Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 14 November 2000
Mr Poots:
Before getting to the bones of what I intend to say, I must comment on some of the things that have been said so far.
I was astounded by Mr Cobain's generosity, and I am sure that Mr Campbell, the Minister for Regional Development, will be delighted to learn that he has now got an additional £50 million for the railways as opposed to £20 million actually in the Budget. Of course, we can excuse Mr Cobain - he has got his figures mixed up before, occasionally, and has had to eat his words. If he is prepared to give that money from the Department for Social Development to the Department for Regional Development, I am sure the Minister will be delighted.
Mr Cobain:
Can you, being an economics expert, give us a guarantee that rents will not rise by 4·5% this year?
Mr Poots:
Neither do I sit on the Social Development Committee nor am I the Minister, so I can give no guarantees. But I wait with interest to see what recommendation the Social Development Committee brings forward to the Minister as to how much it believes he should raise the rents by. I am sure the Minister will take complete cognisance - [Interruption]
Mr Cobain:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not a matter for Committees to instruct the Minister about what rent increases should be; it is the other way round.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
That is not a point of order.
Mr Poots:
Thank you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are used to such mistakes.
We will wait to see what the Social Development Committee has to say. Are they for the rent rise or are they against it? Do they want a 5% increase, or do they want a 2·5% increase? [Interruption]
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Poots:
Do they want cuts in the housing budget or do they want a rise in the housing budget? Those questions have to be answered. We look forward to the constructive and positive items that the Chairperson of that Committee will come up with.
I found Mr Close's contribution very interesting - very articulate, as usual, but that did not disguise the flaws. He talked a lot about the regional rate and how it was an immoral rate, a bad rate, a bad tax system. He used words such as despicable and detestable. What other system could replace the regional rate? Perhaps the Alliance Party could come up with something novel, more closely akin to the poll tax? Something, perhaps, that takes account of individuals, unlike the regional rate, which takes account of the property that people live in. Of course, the means whereby district councils raise their revenue is via the district rate, which is based on the same premise as the regional rate. Properties have a rateable valuation, and a penny-in-the-pound levy is set against that valuation. Are they going to change that as well?
Mr Close:
Again, I suggest that hon Members acquaint themselves with the facts. The Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Poots) should take a brief course in taxation before criticising those who are putting forward alternative ideas. Will he accept an 8% increase in the regional rate - yes or no?
2.45 pm
Mr Poots:
I thank the Member for the lecture on taxation. The only problem is that he told us about taking up ideas but did not come forward with any ideas himself. We will take a further look at the Member's arguments. He talked about the Housing Executive - [Interruption]
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Poots:
The Member talked about an increase. He assumes that the Minister for Social Development will impose a massive rent increase on the ordinary people of the Province but does not say what he wants the Housing Executive to do. He does not want the Housing Executive to raise rents, but he does not seem to mind having cuts in the Housing Executive budget.
Mr Close:
The Member refused to answer the first question about whether he accepted or rejected a rise in the regional rate. Will he please tell us whether he will accept an increase in Housing Executive rents of 2% or more above inflation? That is a simple question, and I would like a simple answer - yes or no. He should try to answer at least one of my questions.
Mr Poots:
I thought that that would be a simple question, so I was happy to give way.
My party will look maturely at each situation and will consider the needs in each area. We will propose what we believe is right. Mr Close said that he had no doubt that if people were asked whether they wanted two more intensive care beds, they would be happy to put more money into the regional rate. If we said to the people on the Ormeau Road or Ravenhill Road "We are not going to do any improvements on the water system here - it can flood next year and every year after that. We are going to keep your regional rate down to 2% each year", they would not be happy. So, we have to look at things maturely and reasonably - [Interruption]. I will have to get on with this, because I have other items to raise. The Alliance Party has talked at length about tax-raising and tax-varying powers, but is it serious?
Mr Close:
Yes.
Mr Poots:
Will the Alliance Party tell us that the 8% was wrong and that we should really have a 15% rise on the regional rate? I hear the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Close) saying "Yes". Perhaps he is even saying "Yes" to 20%.
Mr McCarthy is shaking his head. Yesterday he had a wish list the length of his arm of what he wanted the Executive to do. The reality - for Mr McCarthy's benefit - is that there is only a certain amount that one can spend - [Interruption] If he wants the things on his wish list he will have to raise taxes. Perhaps the Alliance Party will learn to be mature about that.
The Alliance Party backed the December 1998 deal, which proposed that there should be 10 Departments, thus supporting the spending of extra millions on administration in the Province.
