Northern Ireland Assembly, 10 June 2002

92 contributions from 26 members. The official report.

Public Petition

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Ken Robinson has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

The petition was signed by more than 600 residents of Monkstown and the adjoining areas, who oppose the reduction of funding to Hollybank Primary School, Newtownabbey. It cites the serious impact that the reduction will have on the school as regards staff redundancies, larger classes and the quality of education provision, in an area that already suffers from a high level of social deprivation. I express my concern about the situation and support for the campaign.

Mr K Robinson moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall forward the petition to the Minister of Education and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Education.

Railway Accident at Downhill

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on the recent accident on the Londonderry to Belfast railway line.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to be able to make a statement on the accident involving the 12.50 pm Londonderry to Belfast train at Downhill on Tuesday 4 June 2002. I am sure that all Members share my relief that this serious incident did not lead to more casualties or to fatalities. I express my best wishes to the 22 passengers and two crew members who were on the train at the time of the accident, which was a terrifying experience for them. Eight people were admitted to the Causeway Hospital for treatment, and all but one were discharged that evening. The train driver was discharged last Thursday on the understanding that he will report to Altnagelvin Hospital tomorrow for a further examination of a suspected broken leg.

I have received initial briefings and visited the derailment site. I was accompanied on my site visit by the managing director of Translink, who briefed me on the circumstances of the accident. At approximately 1.21 pm on Tuesday 4 June, at Downhill, the 12.50 pm Londonderry to Belfast train struck a large boulder that had fallen from the nearby cliff face onto the track. The train was travelling at approximately 60 mph — Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) states that that is the normal speed of travel on that section of the track. The impact caused the derailment of all three coaches of the class-80 rolling stock.

I have been advised that the sequence of events immediately before the derailment was as follows: a motorist who witnessed the rockfall contacted the police; the police registered that call at 1.16 pm and contacted the NIR control office at 1.19 pm; the two clocks may not have been synchronised, because NIR registered the call at 1.17 pm. The duty controller tried to communicate with the train by contacting the Castlerock signaller, but the train had already passed the last stop signal at Magilligan. He also made several attempts to contact the train driver using a VHF radio, but was unsuccessful. NIR times the derailment at approximately 1.21 pm.

Within one minute of the derailment, the guard on the train contacted the NIR control office by mobile phone and requested emergency services, which arrived quickly at the scene. The Causeway Hospital in Coleraine then initiated its emergency procedures.

The weather at the time of the accident was overcast, with heavy rain. Initial views are that the heavy rain caused a small landslide from the cliff near the railway line. Several boulders were dislodged, one of which fell down the cliff face and across two public roads, coming to rest on the railway line. Translink advises that the driver of the train was able to begin to stop the train only after seeing the boulder on the line.

NIR does not own the cliff face near the track at Downhill. The landowner has been in contact with Translink and the Roads Service. He has expressed concern about the possibility of further slides from the cliffs, and he informed the Department for Regional Development that he has engaged an engineer to report on the state of the cliffs.

At the site of the rockfall, the railway runs on an embankment beside Downhill beach. The A2 Seacoast Road from Castlerock to Limavady runs parallel to it on the landward side. Beside and above the road, the cliff face is some 40 to 50 metres high. At the site of the rockfall, the unclassified Bishop’s Road leaves the A2 and travels inland, climbing the escarpment steeply.

Traffic on both routes travels reasonably slowly because of the road width and alignment. Both roads have remained closed since the incident, as a precautionary measure. However, the A2 Seacoast Road will reopen soon, and the Roads Service will inspect it regularly to detect any further fallen stones and to remove any obstructions. This monitoring regime will be kept under review. Bishop’s Road will remain closed in the meantime.

Translink has initiated its own formal investigation into the circumstances of the accident. The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland visited the scene of the derailment on Wednesday 5 June. This was a serious accident, which, under slightly different circumstances, could have had horrendous consequences. The relative lack of serious injury does not diminish my concern about the incident.

On the basis of the information available to me, the cause of the accident appears to be reasonably clear. However, I have a duty to discover the extent to which, if at all, the derailment was preventable, and I am anxious to ensure that all possible lessons that may be learnt from this event will be taken on board. The House will want to identify all practical steps that may help to prevent the recurrence of accidents such as this. I have, therefore, asked Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate to investigate all the circumstances of the accident, to report its findings and to make recommendations. The investigation, to be conducted by Mr Gerard Kerr, will begin immediately. Until recently, Mr Kerr was the Principal Railway Inspector for Scotland.

I am finalising the terms of reference for the investigation. They should be: to investigate all the circumstances pertaining to the derailment at Downhill on 4 June 2002, with particular reference to the extent to which, if at all, the circumstances were foreseeable; the extent to which, if at all, the derailment was preventable; the extent to which, if at all, communications problems contributed to the accident, and whether the condition of the rolling stock or the track was a factor. The inspector, where appropriate, should invite people who appear to him to be able to assist his investigation to submit further evidence. I place on him no limitation as to who he takes evidence from, how he conducts his inquiries or the issues that he deems it appropriate to investigate. On the basis of the investigation and the consideration of any further evidence, the inspector should report his findings and recommend steps to address any safety deficiencies that he identifies.

I undertake to disclose to the Assembly the outcomes of Translink’s formal investigation and the separate investigation by Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate. It is in the public interest that those matters be conducted in an open and transparent manner, and I am determined that that will happen. Likewise, the investigations must be thorough and comprehensive. On receiving the reports, I will want to reflect carefully on whether the need arises for a further inquiry, and if so, the nature of any further investigation. I want to keep my options open, but, before I take a decision, I will consult the Committee for Regional Development.

Rail services have been substituted by a bus service between Londonderry and Coleraine. Translink has advised that the damaged section of the track at Downhill will be reinstated by 17 June.

The operational decision to reinstate rail services on the line will be made by Translink’s managing director, who will want to satisfy himself fully on all safety matters before the service recommences. He may impose a speed limit on that section of the track, pending the outcome of the investigations.

Railway safety is paramount. There can no question of compromising the safety of the travelling public, railway employees or people near the railway network. This accident demonstrates the need for constant vigilance on safety issues. Tomorrow, the Assembly will debate the Consideration Stage of the Railway Safety Bill, which is a key aspect of the Department for Regional Development’s ongoing strategy to assist Translink to improve constantly the safe operation of the railway network in Northern Ireland.

I pay tribute to the public-spiritedness of the motorist who contacted the police, to the members of the emergency services for their professionalism in responding to the incident and to the local people who provided care and comfort. I will inform the Assembly further on this matter in due course.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement on this unfortunate accident. I associate myself with the Minister — as I am sure do other Committee members — in extending best wishes to everyone who was involved in this terrifying accident, in particular, the two members of staff involved.

As Chairperson of the Committee I am greatly disturbed by one matter: the apparent failure — and I emphasise the word "apparent" — by NIR’s duty controller to make radio contact with the train driver.

That must be investigated thoroughly. That aspect of communication must be central to any recommendations that result from the investigation of the accident. It was disturbing to hear that the driver was unable to be contacted through the VHF radio system.

Finally, I welcome the investigation by Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate. The investigation must be truly independent, thorough and transparent in getting to the root cause of the accident, and the inspector should report in a forthright manner to the Minister, and, through him, to the House.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development for the position that he has adopted. He asked specifically about the inability to contact the driver of the train. He will have noted that I have asked the Railway Inspectorate to examine the extent to which, if at all, communications problems contributed to the accident.

I referred to three elements of communication, each of which the Railway Inspectorate will want to consider. It will also look at how difficult it is to obtain a signal in a train in such a remote area and whether that problem applies to mobile phones as well as to VHF radio. By the time contact was made with the last signalling post the train had already passed by. Those are all matters to be considered in Translink’s inquiry and in the independent inquiry by the Railway Inspectorate.

I have kept my options open, and the next steps, if any, will depend on the outcome of the two inquiries.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the speed with which he has brought the matter to the Assembly. I, too, have concerns about the lack of communication. Also, how regularly does the Roads Service inspect the road and how often does Translink inspect the lines? A major human tragedy has been averted only by the grace of God.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I agree that there could have been a much more serious tragedy. Several people were injured, but the number could have been much greater.

The Roads Service would say that its regime operates slightly differently. There is a legal duty on drivers to travel with sufficient due care and attention to enable them to stop to avoid any obstacle on the road. Nonetheless, now that we have clear evidence that there is a problem in the area, the Roads Service must satisfy itself on those matters. The term "regularly" means as regularly as is necessary. That will depend, among other things, on the report that the landowner gets from the engineers, as well as our own assessment of the situation. Translink has had network-wide investigations in the past. I do not want go into the details, as the inspector will examine their extent and the reports. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the inspector’s conclusion.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

We all have sympathy for those who were hurt in the incident. I congratulate the emergency services, who got to the scene very quickly. I also welcome the fact that there will be two investigations. Does the Minister have a timescale for their reporting to the Assembly and the Committee for Regional Development?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

My priority is for thoroughness rather than speed. We want to learn any lessons that are to be learnt as quickly as possible, but I do not want to place any time constraints on the inspector or the investigators. It is important that they move with all due haste, taking into the account the need to look thoroughly at the matter in a way that instils public confidence.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I dtús báire, ba mhaith liom gach dea-mhéin a ghuí leis na paisinéirí agus na hoibrithe uilig a bhí ar an traein nuair a tharla an timpiste seo. I welcome the Minister’s statement.

I send every good wish to the passengers and staff who were on the train when the accident occurred. From the Minister’s statement, it appears that less than 10 minutes elapsed between the blockage of the track by a boulder and the accident. Given the shortness of that time, we must be thankful that there was not a much more tragic outcome.

The Minister referred to the condition of the rolling stock and the contribution that it might have made to the accident. If we had more modern rolling stock and better track, the train could have been travelling at more than 60 miles an hour, which would have had major consequences. I ask the Minister, during the inspectorate’s investigations, to examine several issues. The Minister and other Members mentioned communication. The early warning system for contacting drivers must be examined to see whether it can be improved.

The Minister said that the landowner involved has expressed concern about the condition of the rock face and the potential for further landslides. During the investigation, will the Minister ascertain whether concern was expressed about the condition of the rock face before, and whether there has been any monitoring of the risk of a landslide on that stretch of road and track? Does Translink consider spells of heavy rainfall when determining the frequency of general track inspections? Go raibh maith agat.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We may wish to examine communications when considering new rolling stock. My early enquiries indicate that any new rolling stock would have a much improved communication system. However, its suitability will be judged in the light of the conclusions of the inspector’s report.

