Northern Ireland Assembly, 1 July 2002

120 contributions from 37 members. The official report.

Programme for Government - Annual Report

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the Executive’s annual report on the Programme for Government 2001-02.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If a Member is not in the House at the commencement of a statement, that Member cannot ask any questions on that statement. Is that not so?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No. The Member is incorrect. If a Member is in the House from the beginning of a statement, the Chair will do all possible to ensure that the Member can ask a question within the maximum period of one hour permitted for questions on a statement. If a Member is not in the Chamber for the commencement of a statement but is present before the end of the statement, the Chair may do what it can to give an opportunity to ask questions. However, that Member will generally not be called before a Member who has been present for the entire statement. If a Member enters the Chamber after the statement has finished, that Member will not, in any circumstances, be called to ask a question. I trust that that helps to clarify the matter.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. However, I recall an instance when I entered the Chamber 10 minutes after a statement, which concerned a report on the sewerage works in Donaghadee, had commenced and was not called to ask a question.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is what I have explained. If a Member is present for the start of a statement, the Chair will do all possible to ensure that the Member is called. If the Member is not present for any part of the statement, that Member will not be called. The Chair may call those Members who come in after the statement has started but before it has ended, but should not do so before calling a Member who has been present for the entire statement.

We have also had occasion to make it clear to Members that hearing the statement on a monitor in their office is not recognised as being the same as hearing it in the House. I trust that that clarifies the problem.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I thank you on that point. The other point is that there are several ministerial statements to be made this morning. Dr Farren’s two statements were available in the Lobby. However, the statement you have just called was not available.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I really must ask Members to take cognisance of what we have been doing in the conduct of business for almost four years — today is the anniversary of the first meeting. There is no requirement on Ministers to have statements available before they rise to speak. There is no such requirement, there has never been such a requirement, and there is no requirement in Westminster. There is a requirement that they make statements available as soon as they can. Sometimes that means that statements are made available a day or so in advance on an embargo basis, and on other occasions they are made available after a Minister sits down. However, there is not, and never has been, a requirement that Ministers make their statements available before they stand up to speak. Some do, some do on some occasions, and some do not. There is nothing new about that, and I really think we ought to be moving on and not rehashing rules that have been around all along.

Dr McCrea, you had a point of order.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Mr Speaker, although your ruling is correct, if we are to have a reasonable and rational debate it is more helpful to Members if statements are available. The statements of almost every other Minister are made available, but the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister fail on every occasion.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can do little other than make the ruling on the point of order, which is clear. We must proceed from there.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With permission, the First Minister and I would like to make a statement on the Executive’s first annual report on the Programme for Government. Members will have received the annual report, and this statement provides an opportunity to raise points or questions about it. Unfortunately, because of repackaging, deciding who covers what area, and proofing, the statement was not available as early as we had hoped. It will be available to Members later; however, the main thing is that Members have the annual report. This statement addresses that report, and I am sure that Members’ comments will focus on that.

The Executive’s first Programme for Government, which was presented to the Assembly in March 2001, set out our commitment to deliver open and accountable government. The importance the Executive attached to that was made clear, and the Programme for Government set out in detail what the Executive would do, at what cost and by what date.

Today provides us with an opportunity to report to the Assembly and the public on what we have done. The annual report provides information on the progress we made in delivering the Programme for Government during the last financial year, which ended on 31 March 2002. This statement follows the one made on our position report on the Programme for Government and Budget on 5 June 2002, which set out for the Assembly the Executive’s plans for developing the Programme for Government and the Budget for the years ahead.

The Programme for Government sets out clear priorities for the work of the Executive. Those priorities received clear support from the Executive and from the Assembly. Moreover, it contains information on the policies we shall implement and the actions we shall take to deliver progress across those priorities. The Programme for Government is accompanied each year by a Budget, which, again, was agreed by the Assembly. It sets out details of the allocation of our financial resources in support of priorities and actions.

Although it is important to outline the Executive’s plans and priorities in detail, that is only half the story. If we are to be accountable, we do not only tell people our targets, we tell them whether we achieved them. If we do not deliver what we said that we would, we must explain why, which is the purpose of the annual report.

The first Programme for Government outlined the 256 actions that we planned to take in support of the five key priorities. It contained detailed public service agreements (PSAs) for the 11 Departments, which aimed to set out, for the first time, details of the high-level objectives for each Department and the resources allocated to support those objectives. The PSAs also identified 236 targets that reflected outcomes that each Department intended to deliver.

The annual report covers the 2001-02 financial year, which was the first year of the first Programme for Government. It provides information on the 256 actions and the 236 PSA targets and indicates which actions and targets have been achieved and which are on track to be achieved. If progress has been slower than Ministers envisaged, the report states the reasons why.

The level of detail in the report demonstrates our commitment to openness and accountability. It is a necessarily comprehensive report, which provides a level of detail that is unprecedented, either here or elsewhere on these islands. It allows the Assembly and others to see clearly the progress that we made in the first full year of devolution.

The report highlights the Executive’s overall performance in delivering their Programme for Government commitments. It shows that good progress has been made across all the Executive’s priorities. At the end of the first year covered by the programme, three quarters of our actions were either achieved or were on track for achievement. Many of those actions had much longer timescales than the end of March 2002. Some actions and targets — just 5% — will not be achieved in the way in which we envisaged. It would have been surprising if all our targets had been delivered on time; few Administrations can claim such a feat.

The report provides much more than the overall statistics. It is important that we look behind the figures at the progress that has been made on the ground. One of most significant achievements during our first year in office was the agreement of the Programme for Government. A few years earlier, few would have imagined that four parties could work together, not only to identify the main priorities for Government in Northern Ireland, but also the actions that should be taken to make a positive difference to the lives of people here.

The annual report’s theme of "making a difference" has underpinned the work that has taken place across Government to improve the quality of our public services. I shall focus on that work under two of the Programme for Government priorities.

Under the priority, titled "Growing as a Community", we have worked to develop new policies to tackle discrimination and to promote social inclusion. We have introduced free travel on public transport, which gives our older people new opportunities to access services.

We have progressed on proposals for a commissioner for children, which will place Northern Ireland at the cutting edge of international practice in that field. We have developed a new strategy and package of support measures to help victims of the conflict. We have also met a key target to reduce fuel poverty and have completed work to improve energy efficiency in 4,500 homes.

Under the priority, titled "Working for a Healthier People", we have published and are implementing a new cross-departmental strategy, ‘Investing for Health’. That outlines how we shall act to improve health and reduce health inequalities. We have also taken action to promote road safety through a new road safety strategy.

We have provided millions of pounds of extra funding to support our health and social services. That funding has allowed us to exceed our target to provide 230 extra community care packages, with 465 additional much needed places provided last year.

Extra specialist medical and nursing staff have also been appointed to improve cancer services, and we will say more about that in the House tomorrow. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has begun consultation on proposals to modernise our acute hospital services.

Progress in some areas has been slower than we anticipated when we published the first Programme for Government. However, it is important to understand the reasons for those delays. In some areas, delivering outcomes simply proved to be more difficult than we originally envisaged, and that was due to the complexity of some of the issues. In other areas, we attempted to accommodate requests for greater debate and longer consultation periods.

We need to develop new skills in the Civil Service to meet the requirements of the devolved Administration, and time is needed to ensure effective co-ordination across Departments, while ensuring that the Assembly and its Committees are consulted properly. Ministers and Departments are still learning how best to organise the work that is needed to deliver the Programme for Government.

It is clear that progress in delivering the programme has been affected by many factors, many of which are outside our control. We have had to adapt and re-prioritise to respond effectively to new challenges, such as the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Not only did that have a direct impact on the work of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, it also had implications for other Departments’ work. Foot-and-mouth disease hit our farming, small business and tourism sectors hard, affecting their growth and profits. That impact was further compounded by the downturn in the global economy and the tragic events of 11 September 2001.

Politically, last year was not easy, because we had difficulties and some uncertainty. We also saw trouble on our streets, including that in north Belfast, and we rightly had to focus attention and resources on encouraging dialogue and identifying and implementing solutions.

In that context good progress has been made, especially as we were on a steep learning curve. We have achieved a great deal in many important areas, some of which I have mentioned. The First Minister will shortly give further details of other progress outlined in the report.

The actions that we set out in the Programme for Government focus mainly on the new initiatives that we wanted to take to respond to the needs of Northern Ireland’s people. However, it is important that we recognise that the Programme for Government goes far beyond those 256 specific actions; it also sets the context for the day-to-day work of the Government in all the public services, such as running the hospitals and schools, maintaining the roads and providing training, housing and social security.

The objectives and targets in the public service agreements reflect that work and the resources that support it. The reports on progress against PSA targets, which form part of this annual report, provide a means by which our progress with Government policies can be measured. The Budget also supports that work, and agreeing the first Budget to support the first Programme for Government was itself an important achievement.

Additionally, we have created Executive programme funds to help with new projects and new ways of working in Departments. Through those funds we have already introduced new programmes to support children in need and young people at risk, to modernise our public services and to develop our infrastructure.

As we focus on the day-to-day business of Government, a key priority for the Executive has been to look closely at the effectiveness of current policies and expenditure for delivering the results that we all want to see. It was with that in mind that we initiated work on six major needs and effectiveness evaluations last year.

These cover the areas of health and social care, education, training and vocational education, financial assistance to industry, housing and culture, arts and leisure, and together they account for 70% of our total expenditure.

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

It is vital that we have a clear understanding of the effectiveness of current policies and programmes. We must understand the outcomes that might be achieved through changes either to our policies or to the financial allocations that support them. Work is in progress in each of these areas, and we will shortly make available to the Assembly reports from each evaluation. That work, together with the policy reviews that have been undertaken in other areas, will inform the development of the Programme for Government for next year.

We are pleased to present the annual report to the Assembly. The structures set up with devolution have enabled public representatives to deliver policies and programmes that are tailored to our needs and address the challenges that face us. The actions we have initiated in the Programme for Government will review and update the funding for public services. We will review and revise the delivery of public services and, through the needs and effectiveness reviews, evaluate the effectiveness of public policy areas. All these actions, and more, will enable us to set the compass points for the future, where quality public services, relevant public policy and enhanced public assets will be the rules, not the exceptions.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I apologise to Members for copies of the statement not being available at the outset. I was glad to receive my copy at 12.02 pm. It would have been an interesting statement without it. There are 40 copies available now in the Lobby.

The Deputy First Minister has outlined the content of the annual report and the context in which the implementation of our first Programme for Government has taken place. I will build on his remarks, focus on some of the key achievements that the Executive have delivered and look forward to ways in which the positive start we have made can be built upon. Before doing so, I will return briefly to the theme of open and accountable government. I share the Deputy First Minister’s view of the importance of reporting openly on progress. The Programme for Government represents a contract between the Executive and the people of Northern Ireland, and, like any contract, it must address the needs of both parties.

The Executive want to set out their plans and priorities for Government, and the Programme for Government allows us to do that comprehensively. The people of Northern Ireland, as represented by the Members of the Assembly, expect to be governed openly and fairly. They expect us to deliver on our commitments, and they have the right to receive information on progress in delivering those promises. The annual report is the means by which we provide that information, and it shows how well the commitments we gave in the Programme for Government have been delivered.

Winston Churchill once cautioned against mistaking activity for action, and that was sound advice. We must deliver tangible action, not activity. That will result in improved public services.

The annual report highlights many areas where we have taken action to make a positive difference to the lives of people here. The Deputy First Minister referred to the progress made under the first two Programme for Government priorities, and I will focus on our achievements on the remaining priorities.

The Executive recognise the importance of investing in education and skills, and providing opportunities for individuals, the economy and society. We have maintained the focus on helping people to find and to stay in work by bringing into operation the enhanced New Deal for those aged 25 and over and piloting a new training programme for adults with basic literacy and numeracy problems. We have opened up access to third level education by abolishing further education fees for full-time students in vocational areas and provided support for students through non-repayable bursaries and childcare grants.

At the other end of the education spectrum, we have provided 131 new summer literacy and numeracy schemes to improve the performance of underachieving primary schools. We are well on the way to meeting our pledge that, by March 2003, there will be a year’s free pre-school education for every child whose parents wish it.

We continue to progress towards securing a competitive economy, despite the difficulties of the past year. We have maintained a focus on developing our infrastructure, increasing spending on road improvements, rail safety and public transport. Significant commitments have included work to improve the trans-European network route from Larne to the border, and the Toome and Strabane bypass projects. We have also agreed to provide assistance to allow the construction of gas pipelines to the north-west and across the border.

Significantly, we have also created a new body, Invest Northern Ireland, bringing together in a single organisation the functions of support for enterprise and small businesses; the promotion of research and development; and the work to attract and maintain internationally competitive inward investment. The creation of Invest Northern Ireland and the support that it will provide should leave Northern Ireland industry better placed to develop its competitiveness in a fast-changing global economy.

We have also focused on developing our relations with others outside Northern Ireland. We have played our part in the institutions created under the Good Friday Agreement, including the North/South Ministerial Council, the six implementation bodies, and the British-Irish Council. New and valuable work is being pursued in each of those. In opening new offices in Brussels and Washington, we have helped to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice can be heard at the heart of Europe and in North America.

Despite the difficulties that we all faced during the first full year of devolution, the Administration has shown its determination to deliver improvements that benefit everyone. The task now is to build on those achievements, learning from the lessons of our first year in Government as we move forward. The annual report recognises that task. As well as looking back over our performance last year, it looks forward to some of the challenges that we face.

The first challenge is to maintain a focus on service delivery. We wish to deliver the commitments that we set out in the first and the current Programmes for Government. As we begin to develop the Programme for Government for 2003-04 and beyond, we also wish to focus debate on the quality of public services. In addition, the Executive wish to deliver reform and reinvestment that will result in high-quality public services.

The reinvestment and reform initiative announced on 2 May 2002 provides a real opportunity for us to invest substantially in improving and modernising our infrastructure, to drive forward sustainable economic and social improvements, and to deliver better public services. We wish to place a strong emphasis on the improvement and modernisation of our infrastructure. To do so, we will need to have a new debate, not only about how we raise service standards, but about how we pay for public services. We also need to overhaul the structure of public administration to make real gains in efficiency that will allow resources to be focused where they are most needed. The review of public administration provides the context for much of that work.

The second challenge is to learn from last year’s experiences. We want to be able to identify and learn from successes as well as disappointments, and, more importantly, we want to understand the ingredients of success and the barriers and constraints that might have prevented us from achieving the progress that we wanted to make in certain areas.

We are also conscious that, in the first Programme for Government, we identified many policy areas that needed to be reviewed. Since then, we have been engaged in a wide-ranging programme of policy reviews and strategy development in areas such as sustainable development, urban regeneration, agrifood and farming, and public health. We have also embarked on a comprehensive programme of needs and effectiveness evaluations. We need to use the findings of, and the experience of carrying out, those exercises to inform future policies and programmes.

