made:

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 (Short title)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Molaim leasú 8.

I beg to move amendment No 8: In page 10, line 2, leave out "Personal Social Services (Amendment)" and insert "Carers and Direct Payments". — [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.]

The purpose of this amendment is to make the title of the Bill more descriptive of the purpose and content of the Bill.

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

Amendment 8, as the Minister says, changes the short title. In tabling the amendment, the Minister has acknowledged the Committee’s view that titles should, wherever possible, be descriptive of the content and intent of the legislation. The Committee was concerned that the Department had proposed legislation that included such a non-descriptive short title. This change does not change the intent of the Bill. It is made in the interests of clarity. Although the Bill’s current short title may be technically correct, it does not address the needs of the public for clear and concise information on the content of the Bill. It is important that the public should know what a Bill is meant to do in a simple and straightforward way, and changing the title will help to do that. I trust that the Minister will bear this in mind for future Bills. I thank the Minister for her action today.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

When the Bill first came before the Committee, I felt strongly that, as this is a devolved Assembly, the public should know what we are doing. We should not make it more difficult for them to understand the different types of legislation that we are passing. For this reason I proposed that the Department look again at bracketing "Amendment" after "Personal Social Services", because it is meaningless. We may understand what is being amended, but members of the public who have lobbied for assessments for carers will not. We are trying to make the Assembly as inclusive as possible, and when people campaign, they should understand that the legislation that is passed is for them.

This was an interesting experience for the Committee: we were told that what we were proposing was longer than nine words and that this would set a precedent — a short title is supposed to be short. Nonetheless, we said that the title would then explain exactly what was proposed. We are all learning about legislation, and I pay tribute to the Bill Office. Initially, we asked its officials to explain why we were setting a precedent and why we might not be able to do this. The staff, quite rightly, said that it was not for them to attend for cross-examination by the Committee and that it was up to the Department to give that explanation. It is important that we understand that progress on this is entirely in the hands of the Department. The Clerks sitting to your left and right, Mr Speaker, were extremely helpful to the Committee, and for that we are grateful. I am pleased that, after much consideration, the Department decided that it would be possible to change the short title and that the short title will now say what the Bill will do.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As other Members have said, this amendment caused the most hassle in the Committee, since the Committee members and officials are all still learning. The arguments on this were hot and heavy, and we were passionate about the Bill’s saying what it is doing. A number of members proposed this and asked the Department to think again. I am happy that the amendment we proposed, and which the Minister and her officials are bringing forward, goes that one step further. I welcome her commitment and support for the Bill. I support the amendment.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am happy to allay the Committee’s concerns.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill: Final Stage

Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002

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

I beg to move

That the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 26/2002) be approved.

I am in the somewhat invidious situation of presenting myself to the House for the third time today. I hope that I have Members’ forbearance in doing so.

This short statutory rule specifies the regional rate poundages for the 2002-03 financial year and the amount of domestic rate aid grant applicable to that year. As the Order will increase a tax, the provisions of section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 apply, and cross-community support is required.

On 25 September 2001, my predecessor, Mark Durkan, announced that the increase in the regional rates for 2002-03 would be 7% in respect of the domestic rate and 3·3% in respect of the non-domestic regional rate. Those increases were subsequently incorporated into the Budget that the Assembly approved on 11 December 2001. The Order to be considered today prescribes the actual rate poundages that reflect those percentage increases. I will briefly describe the articles in the Order.

Article 1 provides legal definitions of the two main classes of rateable property. A "specified hereditament" broadly means a commercial property; consequently, an "unspecified hereditament" is a domestic property. Article 2 affixes 31·42p as the non-domestic regional rate poundage and 199·29p as the domestic regional rate poundage. Article 3 specifies 66·82p as the amount by which the domestic regional rate is to be reduced. The domestic regional rate poundage that ratepayers will actually pay will be 132·47p. In effect, the regional element of the domestic rate bill will rise by an average of £15, and the non-domestic rate bill will rise by an average of £138.

When district rates are taken into account, the total average rate increase facing households will be £30 per annum, or 59p per week. For businesses the overall average increases will be £269 per annum, or £5·17 per week.