I do not think that Translink had any indication of problems with the condition of the rock face, but the inspector will consider and report on that. I intend to make available to the Assembly copies of the report arising from Translink’s internal inquiry and that by the Railway Inspectorate. Therefore, Members will see an unabridged copy and be able to reach their own conclusions.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am glad that the Railway Inspectorate’s report will be made available to the Assembly, because in recent years NIR has been secretive about other incidents — particularly on the Lisburn line. What damage was done to the train, and what impact will that have on the rolling stock, which is already obsolete and insufficient? What other sections of railway track in Northern Ireland have speed limits due to the state of the track?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member mentioned the railway line at Lisburn. I am thinking of the Antrim to Knockmore line in particular, because the Assembly is being asked to keep that line open, even though the Department for Regional Development and Translink have said that it is coming to the end of its life — unless a great deal of money is spent on it. Safety must be the top priority, and if money is not going to be made available for that track, it is clear what sort of decisions will have to be made.

There will be no secrecy as regards the report. It will be made available to the Assembly and scrutinised by Members. It is essential that that happen. The inspector will look at Translink’s previous position on the inspection of lines. It would not be helpful for me to make statements in the House on issues that will be subject to investigation. Members should await the results of the inquiry. Mr Kerr arrived in the Province today, so there will be no delay in getting the investigation started.

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

On the day of the incident I visited the Causeway Hospital to thank the medical staff and to speak to some of the injured, and I wish them continued recovery. I agree with the Minister that, but for the grace of God, people on the train or in the vicinity would have been killed. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be ample opportunity for all questions to be asked during the investigation? Why were trains permitted to travel at speeds of up to 70 miles an hour past the spot where the Road Service has erected signs to warn motorists of falling rocks?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The public and elected representatives will be able to provide information to the railway inspector, and he will determine the extent to which he takes evidence from individuals. The Department for Regional Development will be happy to provide Mr Dallat, or anyone else, with the contact details of the railway inspector.

I join Mr Dallat in thanking the medical staff and the emergency services. They responded excellently in the circumstances.

It is not uncommon for the Roads Service to alert motorists to any likelihood of a rockfall. It is proper that it should do so. A risk assessment must be made on every part of the railway track. The managing director of Translink considers the risks involved, and the inspector will look at that. It is appropriate that Translink and the inspector do that, and not Members.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I join with other Members in thanking the Minister for his comprehensive statement and the speed with which he has brought the matter to the Assembly. I also commend his comments on the emergency services. I visited them at the accident site and at the Causeway Hospital on the day of the event.

During his comments the Minister mentioned that the line may be reopened next week, and, presumably, rail services recommenced between Londonderry and Coleraine. Will he pursue vigorously the possibility of the speed restriction he mentioned in his statement being imposed on that section of the line for the duration of the inspectorate’s investigation?

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The managing director of NIR and Translink will decide when rail services will recommence. As he is responsible for the risk assessment, he will be responsible for making decisions on any speed restrictions. Having spoken to him, I am convinced that if or when he decides it is appropriate to start the services again, there will be some speed restriction until the two reports are available — the internal Translink report and the report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Railways.

I will always support the managing director of Translink if he makes decisions to curtail railway services on safety grounds, even if that inconveniences customers; railway safety must come first. Therefore, whatever decision he makes must be based on safety grounds, and safety grounds alone.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I wish all the passengers a speedy recovery, particularly the train driver.

Will the Minister accept that, in the terms of reference of the investigations, it is crucial that the circumstances are foreseeable? On that stretch of track there is a high cliff adjacent to the railway. Can Translink erect a permanent barrier at the track side, which may prevent any unforeseen incidents?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not want to rule in, or rule out, such a possibility. In this incident the boulder managed to get across two roads and onto the track. Therefore, whether there is a barrier at the track or the road is an issue that we will have to consider when we have the inspectorate’s report. I would not rule out something like that; however, I will wait until I have the reports from Translink and the inspectorate.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

There are other stretches of the Translink system that run along coastal areas, in particular in my constituency of East Antrim between Carrickfergus and Whitehead. Can the Minister assure me that the safety of those sections of track are being investigated? If not, will they be investigated in the future?

I add my comments to those made around the Chamber regarding the safety and well-being of the passengers and drivers involved in the incident. Due to the geography on the north coast, it was fortunate that there was something of a soft landing. However, I am concerned that in other areas a soft landing may not be available.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful for the hon Member’s final comments. From time to time, Translink carries out surveys of the entire network to determine its safety, or it employs consultants to do it on Translink’s behalf.

Having spoken to the managing director, I have no doubt that all those matters are constantly under review. As Members might expect, given the circumstances of 4 June 2002, they will be at the top of his priorities over the coming weeks.

The Member has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the topography around many parts of the railway track would lend itself to that kind of incident. Therefore, vigilance is required. I am sure that Translink will take that on board.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I too welcome the Minister’s comprehensive statement and his assurance that no stone will be left unturned to ascertain the cause of the accident.

There is no doubt that the large boulder on the track contributed to the accident. However, it has been quite common to see small pieces of debris and stones on the track. That has led people to believe that it was an accident waiting to happen. The landowner was concerned that a landslide might occur because of recent heavy rainfall. It has already been mentioned that no attempt was made to contact the train driver directly. I am glad that the Minister has assured the House that contact will be attempted in future. If contact had been made, the train driver might have managed to slow down.

A photograph in the ‘Londonderry Sentinel’ graphically illustrates the extent of the crash, how serious it was, and what the circumstances could have been had people been on the beach that day. There could have been many more serious injuries. Accidents cannot always be prevented, but I hope that something like that will never happen again.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Again, the point has been made about communications. The Assembly should not concentrate so much on that issue. Although I have referred directly to four particular areas that I have asked the inspector to look at, he is not restricted to those areas only. I stress again that I have placed no limitations on the inspector regarding how he conducts his inquiry, whom he speaks to, or, indeed, the issues that he thinks it is important to follow up. He will have all the support necessary from the Department for Regional Development, the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company (NITHCo), Translink and NIR.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

I add my support to the Minister for the action that he has taken on the matter. I am sure that he has the support of the House. I wish those who were injured a speedy recovery. The Minister made reference to the fact that the landowner has expressed concern about the possibility of further slides, and that he has engaged an engineer to report on the state of the cliffs. Can the Minister assure the House that his Department is as satisfied as is humanly possible that the A2 coast road, and the railway line that runs parallel to it, are safe to travel?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If that question had been put to me on 3 June 2002, I would probably have said that to the best of my knowledge they were because no one can tell what might happen, given the day, the weather or other circumstances.

In relation to the land, there are liability issues. The Department is taking legal advice. So too — as I read in a morning paper — is Translink. However, the Department cannot simply go onto someone’s property and work on it. There are legal issues in relation to that. However, given the circumstances that the Department faces, the Roads Service will have to reach its own conclusions about risk on the road. Translink is legally required to reach its own conclusions. It is not, therefore, a matter for my Department, but for those two agencies. It is essential that when they reach their conclusions, they take into account the topography of the land, the likely weather conditions, the speed of traffic — either on road or rail — and all other circumstances. I would not second-guess the decision that they must take, but they will be better informed to take those decisions as a result of the investigations that are being carried out.

Planning (Amendment) Bill: First Stage

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 12/01] to amend the law relating to planning; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Local Air Quality Management Bill: First Stage

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 13/01] to make provision for implementing Council Directive 96/62 EC and for otherwise preventing and controlling air pollution; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Insolvency Bill: First Stage

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 14/01] to amend the law about insolvency; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Company Directors Disqualification Bill: First Stage

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 15/01] to amend and consolidate provisions relating to the disqualification of persons from being directors of companies, and from otherwise being concerned with a company’s affairs.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Supply Resolution for the 2002-03 Main Estimates

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £4,962,077,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints for the year ending 31 March 2003 and that resources, not exceeding £5,710,516,000 be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints for the year ending 31 March 2003 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3(a) and 3(b) of Table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2002-03 that was laid before the Assembly on 31 May 2002.

I move the motion in order to seek the Assembly’s approval of the spending plans for 2002-03, as set out in the Main Estimates volume, which was laid before the Assembly on 31 May 2002. The resolution is proposed under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to bring proposals to the Assembly that lead to cash appropriations from the Consolidated Fund.

In doing so, I act on behalf of the Executive as a whole, and the spending allocations reflect the Executive’s decisions. The main spending plans were approved by the Assembly in the Budget debate on 11 December 2001. That followed a period of scrutiny of the proposals after the presentation of the draft Budget on 25 September 2001. My Department and I have sought to provide all the briefing and analysis requested in relation to those proposals since then to allow the maximum possible opportunity for consultation. I am satisfied that last year’s process has been improved, and I want to build on those improvements in the Budget 2002 process with which we are currently engaged.

The main purpose of the motion is to seek the Assembly’s approval of the use of resources by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Assembly, the Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints for the year ending 31 March 2003, as summarised in the Estimates booklet that was laid before the Assembly on 31 May. The motion also seeks the Assembly’s approval for the issue of a cash sum from the Consolidated Fund for the financial year 2002-03, as detailed too in the Estimates booklet.

The amounts of cash and resources covered by today’s motion are in addition to the Vote on Account approved by the Assembly in the Supply resolution debate on 11 February 2002, which was followed by the passage of the Budget (No 1) Bill. When the amounts in today’s motion are added to the Vote on Account, the total cash and resources contained in the 2002-03 Main Estimates amount to some £8,898 million and £10,197 million respectively.

I remind the Assembly of the significance of the motion for which I seek support. It is the way in which the legislature, in the form of the Assembly, authorises spending by Departments, the Assembly itself, the Audit Office and other bodies to enable them to carry out their various functions. One of our most fundamental responsibilities is to authorise expenditure and hold Departments to account for how it is used. This is one of the main means of ensuring that we deliver on the commitments set out in the Programme for Government.

We recognise the importance of ensuring that the Assembly, its Committees, and especially the Committee for Finance and Personnel, have the best possible opportunity to scrutinise the Estimates. The timescale for the exercise is limited, but every effort is being made to ensure as much time as possible for the Committee’s scrutiny. To that end, the Committee was provided with a working proof when it became available four weeks ago.