We must also maintain a focus on measuring results and progress. The publication of the report represents a significant step in that direction, and we want to build on that. For that reason, through needs and effectiveness evaluations in key spending areas, and through public service agreements and service delivery agreements, we are focusing on identifying the key outcomes and effectiveness measures relevant to our work.

We will use these to benchmark our services, measure our progress in new and more meaningful ways, facilitate open reporting on progress and open discussions with the Assembly and other groups and individuals on how to improve our services.

Effective implementation of the Programme for Government depends largely on the ability of Departments to work together effectively. However, we also need to develop our relationships with local government, and with the social partners in business, trade unions and the voluntary and community sectors, as we rely on all these partners to work with us to deliver the Programme for Government. A further key challenge, as we progress implementation of the current programme and development of the next one, is to improve how we work together on a cross-departmental and cross-sectoral basis.

The publication of the report offers an opportunity to look forward as well as look back. It identifies some important challenges for the Executive in delivering services, learning from our experience, measuring results and working in partnership, and we are determined to address those challenges. We want to build on the progress to date as we work to implement actions and targets in the current Programme for Government and develop our Programme for Government for 2003-04 and beyond.

We are seeking views from the Assembly, and more widely, on issues identified in our position report on developing the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2003-04 and beyond. Those contributions, along with the experience of implementing our first Programme for Government — which is reflected in the annual report — will help to shape our priorities in future programmes. We hope that the Assembly, our social partners, and other interested parties will participate in this process, and we look forward to receiving their views.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Members have up to an hour to put questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the statement and congratulate the Ministers and the Executive on what has been achieved, especially in relation to the grant for cross-border gas networks to the north-west. We must continue to improve our delivery on targets, but, given the circumstances, the Executive have done well. Can the Ministers confirm that there will be no complacency in pursuit of achieving objectives? What measures will be improved on to ensure that targets are met?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I appreciate the Member’s welcome for the report and the progress reflected in it. I appreciate her particular interest in the gas pipeline, which is one area where the Executive have made a positive difference and have been able to deliver on an issue that was the subject of cross-party support in the early days of the Assembly.

I assure the Member that there is no complacency with regard to these issues. We have committed ourselves to an annual report, which tracks what has been done, what has been delivered, and what is not being delivered and why, precisely because we do not want to be complacent. Commitment is not enough; there must also be performance monitoring and transparency. This annual report is one aspect of that.

It is important that Ministers monitor progress at departmental level, and also that we monitor progress collectively at Executive level. It is also important that the Assembly be able to monitor progress. This statement and subsequent questions, and the fact that departmental Committees can pursue the implications of the annual report for areas of interest to them, are evidence of arrangements that ensure that we follow up on commitments and use resources voted on by the Assembly to deliver on those commitments.

Some Departments have had establishment and adjustment issues in personnel resources and policy structures, and departmental Committees are aware of many of those issues. Most have now been resolved, so we have staff and resources in place to ensure that the policy process can work even more effectively in the future.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I listened with interest to the statement — fortunately, we received copies eventually. The First Minister said that 40 copies were available, so we must share them, given that there are 108 Members.

A heading in the statement reads:

"Learning from the past — looking to the future".

The First Minister spoke about the difficulties that we have all had to face. Will any of the commitments in the Programme for Government be affected by the First Minister’s unprecedented display of arrogance and instability on the BBC ‘Hearts and Minds’ programme last Thursday?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member should examine the Executive’s annual report more closely. If he does, he will see one part that I am particularly pleased about, namely the final column on each page. The final column is headed:

"Comments on progress including difficulties and responses".

Under that heading, we have been as open as possible in identifying problems and indicating what we have done in response to them. We are in the happy position that 75% of the actions identified in the original Programme for Government have been completed or are on track for completion. A further 20% will probably be achieved, but with time slippage. Only a small percentage will not be achieved. If Mr Campbell looks through the report, he will see that we have identified them.

Often, an Administration tends to brush those things that have not gone well under the carpet. There is a human tendency to try to hide problems and mistakes. I do not believe in that. It is better to be open about problems. One learns more about mistakes than about success because success can be accidental, while mistakes are usually not. It is better for us, as an Administration, to approach issues in that light. We should be as open as we can about our successes and our mistakes. When 75% or 95% of our targets are being met, there is a natural human desire to blow one’s own trumpet, and we are not above giving in to that from time to time. However, it is important that we are open about the problems and the mistakes, so that we refine things in years to come. That is the key — to use this as a means of making our programmes better in the future. The Member’s question and my response both imply that there is a clear future for the Assembly, and I am glad that the Member has indicated his commitment to that.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the First Minster and the Deputy First Minister for the report. At every opportunity I can, I want to put on record my party’s and my own acknowledgement that some very good work has been carried out by the Executive and by several Ministers and Departments. It is important that that be reaffirmed today. Much work is ongoing.

However, it is also important to note that some elements of the Programme for Government have as yet not been progressed, as the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have tried to point out. It is also fair to recognise that many commitments in the Programme for Government are modest, while many others are very good.

It is unacceptable that we did not have a copy of the report this morning. The First Minister said flippantly that he too would have liked a copy this morning. When was the report signed off, and why were Members unable to have a copy this morning? Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister assure me that while several Executive meetings have been scheduled, then rescheduled and put off, there will be regular ongoing meetings to progress much of the work that remains outstanding?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Members should have received a copy of the report well before now. The earlier complaints concerned the fact that copies of the statement made by the First Minister and me were not available for people outside the door.

The annual report has been available to Members. It was signed off by the Executive, and published accordingly. If Members have had any difficulty in obtaining the report, I will try to find out why they did not receive it on time. Members should have had a copy of the report before the statement was made.

There has been no attempt, either in the report or in the statements by the First Minister and myself, to disguise any shortfalls. Areas where we have not delivered on commitments have been clearly identified, as have considerations or factors that Departments can point to.

The report has been published and is in the public domain. It will be in the hands of Members and Committees. The questions asked in the Assembly today will not be the end of the matter. The report contains much useful material for the Executive to follow up in our monitoring of performance across the entire Programme for Government, and there is useful lead material for Committees to help them to track future performances in relation to outstanding commitments. This is part of the transparent process, and there are issues in the report for the Executive, the Assembly and some of the wider policy communities outside the Assembly.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the publication of the report. It comes at an opportune time, as the exam season has just finished, and the results will be published in the not-too-distant future. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would agree that a 46% pass rate is not covering the Executive in great glory; it would not have merited a distinction in bygone days.

The report is called ‘Making a Difference’. As an ardent devolutionist, I want to know what real difference has been made over the period of this Programme for Government, and what has been accomplished that would not have been achieved under direct rule?

I question some of the targets that the report claims have been achieved. For example, on page 154 is the target of

"Efficient and effective running of devolved institutions."

The report claims that that target has been achieved. I question that, given that the Executive cannot get statements out to Members.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The question of the statement has been worked to death. As the Speaker ruled at the outset, the obligation is to get copies of statements out as soon as possible, and we did that. A minute or two earlier and it would have been in the Member’s hand before I rose to speak. We were as close as that.

I am not sure how the 46% pass rate was calculated. When I had a professional interest in these matters, the pass rate that I operated on was 40%, and there were plenty of people glad to get 46%. On the other hand, as we have measured the matter — and perhaps there is a question of lies, dammed lies and statistics — we appear to have achieved, or be on course for achieving within the timescale specified, 75% of our targets. Some of the actions were not expected to have been achieved in one year, but were actions to be achieved over more than one year.

If we take the targets that are still on course for achievement within their timescale, together with the targets actually achieved, we have achieved 75%. However, Mr Close and other Members are welcome to crawl over and examine the report and the statement closely, and I hope that they will do that.

It was said earlier that some targets were slightly modest, and that is true. It is inevitable that when some Departments were faced with the system, and knew that they would be held to account over precise targets that they had set, they insured themselves against failure by being modest. We are conscious of that. In working on the Programme for Government for subsequent years, we have been trying to encourage Departments to be more rigorous in the tests that they set for themselves. I hope that we will see the Programme for Government used in that way, and I urge Back-Bench Members to use the document as a means of pressing Departments to do more. I hope it will give them the information and the opportunity to do that.

There are many things that would not have been achieved if we were still under direct rule. We would not have had the special support package for further and higher education, which has been of tremendous benefit to thousands of people. We would not have achieved gas pipelines from Antrim, down past a city that the Member is interested in, and some towns that I have an interest in, to the border, and also to the north-west. Those pipelines will provide natural gas to most people in Northern Ireland. I am sure that we would not have had them under direct rule, and they would not have been achieved without the particularly imaginative approach adopted by some Ministers.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I commend the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for the annual report and their statement. However, given that the statement concentrates in more than one place on the needs and effectiveness studies, I am surprised that, not for the first time, I have to ask where they are.

The studies were initiated last year and were due to be finished by now. They should have been presented to the Assembly before today. The First Minister will remember that, in a response he gave to a question I asked in the House, they were promised at the end of May. We still do not have them, and the House goes into recess at the end of the week. When will we get the needs and effectiveness studies? I do not believe the statement when it says that they will be with us shortly.

Search as I might for when action will be taken on the employability task force recommendations, I cannot find it. If we are to say anything at the end of this year, it should be to the poor and the unemployed. The employability task force was to be one of those fine interdepartmental creations that would make recommendations and present a plan for future tasks to the Assembly. Unemployed people are asking where it is. It is a major undertaking that has not been fulfilled.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member raised several points. I recall the exchange relating to the needs and effectiveness evaluations that took place a few weeks ago at the time of the statement on the position report. The summary reports on the needs and effectiveness reviews are due to be presented to the Executive this month for discussion and agreement: it is not as though the needs and effectiveness evaluations have been in front of the Executive. On that basis, we will make the evaluations available. That will be important material in the possession of the Assembly and the Committees as they deal with the draft Budget and beyond. The material will be in the public domain.

The employability task force is not something that has been announced and is not happening. The task force has met on 10 occasions, and the action plan is undergoing rigorous drafting to bring it to its final draft stage. The target for completion had been set for 31 March 2002. In line with the terms of reference, the work of the task force was divided into four main stages: to research the factors affecting people out of work; to engage with others outside Government; to make recommendations; and to prepare an action plan that integrates actions across Departments and agencies.

Some of that work — particularly in the final two stages — took longer than anticipated, because of the complexity of matters such as the recent report of the West Belfast Task Force. The Executive intend to complete the report on the employability task force this month.

We do not expect Members to take this report or any Executive statements at face value; and Ministers do not take at face value all the information that departmental officials give them. That is why Members have the opportunity to ask questions on reports and statements in the Assembly. It is important that Members work the report through the available channels, including Committees, in order to hold the Departments to account. It is equally important that Ministers do their job of trying to deliver on commitments made on the basis of resources voted by the Assembly.

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

I welcome the statement and congratulate the Executive on the achievements so far. Given last year’s £365 million underspend, as reported by the press, can Departments surrendering unspent funds use a lack of resources as a credible excuse for not achieving targets?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister saw the press reports of the £365 million underspend. The Minister of Finance and Personnel will comment on that later today, so I hope that I do not steal too much of his material in trying to explain the issue and put it into context. The money is surrendered to the Department of Finance and Personnel, and most of it is carried forward and made available to the Administration under year-end flexibility arrangements. The Administration will not lose much money. I am told — although I would give way to any point that Minister Farren might make to the contrary — that only £27 million has gone to Treasury. That allocation was made to rectify an accounting matter by repaying moneys that the Executive should not have received the previous year. There has not been a significant loss to the Administration.

Some Departments said that they did not achieve their targets because of a lack of resources. A lack of properly qualified staff was found to be the cause of unachieved targets in some instances; that cannot be remedied overnight. However, in most cases, the failure to meet targets was not due to a lack of resources. Resources are available. Underspending is not unique to the Northern Ireland Administration. It appears when the money available for expenditure increases significantly, with the result that a Department finds it difficult to change gear sharply to increase its expenditure. That problem exists elsewhere also.

The strategic investment body will address and, I hope, remedy any understaffing or time lags in gearing up for increased expenditure. That will be part of the reform aspect of the reinvestment and reform initiative, and, when the Executive made their proposals in May, they were conscious of the need to ensure that Departments worked more effectively to channel resources to key infrastructure projects. The Executive hope, expect and intend to ensure that the strategic investment body, when it becomes fully operational, will enable the achievement of targets. Therefore, in some respects, the press report spurs the Executive to get on with that job.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

In annex B of the progress report one of the public service agreement targets highlighted was the completion of the review of the formula for the calculation of the resources element of the general exchequer grant to district councils to take account of — and Members will note — "relative socio-economic disadvantage". Targeting disadvantage is a commendable objective. The progress report shows "target achieved".

However, the current proposal in the Executive’s position report on the Programme for Government and Budget 2002 to cut the grant in 2002-03 from £20 million to £13·6 million is far from commendable. On the one hand, we are trying to improve the targeting of disadvantage, and on the other, we are proposing a 32% cut in the grant to the poorest councils. Will the Ministers explain the logic behind that? How can such a cut to the poorest councils be justified in the light of the Executive’s key policy theme of targeting social need?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Let us be very clear about this, and we have been through it several times; the position report sets out the issues as reflected by the Departments. It reflects the pressures on their programme areas and how they propose to use the moneys that they can rely on next year based on the indicative minima for next year’s Budget. The indicative minima are the figures that each Department can rely on for next year’s Budget, which will be the subject of the draft Budget when the House resumes in September. It will be finally voted on in December.

Departments have been put in a position where they have been unable to simply roll forward the amounts of money that they have this year into next year. This does not mean that Departments will not get that extra money or that there will be cuts. In producing the indicative minima, we ended up creating £125 million in reserve. That money is not pre-allocated in the indicative allocations this year, so it can go towards strategic priorities.

Many people have made comments about the £365 million underspend, and they have said that Departments are spending too much money and that Mark Durkan, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, simply gave money to Departments. The people who were saying that on Friday were the very same people who were criticising us for having achieved the £125 million reserve and for saying that we will need to wait and see what Departments need, what spending Departments can justify, and that we need to ensure that there are extra resources to top up our priorities in health, education and infrastructure.

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment is again misrepresenting the nature of the position report. That report sets out how Departments propose to spend money on the basis of their indicative minima. It is entirely open to the Committees to advise a different allocation of resources or spread of priorities. It is also open to Committees to say that they want their Departments to receive more money — and many Committees do that. However, when Departments get into the bid-chasing act and say that they want more money, I hope that they will not be the first to complain when they find that they have supported many bids for which there were no robust plans and for which there was underspend.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I welcome the statement and thank the Ministers and the Executive for the clarity of their presentation. Members know the difficulties that Departments face, but will the Ministers explain what happens to the targets that have been missed? Will the Assembly have a chance to review the matter, or will we be informed if the targets will be achieved in the future?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

One reason for the report is to identify targets that have been missed and provide the opportunity for dealing with them. We will follow up those matters; to some extent, the report is doing that.