Mr Close:
Is the Member suggesting that we should get rid of the Department for Regional Development or the Department for Social Development?
Mr Poots:
I would be happy to return to six Departments and see the old Department of Environment split into two Departments, as the DUP proposed at the time. That would lead to better, more joined-up government. However, it was decided to spend more money then, and now there is less money to spend on housing, sewerage, roads, transport, and so on. I thank those who supported the new structures for doing that for the general public; it was very kind of them.
I want to speak on some issues of interest to the Committee of the Centre. First, there is the failure to allocate money to victims. There was a request for £500,000 of extra money for victims - not a penny was allocated. That flies in the face of the Bloomfield Report, and it goes against what was set out in the Programme for Government.
E-government is an area where the Government could make savings. There would have to be an initial investment, but it would lead to savings in the long term. It could even reduce wastage, and I am sure Mr Close would be interested in that.
Two bids were put in for e-government - one for £14·9 million and one for £0·9 million. Neither bid was met, so not a single shilling is going to be put in to e-government. There is the service modernisation fund of approximately £3 million. That fund will come under severe pressure. It will not go any way towards meeting the needs of e-government and it will be subject to bids from other Departments.
The Government have stated their plans for e-government. They want 25% of key services to be capable of delivery by 2002, and 100% by 2005. That is not achievable if the money is not being put in. The bid, as detailed by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, was to increase the accessibility of Government service for all and improve the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of Government services. Furthermore, this bid was to enable social inclusion and to put the concept of sell Government once into place. The insufficient early funding of this work may place all the achievements at risk and leave Northern Ireland at a disadvantage. This is contrary to the ethos of the knowledge-based economy.
The words spoken by the First Minister yesterday are hollow, especially as there is no funding in that area. He said
"In addition, as set out in the final chapter, there are a number of cross-cutting initiatives that can improve the effectiveness of the Government. These include the increased use of electronics to create new and more effective means of providing services to and information for citizens and to handle data and information within the Government".
Legislation has been passed on equality issues. A £500,000 bid was made to implement much of the legislation that has been put before the Equality Commission, but it was not awarded.
All of this contrasts with those bids made in respect of departmental running costs which seemed to be met in full every time. No attempts were made to reduce those bids. For example, the economic policy unit bid for additional staff and received £479,000 - the full amount of the bid. The office of the legislative council sought additional staff and received its £106,000. The race equality branch bid for £125,000 for additional staff and received it. The list goes on. Government Departments received all the money they sought for additional staff in the departmental running costs.
The same situation exists in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The agriculture budget has risen by £25 million, however the farmers will not be any better off. It is a good budget for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, but it is not a good budget for agriculture. It is alarming that the budget for agriculture amounts to almost twice the profit of the industry. It costs twice as much to administer the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland as the farmers are making.
There are a number of environmental issues that must be dealt with. I welcome the 12% increase in direct funding and the possibility of a further 2·3% increase as a result of retaining the receipts from the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), planning and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI) - and I thank the Minister for his co-operation in that - but there are matters of concern to the Environment Committee.
For example, there was a bid made for £1·38 million to lift the moratorium on the historic buildings grant. The Programme for Government states that the Executive will seek to bring in additional funding through a number of private initiatives as well as the lottery. However, as a result of the Department of the Environment not receiving the £1·38 million for the EHS, the Department is going to lose out on a large amount of lottery money. We have to have the money to pump-prime those projects so as to release the money that would be available from the lottery.
A further £461,000 is needed to maintain the Department's own historic properties, and that has not been provided. We need to take a serious look at our built heritage, not just through words in a document but by awarding funding through the budget. In the resources element of the exchequer grant for the local authorities it is also a concern that our councils will lose out on around £556,000, while the councils in England, Scotland and Wales got their rewards in full. Those are matters that need to be addressed.
I am concerned that there has been a 0·1% drop in the money that will be spent on roads. I know that roads are not exactly the darling of a lot of people's eyes and that cars are not deemed as being environmentally friendly, but we all use them. We all like to have good quality transport, drive down good quality roads, and get to where we are going in a reasonable time. Roads continue to deteriorate and it is important that we look after them. We need good quality roads and we must look at the budget and ensure that more money is invested in the Roads Service.
I welcome the additional £20 million that has been invested in the rail service. It has been crumbling for years, and if the money had not been invested, there would be no rail service in a few years' time. In yesterday's debate on the Programme for Government, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister stated that it wanted more buses of a higher quality and a younger fleet. Unfortunately that was not addressed in the budget, and the Department for Regional Development's bid for additional money for buses was not met. It received £5·1 million, which will replace 28 buses a year, but 80 buses need to be replaced over the next three years just to bring them up to a reasonable standard.