We have also worked to address concerns about the complexity of the Estimates. At the request of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, officials delivered a presentation to MLAs on 22 May on their structure and content. Some presentational changes have been made to assist readers to navigate through the document, and in the longer term, we will consider changes to improve the presentation further.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel has taken a keen and constructive interest in finance issues and has played a helpful role at several key phases in the financial cycle. I want to acknowledge the confirmation by the Committee that there has been appropriate consultation on the spending plans reflected in the motion.

Before I turn to more detailed issues, I will put in context what we seek to do today. The debate covers expenditure in 2002-03. The Supply resolution is the means by which the Main Estimates can be examined by the Assembly, thereby implementing the Budget that the Executive agreed and the Assembly approved last December. It will pave the way for us to consider the stages of the Budget (No 2) Bill, which, subject to the approval of the Assembly, will provide the legal authority for Departments to incur expenditure this year. These steps, therefore, represent a key stage in the 2002-03 Budget cycle.

It is important that a clear distinction be drawn between these processes and the development work for the Budget 2002. The Supply resolution and Budget Bill provide the legislative authority and funds for the Executive’s Budget that the Assembly agreed last December.

The figures in the Main Estimates and the Budget Bill differ from the Budget that was approved in December. However, no new resources have been allocated since December. I want to stress that the spending plans that the Assembly approved are the basis for the Estimates and the Budget Bill.

I will explain briefly the main differences that occur and why. The December Budget concentrates on expenditure within the departmental expenditure limit (DEL), which the Treasury sets. The Budget brings together all the expenditure and revenue that relate to what we can do within the DEL to finance public services. The Estimates set out what that means for the drawing of cash by Departments from the Consolidated Fund and their use of resources in relation to their objectives.

In addition to the DEL, the Estimates include some annually managed expenditure (AME). Two main items fall into that category: social security benefits, some of which are subject to annual appropriation or authorisation and some of which are charged under legislation to the National Insurance fund and, hence, do not feature in the voting process; and expenditure under the common agricultural policy (CAP) because it is fully funded by the European Agriculture Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF).

As well as those AME items, some aspects of expenditure, nominally attached to the DEL, are ring-fenced by the Treasury. These include, for example, expenditure under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.

Some social security expenditure is handled outside the voting system, because there are standing authorisations in the form of specific legislation that allow money to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund, or another fund, to provide a service. A further example of that is when a Department makes a loan under some statutory power. In most cases, the issue of the loan will count towards the DEL. However, where there is a standing authorisation for the making of loans outside the Estimate, the loan would not need specific Assembly approval through the Estimates and Budget Bill system. Some important aspects of the Budget are funded in that way, as distinct from the Supply procedure that we are considering today.

I now turn to the detail of the Estimates, which are produced on a resource basis. In the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the total net resource requirement is £263 million. Resources of some £177 million are sought in request for resources A. That provides for ongoing regional services and support measures, including £76 million for development of agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services.

Approximately £56 million, including £2·4 million that is allocated under the Executive programme funds, is sought for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, animal disease compensation and processing and marketing grants that are totally funded by the European Union. Central administration is allocated £13 million, including information technology and specialist accommodation services, and £9 million is for the rural development programme.

Approximately £11 million is for structural funds and the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, and £12 million is for non-cash items such as capital charges, depreciation costs and notional interdepartmental charges. Various market support measures administered under the common agricultural policy, totalling approximately £158 million, are also accounted for under request for resources A. Those are fully funded by the European Union receipt and, therefore, cancel within the Estimate.

Resources of some £86 million are sought in request for resources B. That includes £24 million for the Rivers Agency, the Forest Service and fisheries services. Another £3 million is for central administration, the European Union Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The remaining £59 million is for non-cash items such as capital charges, depreciation costs and notional interdepartmental charges. Various market support measures administered under the common agricultural policy, totalling approximately £1 million, are also accounted for under request for resources B. Again, those are fully funded by the European Union receipt and, therefore, cancel within the Estimate.

When the resources requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is seeking cash of some £211 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure seeks resources of £85 million. That includes £26·7 million for expenditure by education and library boards on public libraries; £11·4 million on the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland; £8·8 million for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and other miscellaneous support for the arts; and £3·4 million for sports. The Estimate also provides £1·1 million for the Northern Ireland Events Company; £3·6 million as Northern Ireland’s contribution to the North/South language body; and £3 million for Waterways Ireland. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department requires £81·8 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

Turning to the Department of Education, resources of some £1,383 million are sought in request for resources A, which covers schools. That includes £1,040 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards and £39 million for boards’ capital projects. It also provides £155 million for recurrent expenditure in voluntary grammar schools; £36 million for recurrent expenditure in grant-maintained integrated schools; and £67 million for capital projects in voluntary and grant- maintained integrated schools. Approximately £12 million is being made available under Executive programme funds, and £2 million will be made available under the European Union Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.

In request for resources B, which covers youth services and community relations for young people, resources of £29 million are sought. That includes approximately £17 million for recurrent and capital expenditure by education and library boards; £2 million under Executive programme funds; and £3 million under the European Union Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.

When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking cash of £1,425 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate. Resources of £92 million are being sought for teachers’ superannuation, with a corresponding cash requirement for the same amount.

In the Department for Employment and Learning a net resource of £390 million is sought for resources A and £197 million for resources B. Capital provision of £106 million is sought for resources A and £0·2 million for resources B. Request for resources A includes over £150 million for colleges of further education; £171 million for local universities and colleges of education; net resources of £60 million for student support, including £12 million from Executive programme funds for the Higher Education Bursaries Scheme; and capital provision of £106 million for student support.

Request for resources B includes £34 million for New Deal measures, mainly in New Deal for 18- to- 24-year-olds and New Deal for 25 plus. Just over £60 million is to guarantee training places for 16- and 17-year-olds under the Jobskills programme. A further £16 million is for other training and temporary employment programmes to get 3,000 places for long-term unemployed adults who are not eligible for New Deal.

When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department requires £689 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

In the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment £287 million is sought for resources A to cover economic support and regeneration measures. That includes £188 million for Invest Northern Ireland to support business growth and inward investment, promote innovation, research and development and company training. Also included in that request for resources is £16 million to support the tourist industry and £13 million for economic infrastructure to develop world-class telecommunications and support the development of the Northern Ireland Science Park.

The request for resources B, which covers the Department’s regulatory services, is for £14 million. When the resources requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department requires £269 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department of Finance and Personnel is seeking £33·7 million for resources and £0·1 million for capital for resources A to cover its administration of the public expenditure system and its responsibilities for European structural funds programmes. The sums of £94·6 million for resources B and £20·7 million for capital are sought to cover the services that the Department provides to other Departments such as central personnel, statistics accommodation, construction, purchasing, telecommunications and business consultancy.

In its request for resources C, the Department is seeking £19 million for resources and £1·5 million for capital to support the administration of services to the public, including rateable valuations, the registration of births, marriages and deaths and land registration.

The resources requested by the Department will enable the delivery of planned services in all the areas that I have mentioned and will support the next stages in a range of reviews, including reviews of rating, public procurement, promotion and recruitment to the Senior Civil Service, accommodation, and the scope for decentralisation of Civil Service jobs. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking just under £145 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is seeking over £2,321 million. That figure includes £2,230 million to be spent on delivering an effective, high-quality health and social care service to people in need; £60 million for fire services; and £31 million for departmental administration. When adjusted for capital payments and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is just over £2,330 million. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s Main Estimate identifies £41 million to meet the cost of the health and personal social services superannuation scheme. The net cash requirement for that Estimate is also £41 million.

A total net resource requirement of some £122·6 million is being sought by the Department of the Environment, together with almost £2·7 million for capital investment. That increase of £9·8 million above the resources that were available last year reflects the continuing need to resolve historical underfunding of the Department’s functions. Around £6 million of the additional resources will be used to help meet international environmental obligations, including waste management and the transposition and implementation of European Union Directives.

The remainder of the increase — some £4 million — will be directed in a variety of ways, including assistance to district councils, the continuing effort to reduce road casualties, and support for the planning process. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking just over £111 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department for Regional Development’s Estimate comprises two requests for resources with a total net resource requirement of £1,768 million, together with £170 million to meet direct departmental investment in capital projects.

Request for resources A, which covers the roads, transport and the strategic planning functions of the Department, along with related central administration, amounts to some £1,287 million. Of that, almost £1,041 million is attributable to non-cash costs such as depreciation and cost-of-capital charges, substantially in respect of the roads network.

Provision is also made for capital expenditure of some £57·5 million, mainly by the Roads Service. That figure includes an allocation of £11·5 million from the Executive programme funds to enable five high-priority road schemes to progress.

With regard to transport, request for resources A includes some £56 million to fund capital expenditure by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company on the railway infrastructure service. This is included in the grants column on the resource side of the Estimate. Some £18 million is needed for other railway services, and some £26 million for road passenger services, including concessionary fares and rural transport.

Request for resources B relates to the provision of water and sewerage services, for which a net resource of some £481 million is needed. Depreciation and cost-of- capital charges amounting to £372·5 million are catered for. The £113 million needed for capital investment in the water supply, treatment and sewage disposal infrastructure includes £1·5 million allocated from the Executive programme funds. After accruals to cash adjustments are made, the Department for Regional Development’s net cash requirement for the year is just under £520 million.

The Department for Social Development has sought £2,552 million for resources A, which covers its social security and child support programme. That figure is made up of non-contributory and income-related benefit expenditure of £2,365 million, £158 million for administration and £29 million for non-cash items such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges and depreciation costs. Included in the administration costs is some £41 million to enable the Department to progress its welfare reform and modernisation programme.

The sum of £294 million is being sought for resources B, which covers the housing programme. That figure includes programme expenditure of around £289 million, administration costs of £2 million, and £4 million for non-cash items. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive’s rents and capital receipts from house sales are taken into account, the gross resources available for housing will be over £632 million. For resources C, which covers the urban regeneration and community development programme, £71 million is being sought. That figure includes programme expenditure of £53 million, administration costs of £6 million and £12 million for non-cash items.

Within programme expenditure, £31 million will be provided to promote and implement a comprehensive approach to tackling physical and social regeneration and £8 million for grants to voluntary bodies. The sum of £8 million will be made available under the European Union’s peace and reconciliation programme, of which £6 million will be funded from European Union receipts. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash figure and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department for Social Development is seeking £2,845 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is seeking total resources of £39·2 million. Some £15 million is to support the Executive in making and implementing well-informed and timely policy decisions and improving public services, while £23·3 million is to promote equality of opportunity and human rights, to improve community relations, tackle poverty and social disadvantage and meet the needs of victims. When adjusted for capital and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is £38·9 million.