I am talking from memory rather than hunting through the report, but Planning Service had a target to clear up the backlog of planning applications, and that has not been achieved.

For a variety of reasons, including a significant increase in the number of applications and other problems with the service, it did not achieve that objective. However, in the new report, the more modest — and, I hope, achievable — objective of reducing the backlog by 60% has been set. One can thread through from the original objective to the difficulties that have occurred and the way that a fresh target has been set for the current year.

Actions that have not been achieved will continue to be monitored and reported on. Next year’s annual report will include details of those, as well as the new actions that appear in the Programme for Government 2002-03. That step is to ensure that the Assembly and the public can see the progress that we make on published commitments, and all of it is to reflect our commitment to open and accountable administration.

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

As Members have already said, grant assistance has been agreed to allow the construction of a gas pipeline to the north-west and across the border. I remind the Minister that we in Strabane, Omagh and west Tyrone want the pipeline extended to our constituency, and that must be given serious consideration.

Can the Ministers confirm that, while the Programme for Government and its targets and achievements are important, it is also important that we plan for the longer term? Can they tell us what actions are in the pipeline to improve the effectiveness of public services?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With regard to the gas pipeline, the Executive were able to take a decision to provide financial support for measures being undertaken by the private sector. People should not mistake what is going on. We are providing some financial assistance for a major investment by the private sector, which came forward with proposals for gas pipelines. We cannot fund pipelines or projects in areas where no one is undertaking them.

When the gas pipelines are in place, we hope to be in a position to support any other sustainable development that flows from them. It must be clear that no decision was taken by the Executive not to pipe gas to Strabane or Fermanagh; the Executive decided to support a proposal before them, along with a positive contribution and approach on the part of the Irish Government.

We have been trying to achieve significant improvement in several public policy areas, particularly in terms of how public services are delivered. We need to take that work forward, and it has been emphasised in the position report as part of our advanced thinking in the Programme for Government.

Improving service delivery is one of the four key challenges that we have said that we want to address. We can do that partly by ensuring that the focus is kept on delivering the type of commitments that are in the Programme for Government, and also by improving and developing public service agreements and service delivery agreements. The respective departmental Committees of the Assembly have a strong contribution to make to those improvements and to ensuring that we best monitor those instruments through our needs and effectiveness evaluations.

The needs and effectiveness evaluations are about trying to ensure that we understand the current and future needs that have to be met and are the real priorities in the different programme areas, and that we run programmes and services that most effectively match those needs. People should not treat the needs and effectiveness evaluations as though they are a threat to public expenditure. There is nothing in them about reducing the overall scope or scale of public expenditure. Everything in the needs and effectiveness evaluations is about ensuring that we increase the effectiveness and impact of public expenditure.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

In his reply to the Member for Lagan Valley, the First Minister said that he nearly got the statement out on time. The House is getting used to Mr Trimble’s "nearlies". He nearly won 10 seats at Westminster last year. Does the First Minister agree that nearly is not good enough — whether one is pro-agreement or anti-agreement? To be frank, nearly is not good enough in the delivery of Government. Furthermore, the First Minister rightly says that the report that he has published enables the Assembly to identify where mistakes have been made. Does he agree that the fundamental mistake made by the Government was their inclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA? When will he identify that as a mistake, and what will he do to rectify it?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I must correct some of the Member’s comments. The statement was made, and the report was published. As I came into the Chamber today, huge piles of it were stacked up for distribution to Members, so if a Member does not have a copy, it is not a failing of the system but of the Member. The statement was made, even though time was tight from when I got my copy of it. That shows the care that was put into the statement, which was checked and revised by my office and that of the Deputy First Minister.

To take up the substance of the points that the Member raised — even though they strayed some distance from the report — I agree with him that nearly is not good enough. The DUP nearly beat my party last year, but it did not. The margin will be even bigger next year, but not to the Member’s advantage — as he will see.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Dream on, Davey, dream on.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

My party has beaten the Member’s in every election yet.

Public Spending - June Monitoring

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

The monitoring process is to help the Executive to make the most of the resources available. The monitoring round is our main opportunity to consider how to deal with what is available in this financial year through the carry-over of underspending from 2001-02. Savings are already emerging from updated information about the amounts required for some planned services in this financial year.

I will talk about underspending shortly. First, I want to draw Members’ attention to the good use to which available resources will be put. That emphasises our ability to re-allocate shortfall to meet changes in estimates of cost or increase priority budgets and target resources at emerging priorities in a way that was not possible in the revised Budget in December.

As was emphasised by my predecessor and myself, the main purpose of monitoring rounds is to adjust the allocation of resources in line with a better understanding of where cost pressures are falling. What matters is ensuring that money is adjusted to take account of emerging changes in the delivery of public services. Changes happen all the time. It is not surprising that budgetary plans that are drawn up more than 12 months in advance of some of the actual spend become subject to adjustment. Some require more funding and others less. Unforeseen pressures emerge that require attention.

The amount of end-year flexibility — the amount left after taking account of all automatic elements and the £75 million required for the reinvestment and reform initiative — now available for reallocation is £52·5 million. That only a relatively small amount — less than 1% of the Budget — of end-year flexibility remains uncommitted is the clearest answer to the charge that money is not being well used.

Some additional resources available from the Treasury have not yet been allocated, including £1·6 million that was added to the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit in the April Budget and £8·7 million from the latest round of allocations in England to the Chancellor’s capital modernisation fund. Although those resources came from England, they can be spent as the Executive choose; we are in no way constrained about how to use them.

In this monitoring round, Departments have declared savings of £42 million against the initial allocations for this year that were approved in the December Budget. Most of this arises from confirmation from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that the technical easement for hospital trusts, which arose in the February monitoring round, also applies to this financial year.

House sales receipts have provided £10 million, although these are related to the special purchase scheme and simply offset the additional costs of purchases under it. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment completed a review of the spending requirements of its financial assistance to industry programmes, and it has been able to release nearly £7 million for reallocation. Details of all reduced requirements are set out in table 1, which is attached to copies of the statement.

Recognising that there is some continuing underspending, the Executive have decided to increase the amount to be reallocated by anticipating that at least a further £13 million of reduced requirements will emerge. Patterns suggest that that is a low-risk approach to expenditure planning and that the amount can be made good in subsequent monitoring rounds later in this financial year or at the year’s end. In total, there was £118·9 million to allocate in this monitoring round.

Bids for additional resources in this monitoring round amounted to £220 million. Details of the additional reallocations agreed by the Executive are set out in table 2. I do not propose to explain in detail each and every item of additional expenditure that is being allocated at this time. However, I shall outline some of the more significant items.

Nine million pounds has been allocated to develop the important work of the Executive programme funds, including £3 million to the children’s fund to ensure that a larger allocation was available to the voluntary and community sector. That will allow us, through the social inclusion/community regeneration fund, to take action if needed to address the funding difficulties facing the voluntary sector. Ministers will say more about that in due course.

The main items in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are £8·8 million to help the Department to meet its legal obligations for animal health compensation, an additional £1·9 million for BSE testing and £1·4 million to meet staffing pressures. The Department has been allocated a total of £14 million.

Additional allocations of £2·9 million have been agreed for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, including £1 million for a Northern Ireland-wide community sports programme, £600,000 to meet commitments approved for the Golden Jubilee and £300,000 for Belfast’s bid to become European Capital of Culture in 2008.

The Department of Education is to receive an additional £12·1 million, the majority of which is in respect of the teachers’ pay award and other pressures on schools. An additional £1·6 million has also been provided for support measures for north Belfast.

The Department for Employment and Learning has been provided with £1·4 million to cover post-graduate awards and support for the Northern Ireland Business Education Partnership.

For the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, allocations have been made to cover employers’ liability compensation payments following the insolvency of Harland & Wolff’s insurers and the commitments arising under the research and development challenge fund. In total, £3·7 million has been provided.

Additional allocations to the Department of Finance and Personnel amount to some £6·6 million, mainly reflecting costs incurred on behalf of all Departments, essential structural repairs to Holywood Road social security office in Belfast and compliance costs arising in respect of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The Health Service is again a feature of this monitoring round, receiving some £40 million of the additional allocations announced today, including £3 million in respect of an initiative to deliver rapid improvements in the provision of cardiac services. The merits of the argument have persuaded us that we should address Northern Ireland’s chronic cardiac-surgery waiting list in a specific, time-bound and innovative way. It is well known, inside and outside the Assembly, that we suffer the highest such waiting lists, not only in the UK but in Europe. Heart disease is Northern Ireland’s prime killer, and the Executive are determined to address that issue. A further £2 million is being provided to address other waiting lists.

Other allocations cover the continuation of the Department’s anti-drugs strategy, initiatives to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of drugs prescribing and rising cost pressures in several areas. There is also an allocation of £3 million to cover the costs incurred at Craigavon Area Hospital as a result of the temporary closure of South Tyrone Hospital.

The Department of the Environment is to receive £2·2 million, mainly in respect of action to address waste management and running cost pressures associated with the transposition of EU Directives.

An allocation of £8·5 million to the Department for Regional Development is to cover several essential or high-priority services, including cost and staffing pressures in both the Roads Service and the Water Service.

As I said earlier, one major source of savings for redistribution in this monitoring round has been additional capital receipts arising from house sales in the special purchase scheme. The bulk of the £14·6 million allocated to the Department for Social Development is to meet the comparable additional costs of purchases under that scheme. Other pressures in the Department relate to the Supporting People scheme and the redundancy costs arising in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

Finally, an additional £3·7 million is allocated to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, £2 million of which is in respect of costs associated with the use of a panel of high-level independent experts in the review of public administration. Other allocations include £0·9 million for the North Belfast community action project, and smaller amounts to take forward the children’s and victims’ strategies.

I turn now to the issue of underspending. Members will be aware from press reports last week that expenditure in 2001-02 was, by an overall total of £365 million, below the ceiling — or departmental expenditure limit — set by the Treasury. However, I record my disappointment that some limited and misleading information was made public in advance of my statement today. It was unhelpful to everyone in the Assembly that that partial information was highlighted out of context. I appreciate the responsible way in which some Members reacted to the information.

I emphasise the principle of end-year flexibility, which was sought strongly by a previous Finance Committee in the 1980s. The principle ensures that unspent departmental resources are carried forward, either for the original purpose for which they were allocated or for reallocation by the Executive. Thus, the money is not returned to the Treasury. That is an important point that seems to have been lost on some Members. The only exception was an amount of £27·6 million comprising a few items that we were due to return. The money was not lost to Northern Ireland.

Public sector budgets represent absolute ceilings on expenditure. Therefore, although small underspends and overspends in the private sector might be viewed in the same light, in the public sector any overspend represents a breach of the authority of the Executive and the Assembly and must be viewed seriously.

When we seek approval for a Budget Bill or a set of Estimates, we are seeking the Assembly’s authorisation to spend up to the ceiling set in the Estimates for each service. Government accounting includes serious strictures against overspending, including an automatic report to the Public Accounts Committee.

It is therefore inevitable that public sector managers ensure that excess spending is avoided. Equally inevitably, there is always a degree of underspending as a result. That is also the case in English Departments, in the Scottish and Welsh devolved Administrations and in the Departments of the Irish Government. Some underspending is inevitable and is a much lesser evil than overspending. Coupled with end-year flexibility, it does not mean that money is lost.

So far, no Department has had to report an excess vote to the Assembly. That shows how seriously Departments take the issue. Within the Budget and the monitoring processes, each case in which there was a risk of overspend was identified and dealt with.

In that context, managers must allow for uncertainty. No one would welcome a situation in which cuts were to be applied because of a sudden increase in a cost faced by a Department. The end-year flexibility arrangements were introduced because, under the previous rules, Departments would have lost any spending power that was unspent at the end of the year. Faced with a requirement that could be described as "use it or lose it", there was a tendency for money to be spent on whatever could be found as the end of the financial year approached. That was wrong, and the end-year flexibility arrangements are a major improvement.

I stress that the process of monitoring public expenditure and recycling underspends has made it possible for the Executive to cope with many unforeseen problems. We could not have responded to the foot-and-mouth disease crisis last year without a degree of budget flexibility. Our approach has made it possible to channel large amounts to the Health Service, as demonstrated by today’s allocations. It has also made it possible to channel funding to other priorities and contingencies without having to impose sudden and disruptive budget cuts.

Some details of the provisional out-turn of expenditure by all Departments in 2001-02 are outlined in table 4, which is attached to Members’ copies of this statement. The total underspend in 2001-02 was £365 million, and, as I have explained, all but £27·6 million of that will be carried forward. It is important to recognise that that amount represents the overall total and includes several specific amounts that we need to understand.

The following factors are important for central Government. Each Department’s figures include factors that explain, and in many cases justify, the levels of underspending. Those include some cases that were known to, and are allowed for, by the Executive. No one should rush to judgement without taking the facts into account. For example, the Executive decided to set aside £75 million for the reinvestment and reform initiative that was announced on 2 May 2002. That represents the Executive’s contribution to the strategic development of our infrastructure, and I understand that tomorrow the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will announce the details of how those funds will be allocated.

The Executive have also decided to deliberately retain £40 million to meet the needs of the top priority programmes that are mentioned in last September’s draft Budget; that was confirmed in the Budget that the Assembly approved in December. That was then the only prudent way in which an agreed, acceptable Budget could be secured, based on the requirements and pressures specified by Departments.

Approximately £54 million of the total came from areas in which resources are carried forward to provide for delayed European Union programmes. That amount will be retained and deployed for those programmes, which will ensure that there is no loss to the agreed objectives or beneficiaries of the European Union programmes. A further £64·8 million arises as a result of the changes in the timing of capital programmes. In that case, the timing of the work on projects is key. The money is committed and will be spent on previously approved projects. Those programmes will continue uninterrupted as a result of the Executive’s previous decision to allow automatic departmental end-year flexibility for approved capital projects. There is no magic about 31 March each year, which comes in the middle of work on building projects.

A further £28·3 million was needed to fulfil the commitment under the arrangements for local management of schools. Individual schools can carry over the unspent portion of their delegated budget. That is a central feature of how schools are funded and managed, and the Executive recently agreed that that feature should apply automatically for the Department of Education, and the education and library boards.

The sum of £22·9 million is carried forward for projects under the Executive programme funds and will be retained for that purpose, ensuring that the funds’ objectives are delivered. We were determined to use the Executive programme funds to make a real change in how we set priorities and manage the departmental expenditure limit. Change takes time, and the turning circle for the Executive programme funds is an important aspect of the Programme for Government.

That leaves only £52·5 million of end-year flexibility that was uncommitted at the beginning of this monitoring round. That is less than 1% of the Executive’s Budget and is a matter of routine financial management.