With regard to Culture, Arts and Leisure, more money should have been invested in libraries. A high increase of 18·7% was allocated to the arts and only 5% was allocated to libraries, but libraries are more accessible to Joe Public. I also have concerns about the allocation to the Northern Ireland Events Company. Some years ago we saw quite a lot of money squandered in projects in the Positively Belfast debacle. The Northern Ireland Events Company should be more accountable for its finances. I would also like to ensure that the money is spread throughout the Province of Northern Ireland and is not spent solely on Belfast.
Mr McElduff:
A LeasCheann Comhairle. Ar dtús ba mhaith liom argóint a dhéanamh i bhfabhar na cothromaíochta do mhuintir Thír Eoghain agus Fhear Manach sa díospóireacht seo. Leis an fhírinne a rá, níl rudaí cothrom sa tsochaí seo, agus caithfidh an tAire - leoga, caithfidh an t-iomlán againn - seo a chur san áireamh agus sinn ag plé leibhéal an ráta réigiúnaigh, mar a thugtar air.
Rather than argue for more money for roads, it would be much more productive if Mr Poots could persuade his party's Minister to attend the Executive meetings where those arguments take place and where decisions are made. I oppose the idea that the regional or Six Counties rate should be applied uniformly throughout, ie, 8% domestic and 6·6% non domestic, because it does not take into account the fact that the playing field is very unequal.
As an Assembly Member for West Tyrone, I am acutely aware of the historical legacy of discrimination, neglect and underinvestment west of the Bann - and I refer specifically to County Tyrone, County Fermanagh and County Derry.
The allocation of resources is unequal, and the playing field is not level.
3.00 pm
When arriving at the regional rate, the Assembly must legislate for those areas that have been completely denuded of essential hospital services. County Tyrone is a case in point. There is no maternity hospital, and expectant mothers have to travel unacceptably long distances on poor-quality roads. Lives are being lost, there is virtually no midwife cover at weekends, the out-of-hours surgery and GP cover is inadequate, and people from places like Eskra and Carrickmore are expected to travel to Enniskillen and Craigavon. That inequality needs to be legislated for when striking the regional rate. These are areas where the health service has been in steady decline for many years. It has been constantly eroded and virtually disassembled, brick by brick.
Similarly, the Assembly must legislate where there is no rail provision; where the road infrastructure is completely inadequate; where rural roads are not gritted unless there are 1,500 vehicles per day (not even school bus routes qualify); where official job-creation agencies have failed the people consistently; and where access to many public services which are taken for granted elsewhere has been denied to whole communities.
I do not believe in this uniform approach to striking the regional rate. It is fundamentally wrong and should be reviewed, because it disadvantages rural communities. After all, the M1 stops at Dungannon, and the M2 stops beyond Antrim. People west of the Bann should not be subject to the same percentage increase.
I wish to raise the issue with Nigel Dodds in the strongest possible terms. Earlier, he argued very unconvincingly about North/Southery, as he calls it. He said that North/South development constitutes a waste of public money. That is a completely irrational, party political approach that ignores the evidence that the creation of a single island economy and the avoidance of duplication is the way forward.
Let us go about the business of creating a single island economy and take account of the huge savings that such a rationalisation would bring about. We would not have two health systems, two education systems, two agriculture systems, two tourism systems, and two industrial development systems. Ireland is far too small a nation to have two systems of health, education, and so on.
Unsurprisingly, Mr Dodds did not mention the Celtic Tiger very often. In my book, there are rather more compelling reasons for deepening and expanding the role of North/South implementation bodies. That is a far cry from Mr Dodds's invitation to justify those bodies from a defensive standpoint.
Today I spoke to a professional person from County Fermanagh who is very concerned about the level of the rates. He said that at the end of the day the only hope for Counties Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry might lie with the Twenty-Six Counties. Then we might get our kitchen adaptations and house adaptations, our operations and our central heating; and our rural housing, which is unfit, might be addressed.
I want to touch briefly on other relevant issues. The Executive and the Assembly need to begin to define medium-term spending priorities so that we can use these to argue for increased spending targets for 2002-03 and 2003-04 and in future spending reviews. The present proposal to increase commercial rates by 6·6% is going to further cripple traders in town centres, who are already suffering stiff competition from out-of-town commercial centres. In Omagh, there has been a huge outcry from traders at the huge increases in their rates year after year without any hint of a reprieve or any demonstrable understanding of their plight.