The Assembly seeks £40·4 million to cover Members’ salaries, expenses and administration costs. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £39·9 million. The Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints seek £0·9 million to investigate complaints against Departments and public and local bodies and to provide an investigative resource for the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £0·9 million. The Audit Office seeks £5·4 million to provide independent assurance to the Assembly on Government expenditure. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £4·9 million.

Finally, the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas is seeking £0·1 million. This includes provision to cover salaries and other costs associated with gas-related work, which, as it falls outside the current licensed area, cannot be financed through licence fees. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, £0·05 million is required to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Estimates and the Budget Bill will set the framework for our spending plans for 2002-03 based on the Budget position approved in December. However, we already know that there will be quite significant funding changes in the coming year, which will need to be reflected in the Supplementary Estimates.

In addition to the normal in-year monitoring round — significant changes in themselves — the Executive will shortly be making funding announcements about the reinvestment and reform initiative and the infrastructure fund. Those will be followed by later announcements on the Children’s Fund, the new innovation and modernisation fund and the social inclusion/community regeneration fund.

The spending plans that we are debating today represent another important step in the evolution of the Assembly. The Estimates and the Budget Bill consolidate what we have already achieved and establish the framework for our expenditure in 2002-03 and the delivery of public services.

We now have many important issues to look forward to. We will know the outcome of the UK spending review in July, and we will then know what resources will be available to us for the next three years. We will be setting plans for our expenditure in the Budget 2002 process, which I explained in my timetable statement on 4 March earlier this year. These plans will cover the three-year period from 2003-04, so that we can begin to move towards more stable, longer-term planning in line with our Programme for Government. The Programme for Government sets out our most important priorities alongside issues such as equality and new targeting social need, which cut across all our policies and initiatives.

In commending this Supply resolution to the Assembly, I am conscious that, as a devolved Administration, we have a clear responsibility to ensure that our spending plans address our agreed needs and priorities. The allocations that we are asked to agree today reflect priorities set and agreed by the Executive and the Assembly. That is not an insignificant point, and we should continue to be aware of the Assembly’s responsibility to meet the needs of our people across the full range of public services. We also must ensure that there are appropriate levels of management and control over the use of these resources.

Our expenditure decisions affect directly the life of every citizen in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is an obvious message, but it is worth reminding ourselves of our responsibilities and of the impact of our decisions. Debates and decisions that come from this Chamber impact on the daily lives of the people of Northern Ireland; that might not be visible every day, but nonetheless the impact is real. We share a duty to make that impact as positive as we can.

This is particularly pertinent at a time when sectarian forces persist in their attempts to deepen divisions, inflame old hatreds and set sections of our communities against each other. The message from the Assembly to the people of Northern Ireland should be that by working together we are achieving positive results, and we will achieve even more than we did in the past by continuing to work together.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Supply resolution debate to formally consider and approve the Main Estimates. The Main Estimates are the further development of the figures that were approved in the revised Budget last December. I agree with the Minister that minor improvements in the format of the Estimates have been made, following representations by the Committee for Finance and Personnel. The Minister has also stated his willingness to further consult with the Committee about other possible improvements and simplifications before next year’s Estimates.

The Finance and Personnel Committee will readily act as a conduit for other Committees or Members who have suggestions for further improvements. At the Committee’s request, the Department of Finance and Personnel held a seminar on the Estimates procedures for Members and staff recently, and further information will soon be distributed to those who were unable to attend.

Members’ attention is needed on the current Estimates and Budget process. They should scrutinise them and hold the Executive to account for their spending priorities and plans for future years. That must be an ongoing exercise, not just a one-off measure relating to a key debate such as the Budget or the Estimates. Spending priorities must reflect the Government’s objectives, and moneys must be spent effectively to achieve the desired outcomes and ensure that performance targets are met.

Statutory Committees can effect that scrutiny throughout the year: as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I value that role. Members can also pose probing questions to Ministers throughout the year to ensure effective expenditure. This should not be a set-piece debate: our attention should remain on it during the year.

The Executive’s recent position report, ‘Developing the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2003-04’, will allow for six months of informed debate about hard choices on how to spend public funds, the Barnett allocation, and how we spend funds in the coming year. It is not simply a matter of saying that more money is required for everything. Difficult choices must be made, and informed debate should occur so that the best choices can be made.

On a more personal note, I welcome the increased resources set aside for health and social services, and the significant bids envisaged for that in next year’s Budget. However, it is important that we deliver additional funds and ensure that the money is spent effectively. I look forward to the imminent publication of the needs and effectiveness analysis. That will assess how the money has been spent to date and ensure that money is better spent.

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

I welcome the opportunity to discuss and approve the Supply resolution. The public knows that the needs of society far outstrip the resources received from the Treasury.

One of the few ways of raising funds for health, education, roads and other necessary services is rates. Therefore, it is important that we approve the Supply resolution. However, it is also important that we support and approve the action of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, who does a difficult and complex job. His professionalism on these issues is commendable.

The Assembly, Committees and the Executive must work ceaselessly in pursuit of the goals of the community. We must build, innovate, develop and continuously improve our activities. We must continuously question the use of resources in every Department, asking whether they represent value for money. We need to ensure that our public procurement is used in ways that satisfy our needs and, where possible, liberate opportunities for our people and our economy.

I welcome the Minister’s statement as a sign that devolution is truly bedding down. However, that brings with it a responsibility on Members to deliver on the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. Local responsibility and local decision-making is not a responsibility-free zone.

I welcome especially the funds that have been allocated by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to improve community relations, and I hope that people on the streets will soon witness an outcome of the use of such funds.

We have heard, and will undoubtedly hear today, appeals for more funding to be made available for particular projects and Departments. However, funds are severely limited. Some progress has been made in examining alternative and innovative ways to introduce new spending ability to the system, and that must be welcomed. The reinvestment and reform initiative offers an opportunity to begin to address the serious infrastructure backlog, which is a matter of record in the Assembly.

Moreover, the review of public-private partnerships in Northern Ireland is moving ahead. I hope that as many people as possible will take the opportunity to contribute to debates on that review, the review of public administration and the review of the rating system.

Much can be done to increase our spending power, within our system and resources, that can be added from outside. None of the advances that I mentioned release the Minister from his task of achieving the best possible outcome for Northern Ireland from the spending review. He needs the backing of all parties and Departments.

It has been said frequently here, and mentioned just now by Mr Beggs, that health services need resources. That is true, but the House must be assured that funding for health is spent as effectively as possible. The ongoing needs and effectiveness evaluations by several Departments are vital. I support the motion.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

The way in which the Estimates have been presented to Members is bewildering. Roy Beggs said that minor changes had been made; however, I am sure that the language used in the Estimates could be simplified so that they are more accessible, not only for debate in the Assembly, but to the public. When it comes to accounting measures there is a need to use accounting terms. However, many of us are still getting our heads around AMEs and DELs when we are hit with RFRs and FOCSs and CFERs et cetera.

Sometimes I wonder whether the Department invents much of the terminology, to make those matters unnecessarily obscure. The presentation of the Estimates must be much more user-friendly in future.

I noted Ms Lewsley’s comments about the need to examine expenditure, but also to support the Minister as regards rates. She pointed out that resources outstrip needs in our society. That will be a familiar call in years to come as the local tax, which this Administration impose, begins to increase. I do not accept that we should unnecessarily increase the sources of funds in Northern Ireland. In doing so, we sometimes stymie enterprise. We have before us almost £9 billion of expenditure. It is not impossible, with that amount of expenditure, to make sure economies as would enable the most pressing capital needs and other needs to be met without imposing a further local tax on those who seek to create jobs and provide economic development in Northern Ireland.

We are in the middle of the spending cycle that the Estimates refer to. Ms Lewsley said that we have seen the Administration bedding down and that Northern Ireland is moving into a new era promoted by the agreement. However, it is becoming clear that what is contained in the Estimates is being altered as a result of what has been going on in the streets over the past few months.

This year, 250 houses will have to be bought up under the special purchase of evacuated dwellings (SPED) scheme. That has not been factored into the Estimates. Seventy-five of those purchases — almost £7 million worth — will be the result of the activity of the armed wing of a partner in the Administration. As a result of the raid on Castlereagh by the IRA and the way in which that compromised the security of policemen, 75 families have had to move house, and 75 houses will have to be bought under the SPED scheme. That is just one incident; add to that the number of people who have been put out of their homes as a result of terrorist activity on the streets.

It is obvious that the best-laid expenditure plans are being unravelled and damaged by some who sit on the Executive, who draw up the budgetary plans and introduce the expenditure Estimates. At the same time, plans for housing — to give one example — are being disturbed and affected by the activities of those who sit here and pontificate as politicians while their less-savoury friends are out on the streets destroying houses and putting people out of their homes.

How many other spending plans will be affected by that kind of activity in the coming months? The Minister of Finance and Personnel’s party continues to reward those who put a spanner in the works and who damage the manner in which spending in the Province is undertaken. It rewards them in many ways. It is best illustrated by the SDLP’s and the Alliance Party’s rewarding of a member of the political group that is at the heart of the street disorders that are rampant in Belfast.

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

Mr Wilson, you are straying from the item of business.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I hope that I have explained myself, Mr Deputy Speaker. It probably hurts when the finger of blame is pointed at those who have rewarded Sinn Féin/IRA in Belfast City Council. However, housing expenditure will be severely damaged. Members have heard that £600 million — including grants and capital receipts — is available for housing in Northern Ireland in the next year. However, the Housing Executive must buy up houses from people who have been intimidated, repair houses that have been wrecked and improve security on houses so that people can live without fear. That is as a result of the activities of parties represented in the Assembly and who, presumably, approved the Estimates.

I hope that the Estimates will become more user-friendly. I know that it is the job of Committees to examine Budgets at the stage when they are presented to them, and they do that. Before we impose further tax burdens on the public, I hope that we will look at what economies can be made in the £9,000 million represented in the booklet.