Although what I have said puts the headline figure into perspective, one issue remains, which I have previously mentioned to Members. I continue to analyse the issues raised, with a view to presenting a final report to the Executive in the autumn. I am developing a three-point plan to reduce underspending. The first point of that plan, which is the overriding principle, states that there can be no return to the crude "use it or lose it" policy. It would be wrong to introduce incentives or procedures that would promote bad use of public expenditure. Departments have a clear responsibility to secure value for money, and I do not intend to propose any penalty for underspending that would lead to bad use of public money.

I intend to explore two steps with my ministerial Colleagues. We must explore how performance can be approved, while recognising that there will always be some uncertainty. Without risking bad spending, we could set a target for Departments that spending on the resource departmental expenditure limit should be within 2% of the ceiling.

Where this is consistently not being achieved, questions will arise as to the effectiveness of estimating and planning. Any assessment of performance will have to take fair account of factors and circumstances, and the Department’s available options as each year progresses.

A similar approach could be taken to the capital departmental expenditure limit, although with a greater degree of tolerance to allow for the greater uncertainties that affect its estimating and planning. We may need to reduce underspending on the resource and capital departmental expenditure limits in the order of £50 million through such a targeting system. It would not be realistic to expect a significantly greater improvement. As a further step in an action plan, we can, and should, extend the practice of anticipating some underspending. We have done that to a limited extent in this monitoring round in the knowledge that, at this stage of the year, it is prudent to allow for unforeseen pressures.

In the next monitoring round, and in the draft Budget, I propose to include a prudent and realistic allowance for underspending and thereby set the ceilings for departmental spending at a higher level than otherwise would be the case. That will mean that if all Departments were to spend up to the new higher ceilings, we would breach the departmental expenditure limit. Our information suggests that that risk would be minimal.

I commend the Executive allocations to the Assembly. We have taken the opportunity to use our end-year flexibility in an effective way that will benefit public services in the priority areas of health, education and transport. We do not have a crisis on underspending. We plan prudent and appropriate action to make a gradual and worthwhile change in performance. The outcome is the better use of resources to achieve real progress in the delivery of the Programme for Government.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s detailed statement on the June monitoring round. Does he agree that the monitoring rounds are not the way to plan for the future? Departments cannot depend on receiving money from the monitoring rounds and so do not have any long-term plans. If there are priorities in health, education and infrastructure, it would be right to put sufficient money into those priorities to allow Departments to deal with existing needs.

Will the Minister explain what his statement means when it states that it is misleading to say that there was a £365 million underspend over the past year, when he acknowledges that that is the case? That corresponds to £1 million a day underspent by the Executive. How else can that figure be explained?

Will the Minister agree that ratepayers will find it hard to understand why their rates should be doubled to make up for the need while, at the same time, the Executive are not spending the money they already have? That £365 million could have gone a long way towards alleviating need and hardship.

The Minister highlighted that "use it or lose it" has been an issue in the past. I am not suggesting that, but I am asking whether Departments have proposals to spend the money? Are they bidding for money and taking up the schemes afterwards?

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

I strongly refute the suggestion that there is a proposal to double the rates. I challenge the Member to quote chapter and verse that attributes any such proposal to me. I have made it clear, and trust that Members will recognise, that the review of the rating system is being conducted, first and foremost, because the present system is unjust and places an undue burden on ratepayers who are on low incomes.

I trust that the House joins me in seeking to ensure that the rating system is equitable and, therefore, that all Members support the Executive’s initiative, which I am promoting on their behalf, to achieve just such an equitable system through the review. That should be accepted and clearly understood. If the Member can find any words of mine that suggest a proposal along the lines that he spoke of, I would be anxious for him to draw them to my attention. I challenge him by saying that I have never uttered any such words, and that, to the best of my knowledge, nor has any ministerial Colleague.

The House goes through a long process to plan the Budget. The current process commenced some time ago. Early in spring, I announced the timetable for the process, leading up to determining the Budget in December. I then invited all the Committees to become involved in close scrutiny with their Departments to ensure that they were satisfied with the bids submitted and to ensure that Departments were aware of the Committees’ advice on their contents.

When the budgetary allocations are determined, it seems right for Committees to scrutinise the way in which money is spent to ensure that it is appropriate and to enable them to draw the attention of Departments to emerging pressures and to adjustments that should be made. In that way, the process becomes a two-way engagement and not one in which Committees simply bid for departmental demands that they feel should be responded to. That approach does not deal with the entire picture, but it is a feature of the way in which some Departments approach the budgetary process. This a major exercise for Committees to become involved in.

I would value comments, especially from the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has been assiduous in discharging its responsibilities, on adjustments that could be made to the process. Certain aspects could be fine-tuned, and alternative approaches to the development of the budgetary exercise could be adopted.

I took considerable time in my statement to detail how we arrived at the figure of £365 million. I trust that the Member will examine the table setting out the basis upon which that figure is arrived at. If he is not happy with particular aspects, or requires further information, he should draw those to my attention.

I assure all Members that all money available to us is spent. If it is not spent in-year, it is carried forward in the programmes to which it was initially allocated, or it is allocated to other programmes, either in the same Department or in other Departments. This process addresses the frequently emerging pressures in the most effective way possible.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Order.

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

Many issues were raised by the Member’s question, and it is not surprising that I need some more time to answer.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Nine Members are listed to put questions to you. I must ask Members and the Minister to assist me; otherwise the business will not be completed.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I shall try to be economical with my words. I thank the Minister for his statement. In his statement on 19 March on the February monitoring round, the Minister spoke of

"a thorough and robust review…to the problem of underspending across all Departments."

At what stage is that review? Does he agree that so-called underspending is sometimes a function of the relatively high growth in the real-term supply of funds — part of the implications of Gordon Brown’s largesse? There is the problem of absorbing that — which is a pleasant problem as opposed to the reverse problem of not having the funds.

On matters specific to the Department for Employment and Learning, I welcome the success in two of the three departmental bids: postgraduate awards, and the Northern Ireland Business Education Partnership. What about the bid for university research? I have a non-financial interest in that, having been a university lecturer. Why is there no reflection of the increase in university research output as reflected in the last research assessment exercise?

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

That was not a good example of brevity. We will not get through the business if we continue to use time like that.

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

I will try to be brief. The information I provided on underspends is the first part of that thorough review. Having conducted the analysis — and I have shared some of the key points with the House — the paper containing the full analysis is before the Executive. I am meeting the Committee for Finance and Personnel tomorrow, and we will discuss some aspects of the issue. I will introduce proposals to the Executive in early autumn. Having shared with the House some of the indications on what these proposals might contain, I trust that I have discharged my responsibility given on 19 March. We can progress the outcome of that analysis and the proposals emanating from it with the Committee for Finance and Personnel and other Committees.

The Member’s question about university funding is appropriate, but it may be slightly premature. I will say no more than that.

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

I welcome the decisions announced today. I particularly welcome the funds that the Minister has said will be used to alleviate difficulties in the funding of community and voluntary groups.

Many Members have first-hand experience of the underfunding suffered by such groups. Does the Minister have more detail on how the money can be allocated and how soon it will be available?

Does he agree with the public position of the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel that a Department should be punished if it underspends continually? That is not a serious approach, given that the public would lose out. Can the Minister urge Mr Molloy to encourage his party Colleague the Minster of Health —

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Order. The second part of the question was not about the statement; it related to another Member’s comments. Questions should relate to the statement.

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

We are aware of the problems experienced by community and voluntary organisations. That situation is a good example of how unforeseen pressures can emerge. In my report on the monitoring exercise I said that a certain amount could be made available to groups with genuine difficulties. Ministers and their relevant Departments are working together to decide how to respond to the pressures focused on by Ms Lewsley. I trust that early decisions can be made so that the problems of groups with genuine difficulties can be alleviated.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On behalf of my Committee, I register concerns at the lack of success of some essential bids by the Department of the Environment, for example, those relating to built heritage conservation and the historic buildings grant. The Department may have to introduce a further moratorium on the historic buildings grant, especially given the commitments of more than £2 million forecast for this financial year. That would affect the historic fabric of listed buildings and would amplify public criticism of the Executive’s record with regard to the built heritage. A small bid for resources to carry out an impact assessment on the Environment Committee’s report on the safety of school bus transport has not been met. That report was published in 2001 —

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Order. Dr McCrea, are you coming to a question?

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The second part of the question is —

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

What about the first part?

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The first part concerned the historic buildings grant, for which funding has not been provided. My second question is why small bids, such as for funding to evaluate the Environment Committee’s report on road safety, could not be met in this allocation?

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

Concerns about priorities should be directed to the Minister of the Environment. Ministers would like all their bids to be met in full, but that is not always possible. Approximately £220 million would have been required to meet all the bids in full. However, only £118·9 million was available, so it was obvious that some bids would fall. I hear Dr McCrea’s expressions of concern, and I will convey them to the Minister responsible; however, I am sure that through his Committee, he will be able to do that even more energetically than I can.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

This time last year the Executive had £104 million to reallocate, and the figure is now £118·9 million. Does the Minster agree that that demonstrates the failure, or ineffectiveness, of the Executive’s planning, budgetary control and allocation? Does he not also agree that it is better to plan resources for the longer term rather than on the "ad hocery" that we always get with the monitoring and reallocation of such large sums of money?

The Minister’s comments on the £1 million a day will come as little comfort to people who are still waiting on hospital trolleys for emergency care. They cannot understand why they should have to suffer while, in their eyes, all this money is lying around waiting to be reallocated. In the light of the recent publicity, does the Minister not agree that £0·5 million would be better used taking people off trolleys than going to the Northern Ireland Events Company?

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

I have attempted to refute this allegation. I do not agree that there has been an absence of planning or that our budgetary process is informed by an ad hoc approach. Our total spending is around 90% to 98% of the allocations made. That is a respectable achievement, given the significant sums allocated for expenditure by the Administration.

I do not agree with Mr Close’s general comments about the planning process. The monitoring exercises are credible and necessary. If the Member takes time to examine the allocations made as a result of this monitoring exercise, he will see that the Health Service has received a significant allocation that will help to address the needs of cardiac surgery, and there has been additional funding for other waiting lists. People who are on waiting lists will very much welcome the allocations being made for their benefit today. We can make additional funding available to our priority areas only by having an ongoing monitoring exercise in place.

The Member will note that the Health Service has received a significant proportion of the £118 million. Almost one third has been allocated to health. Education has also received a significant additional allocation. I do not accept that those key priorities are being neglected in any way. They are being addressed very effectively.

There is a problem with underfunding, but not on the scale that Mr Close and others suggest. The review of underfunding has taken place, and recommendations will come to the Executive and the House in the early autumn on how we should manage underspending in the future.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I also take issue with what happened last week. It was an unholy mess. I sit on Committees, and I would rather scrutinise the figures in Committees than listen to reports on the radio. When I tried to find out if those reports were valid, I was told that there would be no statement until this morning. That must stop. The way the Assembly does business must change drastically. An end of term report would say "Could do much better".

I am concerned that £10 million came in from house sales and £10 million went back out to provide for people who had been intimidated. Where is the money for all those people — as Ms Lewsley said — who tell us that they are making redundancies left, right and centre because project money has not reached them? Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel tell the House whether he has taken that crisis on board? I am concerned that £2 million is being spent on expensive consultants for the review of public administration.

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

I acknowledge the Member’s helpful comments. Out of respect to the House, I bit my tongue on Friday, because I knew that I would be making this statement today. This is the most appropriate place to make a statement on June monitoring. I was not responsible for the leak. That was reprehensible and did not serve the Executive, the House or the Departments involved in any positive way whatsoever.

We have been made aware of the concerns from the community and voluntary sectors in recent weeks. However, I remind the Member that, because of those concerns, we took the opportunity, in the current monitoring round, to examine whether resources were available to allocate to the organisations within the sectors concerned. We are actively pursuing ways to do that and hope that we can reach decisions rapidly on those allocations.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I do not believe that Mr Close’s question on the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s bid for £0·5 million for the Northern Ireland Events Company was answered. Further to that, in the light of adverse publicity and the Public Accounts Committee’s ongoing questioning of that body, does the Minister intend to reassess that bid? Does the Department have any means of auditing that money? Go raibh maith agat.

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

All bids are subject to a considerable degree of scrutiny. Business cases must be presented and scrutinised before expenditure is approved. That is the case with the bid mentioned by the Member, as it is with all bids. All public expenditure bids are subject to the kind of scrutiny that we have become familiar with through the Public Accounts Committee and the auditors.

There is no absence of scrutiny, and where problems, real or alleged, are identified, they are thoroughly examined. Given our recent experience of the nature of the scrutiny that has been carried out, we have become familiar, and have become increasingly satisfied, with the extent to which we scrutinise public expenditure on behalf of those we seek to serve. As a Minister, I would not approve any expenditure that did not have a robust business plan associated with it.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and, in particular, I welcome the finance allocated for the Health Service. Will the Minister tell the House how that initiative and policy change on the question of positive decisions rather than endless consultation documents on the Health Service came about? What effect is it likely to have on a problem that has bedevilled healthcare for the best part of 15 years?

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

There have been several allocations to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; I trust that the Member is referring to the allocation made in respect of cardiac surgery. The Department has been anxious to address that need for some time. The Department of Finance and Personnel has been made aware of the needs of patients and their families who have experienced considerable suffering because of the Department’s inability to deal with the problem as expeditiously as it would have liked.

The Department is now providing heart patients with a choice and a new way of quickly addressing their urgent needs. Not all patients wish to travel outside of Northern Ireland to receive treatment, but that choice will now be available to them. The Department responded once the necessary resources were made available, and it is hoped that the response will be welcomed and seen as positive, however long overdue it might be.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I am a member of the Committee for Regional Development, and I welcome the allocation to that Department. It reflects the priority afforded to essential areas such as roads and water. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the Assembly retain the ability to allocate certain funds in-year in order to meet priorities as they emerge? Can he confirm that his ideas to address the underspend will come before Committees as they become final proposals?

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

I can so confirm. Departmental officials will liaise first with the Committee for Finance and Personnel. However, I have attempted to underscore the importance that I attach to all Committees beginning to address — more rigorously than hitherto — the return from investments made. I trust that that will become a feature of Committee work from now on.

The Assembly should not dispense with the monitoring exercise. It provides the Department with the means to respond to unforeseen pressures, as easements are identified in expenditure on programmes that have had allocations made to them in the overall budgetary exercise. That is a prudent and necessary process, and one which it appears that Members deeply appreciate. Apart from the references made to the Northern Ireland Events Company, I have not heard any Member object to the allocations made. I therefore assume that there is a general welcome for the allocations. Maybe some of the allocations are not as great —

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Two million pounds is being spent on consultants for the review of public administration.