Members will recall that the increases proposed in the Budget were considered necessary to sustain spending levels on public services, particularly the agreed priority areas of health, education and roads. It is estimated that the revenue raised from the regional rate this coming year will exceed £330 million. The sum is a very significant contribution towards the programme of expenditure proposals for 2002-03, which were set out in the Budget.

Major issues remain, however, in respect of the financing of local services. Members were made aware of two initiatives to solve the problems. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take the opportunity to make a few short remarks on them.

First, stage 1 of the review of rating policy, dealing with factual analysis and the identification of major issues and policy options, is almost complete. It should be clear to anyone who has considered the range of issues involved in the review that the consultation exercise, to begin around April 2002, will give rise to many complex matters.

In the autumn we must carefully consider decisions following the response to the consultation exercise. Obviously there is a need to address serious deficiencies in the existing system, but we must be careful in the changes we propose. It will be judged in light of what is revealed by the consultation.

Secondly, there have been relative shifts in the values of non-domestic property since the last revaluation in 1997. These have not been solely due to the effects of inflation; social, environmental and economic factors have also been involved. The shifts are widespread and exist within, and between, different classes of property and locations. A further revaluation was necessary to address this shift in values.

The current exercise, which affects only non-domestic property, should be completed towards the end of 2002, and the new valuations will take effect from 1 April 2003. It is not possible to predict the impact of the revaluation on individual properties. However, businesses in areas of relative decline may benefit. That will be welcome news to businesses that have experienced difficulties recently.

As Minister of Finance and Personnel I am committed to public services and to effective public expenditure. The Assembly has heard many calls recently for increased resources for priority areas such as health, education and transport. It can begin to address these issues, but the availability of resources is a crucial issue.

The Order is an outworking of the Budget that the Assembly approved last December. The Executive and I believe that the increases are vital to ensuring that the services that ratepayers expect are maintained and improved. I commend the Order to the Assembly.

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

Rates have often been debated, and on many occasions their pros and cons have been raised. However, the real argument is how we can continue to make and finance effective public spending decisions.

Whether we like it or not, rates are the only available means of raising revenue to supplement funding for necessary services. Some Members will take a simplistic approach, but that is not good enough. We must show political maturity in our decisions now. If we do not have the political courage to make difficult decisions, we cannot cry for extra resources.

In particular, I refer to the frequent calls for more money for the Health Service, students, education, roads and the environment — in fact, for anything that will get an easy headline. When it comes to finding resources to pay for vital services, what do we see? We see those people who sought the easy headline voting against increases in local rates. We must be realistic. We must raise revenue through innovative means, because the demands on the public exchequer mean that our only indigenous fund-raising mechanism is the rates.

This is an opportunity to deal with budgets in new and innovative ways and for Departments to become more proactive with their allocations. The targets defined in the Programme for Government must be regularly reviewed to enable us to turn them into feasible objectives. However, we cannot do that without adequate funding.

Some Members are playing a short-term political game that will result in long-term political pain for all people in Northern Ireland. It is worth bearing in mind that the Minister for Regional Development, Peter Robinson, has produced a transport strategy that will cost about £950 million. A rates increase would allow for a chance to promote social inclusion by ensuring adequate measures to provide and extend services for people with disabilities. The transport strategy makes no headway in accommodating those people.

Mr Robinson also presides over a run-down Water Service that will require hundreds of millions of pounds to bring it up to standard. The ‘Financial Times’ recently quoted Mr Robinson as being in favour of increasing the rates to pay for the transport strategy.

The new draft housing Bill shows that the Minister for Social Development has failed to deal adequately with the spiralling problem of homelessness in Northern Ireland. The poor and vulnerable in our society deserve equal treatment. Adequate housing is one of our basic rights. Reasons for homelessness are complex in any ordinary society, but in Northern Ireland there are many more reasons for people ending up on the streets. The draft Bill means that approximately 40% of those who present themselves as homeless will not qualify for help.

In the past, the Alliance Party has called for tax- raising powers to be devolved to the Assembly. I assume that it wishes to raise taxes in order to pay for services. How can that be? When faced with that option, its members always vote against it; perhaps they want tax-varying powers so that they can lower taxes.