On another point, where is this peace dividend that we have heard so much about? Where is this concept of making a difference for people living west of the Bann? Where and when is the balance to be addressed and redressed? Finally, we need to raise public awareness about the whole business of the regional rate being stuck. We need to demystify it and explain it.
Mr Dodds referred to people receiving their rates bills and distinguishing between the regional and district elements. I do not think people do that. People receive their rates bills and wonder what public services they are getting in return. In rural areas there is a particular deficit of confidence in this regard. As other Members have outlined, the district councils have to bear the brunt of the blame from people who, quite understandably, do not fully understand the procedures and methodologies involved. I want to promote a programme of public awareness to aid transparency. Go raibh maith agat.
Mr Weir:
We need to ground our examination of the Budget in reality. We can all come up with a wish-list of what we would like the money to be spent on. Indeed, if we were to add up the wish-list we would probably find that it amounted to twice the Budget that we are discussing today. We should not lapse into the green-tinted Utopia that the Member opposite seems to advocate - a 32-county Utopia that would cure all our ills. Suddenly there will be no ill people, and there will be money flowing in by the bucket load.
The reality is that we have got to look at how we can play a better role as part of the United Kingdom, which is an economy with a population of 58 million, and not at an all-island economy based on a population of 5 million. If the Member opposite understood anything about economics he would realise that what he has put forward is simply a recipe for Northern Ireland to go backwards into economic decline.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Does the Member appreciate that the party opposite knows very little about economics but a great deal about racketeering?
Mr Weir:
Members opposite are obviously able to speak on their own levels of expertise. I presume that they have many skills and insights which some of us on this side of the House would not be party to.
I give a cautious welcome to the broad thrust of the Budget. That will come as a surprise to many Members, because I am not noted for saying positive things in the House. I will reassure those Members a little. Whatever positive remarks I make about the Budget, I will try to temper them with concerns, so that there will be no undue excitement in the Chamber today.
It is easy to welcome a Budget when we are in a position where, with the exception of the regional rate, or the Durkan tax, as it was called earlier, we are not actually raising any taxation. Instead, we are reallocating the largesse from the Northern Ireland block grant.
Although there are arguments that Northern Ireland could have done better, we are able, following the comprehensive spending review, to have reasonable increases in spending across the board. That is to be welcomed. However, it is easy to deal with a situation where we are essentially looking at what additional bits of the cake can be brought into play. The real test of any Budget will be when we are faced with no net increases and are having to reallocate money on that basis. That may happen in future years.
I add a further caveat. The Finance and Personnel Committee, albeit having a somewhat inadequate amount of time to do so, will be scrutinising this Budget very closely. It is clear from remarks made today that this is not a perfect Budget and that there are changes that need to be made. I advise the Minister that the Finance and Personnel Committee will be doing its job properly and scrutinising the Budget. We will not simply undertake a rubber-stamping exercise. We will be looking at where improvements can be made. He need not think that we are going to put a big tick at every aspect of the Budget.
Having said that, I want to deal with a number of specific aspects of the Budget. First, a general welcome must be given to the spending increases in education and health. The key test of both of those - indeed, of any local administration - will be the extent to which people on the ground feel the benefit. In education, there is a massive backlog in the capital schools spending programme. The Health Service is in a shocking state. Last week a constituent of mine was injured in a house fire and a bed could not be found in the whole of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board area. That person had to be taken to Craigavon. That is an absolutely deplorable state of affairs. The key test of any increase in spending on education and health, indeed across the board, will be the extent to which it benefits people on the ground, rather than simply adding money to administration. Health and education must be watched closely.
I also welcome additional spending within the Department of Environment on planning services, which has not been mentioned so far. Members will agree that there are problems surrounding planning issues. Many regional plans are out of date. The provision of more money to accelerate various development plans is to be welcomed. I was at a meeting last night in Donaghadee, where there have been a lot of complications with the Planning Service, but North Down is not an isolated example. It is a problem right across the country. The budget increase of 23·5% for the Planning Service is to be welcomed.
It is important that we are putting more money into the railways. I would not be as dismissive of that as another Member. During direct rule, and probably before, regional development tended to be the poor relation of the Northern Ireland Budget. Public transport has been the poor relation within regional development, and the railways have been the poor relation within public transport. As a result, the railways have been underfunded for years. The additional £20 million that has been put forward is an attempt to rectify those problems. This is not a question of luxury spending on the railways; it is an absolute necessity. If we do not spend money on the railways now, as recommended by the AD Little report, we will not have the opportunity in five or 10 years' time. If we do not spend it now, the railways in Northern Ireland will be completely untenable.