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

I accept that as a correction to what I have just said, and I did not remember to respond to it in my answer to Ms McWilliams, but I will in correspondence to her. There has been a welcome for the allocations, and queries have only arisen around two.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the re-allocation of £40 million to the Health Service — almost one third of the money that was available in the monitoring round.

With regard to the £64·8 million underspend as a result of delayed capital projects, will the Minister agree to provide the Assembly with a list of those projects so that the area can be further examined? Assembly Members and the public are concerned about underspending. Has the Minister received any constructive proposals from Committees or Assembly Members on possible alternative budgetary arrangements to deal with end-year flexibilities and accountability of the Executive for expenditure decisions?

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

I will supply the information that the Member requests: I do not have in my head a list of the capital projects referred to in the table attached to the statement.

The Executive, through the establishment of the Executive programme funds and the introduction of the indicative minima that were made last year with respect to the current budgetary exercise, have been responding to the existence of underspending. The programme funds have provided the Executive with one mechanism whereby we can attempt to deal with that in a strategic, innovative and imaginative way.

As the Executive gain experience with the programme fund mechanism, we will want to refine it, but it has come out of a reflection on the existence of underspend. It has therefore been an attempt to break the mould with respect to traditional approaches to underspend, and I trust that Members will acknowledge that.

The fact that indicative minima were adopted with respect to allocations to Departments has also come out of the Executive’s reflection on the existence — or anticipated existence — of underspends. It enables the Executive to make Departments think much more effectively about their spending responsibilities and then force them to address the whole question of underspend with us.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will be brief. I welcome the allocation of £3 million for the relief of cardiac-surgery waiting lists in Northern Ireland. It will be warmly welcomed by those people who are awaiting heart surgery and by the Chest, Heart and Stroke Association, which has lobbied for such a fund. Will the Minister confirm how that allocation has come about?

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

The allocation has come about because the money has been made available to the Executive as the result of the monitoring of expenditure, which I have been attempting to explain to the House this afternoon. It has come about because there is a real need; and professionals who are involved in cardiac surgery, and many Members, have been lobbying the Executive. I trust that the £3 million will be welcomed. It may not be sufficient to deal with all of the cases on the waiting list, but as we move through the year I would like to think that we could allocate additional funding for this need.

Executive Programme Children’s Fund

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the Executive programme children’s fund.

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

On behalf of the Executive, I want to make a brief statement on the latest round of allocations to Departments with regard to the Executive programme children’s fund. The establishment of the Executive programme funds has been well recorded, and they have been discussed in the House on many occasions. They represent an effective mechanism through which the Executive can support its Programme for Government and encourage cross-cutting policy development.

Today’s statement links to that made by my predecessor, Mark Durkan, in April 2001, when he announced the first of the allocations from the Executive programme funds, particularly the children’s fund, to support projects primarily run by Departments or other statutory bodies. Those projects can involve more than one Department and can also have some voluntary and community sector involvement. I will explain the position on the separate process for projects led by those sectors shortly.

Last year we allocated £10·5 million to 12 projects run by statutory bodies, covering a range of schemes such as specialist residential units, a school-age mothers’ programme, new counselling services for pupils, and redeveloping the youth service. That left £18·5 million available for further projects. However, at the Executive meeting on 18 April 2002, we decided to allocate an additional £3 million to the children’s fund. We also agreed that £9 million, from the new total of £21·5 million, would be directly accessible by the voluntary and community sectors. Today’s announcement adds a further 14 schemes to the programme. The £10·1 million that we are allocating now brings the amount that we have committed to specific actions to address the needs of children to £20·6 million.

I want to explain briefly the process that we have undergone. In April, the Executive invited a second round of bids from Departments to be evaluated against a set of objectives, of which the principal theme was the provision of additional resources beyond those available from mainstream programmes, aimed at improving the life chances and citizenship of vulnerable children and young people.

We invited projects to address other themes such as child abuse, improving play services, improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable children, and improving their long-term health and well-being. We wanted to encourage teenage parents to stay in education and support families to care better for their children. We sought projects that might promote child-friendly environments, including those in rural settings, and support a range of vulnerable children and young people — for example, those who are disabled, homeless, in care or leaving care. It is a lengthy and impressive list of objectives to which we can all readily subscribe.

This year we received 20 bids from five Departments: the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; the Department of the Environment; the Department of Education; the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure; and the Department for Regional Development. The bids amounted to £12·1 million.

There was a total of £12·5 million available to cover the 20 bids received. However, after careful analysis, carried out on behalf of the Executive by my Department working closely with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Executive decided that 14 of those bids, totalling £10·1 million, should be funded at this time. A small number of further bids may meet the requirements following further analysis and the provision of more detailed information.

Rather than defer the 14 bids that have met our requirements until after the summer recess, we have decided to announce them now and carry the other six bids and the unallocated £2·4 million over to the autumn. Those bids will be considered alongside bids emerging from the voluntary and community sector. It remains open to the Executive to allocate all or part of the outstanding £2·4 million to bids coming from that sector. I emphasise that the funds available to that sector remain fully available to that sector and will be allocated to worthwhile projects as speedily as possible using the process that we have agreed and announced.

The projects announced today will deliver much needed services for children in need and young people at risk. The most costly one is the replacement of secure accommodation at Lakewood Special School in Bangor. Despite the use of the term "secure accommodation", I emphasise that the facility is not a correctional centre. It is part of residential care services and represents the last resort for some extremely vulnerable young people who are at risk of absconding or self-harm. Expenditure on that will total £6 million. However, that must be viewed as long-term investment since it represents a capital asset from which those essential services will continue to be provided long into the future.

The 13 remaining projects cover a range of very worthwhile schemes. They focus on child abuse through the extension of the work of an advisory officer for child protection in sport in partnership with the Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Sports Council and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). They also keep a focus on road safety, an important element of the Programme for Government, by providing resources to develop additional road safety materials for use in schools. Focusing on the most vulnerable young people, support will be provided for enhanced training for foster carers, early intervention services to prevent exclusion from school, a new family centre in the Causeway Health and Social Services Trust area, more support for the adoption service and more aid for young carers.

The Executive are confident that those schemes will make a difference to the lives of a large number of vulnerable children and young people. They need our help, and we have already made a start on addressing the huge problems that they cannot face without support and care. What we propose will enable the provision of new and enhanced services to give that very support in line with the commitment that we gave in the Programme for Government to support children in need and young people at risk to secure their right to a safe, happy and fulfilling childhood.

This announcement continues the process of allocations from the children’s fund. In conjunction with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister I made a call for applications from the voluntary and community sector on 20 June 2002. The closing date is 13 September 2002. We want the further allocations that will flow from those applications to lead to real benefits for children and young people. I plan to announce the outcome of the bidding round for voluntary and community sector projects in the autumn. The Executive’s decision to allow direct access to the fund by that sector underlines the value that we attach to the work it does in delivering services and providing a voice for young people. We recognise the experience and expertise that is there, and, through the children’s fund, we want to capitalise on those.

We hope to see a range of good-quality bids to complement the initiatives that have been announced today and make a real contribution to helping vulnerable children to achieve their full potential. I encourage the voluntary and community sector to seize the opportunity and suggest good-quality projects. I hope the Assembly will welcome those allocations and agree that they represent a big step towards addressing an important aspect of the Programme for Government.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and the allocations that have been made. They will have a considerable impact on children in need and in care.

Five Departments are involved in one of the projects. Are Departments taking a cross-cutting approach? Have they come together on some of those applications? Could they tie in their role with the voluntary and community sector to ensure that if there are gaps, they can identify them and work with the communities to try to rectify them?

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

Opportunities are built in to several of the bids. It is explicit that there will be co-operation across Departments and with the voluntary sector. I will be pleased to supply the Member with the details of the cross-cutting nature of some of the bids and the involvement of the community and voluntary sector in other bids.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, as will the projects that will directly benefit from the allocations he announced. The innovative nature of the Executive programme funds and the opportunity that they provide to meet changing and developing priorities is a tribute to the success of Mark Durkan and Seán Farren. The Executive have made the needs of children and young people a priority, which the SDLP welcomes.

Will the Minister give more details on the early intervention project? In what schools or areas will it be offered? If it is deemed to be a success, will the intervention involved be rolled out across Northern Ireland? By what process will the voluntary and community sector be able to bid for the next round of funding? When will that begin, and what will be the timescale?

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

The early intervention project will assist schools in supporting children of primary school age with high levels of behavioural problems, mental and physical health problems or attendance problems, and those who have suffered trauma or who have problems engaging with their parents. The project aims to prevent exclusion from school, to improve co-ordination of services and liaison between professionals and schools, and to respond to the needs of children as identified by both education and health and social services.

The majority of the project costs will focus on creating new posts to address directly school-related problems. The bid will enable schools to meet children’s educational and social needs. It will be targeted at primary schools in areas of highest social need. I cannot be more precise than that. However, as the project is developed, the identification of the precise areas will emerge. That information can then be communicated to the Member.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I also support the bids under the children’s fund, although I am somewhat concerned that they have taken so long to arrive. Again, in the last week before recess, we have received a large amount of information with very little time to deal with it. Nonetheless, it is helpful to see the 14 bids. We will, no doubt, see the remaining six in the autumn.

Like Ms Lewsley, I want more detail on the bids. Although the Minister might not be able to give that detail today, perhaps we can receive written information about where the projects will take place and who will be commissioned to undertake them. Those details were not in his statement.

Is the Minister aware of any bids to deal with children who have already been excluded? It is important that children be protected from abuse and that services be provided. Children who may be at risk of exclusion are not the only problem. As political representatives in our communities, we all know that children who have already been excluded are another major problem.

Is the £6 million earmarked for Lakewood purely for capital investment to provide 16 beds there? Those beds may not be ready by the target date because there is no revenue for staff.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

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

I confirm that the bid that is being met for accommodation at Lakewood is for the capital needs with respect to the secure accommodation that is required.

In response to the Member’s general question on details, the various Departments that have received the allocations, and that are primarily responsible for the particular bids, will supply the details as those bids are assessed. A table that shows the allocations associated with each of the bids, together with relevant notes, is attached to the statement, and if the Member cares to look at that she will be able to identify several of the bids that apply to children after they leave care. Should the Member wish, we shall provide any further information available at this stage on the nature of the successful bids. The Departments responsible will provide the operational details.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I very much welcome the Minister’s report. Will he outline briefly the criteria used by the children’s fund to select the 14 schemes that have been mentioned?

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

I indicated in my statement that the schemes would have to address the needs of vulnerable children: children who are at risk; children whose particular family and social circumstances put them at risk; children who have experienced abuse; children who are in care; and children whose educational development needs to be addressed by means other than the traditional provision. The general criteria include the requirement that projects are targeted at young people under 18 years of age who are, essentially, in the care system.

Draft Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before I ask Dr Farren to move the motion, I remind Members that a draft Statutory Rule subject to approval by resolution requires the approval of the Assembly before it can be made by the Department.

I call the Minister at this stage, because I have received no other requests to speak. The Minister may therefore wish to address the matter before Question Time.

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

I did not anticipate that we would have reached this point before Question Time. Although I wish to move the Order, some remarks that I wish to make would cause us to stray into the time that has been allocated for questions.

Therefore, I beg leave of the House to make my presentation after Question Time.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am happy to indulge the Minister in that regard, and I hear no objections from the House. The House, therefore, should take its ease for the remainder of the time until 2.30 pm.

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

I beg to move

That the draft Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved.

The Order is intended to provide for new registration and marriage fees, and it includes a proposed date for their introduction. The proposed fees reflect the increase in the cost of providing those public services since the enactment of the last fees Order in 1998.

Under the current law, fees are not charged for registering births, deaths and marriages, in accordance with statutory requirements, or for providing one copy of a birth entry at the time of registration. There is no intention to change those statutory provisions. However, fees are chargeable for the provision of marriage and death certificates, and for any further certified copies of registration events, including, where necessary, the searching of indexes and the retrieval of the record involved. Fees are charged for carrying out the preliminaries to marriage, such as giving notice, and the solemnisation of marriage. Under Government accounting rules, the cost of such chargeable services is recovered by means of a fees order, as provided for in the relevant legislation.

It is in that context that the Order comes before the Assembly. The General Register Office and register offices in each of the 26 district councils produce more than 140,000 certified copies of entries each year, for which a fee is chargeable. As the General Register Office holds in excess of 8·5 million register entries — the majority in bound paper format — the process requires significant administrative input. It involves receiving moneys, searching indexes, retrieving entries, producing a certified copy, undertaking the necessary checking, and the subsequent dispatch of the requested certified copy. The General Register Office’s efficiency has increased and is programmed to continue to do so in the forthcoming years. Further major improvements will depend on the development of plans to electronically capture the actual register entries, thus creating a fully computerised system.

Since the last fees Order, the General Register Office has improved significantly the options for delivering registration services by introducing new facilities. The public are no longer restricted to applying for certified copies during office hours; they can now order certificates on the Internet or by using a programmed 24-hour telephone answering service. Customers can also pay online using a credit card. In recognition of that and other developments, the General Register Office was awarded Charter Mark status in 2000. Current customer satisfaction surveys indicate that the office has achieved a satisfaction rate of 98%, and the office has received unsolicited letters in praise of the service.

To develop the service still further, it is planned shortly to undertake a comprehensive review of registration. An important part of that review will be the issue of a public consultation document. That will invite views on what the public expect from the registration service of the future. The planned consultation document will pose questions on a wide range of issues, from alternative means of registering vital events and provision of possible new services — for example, providing the facility for the reaffirmation of marriage vows for those who have married by civil ceremony — to the opening up of historic records for genealogical purposes.

As I mentioned, the General Register Office is required to cover the cost of chargeable services, including those provided by local register offices based in each district council area. The last fees Order was in 1998, and increases are now necessary, though these are comparable with increases in other public service provisions. The cost of each fee has been calculated individually using work study analysis and takes into account the full range of costs involved, including staffing, ancillary services and other costs such as rent and maintenance.

A similar cost recovery system also operates in Scotland, and in England and Wales. Passage of the Order will ensure, as has been the case here and in GB, that the cost of producing chargeable certificates is borne by the parties requiring such certificates and not by the public purse as would otherwise be the case. However, Members will wish to note that the new levels of fees in Northern Ireland for certificates issued from the General Register Office are lower than the corresponding fees for certificates issued centrally by the General Register Office in England and Wales, and from all offices in Scotland.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel has considered the Order, and no objections have been raised. Therefore I commend the Order to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 183/2002) be affirmed.

I want to outline the background to the Order and the reasons for introducing it to the Assembly. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 received Royal Assent on 28 July 2000. The Act’s main purpose is to ensure that the relevant investigatory powers are used in accordance with human rights. It updates the law on the interception of communications to take account of technological change, such as the growth of the Internet. It also puts other intrusive investigative techniques on a statutory footing for the first time. It provides new powers to help combat the threat posed by the rising criminal use of strong encryption and ensures that there is independent judicial oversight of the powers in the Act.