If the Assembly votes against the rates increase, it will send out a damaging signal to the Treasury at a dangerous time. We are about to begin a spending review that will determine our total allocation for the next three years. If we fail to show real ability to raise our own revenue, we can expect no favours from the Treasury, and any Member who votes against this Order should bear that in mind.

The Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 is an outworking of the Budget that the Assembly approved before Christmas. It is important to note that the Assembly has begun to identify its priorities and to allocate resources to them. It is incumbent on us to take action to back up our words. If we want to deliver good government across a range of services, including health, education and infrastructure, we need to take some financial responsibility for those services.

I welcome the statement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel that the review of rating policy is being progressed by the Executive. However, can the Minister tell us when the review will be completed and whether the public will have an opportunity to have an input into the review?

I am a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which is examining ways to complement existing funding. It is important that we continually consider and revise innovative ways of raising revenue to enable us to continue to make effective public spending decisions, and to finance them. We must also look at current rating policy, as there are inequalities in the system that need to be dealt with to bring forward a more equitable system for raising revenue. I support the motion.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

My party is unhappy with the proposed rates increase, and will be voting accordingly. We are on record as expressing our opposition to the increase, and it is important at this stage to reiterate some of our reasons for that.

I am concerned that the regional rates may be hiked above a level that already exceeds the rate of inflation. That is a matter of concern for us and probably for all constituents in Northern Ireland who are represented by the parties in the Chamber. Many Members are also councillors. We have done our best at council level to be prudent and to trim the rates. We have trimmed the rates to the bare minimum, in many cases, to ensure that while the services are delivered, constituents are not overburdened with a rates rise at this time of year.

The past year has been particularly difficult at council level for several reasons, such as councils’ responsibility for waste collection and disposal and the landfill tax. European regulations have been targeted at councils, which have been duty-bound to deliver on recycling. Although many councils have been happy to do that, it has been a burden on them. We are of the opinion that the financial burden associated with recycling could in some way be alleviated through the regional rate. We are concerned that EU regulations impose financial burdens.

Many Members feel that a fairer rating system is needed. Some of my constituents have expressed concern about buildings that have been lying vacant for several years because the businessmen and the owners have been unable to lease them. In many cases, that has been because of a campaign of terrorism. Towns have borne the brunt of that, and certain buildings have remained vacant. The owners have done their best to ensure that the buildings are maintained to a certain standard. However, a rates burden is placed on the owners of the properties — people who have tried to avoid spending any more money on them.

The proposed changes will mean that people with vacant properties will be charged at a high level for their rates. That should be reconsidered, and their particular circumstances should be taken on board. There are several reasons for that, the most important of which is that people in the Province are already overburdened with rates. It is only fair that the people in this Province receive the value for money that they deserve, and that is not offered with this rates increase.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The proposal is to increase the rates. The rates will be increased in real terms by 7%, not by the headline figure of 3·4%. Although that is the specified increase in rates, the amount of the rebate has been reduced by 3·37%.

What is the purpose of the rates? The rates are intended to provide the financial resources out of which most of our local government services are funded. Initially, all of those services were funded by rates, but, over the years, central Government put more and more money into work that had previously been a burden borne solely by the ratepayers.

Patricia Lewsley has suggested that, as rates are the only tax-raising power left to the Assembly, and the only source of income other than the block grant, innovative measures should be put in place and that we should be exercising our rating powers to gain revenue with which to fund other services. A picture is painted of a Health Service desperately in need of funds; of an education service that requires all sorts of financial resources for infrastructure; and of a regional development sector for which money is required in respect of transport. It is suggested that the source of that money, other than the block grant, should be rates and that we should continue to increase them. I see Ms Lewsley apparently raising her eyebrows, but I am sure that anyone who analyses the whole drift of her statement —

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

Will the Member give way?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

No, I will not give way.

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

The Member is misquoting me, for a start.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am not misquoting — when the Member’s speech is analysed, that will be in it. The Member painted a picture of all of those services requiring resources and of there being no point in going to the Treasury as it would not be willing to assist. Therefore, it follows, we must think of measures which will raise money to resource those great endeavours.