Some people refer to spending on railways as if it were some sort of glib project. A lot of that money has to go into track safety improvements. The events of the past month, both in England and now sadly in Austria, show us of the danger of not paying enough attention to rail safety and the threat to human life. This money being put into the railways is welcome.
If, however, we are going to consolidate the railways - which I think is the right course - it cannot be done by neglecting the rest of the railway line. We have got to see this as part of an overall project of real investment in the railways to ensure that Northern Ireland is not the poor relation of the British Isles while vast amounts of money go into transport both in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.
Those things are to be welcomed. I also have some concerns, some of which have been raised already. I am concerned about the regional rate. I do not have the experience of local government as some of the other Members who have spoken, so perhaps I do not have the same personal axe to grind, but I remain to be convinced of the merit of the rise in the regional rate. It has to be made clear why that is taking place. I also share the concern that, at the moment, there is no transparency with the regional rate.
3.15 pm
If money is to be raised through a regional rate or some such device, it must be made clear that the decision has been made by the central Administration at Stormont and that local councils are not directly responsible for it. Councils must not carry the can for decisions that are made by other people. We could call it the Stormont tax, or even the Durkan tax, but it must be clear that it comes from Stormont, rather than local government. Furthermore, I remain to be convinced that the rise in housing rents can be justified.
Finally, I express concern at the increase in departmental running costs. Many of us had concerns about whether 10 Departments were appropriate for the administration of Northern Ireland. Setting that aside and looking at the budget figures, we can see that there have been large rises in departmental running costs for the majority of Departments. Not all of those rises are due to the transition to devolution. In each case, the rise in departmental running costs is above inflation. In most cases, running costs are increasing at a higher rate than the level of spending by that Department. There must be a close examination of that.
We have had a useful listening exercise, although the last Member to describe it thus did a great deal of talking for someone who was so interested in listening. We must ensure that we get the Budget right. This is a tremendous opportunity, and we must ensure that it is used to benefit the people of Northern Ireland, rather than just to put money into the Administration.
Mr Byrne:
The Budget is primarily about distributing the block grant allocation to Northern Ireland determined by the Chancellor, under the notional Barnett formula. Total spending is now about £6 billion a year. The Barnett formula has been in existence for about 25 years. Northern Ireland gets a share based on its population.
The allocation does not, however, reflect relative regional GDP. That would give us more, on a pro rata basis. Northern Ireland is almost doubly dependent on public sector spending as a proportion of GDP. Over 60% of our economic output is dependent on the public sector; the rest of the United Kingdom is much less dependent on the public sector. Our economy is largely driven - or perhaps constrained - by the public sector. The challenge for the Assembly is to decide how the new administration can give new impetus and thrust to the local economy, so as to generate more economic activity, create more jobs and produce higher value added output from the private sector?
We can learn from our neighbours in the Republic. That is why I give a particular welcome to the economic aspects of the North/South institutions and to the meaningful co-operation between the northern Administration and the Administration in the Republic. Why do some parties in the Assembly feel so aggrieved and threatened about spending on these North/South institutions? The promotion and development of economic activity will be to our benefit.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Regardless of the political differences in our attitudes to "North/Southery", does the Member accept that there is a great deal of expense associated with the North/South Ministerial Council meetings? Written Answer No 169 revealed that the cost to one Department of ferrying officials back and forth was £16,000. Does he not realise that that is a waste of resources? I am sure he could come up with ideas on how that money could be better spent in his constituency. I could certainly come up with a whole lot on how it could be better spent in mine.
Mr Byrne:
I thank the Member for his comments, but my attitude is not to prejudge outcomes. Let us give new institutions and mechanisms a chance to operate, then apply some qualitative assessment to their performance. Let us learn from the Republic in a collaborative and productive way. The five Executive programme funds, in my opinion, offer the greatest potential for stimulating and promoting what I call public policy redirection, for resource adjustment to kick-start the private enterprise sector in Northern Ireland and to enhance general economic activity.
The drawing up of public service agreements in Departments is a welcome development proposal, which offers a new opportunity for us to contribute at three levels to improving the performance of this small regional economy. There is a great need for a stronger interaction and engagement between politicians in this Assembly, civil servant policy formulators, and the other social partner stakeholders - Northern Ireland commerce and industry and the voluntary and community sector.
I welcome resource budgeting if it leads to better Government departmental performance, where targets based on predetermined objectives are set. It is absolutely essential that output performance is continually measured, so that corrective action can be taken in the remit of public accountability and ultimately deliberated upon in this House.