With regard to those who engage in activities across the Province that, in effect, drain resources away from much-needed areas of expenditure into unnecessary areas of expenditure created solely by their activities, I hope that they will not be rewarded in future and that everyone in the House will treat them with the disdain and contempt that they deserve.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

This is one of the most important issues to come before the Assembly, because it literally affects every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. Looking around the Chamber, a dozen or less representatives are present. In many ways that is an indictment of us and of how seriously we take our functions, because this affects everyone in some way or other. It is important that all Members, without exception, take an interest in the Estimates, the Budget and the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, and it is in all of our interests that that be done.

With that in mind, I welcome, and for the Minister’s attention I emphasise "welcome", the efforts that have been made in the past 12 months to make the Estimates more user-friendly. For example, the colour-coding is beneficial when examining each section and getting the meaning behind it. I also welcome the efforts, which the Minister referred to, to provide courses for Members and officials as a sort of guide through the Estimates. That is welcomed and is beneficial to all of us.

However, further improvements could be made. Mr Sammy Wilson referred to the language used, and it should be more user-friendly. He gave some examples, and I accept that there are certain terms that are established in accountancy and that trying to change them would create more confusion. However, we have introduced new language — for example, CFERs. Let us call receipts "receipts" and sales "sales" wherever possible, rather than using other terminology or jargon, which only makes understanding more difficult.

I would also like to see an easier read-across from one year to another. Last year’s Estimates booklet does not co-ordinate with this year’s. There is no straight read-across, and there should be. We are moving away from Government accounting to more commercial accounting. In company accounts there is a direct read-across from one year to another. There is no reason why that should not happen with our Estimates.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Does the Member not suspect that the failure to provide clear comparisons between one year and another is not accidental, but a method of burying unpalatable truths?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

There are many occasions when bad news can be hidden in one way or another. However, I cannot judge whether it is the reason behind this, because I am not a Member of the Executive.

A simple read-across would help. For example, the sequencing of the presentation of the Departments — the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, then the Department of Finance and Personnel — should be the same from one year to the next.

That is not the case this year. I mean that as a constructive criticism, to try to help Members to further understand finance so that we can have a greater input and better represent those who sent us to the Assembly. I am saying this to ensure that there is best value for money and more interest in finance, which can be a boring topic. Finance is always boring except when it is your own. There are some small areas in which improvements could be made to help Members better understand the topic.

Another idea would be to highlight, with an asterisk, large differences between one year and the next. I am not talking about common inflationary increases; Members know that normal administration costs, for example, rise from one year to the next. However, as you flick through the document, you wonder why there are such large increases in some areas. For example, why is there a 15% increase in central administration under some of the votes? Adding an asterisk, and an explanation — if there is one — would certainly help Members, and would, perhaps, make those with suspicious minds less suspicious. It would remove the clouds of suspicion that may hang over certain figures.

The document has around 300 pages. I know that all efforts are being made to increase the time available to Members to do their jobs. That is all we are asking for — time to do our jobs. I admit that I have not had enough time to scrutinise the 300 pages properly. I have not had enough time to go through them in detail, and I am sure that I speak for several Members.

Members are working to tight deadlines. However, that should not be used as an excuse to bury us in paperwork that will lead to confusion. More effort must be made to give proper input into our timetable. The old cliché is very true: if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Due to time restraints, Members do not have adequate time to do their jobs properly, and everyone, therefore, loses out.

Other areas that the general public and taxpayers will be interested in when they consider the document are whether the Assembly is making any real difference; whether the general public is getting real value for money; and whether the Assembly has got its priorities right.

As regards priorities, the Assembly is, by and large, getting its priorities right. Health is the Assembly’s priority, and must continue to be so. The general public would support that. However, they would be justified in asking how translating priorities into action actually works. If they see that the health budget has increased by around £200 million from last year, they can justifiably ask why waiting lists are still increasing. They could ask, "Is there a hole in the bucket?" The old song goes: "There’s a hole in my bucket dear Liza, dear Liza." Well, "dear Liza" — or dear Bairbre — needs to fix that hole, and fix it quickly. The general public is becoming more and more concerned.

I recently received the Eastern Health and Social Services Board’s quarterly service agreement — its monitoring report. Despite additional money being spent, the board had to report that at the end of April 2002 the number of delayed patients was 18% higher, and delayed days were 40% higher, than at the end of April 2001. Something is wrong if that happens. There is a problem that needs to be fixed.

There are other areas in which priorities must be questioned. For example, why are road safety services down almost £1 million on last year when the environment and heritage services are up by £5 million, or almost 15%? Priorities have not necessarily been properly established in that respect.

Much concern and alarm has been expressed about the Water Service, yet its allocation is down £2 million, while the administrative costs in vote B in the same Department are up 50%. Where are the priorities? Have we got them right?

Other Members will probably mention administrative costs, so I will be conservative in my comments. Almost £1 billion is being spent on administration. Depending on the calculation, and on whether other areas that would not necessarily be included under administration costs in the Estimates are incorporated, there could easily be in excess of £1 billion being spent on administration. Is that real value for money?

The Minister will mention, with some justification, the ongoing review of central administration. However, since the Assembly was established some four years ago, many reviews have been thrown into the wheelbarrow. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know what to do with a wheelbarrow — you push it in front of you, you never really get to grips with it, you keep pushing it forward.

The general public and the taxpayers are anxious to see the Assembly really making a difference. There will be a growing question about the efficiency and the effectiveness of this place until actions and resolutions on those reviews come before the House and until we get to grips with £1 billion being spent on administration.

I want the Assembly to work. The people who sent me here want it to work. They want value for money and to see money being spent on proper priorities. They do not want to see their money being lost or dissipated and scattered round foolishly.

I disagree with Mr Sammy Wilson, who said that we probably do not need additional sources of revenue. Considering that the infrastructure deficit is some £6 billion, we probably do. With the best will in the world, the savings that can be made need some form of revenue. That revenue should not come from rates; it should come from local income taxes. That is where I disagree with Mr Wilson — an additional source is needed. If we are going to make the difference —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Member not agree that if the economies that he describes were made, the infrastructure fund, for example, could be entirely serviced from those economies, rather than having to levy additional taxes?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The extent of the bite that one attempts to take from the cake in dealing with infrastructural problems will dictate the amount of loans and finance that will be required in any particular year. However, a conservative estimate is that between £100 and £200 million could potentially be saved in the figures that we are considering. If rates and local revenue-raising were done away with, that would not be enough to service the debt.

There must be a local revenue stream. Rates are the wrong way to do it because they are regressive, although I will not go into that argument. To continually increase rates by 6% or 8% will lead to negative financing, because people will be driven out of business.

A new stream of resources must be considered. My preferred option would be local income tax. We should continue to argue that. I have said this before: I wish that the Executive had used the opportunity for review to put that on the table and have it properly costed and examined. An opportunity may well be lost unless the Executive change their mind and allow economists and others and those giving evidence to consider the potential of local income tax.

Another area of resource wastage that I have touched on is the expenditure of millions of pounds on the "glossy brochure" syndrome. That is still ongoing. Since I spoke about it, a couple of organisations have contacted me and asked for suggestions. I am not against consultation but I am against wastage through consultation. It should not be beyond the wisdom of the Executive and those behind them to target the people they seek to consult, and to do that succinctly and wisely. They need only an exercise in marketing. I am against throwing money away by sending out hundreds of documents to every citizen who happens to be on an equality list or whatever. Proper targeting brings the best results. A recent consultation document on radon gas was sent all over the place, yet only a few per cent responded. We have no resources to waste, so targeting must be specific.

I have referred to reviews, to the need for savings and to everything that we as an Assembly must do. I am glad that the Minister and Sammy Wilson touched on the vital message that must be sent to the thugs and gangsters who waste money in almost every Department. Mr Wilson referred to housing. We have seen the television footage of young thugs systematically wrecking house roofs. That will possibly cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to put right. We hear daily of attacks on ambulance men and their vehicles. How will that increase the number of nurses and doctors? People are dying, and thugs and gangsters attack ambulance men. It is crazy.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Is the Member aware that central Government subsidise a proliferation of organisations that are inextricably linked to those who are involved in paramilitary and terrorist activity? The aim is to bribe them, but it does not work.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I sympathise with the Member. The paramilitaries have had long enough to decide whether they want to be proper democrats, and they cannot sit astride two horses. In promoting the paramilitary horse they have fallen off the democratic one. Society has borne it for long enough. The Good Friday Agreement is being implemented, as are the changes. Although today we must focus on the Estimates, the destruction taking place has an effect on every Department. It is time for us collectively, as democrats and elected politicians, to say that enough is enough and to call on all terrorist organisations without exception, and on those who claim to have their ear, to get off the fence, stop and disband. We cannot afford to pour money into the black hole of terrorism, which destroys ambulance men, firemen and their vehicles, and attacks the police, and some parties do not even criticise the fact that a young policeman was almost killed a day or two ago.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am impressed by the Member’s points. He is an honest individual who gives of his best in any debate and holds sincere views. How does what he says today sit beside the decision of his three comrades in Belfast city hall last week to support the very people he now castigates? Will he give the reasons for that decision to the Assembly? The public do not understand it, Mr Close.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

To get to grips with the problems, Members must stop playing games with them. I am making an unequivocal, unambiguous plea to everyone across the political spectrum to ask those who call themselves paramilitaries — I call them thugs and gangsters — to cease their terrorism, to disband their paramilitary organisations, and to reassure us, when we spend money and consider motions such as this, that that money will be spent in the interests of society. To enable us to build a better future for the people of Northern Ireland we must ensure that the thugs and gangsters who belong to paramilitary organisations will not waste not only life and limb and blood and sweat but scarce resources.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

To paraphrase Mr Micawber, if your income is £1 and you live on £1 0s 6d, it is misery, and, if you live on 19s 6d, it is happiness. As is often the case, Mr Close referred to several topics, some of which I will not dwell on because he covered them so completely, and one or two others that I will attempt to amplify.

It is a matter of regret that a debate of this kind should warrant the attendance of a single member of the largest party in the Assembly in the form of Mr Beggs; that apart from one fleeting, swallow-like appearance of Mrs Nelis, there has been no representation from Sinn Féin — [Interruption].

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I would hardly describe Mrs Nelis as a swallow.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I will not develop that point.

[Laughter].

However, perhaps it is a reflection of the attention span of some Members that they are not here.

The Estimates contain an enormous amount of jargon and technical terms that would puzzle even the most acute mind and those who are interested in the subject. To those who have only a passing interest in financial matters, the Estimates are utterly bewildering; perhaps that is one reason for the paucity of Members in this place today.