Part II of the Act, governing the use of covert surveillance, was brought into force to ensure that current surveillance operations are properly regulated and fully compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998, which came fully into force on 2 October 2000. Part II of the Act regulates activities such as the use of agents or informants, which have been used for many years by the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies. This part of the Act also provides a legal basis for the surveillance activities presently carried out by a wide range of Departments in pursuance of their duties. Up until now, these activities have been authorised on a non-statutory basis. However, the Human Rights Act 1998 now requires there to be a legal framework in place for these activities.

Section 31 of the Act gives the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister an enabling power to make an Order under section 30 for the purposes of granting authorisations for conducting covert surveillance activities and/or the use of sources in Northern Ireland. It is by virtue of that power that this Statutory Rule has been prepared.

This Statutory Rule will list the public authorities in Northern Ireland that will be authorised to use covert surveillance, meaning the use of human intelligence sources under section 29 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and/or the use of direct surveillance under section 28 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as part of their normal work. It will then be necessary to prepare a second Statutory Rule that will list the rank or position of the official designated to authorise the surveillance in respect of the organisation. That will be submitted to the Assembly for approval once approval to this Rule has been obtained.

Members may wonder why those measures cannot be combined in a single Order. I am advised that there is a technical reason for that to do with the wording of the enabling provision in the parent Act. However, that will not alter the substance or effect of the provisions.

Surveillance plays a necessary part in modern life. It is used to target criminals, protect the public from harm and prevent crime. The Order will authorise the use of covert surveillance. That type of surveillance should be distinguished from general observation, which forms part of the duties of many law enforcement officers and other public bodies. For example, Customs and Excise officers may covertly observe and visit a shop as part of their enforcement function to verify the supply, or level of supply, of goods or services that may be liable to attacks. Such observation may involve the use of equipment to reinforce normal sensory perception, such as binoculars or a camera, where that does not involve systematic surveillance of an individual.

Such low-level activity will not usually be regulated under the provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2000; neither does the provisions of the Act cover the use of overt closed-circuit television surveillance systems. Members of the public are aware that such systems are in use for their protection and to prevent crime. The Order will cover the use of covert surveillance techniques and the use of covert human intelligence sources. The use of agents or informers has never been the subject of statutory control in this country. However, their continued use is essential to the maintenance of law and order and the protection of the public.

We introduce the Order following thorough equality impact assessments, public consultation and scrutiny by the Committee of the Centre. The equality impact assessments were carried out by individual Departments on the public authorities and activities for which they are responsible. While the assessments concluded that some differential impact is likely from the use of covert surveillance, that would not adversely affect equality of opportunity.

A public consultation exercise was carried out between February and April 2001. Over 800 copies of the consultation document were issued, and 19 responses were received, all of which were in favour of the proposal.

In conclusion, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 is needed to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 on surveillance activities. It does not introduce any new activities but merely puts existing surveillance activities on a statutory footing — activities that are essential for the protection and the continued well-being of the people of Northern Ireland.

I commend the Order to the Assembly.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

The Committee of the Centre considered this Statutory Rule several times and, after clarification on a host of areas, is content. As the Minister said, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is an Act of Parliament that received Royal Assent on 28 July 2000. It was enacted before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect in October 2000 to ensure that investigatory powers had a basis in law as required by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In autumn the Committee expects to receive another Statutory Rule listing the rank and position of the officials who will be able to authorise the use of surveillance by each of the bodies listed in the Order. The Committee considered the reasons the bodies listed needed to be able to carry out surveillance and use covert human intelligence sources. We were careful to scrutinise the Department’s work on equality impact assessments, given the impact on human rights.

The Committee considered the draft Statutory Rule on Wednesday 26 June. When taken together with the Examiner of Statutory Rules’ report, the Committee is satisfied.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I have concerns about the human rights aspect. Has the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission had an input? Has it examined that draft Statutory Rule and given an opinion on its effect on the legislation?

Statutory Rules can look well on paper, but their implementation, and the way that they have been abused in the past, is a matter for concern. It is not only about the right to conduct covert operations, it is a question of how those covert operations are used, who they are targeted against, and how authority can be misused, as we have seen time and time again.

Concerns arise over who will implement the various Regulations, and whether they are being directed against one section of the community or the other. Who will regulate and oversee the Regulations? Who ensures that there is proper scrutiny? I am concerned that the entire issue of covert operations, and the cloak-and-dagger operations that we have seen in the past, put us on dangerous ground.

I would have thought that this legislation was outside of the power of the Assembly, because it encroaches on the issue of security, over which we do not have any control. In examining how we shall implement the Regulation, we must have some sort of guarantee that the human rights legislation has been complied with, that there has been proper scrutiny and that we ensure that the Regulation, if passed by the Assembly, is properly monitored.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank Members for their contributions, and in particular, the Committee of the Centre for its support in introducing the Regulation. I shall deal with the points raised by Mr Molloy; however, as he almost acknowledged in his remarks, the points that he made are not relevant to this Regulation. We are regulating the activities of the devolved Administration. Seven of the 11 Departments can envisage that they might use powers covered by the Regulation. Other Departments could not see any circumstances in which they would.

The circumstances in which the Regulation would come into force are easy enough to imagine: the Social Security Agency may check suspected benefit fraud; the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety may check suspected prescription fraud; and in the field of environmental health, officers are engaged in surveillance of the supply of unfit meat. Those are the type of uses that it is envisaged the Regulation will cover. The Human Rights Commission was consulted but made no response.

The question of when a commission and a tribunal will be established will be examined as soon as possible. That tribunal will have relevant functions of monitoring and reviewing the use of the powers in the Orders and considering complaints about the use of those powers. If safeguards are required, they will be in addition to the normal avenues of legal challenge that are being made available.

I hope that I have assured the Assembly that the Order is neither a snooper’s charter nor the beginnings of a "Big Brother" state. Equally, it is not an impediment to the lawful, necessary and proportionate use of surveillance for the public good. It is a necessary step: a measure that will place surveillance on a proper statutory footing; a measure that will ensure proper controlled monitoring and review of the use of surveillance; and a measure that will facilitate the effective use of law enforcement for the good of society, while protecting the rights of the individual.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 be affirmed.

Draft Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002

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

I beg to move

That the draft Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved.

I am pleased to bring these technical but important Regulations before the Assembly. Their purpose is to ensure that the Administration has up-to-date information that is compatible with other statistical information and which will enable trends in employment to be better identified.

Most employers in Northern Ireland are required by law to submit monitoring returns to the Equality Commission annually. Part of that process involves providing workforce information on the basis of nine occupational groups ranging from managerial to elementary occupations. These groups are based on the 1990 Standard Occupational Classification, which has recently been reviewed and updated by the Office for National Statistics.

These Regulations will amend the Fair Employment (Monitoring) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 to ensure that information on the profile of each workforce is provided on the basis of the new occupational groups. That means that employers will be monitoring information on a basis that is compatible with and comparable to other statistical sources of data such as the 2001 census or the labour force survey. The Regulations will take effect from January 2004. In other words, monitoring returns submitted on or after that date will have to provide information on the basis of the revised occupational groups.

Since monitoring information in relation to applicants, appointments, promotions and leavers relates to the 12-month period before the date of the return, employers will have to start gathering information from January 2003 onwards on the basis of the new categories. Making the Regulations now will allow enough time for the Equality Commission to prepare employers for the necessary change.

To assist employers in reclassifying their workforces a revised index for classifying job titles will be provided at no cost to the employers. The index lists about 10,000 occupations and will enable employers to identify the appropriate grouping code accorded to the various occupations among their workforce.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has commissioned research on the likely cost of implementing the Regulations, and the research indicates that the change will have a minimal financial impact on employers. There will be a small initial cost because of the need to reclassify existing employees according to the new groupings, but thereafter there will be no recurring expense. A regulatory impact assessment has been completed on the Regulations and copies have been placed in the Assembly Library.

Employer representative bodies, the trade unions and the Equality Commission have been consulted and are supportive. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has scrutinised the Regulations and he has said that there is nothing of any importance that needs to be brought to the attention of the House.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

The Committee considered the Statutory Rule. It amends the standard occupational classifications which employers use to make the monitoring returns under fair employment legislation. The Committee considered the rule at its policy development stage several times and deferred its decision until the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had consulted with employers on the proposals and on the additional cost to them in reclassifying employees.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has informed the Committee that there will be a one-off cost of approximately £127 million for the private sector and £102 million for the public sector. Employers have said that they are generally supportive of the proposal, which is surprising. The Committee considered the Statutory Rule on 26 June 2002 together with a report from the Examiner of Statutory Rules. Therefore I confirm that the Committee is satisfied.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As Mr Haughey said on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and Mr Gibson confirmed on behalf of the Committee of the Centre, the Regulations deal with updating employment categories in accordance with the Office for National Statistics requirements. How long do Ministers expect the updating of categories to have effect?

In 1975, fair employment was introduced; there was also the Fair Employment Agency, the Fair Employment Commission and the Equality Commission. In the mid 1970s, procedures were needed to ensure fairness of employment and to monitor how employment operated to ensure that a balance was being struck. However, the assumptions of the 1970s are being extended to today’s processes in a way that is becoming untenable. A quarter of a century ago, we could have said that people were Catholics or Protestants; if they were not Catholics they were Protestants, whether Hindu Protestants, Jewish Protestants or agnostic Protestants. However, society has changed significantly. One of the previous categorisations of religious balance was the question of the primary school one attended, but integrated education is now having an effect on that.

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

The increasing number of ethnic minority citizens in Northern Ireland is also bringing a change in minority religious backgrounds, which disturbs the traditional pattern. The undoubted increase in secularisation is making categorisation on the basis of religious belief dubious. Society has changed in all those respects.

In the 1970s, fair employment had to be fought for against violent opposition from many Unionists; it was seen as a Nationalist campaign against Unionists. However, that has also changed significantly. Fair employment is now the presumption in the public sector and in the private sector, and it is seen as the way in which people move forward and the necessary way to ensure that balance is maintained and that fairness and equality are provided to all citizens in their work.

However, the Regulations do not merely produce categorisation of types of employment; they produce categorisation of types of people. They perpetuate divisions; they stick people into pigeonholes, which may or may not be appropriate; and they continue to divide society. I thought the aim of the Good Friday Agreement — which the Assembly has been seeking to achieve for four years — was to unite to produce a new society moving forward in a different way.

I would like to ask two simple questions. First, as a matter of record, if the categories are straightforward and simple, will the Ministers explain what category police officers fall into? Unfortunately, they are recruited on a sectarian headcount and not by appointing the best person for the job. Secondly, if the implementation date for the Regulations is January 2004, how much longer does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister think it will be necessary to divide up people in Northern Ireland rather than starting to build a united society?

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

I thank Mr Gibson, the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, for his remarks. He may have overstated the costs involved in making the changes. The average additional staff cost for the public sector is estimated at £127, not £127 million.

That is compared to £102 for the private sector. Within the private sector, the average additional staff cost ranges from £52 for small businesses to £185 for large businesses. Mr Gibson was correct if you take the million out of his remarks and change it to £125, £52 and £107.

With regard to categorisation according to religion, I draw Mr Ford’s attention to schedule 1 of the Fair Employment (Monitoring) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, where it is allowed that people may be categorised

"(i) as Protestant;

(ii) as Roman Catholic;

(iii) as if the community to which they belong cannot be determined".

There is a third category for people who do not wish to be seen, or who cannot be seen, as belonging to either of those categories.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I was once required to fill in a monitoring form for a public appointment that gave the options as something described as "the Protestant community", "the Catholic community" or "neither" with the caveat, "Do not use the last one because we will find out what you are anyway" — I paraphrase, but that was the implicit direction. Can the junior Minister confirm that it is acceptable that those who do not wish to be categorised may in all circumstances ask to be regarded as "other"?

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

I cannot comment on a form that I have not seen that the Member may have filled in, or seen, in the past. The Regulations that we are currently dealing with allow for a categorisation of people under the definition, "as if the community to which they belong cannot be determined", and that is how it stands. It has been examined by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, who stated that there is nothing in it that requires to be drawn to the attention of the Assembly.

Mr Ford made some more general remarks about how long this type of categorisation will be needed. It will be needed as long as there is unease or prejudice in the community that causes difficulties in fair employment. If at some stage in the future, because of the measures that we take in the name of fair employment, the general feeling in the community is that there are no longer any grounds for apprehension about fair employment procedures, these rules may be relaxed. However, that is a matter for the future. I doubt that Mr Ford would dispute the fact that there is unease in both sections of the community. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

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

There is unease in the community about whether employment procedures are fair, and that applies to both the private and public sectors. As long as the apprehension and fear persists, we will have need for Regulations of this kind.

The monitoring that we have carried out under fair employment legislation has had an effect on ensuring equality of opportunity. One has only to look at employment figures, particularly in the public service and the Civil Service, to see the effect of fair employment legislation. Consultation on the single equality Bill will provide an opportunity to look at those matters afresh.

Mr Ford mentioned the categorisation of police officers. I do not have the 10,000 categories in front of me, and I am sure Mr Ford would not expect me to. However, I will write to him to indicate where they are placed in the categorisation. I commend the Regulations to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved.

Change of Committee Membership

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I propose, by leave of the House, to put the Questions on these motions en bloc.

Private Notice Question - ‘Developing Better Services’

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have received notice of a private notice question under Standing Order 20 to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I do not see the Minister in the Chamber.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been in the Chamber twice. She has been contacted and is on her way. I suggest a few minutes’ delay to let her get to the Chamber.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Minister is aware that timings have been inaccurate. However, she is now in her place.

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

asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in relation to her proposals ‘Developing Better Services’, to outline (a) the status of her proposals and whether they have Executive approval; (b) the extent of formal negotiations with her counterpart in the Irish Government on the provision of acute hospital services in the border areas in conjunction with the health authorities in the Irish Republic; and (c) if she would consider extending the consultation period on her proposals to allow sufficient time for all concerned parties to make a formal submission to her Department; and to make a statement.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Rinne an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin plé ar na moltaí in ‘Seirbhísí Níos Fearr a Fhorbairt’ ag a gcruinniú ar 18 Márta, 24 Aibreán agus 29 Bealtaine nuair a chinn an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin gur chóir an páipéar a fhoilsiú le haghaidh comhairliúcháin.