The thematic approach in the Budget and in the Programme for Government is welcome. Creating a more competitive regional economy is necessary. The primary themes are based on equality implementation and New TSN. To those people and sections of our community who need help, this must deliver an encouragement to develop themselves and their communities. Community development has been very successful over the last ten years, particularly in rural Northern Ireland. How can this administration stimulate and enhance more widespread urban community-based developments, striking a sensible balance between the social and economic parameter objectives? That is now the challenge. The European Union initiatives and money have greatly enabled this process. I regard the five programme funds as a similar public policy mechanism to enable better economic and public performance. I make particular reference to the service modernisation fund, which I believe can lead to a better performance. The new directions fund can enable new directions to be created and can add to the private sector enterprise-driven approach which needs to be developed in Northern Ireland.
Many people have talked about the infrastructure capital fund. We all know about the neglect of investment in roads, rail, water and sewerage over many years. Some Members asked today why nobody had blown the whistle early on. I ask that question again. Surely we should have been informed ten years ago about the under-investment in these funds and projects. We have now reached the stage where massive investment is needed for this region to perform better economically. That is the reason I welcome the discussion about using private finance. We should have no ideological hang-ups about using private finance for public sector investment. However, private finance should be used in such a way that we do not add handicap to the public purse. It must be used in a meaningful way that does not add extra costs or burdens.
In the early 1990s the Irish Government secured £8 billion from the 1994-99 European structural funds. We received only £1 million. The economy in the Republic has performed extremely well since. The reality is that in the same period we in Northern Ireland got £3·5 billion per year from the British Exchequer - £17·5 billion in total. We can reasonably ask what are we doing wrong that we do not have a better local regional economic performance.
Mr Shannon:
I want to highlight three issues, the first of which concerns the spending on roads. We welcome the fact that there is going to be a substantial amount of investment in the railways. It seems to be specifically directed at the safety aspects, and we would like to see more money being put into that category. That poses some questions. What would happen if the Westlink does not go ahead? Where would that money go? Would it go directly into the railways or into other road schemes?
With regard to the budget for the Department for Regional Development, we are all aware of the needs. Important roads schemes have been put on the long finger. For example, the Comber bypass has been on the list to be constructed for the past 30 years. Today all we have is the land, which has been recently acquired, but we have not got a start date. Perhaps, at long last, work could commence in the current financial year. There must be some criteria to deal with long-delayed projects such as this. We have waited too long for a road scheme the need for which was recognised 30 years ago, and the problem has been exacerbated during this time.
The second issue is cultural and linguistic diversity. I want to deal specifically with the promotion of Irish- medium education. The Programme for Government document refers to viability criteria. What does that mean? Where does Ulster Scots appear in this? It seems to be solely about Irish-medium education. Are there viability criteria for Ulster Scots in the education system? Can the Government ensure that Ulster-Scots will be allocated funding equal to that set aside for Irish-speaking schools and the integrated education system? In the interests of fair play we want to see this matter resolved. In the programme there is no fair play for the Ulster-Scots language, nor for our culture or history.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
The third issue concerns the health sector. We must all be aware of the needs of the community. I want to target a particular group - those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease or dementia. I find it disappointing that in the proposed Budget there has not been further consideration given to the needs of an ever increasing elderly population. In the next few years there will be an increasing demand upon the Health Department. As people age the possibility of dementia increases as well.
It is estimated that Alzheimer's disease will affect more and more people, yet in the Budget of £2,284 million it has been given no specific consideration. We should be looking at ring-fencing money for the care of those with dementia and Alzheimer's disease. If that money were to be set aside it would mean a full range of care and support services in each of the trust areas. One of the concerns is that in our contact with the boards we have found that only one that has set aside money for the problem. The Western Board has set aside just over £2 million.
3.30 pm
None of the other boards has got as far as that yet. That is very worrying. It shows very clearly that the Health Department itself does not seem to have acknowledged the problem. They have had a programme with recommendations sitting on the table in their Department for five years, and nothing has been done. The health boards themselves, with the exception of the Western Board, have not even got to the stage of putting this on their list of things to do. That speaks volumes the lack of commitment from the boards and from the Health Department
Are the health boards and the Health Department hoping that the dementia problem will go away? That certainly will not happen. There is a responsibility on the health boards and the Health Department to provide dementia services. They need to be provided now, and the strategy needs to be put together at once.