Of course, the matter is open to some simplification. What makes up the income of the Executive and the Assembly? It consists of the block grant, several other minor matters, the possibility of raising money locally via rates and, possibly, charges for the supply of water or the discharge of effluent. What are our debts? They are the massive black hole of underinvestment in the infrastructure of Northern Ireland. Most of them were incurred by central Government, which for many years underinvested in the infrastructure of Northern Ireland with the result that our water system is in the last stages of decay, with upwards of 40% of our water disappearing into the ground. It is, perhaps, a blessing that we naturally have a plenitude of water here, but nevertheless, that represents a huge loss. The sewerage system in many areas of Northern Ireland is decayed and decrepit. Housing developments in some areas have been stopped because the sewerage system is inadequate.

Our waiting lists are an abomination. Not only are our hospital waiting lists 50% higher than those of any other region of the United Kingdom, they are the worst in Europe. We have an education system that requires reform but has been plunged not into reform so much as into proposed revolution. A vast amount of money will be required to commit to any new system and to repair the deficit of funding for school buildings and other ancillary equipment.

That is on the debit side. I have said repeatedly that those who negotiated the Belfast Agreement — [Interruption].

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

There were others.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Yes, those who negotiated it. The Minister does not want to hear about that, because he was one of the brainboxes involved.

The British Government wanted to devolve the problem, and they might have been willing to pay significantly for money that they saved by short-changing the people of Northern Ireland. There was a perfectly valid legal and moral case for saying to them that if they wanted us to take over this place, they ought to have provided some means, whether by direct grants or interest-free loans, to make good that deficit. None of that was done. The result is that the annual block grant under the Barnett formula is barely sufficient to meet Northern Ireland’s annual running costs, let alone provide money that could be saved or put into capital investment.

What did the Executive do when, late in the day, they discovered the deficiency? They went to the British Government and told them, somewhat disingenuously, that they had sold them a pup. The Executive said that hospitals, schools, the water supply, the sewerage system and roads in Northern Ireland were in a mess. Some roads leading to the most important areas, such as the docks, have become a hindrance to business development. The Executive told the British Government that they had left them in a mess and asked what they would do about it. Judging from subsequent actions, I assume that they were told that public-private partnerships would be one half of a panacea for those difficulties and that the British Government’s provision of loans, on which significant and substantial interest must be paid, would be the other.

From where will that interest be paid? Apparently, it will not be paid from any money that is recoverable from the block grant, but by the imposition of local taxes. What are those local taxes? In his previous statement, the Minister of Finance and Personnel talked about resource streams and funding streams. He meant rates, water charges and, possibly, effluent charges. Those sources of income were originally designed to provide for local services; they were not intended as a means of general taxation. Ms Lewsley let the cat out of the bag when she said that we need money to fund education, health and the environment from these resources.

As Mr Close said, when Governments get into bother they suggest a commission or a review, which puts everything on the long finger. He suggested that it is like putting something into a wheelbarrow and continuing to move; it is kept constantly ahead of oneself.

What have the Government done here? They have produced a review of rating policy, which, we are told, is purely a consultation document that nobody need get upset about because nothing is on the table or off it. The core objective of the rates policy review is to increase vastly the money to be screwed out of the ratepayers of Northern Ireland, perhaps by 50%, 100% or 150%. The document suggests that rates should be raised on the capital value of properties.

Everyone knows that the capital value of the property may not represent its value to the occupants, who could be a young family who have taken out a 90% mortgage so that they can live in a better environment in which to bring up children, provide a future nest egg, or even a pension. It is proposed that the full value of the property be taxed through rates, as if it were owned completely, when in fact only 10% of the property maybe owned. At the other end of the scale there are pensioners and other families on a fixed or limited income whose house is their only asset. Those folk, who may have spent their lives paying off their mortgage, will be taxed on the full value of their pension.

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

What is the relevance of the Member’s points?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The Minister is questioning the relevance of this. The debate is about the Estimates, the money to be raised and the money to be spent.

Upwards of £1 billion — I suggest that the figure is nearer £1·2 billion — is to be spent on administration costs, bureaucracy and an overwhelming welter of civil servants that has increased exponentially since the Assembly came into being. Northern Ireland used to be run by six Departments — there are now 10, plus a "Department of the Centre" that was never officially a statutory Department, and which spends £40 million on administrative costs.

We have a block grant of £9 billion, to be spent on running the entire gamut of Government services — education, health, environment, agriculture, the regions and culture. Out of that £9 billion, possibly £1·2 billion — getting on for 15% — is to be spent on administrative charges. The Health Service is in a dreadful state, with the worst waiting lists in Europe. The sewerage, water, and roads infrastructure is in a state of dereliction, and almost £1·2 billion is spent on administration. Then, when the problem is raised, we are told that there is to be another review of administration.

In Northern Ireland we have three MEPs, 18 MPs, 108 MLAs, 26 district councils with 560 paid councillors, and 120 quangos with 2,000 members, all for a population of 1·6 million. Mr Close pointed out that we could save money by reducing wastage on administration. Unless we do that, we will have the following scenario in the future. The infrastructure deficit — which is not £5 billion, but in excess of £10 billion — will be solved in two ways: by public-private finance or by borrowing from central Government billions of pounds, on which interest will have to be paid.

Public-private finance is simply a form of hire purchase. The Executive will ask private financiers to build a hospital, a school or some other public utility, and rent it to them on hire purchase. The Executive will have to repay not only the rate of interest on the money that the private financiers borrowed from the City in the first place, but the profit addition on the borrowed money. Private financiers are not philanthropists; they are in the business of public-private finance to make money. Therefore, we plan to get out of our difficulties by doing what we advise every young family not to do, and what Mr Micawber would have advised them not to do, which is to get up to the neck in debt.

The other source of income is central Government’s altruistic offer to lend us £5 billion over the next 10 years; however, interest will have to be paid on that. Where will that money come from? Apparently, it will be raised from rates, and possibly through charges on water and sewerage. The people who will pay for that are those who have saved throughout their lives to put a roof over their family’s heads, to improve their social and living standards, and to provide a nest egg and possibly a pension for the future.

The review document tells us that 52% of people will be winners, and that only 32% will be losers. However, if the total amount of money received from rates is to increase by 50% to 100%, the losers will be enormous losers, and any winners will be meagre winners. The entire plan is a nightmare. Unless the problem is properly addressed soon, the future for this and the next generation in Northern Ireland will be extremely bleak.

I agree with Mr Close that rates system does not provide suitable or even true assessment of wealth for the purposes of imposing general taxation. The system was never intended as a source for general taxation. Mr Close suggests a local income tax as an alternative. That would be a much fairer method of imposing general taxation because tax would be imposed on people’s disposable income rather than on an asset, such as a house, which is not disposable. People are trapped in their homes and are being taxed to death on them. They cannot dispose of them because people need houses in which to live and to raise their families.

The difficulty with local taxation is that no one will like it because it is a clear imposition of tax. Although the devolved Government in Scotland have been given the power to raise local income tax, they have yet to use that power because they realise that, electorally, it would not be wise to do so.

Now, in Northern Ireland, since we do not have any true democracy — we do not have Governments that, if they displease the people, can be put out at the next election — broadly speaking, the same parties will be returned after each election. The parties will nominate the same Executive, or a variant of them. They can impose local taxation, and, since they will not be harmed by it, they can literally say "To hell with how the electorate feels." However, is that wise? Is it wise to use an undemocratic system to impose a tax?

In conclusion, as Sammy Wilson and Mr Close said, the Estimates show massive scope within the amount of money available for real economies, especially in administration, which should be effected with the greatest possible dispatch. They should not await the outcome of some interminably delayed review, which merely exacerbates the problem without dealing with it. Secondly, if a tax is imposed, it should definitely not be on the rateable value of premises.

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

I call Mr ONeill.

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

Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must have nodded off.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Cheap, that is cheap.

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

I welcome the motion before us today as a sign of the success of devolution. There is no better way to measure a devolved Government’s success than by examining how well their finance system operates. This has been a successful year, as were the previous ones, for running our Budget, for providing moneys for the Departments and for ensuring that we deliver for the people whom we represent. I thank the Minister and his officials for their hard work in that regard.

I sympathise fully with Sammy Wilson’s remarks on the waste of money as a result of intimidation — money that has to be spent on the SPED programme. It is an unnecessary drain that would stop if we got rid of this evil of intimidation. Incidentally, to correct Mr Wilson, this evil is happening on both sides of the community, with many people being forced from their homes. Perhaps he intended to suggest reverting to the old situation in which money for SPED was provided initially by the Housing Executive but recouped from the security budget later. There is an argument for using that system still.

I was pleased that Mr Close avoided mentioning his most imaginative solution of last year, which was to take £10 million from each Department and to spend it all on health. He appears to have moved away from that simplistic solution. Perhaps the £1 million reduction in the road safety service has shown the truth of what I said to him then — if you slice off money from all Departments, you will affect health in many other ways. I also used the example of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the benefits of a healthy sporting programme on health and, therefore, on the Health budget. One cannot deal with Budgets so simplistically.

I was also a bit surprised by the introduction of an elitist approach to consultation; that is not the normal approach. I would have thought that Mr Close would be able to advocate full consultation involving everyone on all important issues.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

By welcoming such documents, is Mr ONeill advocating the wastage of money through brochures that are admittedly thrown into waste paper baskets throughout this country?

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

I am not sure what Mr Close does with the consultation papers that he receives, but I attempt to read mine, although I admit that it is burdensome. Nevertheless, Mr Close said that a specialist list — in fact, an elitist list — of consultees should be honed, rather than having general consultation. That is why I used the word "elitist", and I was surprised to hear Mr Close use that term.

I was also much amused by Mr McCartney, who arrives in the Chamber occasionally and then proceeds to take an awful long time to say what he says every time.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am like Mr Hume.

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

Are you?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Yes, I have a single transferable speech.

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

There is the same degree of recognition but a different angle.

In fairness, some Members referred to the point that I am really interested in: as we have completed the process for this year, how can we be sure that things are being done in the best possible way? Our serious interest is in attempting to ensure that we get the best and most economic approach. Has the Minister any plans for improvement? Does his Department analyse the success of each Department in bidding for, and then delivering on, its budget? Internally, Departments may consider that themselves, but does the Department of Finance and Personnel not need to take an overarching look at that and try to ensure that that is done? Does the Minister have any plans to deal with that?

As Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, I am particularly interested in that Department, which is entirely new. Other Departments have inherited substantial areas of a former department’s responsibility en bloc. However the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure comprised bits and pieces of responsibility that derived from various departments. Therefore, it was difficult to pull those aspects together. Now, after several years, I would be interested to know how the Minister would analyse the success of that Department’s budgetary process and spend. I hope that we could use that kind of approach to learn and make improvements as we move along.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

We will probably be moving on in five minutes, and therefore I will be able to commence my remarks only. If Mr ONeill thought that Mr McCartney’s speech merited nodding off, I do not know what he thought of his own. It certainly did not rivet anyone to the seat nor excite people in any shape or form.

Mr McCartney made a thoughtful contribution, worthy of serious consideration if we really want to tackle the finances that are available to the Assembly and if we are serious about protecting the community.

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

Will the Member give way?

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Mr ONeill has just spoken, so he would not want to hold us to our seats for another few moments.

However, Mr McCartney’s points were worth repeating, and many of them would be worthy of the Minister’s attention.

It was very sad that Mr Arthur Doherty was the only Member on the SDLP Bench for most of the Minister’s speech, and that Mr Beggs was the only Member on the Ulster Unionist side. Sinn Féin/IRA has two Departments that represent almost half of the Budget, and no Member of that party was present when the Minister was speaking. That is a serious matter. As Mr Close said, this is one of the most important issues that has come before the Assembly. The lack of importance that the Members of the parties in the Executive place on the issue is reflected by the fact that the Minister sat almost alone. I am not referring to Executive Members, but to the real supporters of the Belfast Agreement and the heralders of this exercise. They thought that it was so important that they did not go away — they stayed away. Many are embarrassed by the wastage of resources in this country.

Whether it is repetition or not, it is not acceptable to have 11 Departments wasting money in creating jobs for the boys to keep different parties happy with ministerial posts. That must be tackled. If we are serious about getting our finances right, we must look at that situation, and it should not be allowed to continue.

We have a multitude of quangos in this country, to be paid for out of limited resources. We are told, after a full term of the Assembly, that it is under review and it will be looked at. The full term of the Assembly has passed — a year was added on. No one knows what that means, and how serious Members are about tackling the situation that is costing our society a tremendous amount of money. The cost of financing the North/South ministerial bodies has to come out of the limited resources available. We are facing serious wastage, and that should be tackled. We have limited resources to begin with. We talk about the block grant.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr McCartney made the point that those who negotiated the Belfast Agreement sold the people of Northern Ireland short by not telling the Westminster Government that more money was necessary to carry out responsibilities in this country, because of neglect over the years. Many of them were so anxious to get their hands on positions of power that they were willing to let the financial aspects go. We have inadequate resources to meet the real needs of our community, whether in health or farming.

The first part of this debate is about to be brought to an end, but we will continue where we left off later.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We shall resume the debate at 4.00 pm.

The debate stood suspended.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I note from the totals of each Department’s Estimate that the Department of the Environment is allocated 1·2% of the total resources available. During the debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates on 11 February 2002, I outlined to the House how the Committee for the Environment scrutinised the Department of the Environment’s budget for 2002-03. The Minister of Finance and Personnel said then that he was impressed by that process. Unfortunately, the scrutiny concluded that there was little scope or flexibility in the Department’s budget to make savings or to switch resources.

I recognise the case for increasing expenditure in some Departments; however, when will proper funding be allocated to secure and sustain Northern Ireland’s environment, its primary asset, before it is too late? A sizeable increase in the Department of the Environment’s budget of £115 million would be marginal overall but would have a significant and lasting impact on the protection of the environment. On the estimated figures a fraction of 1% would be meaningful, and I ask the Minister to examine the matter seriously.

Members will recall that the proposal to cut £2 million from the 2002-03 budget grant for local government resources was successfully fought by my Committee. That cut, which would have applied only to the 16 poorest councils, would have been a major injustice. The Committee was therefore horrified to learn in April 2002 that the restoration of the £2 million grant was not rolled forward into future years. I trust that that was an oversight and that the Minister will correct it by recommending that the Department of the Environment’s budget meet the restoration of that £2 million. Furthermore, district council resource grant levels have been cut as a result of the impact of the current indicative minima, and it is imperative that a bid for £4·4 million to restore those levels is met. Such cuts are in direct contradiction of the Executive’s policy of targeting social need.

In conclusion, and speaking as a Member, I join others who spoke about the wastage of public funds by those who wreck and destroy our country. Every Member should remember that many of those who hold Executive positions have not only a great influence on that but carry a large part of responsibility for it, so I trust that we will call on the thugs and gangsters who are wrecking the Province and costing millions of pounds to stop and that our security forces will be allowed to take the necessary measures to bring those who have carried out such actions to immediate justice.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Having listened to Robert McCartney, Sammy Wilson, William McCrea and my Colleague Séamus Close, I suspect that most of what needs to be said has been said. They dealt very adequately with many of the issues that exercise the minds of people who are not Assembly Members. If nothing else is learnt from the debate, I hope that Members will realise that what we have is not acceptable for good government here.

We are told constantly that the Assembly is good news for Northern Ireland and that the ordinary man in the street — although I do not like that term because I do not understand who the ordinary man is — feels that he is better off today than he was three or four years ago. I suspect that if Members told people in the street that today, they would look at them in dismay and think that they were being spoken to in a foreign language, because they do not see the good results that were supposed to flow from the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Northern Ireland has 11 extravagant and expensive Departments, and most people do not understand why, but then the Belfast Agreement had more to do with political expediency than with good government. It behoves everyone in this country, and especially the major parties, to learn the lesson quickly that we must get back to democracy. We must demonstrate to everyone, whether dissenter or supporter, that good government will benefit everyone.

My Colleague Sammy Wilson touched on that when he said that approximately 75 police officers had been forced out of their homes as a result of the IRA break-in at Castlereagh. That is but the tip of the iceberg — security has been breached, and we do not know where it will end. The cycle has begun again: an attempt was made on the life of a young Catholic police constable when his car was booby-trapped. There are those in the House who tell us that they will cherry-pick the agreement and take all the things that benefit them. However, those same Members will make their presence felt in another way, in respect of issues that they feel that they cannot support.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Does Mr Morrow agree that, in the light of the incident in Ballymena, it is a shame that Sinn Féin/IRA Members of the Executive told people to treat the Police Service in the same way as they treated the RUC? If that is the advice from a party that sits on the Executive, how can we expect anything other than what happened in Ballymena?

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that point — I could not agree with him more. In Dungannon at the weekend those who wanted to take the law into their own hands engaged in more brutal activities. Of course, this is not the first time that that has happened; Barney McDonald was recently murdered there. When you ask the police who they think was involved, they say that they are confused and do not know. The dogs in the street know who carries out such atrocities, but the forces of law and order do not, despite the fact that it is patently obvious to anybody with half a head on his shoulders.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the hon Member for giving way. I am sure that he and his party would similarly condemn those involved in the attack on St Columbanus’s College in Bangor, where tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage was done to a school that has been at the forefront of community education — almost 50% of each of the communities are represented on its roll.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that point and for the useful information that is relevant to the debate.

The infrastructure of our water, sewerage, roads, housing, and so forth is in dire need of capital expenditure. However, every time we have a Budget report and discussion on these issues, the Minister of Finance and Personnel puts his hands up and says that we do not have the money, although I do not blame him for that. When will a concerted programme be put in place to tackle our lack of infrastucture? Can anybody say that we have a better infrastructural base or guidelines that could put a better infrastructure in place than we had under direct rule? The answer is that we do not.

In his earlier address, Mr McCartney gave some of the reasons for that. He highlighted the inadequacies of the Barnett formula, and his points were realistic. Until we get down to tackling that formula, the Minister will continue to speak to the House in the same vein, and he will be continually embarrassed that his hands are tied and that he cannot make the necessary improvements to the infrastucture. I hope that when he makes his winding-up speech he will tell the House clearly that he is not about to introduce a new taxation system. That is not what the people of Northern Ireland want or deserve, and they should not have to carry that burden.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

It is true that the Minister tells us that he does not have money, and the chaos with waiting lists means that people’s lives are in danger. However, does my hon Friend understand why the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety recently returned more than £30 million because it was unspent? Something is surely wrong with that.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that point, and I have no doubt that the Minister will want to deal with it in detail. I am sure that he listened intently to my Colleague.

This debate is one of the most important to come before the Assembly. Is it not significant that the Benches of the Ulster Unionist Party, for instance, which signed the Belfast Agreement, are empty and its Members are unconcerned about the matter?

Members of the SDLP, which has been able to muster only one representative for the debate, are not concerned. Sinn Féin/IRA claims that it likes parts of the agreement; it will take the bits that it wants and will leave the rest — but it will still be in government. It has one Member in attendance, part-time, this afternoon.

It behoves everyone to take stock. What is going on among those who claim that they want the agreement? Where are all the bodies? We have empty pews right round the Chamber. That is a downright disgrace. Perhaps the situation reflects an honesty and reality that is creeping in: these parties have no stomach for this; they do not want to be identified with the Minister or to give him moral support. It looks as if they are deserting the ship and leaving the Minister to shore up the unshoreable.

How much longer must we tolerate a situation where every excuse under the sun is made to explain why things cannot and will not be done? Even the First Minister could not find it in his heart to attend and back his Finance Minister. He too is conspicuous by his absence. If the debate means anything, the signatories to the agreement should be in the Chamber to give the Minister moral support rather than say "Get out there and get on with it; we know that you have a bad job to shore up, but we cannot help you because we have landed you in it." At the next finance debate will the Minister ask his Colleagues in the Executive where they were when he was arguing his best case, as none of them was present to lend him moral support? I see that Mr McFarland is returning to the Benches; in fairness to him, he was present earlier.

If anything is gained from the debate, I hope that it is that the present system is no longer acceptable — it is out of date. We expect much better.

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

Several Members have regretted the low attendance. I too regret that the attendance is not as good as I had anticipated for such an important motion. However, some of my Executive Colleagues are engaged in important Executive business. The First Minister is attending a meeting with the Minister for Regional Development, from which I have just returned. That meeting is dealing with important issues concerning the First Minister’s strategic vision for his responsibilities and the means whereby that vision could be realised through various forms of funding. We should inform ourselves before accusing other Members for their absence. I defend the prior engagement of the First Minister. We could have asked why the Minister for Regional Development was not present. He is discussing matters in the Supply resolution, given the significant funding allocations made for his responsibilities. I recognise that his involvement in those discussions with the First Minister is important. I caution Members before they make wild allegations and draw inferences about the absence of our Assembly Colleagues.