In fact, the absence of money and resources is down to several factors, and it is open to this Assembly to correct those factors — something that it has been slow to do. A huge amount of public money is being poured down the drain in an excess of administration and a multiplicity of quangos. If the system had been pruned from day one, instead of being promised endless reviews, enormous amounts of money would have been available to fund the services that we are now apparently going to fund through increased rates.

Furthermore, the super-bright people who arranged the agreement knew that there was a huge deficit in capital investment in Northern Ireland’s infrastructure that could never be replaced out of the annual block grant — and I have repeated that point many times. Yet, when the agreement was being negotiated, there was no question of telling the Government that they had to make good the amount of money that they had saved through underinvesting, or not investing, in that infrastructure.

Indeed, if my memory serves me right, the Minister of Finance and Personnel announced to a public gathering a couple of weeks ago that something in the nature of £4 billion to £5 billion would be needed over the next four to five years.

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

It was over the next 10 years.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The Minister says it was 10 years, but I believe that he stated that a substantial proportion of that money would be required in the shorter term of four to five years. Where will this money come from if not from an increase in the block grant? Apparently, if we do not go to the Treasury and demand what we ought to have received in the first place, the money will be raised by the only means available to the Assembly — milking the people of Northern Ireland through the rates system.

In a previous debate I mentioned the absence of any liaison between Departments on a strategic plan for governing Northern Ireland — joined-up government, some might term it. Let us look at some of the effects that will arise from these significant increases in rates. There are many small businesses in Northern Ireland that are not run to make a profit over and above paying the people who run them. They are one-man businesses — florists, greengrocers, corner shops, boutiques and other small businesses — and a significant increase in rates will put them out of business. These people are making a living, but they are not putting away vast profits. They do not constitute a charge on public finances because they are not drawing benefit or anything else. However, when they go out of business, as they inevitably will if there are significant hikes in rates, they may well be a charge on public resources.

What do we see in other Departments? We see vast amounts of money being spent by LEDU on expensive television advertisements giving information about starting a small business. If one wants to do that, LEDU will provide all the necessary support. It will work out business plans to get people started. However, when people examine what happens to small businesses, and when they prepare a business plan to find out how much money will be required not only to rent their premises but also to pay rates, many will be dissuaded. LEDU, which is now joined with another Government body or quango charged with creating jobs, is spending huge amounts of money per job created. That money comes out of the public coffers, and nobody seems to mind if £20,000 or £30,000 is spent in creating a job that may or may not last for very long. No one thinks that if these small businesspeople are put out of business, it is costing jobs.

I want to know how much money the Minister expects to raise from this increase in rates? Has his Department investigated the number of small businesses that may go under if there are significant rises in the rates? How much, ultimately, will the Government have to pay if these people become a charge on the public revenue? We have an Assembly and Executive that has one tool with which to raise money, and they simply cannot resist getting their sticky fingers on the levers of power to extract money from ordinary small businesspeople to blow on grandiose schemes such as the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

What does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister do, other than spend £36 million on administration? What does the Assembly do, other than spend £1·2 billion on 11 Departments?

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

Leave it.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

No, I will not leave it. I will stay here to be a constant thorn in your side and in the sides of people like you.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister said that £313 million is raised through local rates. The Assembly must decide what proportion of its expenditure should be raised locally. Some parties appear to continue as they did during direct rule — they call for more spending but for someone else to pay for it. Some of the Assembly’s decisions in this regard are not easy. However, it can determine how much funding will be spent on necessary provision in Northern Ireland; for example, health, education, public transport, roads and water treatment. Some people’s financial calculations do not appear to add up — they want more money, but they do not want it to be raised in any way, so there is no logic to their argument.

It is strange that a Minister of the party that leads the charge has received in his Department one of the highest increases in departmental funding for next year. That allocation was made in recognition of the needs of that Department; for example, inadequate public transport and water treatment infrastructure. It is hypocritical that the party of a Minister whose Department has received one of the higher funding increases should argue that the proposed rates increase should be reduced.

Good work is being done in the Assembly. I value the opportunity to contribute to the Public Accounts Committee, which highlights inappropriate spending that was hidden in the past. All Departments and Statutory Committees must ensure that taxpayers’ money is used to achieve best value at regional and local government level. I wish that every Member would contribute to the scrutiny of Committees and their Departments. Some Members decide not to contribute but to grandstand here for the cameras. It is important that everybody contribute. If money is badly spent, that should be highlighted, not only in plenary sittings, but in Committee meetings during which Members should take civil servants and Ministers to task.