At present there are 16,000 people in Northern Ireland who suffer from dementia. In the Eastern Health and Social Services Board area - my own area - there are 7,200, by far the largest number in any board area, and yet they have no programme whatsoever at this time. That is despicable. We depend upon volunteers. Everyone recognises the good work that volunteers do. There are some 40,000 volunteers who look after those 16,000 people who suffer from dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
If a little was spent now, a great deal could be saved later on. Early diagnosis costs would be one way of doing this. At the moment, an early diagnosis costs £330. With a distinct possibility of having 1,500 new cases each year, the total cost could be £0·5 million. However, if we do something now, we will have fewer concerns later on in relation to health and the cost of looking after those suffering from dementia. There are also drugs available. Money should be spent to combat Alzheimer's disease. There is also a host of volunteers who are quite willing and able to give aid to those suffering.
The Assembly and the Department have the power to ring-fence moneys. I would like to see that happen, as that is the only way to ensure that dementia sufferers will be cared for. We have to recognise the growing demand on resources. We all recognise that. This is not just a wish list. These things are very important. An increasing number of people will need help, yet there is no security of funding. This must be addressed in this year's Budget.
Many people already feel isolated and socially excluded. It is not just the sufferers but also those who provide the care. Purchasing plans should recognise the need for the development and availability of a full range of care and support services in each community unit and trust area. That is what we are seeking. Service providers should plan to ensure that appropriate support and care is based on an assessment and maintains the quality of life and independent living of people with dementia and their carers. We have to ring-fence the money and ensure that it is there in this financial year.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Members might like to have a progress report on how we are doing. There are 15 Members still to speak, as well as the Minister, who, by convention, has 10 minutes for each hour of debate. I am sure that he will manage to get his words in in that time - about 60 minutes. Mr Leslie will wind up. I am not putting any limit on your time, but I am making a little suggestion that it might be wise to try to think of something absolutely new to say, because there is a tendency towards repetition.
Mr McCarthy:
Much has been said on the Budget proposals already, and you will be glad to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not believe in repetitiveness. I wish only to comment briefly. I wish to underline my total and absolute opposition to the proposed 8% increase in the regional rate. My Colleague Seamus Close has adequately spelled out our total opposition. I welcome the speech this morning of Nigel Dodds, who was also in opposition.
This increase is a breach of two important taxation principles. First, the people who spend the money - namely, the Government - should be made accountable for expenditure. However, when people receive their rates bills, they do not make a distinction between the regional and council rates - they see them as a lump sum. Councillors recognise this, and there are many of us in the Chamber. It is councillors who will be blamed for the rates increase, rather than Mr Durkan or the Assembly.
The second principle is that taxation should be progressive - the more you earn and the more you spend, the more tax you should pay. However, this regional rate is a form of regressive taxation. Everyone needs to live somewhere and most people end up paying rates, directly or indirectly. Rates payment often hurts the elderly and single parents, who do not have a regular income. Has this proposal for an 8% increase been equality proofed?
The First Minister told us yesterday that the new Administration is responsive to the community it serves and that it is in tune with the people who elected it. That was a very important statement. When the Executive discovers that many representatives, including councillors, are opposed to this 8% increase in the regional rate, will it act accordingly and take alternative measures?
The Alliance Party is not opposed to increased spending by the Assembly; indeed, the opposite applies. The people of Northern Ireland want properly resourced public services and they are willing to pay for them. My Colleague Mr Close suggested means by which this can be done - namely, through a reduction in waste and greater efficiency. However, the Alliance Party is opposed to the use of the regional rate as a back-door mechanism for finding extra money. The Assembly should be upfront; it should also be arguing for tax-varying powers for Northern Ireland. This morning I was glad to hear that Mr McGrady is coming round to our way of thinking.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Will the Member give way?
Mr McCarthy:
No. The Member did not have many constructive comments to make, so I will not waste time now.
It is a good idea to set up a common fund under the common authority of the Executive to examine such cross- cutting issues as e-government and children. While these funds are relatively small this year, there will be a more significant sum over the next couple of years. The Alliance Party welcomes some of the specific increases to be made in spending for individual Departments. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the requests from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure were not met and that libraries, which are an important facet of the community, are not being properly funded. The lack of funding for our rural road system is another problem.
Health is the biggest concern of the people of Northern Ireland. We welcome the 5% spending increase on paper, but we are suffering from insufficient provision of major equipment, a shortage of intensive care beds, and so on. This problem has been best illustrated by the case of a burns victim from Bangor, who had to be taken to Craigavon Area Hospital before a bed could be found for him. This type of incident is a total disgrace, which cannot be tolerated, and while it continues, every Member should accept some responsibility for the problem and take the necessary action to secure sufficient funding so that this never happens again to any member of our community.