The Supply resolution before the House marks an important stage in the budgetary process. It is the basis upon which the legislature, in the form of the Assembly, authorises the spending of Departments, the Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and other bodies to enable them to carry out their functions. The figures before the House are based upon the Budget that we agreed last December. It is important to recognise the stage that we have reached in the budgetary process — we are nearly at the end. If Members were serious about pursuing their suggestions for what could or should have been included, they would have raised them and put them to the House before we voted on the Budget last December.

The authorisation of the spending proposed in that Budget is one of the Assembly’s most fundamental responsibilities. It holds Departments to account as they seek to deliver on their Programme for Government priorities.

(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I do not think that it is normal to give way during a winding-up speech, but I will.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I am delighted to inform the Minister that it is perfectly normal to give way, but I thank him. The Minister said that Members could have raised some of these points last December. Is he aware that we tried to table 12 amendments, but each one was ruled out of order, and we were not permitted to bring those before the House?

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

We agreed on and voted for the Budget last December. Today, we are authorising the expenditure that arises from an agreed Budget.

In many, although not all, respects, this has been a useful and informed debate. Members have made many points, some of which were useful and some of which give cause for reflection and further consideration by my Department, and in discussions, particularly with the Committee for Finance and Personnel. I will try to answer and comment on as many points as possible, and I will follow up in writing any that I am unable to address today.

Several Members expressed concern about the general clarity and the lack of understanding by Members of the format and content of Estimates. I encounter this problem every time such a presentation is made to the House. I accept that this is a fairly complex subject, and for that reason I offered the Committee for Finance and Personnel detailed briefings for Members from my officials. When I reflected on the statement that I made this morning and considered what was alleged to be its jargon, I found that few technical terms were used. Terms that could be described as technical were repeated for the allocations to each Department. My officials provided a seminar on 22 May to help Members to understand the details of the Estimates and to appreciate and understand the technicalities associated with their presentation.

Many Members may feel that they do not need such a session, and I am happy to acknowledge that some comments today indicate that some Members do understand this fairly complex process. However, it is difficult to know how to promote better understanding of the Estimates when initiatives are not supported. I would facilitate a further session were Members to indicate their willingness to attend. I believe that attendance at the seminar was in single figures — and was closer to one than to nine.

Mr Close and Mr McCartney also referred to the difficulty in making year-on-year comparisons in allocations. That is difficult, but we are still in the early days of the new structures introduced through the Good Friday Agreement. We have also introduced resource accounting and budgeting, which has seen a change from cash to resource accounting. I am confident that, over time, that will lead to the production of better information and improved accountability. Committees provide a real opportunity for more considered and detailed examination of such aspects of our budgeting system. Indeed, in the general presentation at the beginning of, and during the course of, the budgetary process leading up to the Vote on Account, comparisons are made between what is to be allocated in the coming year and what was previously allocated, so that Members can appreciate such increases and decreases as may be proposed.

Sammy Wilson suggested that we could finance our infrastructure investment from efficiency savings, or by reducing the cost of government. I certainly agree that we need to look hard at our administration costs as a means of addressing the deficiencies of our public services. That must be an important element of the reform dimension of the reinvestment and reform initiative. Several Members said that there was extravagance in having 11 Departments. The services are essentially the same as those delivered by the previous six Departments, and will continue to need to be delivered. I do not regard those services as an extravagance in any sense. Given that Mr Morrow was a Minister responsible for the delivery of some of those services, I hardly imagine that he would wish to describe any of the services for which he was responsible as an extravagance of any kind.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I have already given way, and I do not intend to give way any further in the course of this winding-up speech.

The scale of savings that might be realised would fall short of meeting our needs, and that is already made clear by the total volume of bids made by departmental Ministers under the first round of the reinvestment and reform initiative. Almost £1·5 billion worth of bids have been lodged against a total fund of £270 million. Indeed, the Department for Regional Development’s bids alone total £417 million, and £277 million in 2002-03 and 2003-04.

It is important to point out to Members that the Treasury has laid down clear principles under which the new borrowing power will operate. If expenditure funded by borrowing is to be treated as falling outside our departmental expenditure limit, a clear relationship must exist between the activity concerned and the revenue stream, so that borrowing is wholly self-financing.

Therefore, borrowing under the proposed new powers will have to be paid for from additional income by way of local revenues, and it will be up to the Executive and the Assembly to decide whether to borrow and by how much. That does not rule out the need to root out waste and inefficiency as a means of improving our public services.

Several Members have referred to the unnecessary expenditure incurred under the scheme for the purchase of evacuated buildings (SPED). The House will appreciate that SPED is an area that is not amenable to normal forecasting by the Department for Social Development. Normal practice has been that the needs of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for the operation of SPED are addressed in-year as part of the routine monitoring arrangements by the Executive. As in the past, we will aim to try to avoid disruption to the normal housing programme as a result of SPED, subject to the availability of the necessary resources.

Several Members from all sides of the Assembly have spoken about the serious impact of the current street disorder on our public services. I want to take this opportunity to add my own condemnation of those who are inciting or inflaming the situation. I appeal to those in situations of influence to do all they can to reduce tension and fear. Every pound we must spend on rehousing people, treating the injured or repairing the damage to our buses and houses is a pound less at our disposal for our health, education and other services.

I agree strongly with those who say that we must root out waste and inefficiency. In the Programme for Government we underline the importance of modernising government and of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. With the introduction of resource budgeting, public service agreements and service delivery agreements, we have laid much of the information basis for that change. That should enable us to get better information about the true costs of services and particularly what outputs and outcomes are being achieved.

The review of public administration over the coming months, examining all aspects of administration including the quality of service, should provide a major opportunity for improvement. The Assembly will, of course, have an opportunity to consider the outcome of that review. Likewise, the new strategic investment body should be an important vehicle for helping to deliver public service reform. However, reform must go wider. We must focus more on delivering services and on placing customer service and the needs of front-line staff first.

I do not want to see public sector budgets increase in the future without applying reform as a key condition. The public needs to know that the best management techniques are being used to deliver services, and that the minimum resource necessary is being used in internal administration.

Éamonn ONeill spoke of the need for the Executive to learn from their experience and analyse how we might do things better and improve the quality of our public services. Others have spoken of the need to advance the reform agenda and deliver real improvements in efficiency. We are tackling the challenge actively through our programme of needs and effectiveness evaluations. Those six studies cover around 75% of all our expenditure programmes, and the reports, which will be presented to the Executive and the Assembly over the coming weeks, will give a clear indication of the effectiveness of our current spending patterns. We will use the outcome of those studies to inform our decisions when we come to construct the Budget for 2003-04 and beyond in September.

Mr McCartney asked about the rates. I thank him for his long, erudite contribution on this issue, and I look forward to seeing his submission to the rating policy review.

[Interruption].

I am glad to hear that some Members find this rather amusing.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is easier to laugh —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

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

I repeat that what happens to the rates here will depend on what the Executive and the Assembly decide over the next number of years. Consultation on the review of rating policy has begun, and that will affect the development of the policy.

Further work is needed to finalise the details of the arrangements for the Executive’s access to borrowing in a way that is demonstrably fair to ratepayers here and across the water. The details will be made known when the position is clearer.

There will be no major increases in local revenue until after full consultation and until a fairer system for revenue-raising has been developed to replace the present system. The pace of change will be subject to approval by the Assembly.

The impression has been given that the consultation is closed to forms of revenue-raising other than the rating system. Mr Close is a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and he will have read the consultation document. He will know that it contains a very clear invitation to those who believe that alternatives should be considered to develop those alternatives and put them forward as part of the submissions to the review of the rating system. I look forward to hearing his party’s views on that. The same invitation is extended to all other Members and to the public at large. I trust that consultations that are open to all in our society are seen as a necessary part of the democratic process.

I do not subscribe to the view put forward by Mr Close that we should target our consultations only at those whom we believe might have most to offer or be most affected. All consultation needs to be open and transparent, and we need to involve all those who wish to contribute. We must ensure that they can make their contributions. That is part of what the democratic process is about. Any attempt to limit that consultation is a denial of every citizen’s right to participate as much as possible in the decision-making process in this society.

The key political concession won by the Executive is the ability to borrow. To what extent and within what time frame we use that power is up to the people of Northern Ireland and will be subject to full democratic debate in the Executive, the Assembly and the wider community.

Mr McCartney spent a long time explaining that we did not require extra resources to pay for services and then went on to recommend an increase in income tax.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I did not recommend an increase.

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

Mr McCartney certainly made a very strong suggestion in that direction.

Mr Close sought clarification about the funding for road safety and the Environment and Heritage Service. The reduction in road safety funding reflects the transfer of certain enforcement functions to the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency and some licensing functions to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The basic road safety functions have not been reduced.

The Environment and Heritage Service has received additional funds to meet the increasing cost of transposing numerous EC Directives into Northern Ireland legislation. The most notable of those cover air and water pollution prevention and control, and waste management.

We must consider our priorities carefully in the forthcoming spending review. That is what the Programme for Government and the Budget processes are all about. We have the right, if we choose, to spend more on some areas than is spent in England. However, the corollary is that we would have to spend less in other areas than would otherwise be possible. However, we shall not be able simply to ask for more.

I thank Members for their valuable contributions not only in this debate but through the Committees, correspondence and questions posed here on other occasions. If I have not responded to any substantive point I shall be glad to reply in writing or ask the relevant Minister to do so.

The Estimates bring together the effects of the decisions that we have already made. In this case, the basis for the Estimates is the Budget that we agreed in December 2001. Within the time constraints in which we must work, we have made considerable efforts to ensure that the Estimates have been available in time for proper and considered scrutiny. I hope that that has been helpful. We shall continue to improve on our procedures so that Members can feel at ease with the process and familiar with its language, and, by so doing, make the most- informed decisions that can possibly be made.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I remind Members that the Supply resolution motion is subject to section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which means that the vote will take place on a cross-community basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £4,962,077,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints for the year ending 31 March 2003 and that resources, not exceeding £5,710,516,000 be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints for the year ending 31 March 2003 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3(a) and 3(b) of Table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2002-03 that was laid before the Assembly on 31 May 2002.

Adjourned at 4.42 pm.