Bunaíodh grúpa seirbhísí na-ospidéal réigiúnach Thuaidh/Theas, fo-ghrúpa de chuid na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas, i 2000 le feiceáil arbh fhéidir páirtíochtaí a fhorbairt agus réimsí seirbhíse a aithint ina mbeadh comhthairbhe trasteorann nó uile-oileáin i gceist. Leanfaidh seo ar aghaidh. Labhair mé fosta leis an Aire Sláinte agus Leanaí sa Deisceart roinnt uaireanta faoi na moltaí atá agamsa le seirbhísí ospidéil anseo a nuachóiriú, agus d’aontaigh muid teacht le chéile le tuilleadh plé a dhéanamh ar na hábhair seo. Bhí caibidil ag an bhuan-rúnaí agus ag an rúnaí ginearálta agus bhí comhfhreagras eatarthu ar an ábhar.

Thoisigh an tréimhse chomhairliúcháin ar 12 Meitheamh agus leanfaidh sí ar aghaidh go dtí 30 Meán Fómhair. Sin sé seachtainí déag ach sa bheag, agus ba chóir do dhaoine a gcuid freagraí a sheoladh chuig an Roinn faoin dáta seo. Mar sin féin, coinneoidh mé an dáta deiridh faoi athbhreithniú.

The proposals that were set out in ‘Developing Better Services’ were discussed by the Executive at meetings on 18 March, 24 April and 29 May 2002, at which time the Executive agreed that the paper should be issued for consultation.

The regional hospitals group, a subgroup of the North/South Ministerial Council, was established in 2000 to consider the opportunities for developing partnerships and identifying service areas where cross-border or all-island co-operation can be of mutual benefit. That work will continue.

I have spoken on several occasions to the Minister for Health and Children in the South about my proposals for modernising hospital services here. We have agreed to meet to discuss further those matters. In addition, the permanent secretary of my Department and the secretary general of the Department of Health and Children have had discussions and exchanged correspondence on the matter.

The consultation period began on 12 June and will continue until 30 September, giving almost 16 weeks for consultation. People should aim to have their responses with the Department by that date. However, I will keep the end date under review.

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

Although I thank the Minister for her answer, I am disappointed by its tone and content. Does she agree that if her proposals are implemented, Omagh will be left with a cottage hospital that is tantamount to a glorified health centre? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that the people of west Tyrone, like all other citizens in Northern Ireland, are entitled to good-quality, hospital-based acute services? That must happen if equality is to be real and relevant.

Will the Minister confirm that her Department has been reluctant and slow to develop meaningful cross-border co-operation on providing hospital-based health services? That would be very important and practical for all communities in the border zone, from Derry to Newry. Does the Minister agree that if her current proposals are implemented my constituents will feel that devolution is not giving them a very good deal?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have already answered in great detail all the matters raised in the supplementary questions, during the last Question Time in which I participated and in my reports on North/South Ministerial Council meetings. I reiterate, therefore, that my proposals will give the people of Tyrone and Fermanagh access to acute hospital services. Services will be decentralised where possible and centralised where necessary to ensure that people have high-quality health and social services for the twenty-first century.

In keeping with reports that I have given, the Department and I have worked tirelessly to ensure that all avenues are open through the North/South Ministerial Council — and through bilateral ministerial talks, when the First Minister did not nominate me to attend the Council — to ensure meaningful co-operation with the South.

Motion made:

That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Deputy Speaker.]

Planning and Development in the Immediate Environs of the Stormont Estate

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

I apologise for my absence when this debate was scheduled before. Owing to extraordinary political circumstances, I had to be in another place.

I declare an interest as president of the Belfast Civic Trust and as a member of Belfast City Council’s planning committee.

My objective is the protection of the built and natural environment of the Stormont estate and its immediate environs. Even the most cursory glance at an Ordnance Survey map of the area shows that Massey Avenue extends from Parkway, through the gates of the Stormont estate, and all the way up to the Carson memorial, where it intersects with Prince of Wales Avenue, the great ceremonial entrance to Parliament Buildings.

Named after the famous Ulsterman, Sir William Ferguson Massey, who was Prime Minister of New Zealand from 1912 until 1925, Massey Avenue is the principal working entrance to the Stormont estate. The whole of Massey Avenue is, therefore, part of the concept of the Stormont estate and is intrinsic to that concept, as The Mall in London is intrinsic to the design and concept of Buckingham Palace and as the Avenue des Champs Elysées is intrinsic to the design and concept of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris.

By no stretch of the imagination, therefore, can Massey Avenue be described as just another street in Belfast’s suburbia. It is one of the great ceremonial entrances to the Assembly and Parliament Buildings. It is the principal road used by the vast majority of people who work in Stormont and by the many people from all over the world who visit Parliament Buildings. Earlier today I met a delegation from Guatemala who had come by Massey Avenue to see Stormont. It is an integral part of Northern Ireland plc, on display to the whole world. The Queen came here on her Jubilee, and President Clinton came too. Many dignitaries continue to visit.

Massey Avenue is a remarkable and long-established townscape. As part of the approach to Stormont, it is unique, and, like the Stormont estate itself, demands unique treatment.

Madam Deputy Speaker and fellow Assembly Members, we have a duty and a responsibility, entrusted to us by the people, to protect this place. We do not discharge that trust for selfish reasons, because this place is part of the heritage of all our people. The dignity and self-respect of the Northern Ireland people is bound up with Massey Avenue. It belongs to all of us, individually and equally.

To belittle Stormont and its surrounding environment is effectively to insult all the people of Northern Ireland whose place this is. That is not just an abstract idea or even an ideal. The grounds of Stormont are a much-used public park, open to all and well-used by the people for the people. We have the honour to be its custodians. The responsibility for protecting the built and natural environment of Stormont and its approach routes should not be delegated to others. It is something we should control directly, and over which we should have special vigilance.

I am, therefore, very sorry and aggrieved to report to the House that a developer plans to build a block of apartments at the very gates of Parliament Buildings. That idea is simply horrendous, and it should, and must, be stopped. A four-storey block of flats, finished in red brick, is planned for the rear of the bank building at Stormont’s gates in Massey Avenue. That bank building is well known to Members. It is finished in the same Portland stone as Parliament Buildings; it is consonant with the design of Stormont. It is within the curtilage, the arc, of the grand entrance gates of Stormont, and yet a developer plans to erect to its rear a blot on our landscape — yet another apartment block in a city already awash with them.

I am grateful for the Minister’s presence today. I refer him to policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7, ‘Quality in New Residential Development’. It states that

"Planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will create a quality and sustainable residential environment.

The design and layout of residential development should be based on an overall design concept that draws on the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

In established residential areas proposals for housing developments will not be permitted where they would result in unacceptable damage to the local character, environmental quality or residential amenity of these areas."

Planning permission was refused for a one-storey dwelling to the rear of 32 Massey Avenue, yet the Environment and Heritage Service offered no objection to a four-storey block of flats to the rear of 33 Massey Avenue.

Where is the consistency? It is hard to explain, and hard for me to accept, which is why the supervision and protection of the built and natural environment of the Stormont estate must be a matter for the Assembly Commission, over which the House would exercise direct control.

Were it not for the vigorous campaign of the Massey Avenue residents to oppose the block of flats, with 168 of 170 residents writing individually to object to the scheme, the developer would have been unopposed. The Massey Avenue residents have put the Assembly to shame in protecting our environment and in discharging our trust to the Northern Ireland people. Without any resources, power or authority, they have striven against the simple profit motive of a developer.

Belfast City Council’s planning committee has rejected the developer’s proposal. It was a democratic voice on the matter, which raises the wider problem of the planning process. There does not seem to be mandatory democratic input at any stage. The council’s planning committee, under our present regime, is merely advisory.

If we were to raise the planning process issue, the stock reply would be that it must wait for the local government and public administration review, which is why I am concentrating on the built and natural environment of the Stormont estate and its environs. It is an urgent matter, hence the Adjournment debate. It must be acted on now, not kicked into touch. If the Assembly cannot act to protect its built and natural environment, what can it do?

I remind the House of a phrase on the home page of the Assembly’s web site, which states that the Northern Ireland Assembly was established as part of the Belfast Agreement and meets in Parliament Buildings. The Assembly is the prime source of authority for all devolved responsibilities and has full legislative and executive authority. It is time to assert that authority.

The proposed block of flats is deeply out of character with the Massey Avenue townscape. However, in the context of Parliament Buildings and the Stormont estate, it is much worse. I ask the Minister to review the situation. The only way in which he can act convincingly is to introduce immediate legislation to create a Stormont designated area, within which the Assembly Commission is the sole planning and regulating authority, which would give the Assembly control of its environment.

A precedent exists for such legislation. In 1933, SRO 25 was introduced under the Planning and Housing (Northern Ireland) Act 1931, which created a similar cordon sanitaire, called in those days the "Stormont Prescribed Area". That made the Minister of Finance the planning authority for a district that extended down Massey Avenue as far as the Castlehill Road. It is an extremely and eminently sensible move, and I commend it to the Minister and to the House.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I should like to pick up on a point about the planning process that my Colleague Dr Adamson raised but did not develop.

Many Members have felt for some time that the planning process in Northern Ireland is fatally flawed because there is no democratic input at any stage. However, that is not the case in England, where there is significant democratic input. The council planning committees here have no such power, and it is interesting to note that the one democratic forum to which the proposed scheme was presented rejected it. The Assembly has been established for three years, and it is reasonable for many of us to ask when something will be done about planning. I appreciate why Dr Adamson restricted his debate to the built and natural environment in the environs of the Stormont estate.

There is an immediate crisis.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

May I remind the Member that an Adjournment debate requires all Members to refer to the subject, which is, as he has suggested, planning and development in the immediate environs of the Stormont estate. I ask the Member to restrict his contribution to that subject.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am coming closer to my point.

If we cannot do something about our own backyard, what can we do? Dr Adamson’s tabling the debate was timely, and many Members agree on this subject, no matter what side of the House they come from. Indeed, this Massey Avenue business has become a test case for the Assembly’s legislative virility and self-confidence. Dr Adamson rightly anticipated that if he had raised the sorry mess that the planning process has become, the ministerial response might have been to draw down the blinds and say that a public administration review is already under way and that it would be improper for the Department to act on a case before its findings were known.

In fact, the reverse is true. It would be highly improper for the Assembly not to act before the review has been completed; an answer given too late is no answer at all. The process may be delayed until it reaches the point at which there can be no impact, and the answer might as well have been "No".

It is understandable that many civil servants would have difficulty in adjusting to the new regime after 30 years of direct rule, but withdrawal symptoms are no excuse for the kind of inaction that we have witnessed over Massey Avenue. I cannot understand how any environment and heritage service worth its name could permit the building of a block of flats behind a listed building, such as the bank, which forms an integral part of the estate’s entrance gate complex. That decision is bizarre when one learns that planning permission, which has already been mentioned, was refused for a one-storey dwelling at the rear of 32 Massey Avenue, while there were no objections to a block of flats behind number 33. How can that be? Such inconsistencies are simply unacceptable.

It is well known that the interest of any property developer is private profit: that is his or her concern, but it is not that of the House or of the Environment and Heritage Service. That organisation does not exist to mediate and judge; it exists to protect our built and natural environment. It has failed to do that by not raising objections to this proposed blot on the landscape.

Massey Avenue is a long-established, mature and historic townscape. For example, the house closest to the gate, ‘Storbrooke’, was the home of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Sir Basil Brooke, later Viscount Brookeborough, from 1934 to 1943. It then became the home of Sir Harry Mulholland, the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Parliament from 1943 until his death in 1971. This is an important part of our shared heritage. It would therefore be outrageous to the whole community to build a block of flats directly beside it. It would despoil part of the history of all the people of Northern Ireland. It should and must be stopped.

On 10 June, the Minister spoke of the need to evaluate

"historic landscape and townscape with a view to identifying local landscape policy areas and local policies for the protection and management of change." —[Official Report, Hansard, Bound Volume 16, page 393].

The Minister spoke of the need to protect historic buildings. I hope that the protection afforded to Massey Avenue, the gate complex of Stormont, Parliament Buildings and the historic houses in Massey Avenue itself will be greater than that which was given to the Seamus Heaney house, over which the Minister was rightly, and justifiably, angry.

The Minister also spoke of the need to preserve a

"pattern of streets, properties and spaces" - [Official Report, Vol 16, No 9, p395].

I call on him to reaffirm that protection for this most sensitive, showpiece site for Northern Ireland. If we cannot protect the built and natural environment of Stormont and its main approach road, the Assembly can protect nothing, and we deserve to be judged as people who had power to take action, but who did nothing to protect our heritage for future generations.

I have grave worries about the answers the Minister gave to the written question AQW 4112/01 on 20 June 2002. He told me that of the planning applications by property developers before the Planning Appeals Commission in the last two years, 70 were successful and only 15 unsuccessful. That represents an attractive success rate for developers and an easy win situation that must be very satisfying for them. They can afford to pay for top legal experts, planning consultants, architects and so on, while residents groups usually scrape around for the means with which to mount an objection. That uneven playing field can no longer be tolerated. It is our duty to protect this most sensitive of environments for present and future generations.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Dr Paisley, do you have a point of order?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

No, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

You have not indicated, as yet, that you want to be on the list to speak. I was due to call Mr Peter Robinson, MP.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am sorry.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and will be brief so that my good Friend, Dr Paisley, can have the opportunity, as an east Belfast man, to have a say too.

I congratulate my Colleague from East Belfast, Dr Adamson, on raising this matter. All Assembly Members for the area were approached by the residents and share his concerns about the proposal and the attitude of the Planning Service to it. Even if the proposed development were not in the environs of Parliament Buildings, this would be an unsuitable application to permit in a residential area of this type and character. The Planning Service is following strange precedents in these matters. The fact has already been remarked upon that a much less offensive application was turned down, rightly, by the Planning Service, yet it finds this kind of proposal acceptable.

My concern is that the Assembly may have contributed, in some way, to the situation. I straddle both sides of the argument, being the Minister for Regional Development. I raised a concern in the regional development strategy about setting targets for the number of properties to be built on brownfield sites. That always requires the planners to increase the number of units they can get in inner-city areas, so town cramming starts, and there are applications and approvals for such developments. If the planners are to follow this line of giving approval to apartment blocks in what are clearly quality residential areas, it is very unsatisfactory.

The Minister has been savaged by his own Colleagues, and I come to his rescue as he has just taken over the position and will be wanting to stamp his authority on his Department. Here is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to show his officials who is boss in the Department of the Environment. I hope that he will rush back, call in his officials and say, "This is not on. You really do have to catch yourselves on. This is not an acceptable application."

I trust that the debate that Dr Adamson has launched will bring to the Minister’s attention Members’ serious concerns about what could set a precedent not only for east Belfast, but for the entire city. Attractive residential areas will lose their character because of the intrusion of apartment blocks. Once one is permitted in the back garden of one house, what is the case for refusing it in the back garden of another?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank Dr Adamson for bringing the debate to the House. With regard to the hon Member for East Belfast’s comments, I fear that the Minister of the Environment may not have the opportunity to stamp his authority on this application. It has gone to the Planning Appeals Commission for a non-determination appeal. That may well mean that, rather than the Minister, an unaccountable group, such as the Planning Appeals Commission, will take the decision. Therein lies part of the difficulty.