The Assembly must make difficult decisions about rates. However, the books must be balanced, and Members should consider that when they vote.

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

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. The Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 represents a reasonable compromise between the need to generate sufficient revenue to sustain and improve key public services and the equal need not to place a greater financial burden on ratepayers than is absolutely necessary. We have achieved a proper balance, although inevitably not everyone would agree.

The main arguments have been rehearsed before, at the draft Budget announcement in September 2001 and during the Assembly debate of 11 December 2001 on the programme and expenditure proposals. More points were raised today, and I shall try to cover all of them.

I am unsure of whether I understood Mr Shannon’s point correctly. He must be aware that non-occupied properties are not subject to rate charging. That includes non-domestic properties as well as domestic properties.

Patricia Lewsley quite rightly emphasised the need for the Assembly to examine carefully the revenue sources it has direct control over, to see to what extent they can fairly and equitably contribute towards meeting our public expenditure needs. She correctly stressed that there are significant deficits in our services and infrastructure that must to be made good. We must satisfy ourselves, in the first instance, and the Treasury, that we are making the best use of revenue sources that we control directly.

To illustrate this point, I will compare the average domestic rate bill in Northern Ireland and the average council tax per chargeable dwelling in England. In Northern Ireland the average is £414·11 in 2001-02; in England, it is £740·54. I am trying to compare like with like. There is a significant difference in the average contributions made in Northern Ireland and in England. I am not arguing for an increase to match what is being paid in England; I am simply drawing attention to the discrepancy. The Treasury is fully aware of this, and we are reminded of the discrepancies and being asked to examine carefully the revenue streams that we control.

We are about to launch a major review of rating policy. I trust that people such as Assemblyman McCartney will make his views known during the consultation process. It will probably commence in April and conclude later in the year. That will give us time to address the outcome of the consultation and any recommendations proposed. There will be full consideration of the basis on which rates and property taxes can be levied to ensure that they are as fair and as equitable as possible.

Mr McCartney quite rightly pointed to the considerable sums that we require to make good the deficit in our infrastructure. Everybody recognises that deficit, and Members speak about it almost daily. We are aware of emerging plans. For example, the Minister for Regional Development has already stated what he estimates we will require over the next 10 years — approximately one quarter of the £4 billion to £5 billion mentioned by Mr McCartney. I referred to it in the course of the seminar. He obviously paid some attention to the report of that seminar.

That is a significant sum, and we must ensure that we acquire the necessary resources. Some of those resources may be acquired from local revenue streams; others may be acquired from the development of public-private partnerships. Members know that the vast bulk of our resources come by way of the block grant, which we addressed, in part at least, during debate on an earlier motion.

The points made by Mr Beggs support the position that I have outlined. He spoke about our considerable needs, and we must face up to the challenge of acquiring the necessary resources to meet those needs.

Mr McCartney asked what we estimate the revenue from the regional rate for this year to be. We estimate that it will be over £330 million — I made that point in the course of my remarks. He also asked about the effects on small businesses. Again, I pointed out in my opening remarks that revaluations are taking place and, when completed, will take effect from April of next year. I also made the point that businesses in areas of relative decline are likely to benefit. That will be welcome news to businesses that have experienced difficulties.

With those remarks, I conclude my response and hope that if —

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister give way?

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

Not at this point. I am winding up.

I trust that I have covered all the substantive points made, but if I have missed any, I will write to the Members concerned.

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 43; Noes 22.

Ayes

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sam Foster, Tom Hamilton, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Jim Wilson.

Noes

Unionist

Paul Berry, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.

Other

Eileen Bell, Kieran McCarthy.

Total Votes 65 Total Ayes 43 ( 66.2%)

Nationalist Votes 28 Nationalist Ayes 28 ( 100.0%)

Unionist Votes 35 Unionist Ayes 15 ( 42.9%)

Question accordingly agreed to (cross-community vote).

Resolved:

That the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 26/2002) be approved.

Adjourned at 4.55 pm.