When the application was made, residents were notified. Out of, I think, 193 people who were contacted, all but one opposed the application. That one person happened to be in the estate agency business. All too often, inappropriate developments are permitted. This is one such inappropriate development. To build a block of red-brick apartments behind a Portland stone building, in an area where the houses are all detached and residential, undoubtedly sets a precedent. It is inconsistent with good practice, as the apartments would be built in proximity to a listed building. I fail to understand the Environment and Heritage Service’s response to the application. It effectively agrees to it in whatever form it has been submitted — whether that be for three, six or 12 apartments.

I do not understand how we can allow a red-brick apartment block to be built behind a listed Portland stone building. However, the most important issue is that the development would be out of character with the area. As Minister Robinson has just said, this is an area of high-quality individual family dwellings. There is not a single, solitary apartment block in the area, but if that development is permitted, there will be plenty. We see examples of that situation on King’s Road as a result of the Planning Appeals Commission’s overruling the Department’s Planning Service by defeating its appeal and permitting the application. Now, every back garden on that road is one form or another of backland development. The application paid no attention to access or roads issues. The developers did not even apply the normal sight lines to the applications.

There is all but universal opposition to the application. Elected representatives and, more importantly, residents object to it. I ask the Minister to sit back and consider the application, because of the precedent that it will set. If approved, it would be impossible to prevent further applications, and the entire area’s character would change dramatically. If the development is allowed to proceed, there will be no case for preventing others from building in people’s back gardens.

I am indebted to my Colleague for raising this, and I apologise for not being here for his speech. Nevertheless, I want to express my view that in the ongoing review of planning processes and, I hope, in future administrative and legislative changes that the Minister may wish to consider, issues surrounding this should be dealt with. The developer has gone for an appeal on the grounds of non-determination, which will be heard by the Planning Appeals Commission, and that will be that. That is not a satisfactory or democratic situation. Accountability in those circumstances is flawed, and I hope that the Assembly will rectify that in due course. I sincerely hope that Planning Service will take on board the views of the representatives and the people.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am against this development. It is interesting that all the democratic input into this matter is completely opposed to this. The council, the MLAs from East Belfast, and the Member of Parliament for East Belfast are all opposed to it. We also have one lesser figure, the Member of the European Parliament for this area, who is opposed to it. We have all this democratic input, and what happens? It is overridden, rejected and trampled on.

However, the case is more interesting because a lesser application, which would not have offended the environment as much, was originally rejected, and this application, which drives a coach-and-four through planning rules, is going to be accepted. I do not know what the Minister’s powers are, but he has an obligation to listen to, and take heed of, the democratic input. Also, he has a responsibility to the site itself — this Building, which belongs to all the people of Northern Ireland, and the environmental setting of this Building.

I agree fully with Sir Reg Empey. In east Belfast we are cursed with this type of development. A whole volume of planning permissions have been given for this "back of the garden" development. Where I live, we now have it in roads that were not afflicted with it before. We should be able to persuade the Minister to do something about this.

Unfortunately, he could not do anything about a house that was demolished. The history of the people should be preserved, even though I may not like who lived in the house, or what his views were. For historic reasons, that house should have been saved. That is why I lent my aid to preserve the house of Sir Edward Carson in Dublin, and I would do the same again. If Sir Edward Carson had not been a Unionist, but had been prominent on the Nationalist side, I would have taken the same position because of the history. The Minister came out into the open, wearing the armour of a shining knight, to preserve that house, and he should now do something to preserve this Building and the democratic input. He should help his Colleagues and myself, and no doubt he may even invite me back to his own constituency when he is electioneering in the future. The Minister can do something for us — so please do it. By doing it he will be helping this area and all the people living in it.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

I agree with Minister Peter Robinson’s general point about building apartments in unsuitable locations and their being out of character with surrounding properties. I also agree with Sir Reg Empey’s view that permission given for one set of apartments often results in a mushroom effect. That can be seen by anyone who goes to Donaghadee in my council area and looks at what is happening there after permission was given for one set of apartments to be built.

As mentioned by Mr Ken Robinson, the protection of the built and natural environment of the Stormont estate is a test for the Assembly. On the one hand there is the Assembly, the democratic voice of all the people of Northern Ireland, and on the other there is an anonymous set of planners, topped by the Planning Appeals Commission, the unelected vestiges of a direct rule Administration strangely out of keeping with the new post-Good Friday Agreement world. Yet, it all remains at least until public administration is reformed at the end of 2003 after the next Assembly elections.

In many ways, it is offensive to the dignity of the Assembly and ultimately to the people of Northern Ireland that, simply because we have not decreed otherwise, the unelected planning edifice remains in all its direct rule glory, unaccountable for its actions to anyone. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.

In the planning application to build a four-storey block of apartments at the very gates of Stormont itself, we have what amounts to a gauntlet thrown down by unelected planners to the elected democratic rights of the Assembly to protect the built and natural environment of Parliament Buildings. That is our bounden duty to the people of Northern Ireland who elected us.

Thornley, the architect who designed the very Building we are debating within, also designed the bank. The bank is a listed building and is finished in the same Portland stone as Parliament Buildings. It is part of the surroundings of the great Massey Avenue entrance gates to this Building and is clearly part of Thornley’s landscape concept for the whole site, recently so eloquently displayed on a BBC aerial perspective programme. The bank garden is an integral part of the inter-related group of protected badger setts stretching from within the grounds of Stormont itself to halfway down Massey Avenue. Incredibly, despite all of this, the Environment and Heritage Service can offer no objection to a developer, whose sole motive is private profit, building a four-storey block of red-brick apartments slap up against the bank. Those apartments would be clearly visible from this Building, the area around Carson’s statue and the residential properties that are not in character with an apartment development.

The House must ask serious questions about what on earth the Environment and Heritage Service thinks it is here to do. In the eyes of most reasonable people, it is not doing what it should be doing. So that the House is under no illusions that these are only my layman’s opinions of the Environment and Heritage Service, let me inform Members that the opinions were expressed forcibly in a letter from the eminent architect, Prof James Stevens Curl.

Prof Curl expressed them in a letter to the Planning Appeals Commission on 23 July. He was the architectural editor of the survey of London and is the author of several standard works on architecture, including the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture. He is a liveryman of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and a former fellow of Peterhouse College, Cambridge, and has held chairs at two British universities. He should know.

His language was strong. He said that it was incredible that the Environment and Heritage Service had concluded that there were no grounds to revise its advice to the Planning Service in relation to the proposed development at Massey Avenue. He called the proposals dismal and the designs feeble. He spoke of the weaknesses of the design of the proposed four-storey block of flats.

He also said that to judge from the Department’s attitude, it would appear that nobody in the Department had taken the trouble to look at the site from the all-important avenue leading from Massey Avenue to the roundabout at Carson’s statue, or, if someone had looked, that that person had failed to understand the effect that the proposed development would have. That will all be given an airing before the Planning Appeals Commission, but that is not the point.

Like many Members, I am gravely disturbed that every planning application in north Down — the area adjacent to Stormont — that has been decided in the last six months has gone in favour of the developer. Surely even the law of averages implies that something is wrong, or that something must be examined quickly.

The Assembly must send a clear and unambiguous signal to developers that it will not tolerate the destruction of our built and natural environment any longer. We need to grasp the nettle of legislation if the Environment and Heritage Service is failing to protect even our own built and natural environment in this Building and estate.

The Environment and Heritage Service wrongly located the entrance to the badger sett, and had to revise it after residents’ protests. That has had the effect of pushing the proposed tower block to within a few feet of the fence of the Stormont estate. It would entail the demolition of a protected specimen tree listed on the Environment and Heritage Service’s map as number 17. The tree goes under the name of Populus canadensis hybrid. The Minister was threatening developers last week with limitless fines and prison sentences over the same sort of trees. Perhaps he needs to act in this landmark case.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am conscious that when one speaks, one normally refers to the Opposition opposite. Those seats are empty. I see someone in the Gallery standing up and looking down to see if anyone is in the Opposition seats. I am mindful of the last day on which I sat in the House, when a Member said that although he was behind me, he would still say what he had to say. Every Member who spoke today was seated behind me or to my right, but not on the Opposition Benches in front of me.

I thank Peter Robinson for his kind words of concern as regards my Colleagues’ comments to me, and for his advice on the basis that I am new to the post of Minister of the Environment. I will have to hotfoot it regularly between the Minister for Regional Development’s office and mine on the seventh floor of Clarence Court to seek advice on the matter. We look forward to those exchanges. Do I detect a smile from the Opposition at the back?

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these important issues. I share many of the concerns and views expressed today. I have tried to express those concerns in public statements, interviews and, above all, in comments in the Assembly. I am committed to those views: to the protection of the environment, whether natural or built heritage; to the proper application of planning procedures; and to the rigorous application of enforcement and appropriate fines against those who do not adhere to those procedures. That goes without saying.

For almost 30 years, the Stormont estate was the sole preserve of direct rule Ministers and, dare I say it, civil servants. The grounds are now under the control of the accommodation office, and the Building is under the control of the Assembly Commission. Therefore, everyone in the Administration and the Assembly has a particular responsibility to preserve and enhance, even from a historical and political context, the estate. In his opening address, Dr Adamson referred to that:

"We have a duty … to protect this place."

He also mentioned that the gate at Massey Avenue is the principal entrance to the grounds and that it is intrinsic to the concept of the Stormont estate. He compared it to The Mall and Buckingham Palace, and I empathise with that view. We must be conscious not only of this Building, but the surrounding estate. We must plan for and manage the Stormont estate and all our responsibilities in Northern Ireland. However, we must always act within the law. We can do only the best we can — no more or less.

My role, and that of my Department, is clear: it is to regulate within the law. I can do so only with the long-term consent of the Assembly and the Executive. We operate under the aegis of this body, which requires us to have a partnership in order to understand what needs to be done. Time is also required.

I presented the Planning (Amendment) Bill last week, and much has been said to me about what I need to do. This afternoon some Members have said what I should do. Can I do it? Not if the law does not permit me to. I can act only within the law. Number 33 Massey Avenue is at the heart of the matter. That shows how the planning process should work. The developers presented proposals that eventually came before the council. I think that Dr Paisley referred to the council and elected bodies. It is said that the planning committee of Belfast City Council deferred the application for this development on 3 August 2000 to allow the applicant to submit a revised scheme. That is important. A revised scheme for fewer apartments was submitted.

The badger sett — dare I say it? — also became part of the process. That led to a further reduction in the number of apartments to be built. In their response to the Department of the Environment, council officials said that they were considering the revision of planning applications. However, when officials were considering the revised scheme, the developer submitted his application directly to the Planning Appeals Commission on 17 May. The decision will be made by the commission; it is out of my hands.

Dr Adamson and other Members asked about consistency in planning matters. They asked why the Department did not grant permission for one additional development at 32 Massey Avenue but permitted several at 33 Massey Avenue. A single development at 32 Massey Avenue was refused because it is a restricted site; that means that development would have had an adverse effect on the adjoining properties. The Department must act within the law. However, 33 Massey Avenue is a substantial site. It is set in mature grounds, and development would not have any direct impact on the adjoining residential properties.

Dr Adamson said that it was time for the Assembly to assert its authority in planning matters. However, the case in question has gone to the Planning Appeals Commission. That is the law, and the Assembly cannot exercise authority on the matter. One may wish to exercise authority and one may wish that the Assembly would wish to change the operation of planning appeals and the Planning Appeals Commission, but that is not possible. Authority does not lie with the Assembly; it lies with the Planning Appeals Commission.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

What will the Minister’s officials recommend to the Planning Appeals Commission? Will they fight the outcome?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I will come to that. That reminds me of what Mr Robinson said — my party Colleague, not my ministerial Colleague. It is wonderful to have Colleagues all around: a Robinson to the right of us, a Robinson to the left of us; into the valley of — but let us get back to business, as the hour is late.

Ken Robinson asked when the Department was going to do something about planning. I am endeavouring to do something about it, and that can be seen from last week’s debate on the Planning (Amendment) Bill. Those Members who spoke today, but who were not present for that debate, should read Hansard and they will realise what I am trying to do about planning.

Peter Robinson said that building a block of flats behind a listed building simply could not happen. He said that it would not suit the character of the area when compared with 32 Massey Avenue. It is an attractive residential area, and it would lose its character. I have written "savaged by his Colleagues", but I wonder why I did that? Anyway, that is neither here nor there.

Planning policy on listed buildings states that development proposals

"will normally only be considered appropriate where all the following criteria are met: (a) the detailed design respects the listed building in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment; (b) the works proposed make use of traditional or sympathetic building materials and techniques which respect those found on the building and; (c) the nature of the use proposed respects the character of the setting of the building."

That refers to the development affecting the setting of listed buildings, and that is reasonably clear. My departmental officials have assured me that the plans subscribe to those criteria. Those are the policy guidelines that we have to deal with.

Ken Robinson said that 70 appeals to the Planning Appeals Commission were successful, and 15 were unsuccessful. He said that it is easy for developers to go the Planning Appeals Commission because they get their way more often than not. He said that that could no longer be tolerated, but it will take time to do something about it. I am not unsympathetic to ensuring that the responsibility for aspects of development is within elected arenas.

I understand the arguments. However, it is easy to say that it can no longer be tolerated and something must be done immediately; it is more difficult than that. Sir Reg Empey, when talking about planning appeals, said something appropriate. He quoted Mr Peter Robinson as saying that I should put my stamp of approval on the matter and that I should tell my officials what the position is. However, as he said, I cannot do that because the case has gone to the Planning Appeals Commission.

The chronology of the case is as follows: on 17 May, the Planning Appeals Commission wrote to the Department saying that the case had been appealed under article 33 of the 1991 Order. I received a briefing on 31 May for a debate on 5 June, and that is when I became aware of the issue, but it had already gone to the Planning Appeals Commission. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot put my stamp on it.

Dr Paisley asked what officials advised the Planning Appeals Commission. They advised the commission, in line with the policy, that at the moment the application would be approved.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I do not wish to cut the Minister off in his prime, but I advise him that the debate has only two or three minutes left to run.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I shall not respond to the full thrust of your statement, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am almost finished.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I hear, "Hear, hear." from all around.

To conclude, Dr Paisley asked me to do something about the situation. Planning is not perceived as a wonderful thing in Northern Ireland. As I have mentioned previously, economist John Simpson said in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ some weeks ago that everyone has something to say about the planning process, just as everyone has something to say about the weather — but at least on some days the weather is good.

Individuals in the Planning Service are doing their level best. They have resource constraints, and they are under increasing demands by those seeking planning approval. However, I assure Dr Paisley that I intend to do something about planning.

Adjourned at 5.42 pm