The Budget tells us that this extra money will enable the Department of Health to respond effectively to the needs of an ageing population and to the rising costs of modern medicine. It also claims that there is provision for the continuation of such essential commitments as addressing winter pressures, waiting lists and the deficiencies of the ambulance fleet.
This is certainly a bold claim; we will be able to judge it as time goes on. Let us hope that the ambition will be achieved. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Northern Ireland will still remain well below the European average for health spending as a portion of GDP. Many more resources are needed. At the same time we must ensure that the money is spent wisely and efficiently. A review of health administration is inevitable, and the sooner this is done, the better.
We in the Alliance Party are anxious that more resources are devoted to preventative medicine, cancer research, care in the community and public health. Such investments can help to avoid much greater costs later.
This Budget leaves a lot to be discussed and debated. I am most unhappy with its contents and look forward to a much improved Budget when the Committees have carried out their duties. Finally, I will not support a Budget which is funded in part by an 8% increase in the regional rate; I will not support a Budget which is funded in part by inflation and by a 2% increase in the Housing Executive rents.
Ms McWilliams:
Most of my questions are to do with transparency and accountability. Though I have digested these figures during the year, I find it very difficult to follow them through from the Estimates into this draft Budget. The Minster has mentioned the ability that we have now to draw into the block funds some moneys to which we previously had no access. I want him to address that issue.
Where did the £63 million go? I asked this during the last discussion of the Budget for the New Deal, and I note that, no matter how hard I try, I cannot find it now. This is a substantial sum. It may be worth noting for the record that £63 million is more than what some Departments have to spend. I want to draw attention to the fact that, though we in the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee have inquired about its whereabouts, we still cannot find that money. A huge sum of money was set aside. We were not allowed to spend it, and we were told it was ring- fenced. As it cannot now be found, there may be a question mark over whether it was ring-fenced. It would be good to have an answer to that before today is out.
I would also like to ask the Minister how he managed to get such a huge increase in the Executive programme funds. The sum of £16 million has been set aside this year, but will that rise to £200 million? While we have been talking about increases of 5% or 8%, year on year, in the devolved expenditure, here is an increase of over 1,000%. How have we managed to rise from £16 million to £200 million? Are these the funds that we were formerly forbidden to touch, or is this some type of new money?
I would also like to ask the Minister who will be held accountable for that funding. Which Committee will scrutinise the Executive programme funds? I must emphasise again that £200 million is more than the entire budget allocated to some Departments. Perhaps a special committee should be set up to query this Budget. I am not for one minute suggesting that I am not happy to see it; on the contrary, I am delighted to see it. However, if we are to exercise a scrutinising function to hold people accountable for spending - as the Assembly requires us to - I would like to know how we intend to do that with such a large Budget.
I am also concerned about the lack of transparency. Perhaps the Minister would have a word with the headmaster and the deputy headmaster. I draw Members' attention to page 26 of the Budget, which refers to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister - it gives us three lines.
3.45 pm
If I had asked my students to answer an examination question and had given them as little information as this, I would have expected very little back and would have marked them down accordingly. I am disappointed that something that was set up as innovative and was given such huge responsibility should deliver a Budget like this. It tells us about the Secretariat's functions, but not about how much money is to be assigned to each constituent part.
We talked about the Programme for Government yesterday, and justice is one of its themes. The programme says there will be a strategic policy on victims, but this is not mentioned once in the draft Budget. No mention either is made of funding or of any allocation to service the unit. This issue has been raised on the Floor before. I am asked over and over again who is responsible. I thank the Minister for telling us that responsibility is split between the Northern Ireland Office and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Where does this fall under the Budget and how much money is assigned, for instance, for equality and the Civic Forum? Members opposed to the Civic Forum have often asked how much it costs. The Civic Forum is up and running now, and it would do us no harm whatsoever for those questions to be answered. We know how much it costs, and that should have been included in the Budget.
I know that this is asking an enormous question of the Minister, but why has there been such a huge increase in departmental running costs? For example, the running costs for the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment have increased by 16%. I would like to think that we could send out a message that year-on-year departmental costs should not rise by more than 4% to 5%, and occasionally 6% to 7%, depending on the introduction of new programmes. I sit on the Higher Education Committee, and I am unaware of any new programmes. In a recent announcement the Minister of Higher Education said that he intended to consolidate his Department by bringing in the Training and Employment Agency. That should cut running costs rather than increase them.
I think the Minister misunderstood a previous question about groups going to the wall as a result of transitional European funding. I am delighted to hear the plea that we continue our excellent work in the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland. The Programme for Government states that it will attempt to build on that work, given the divisions we have had to face over the years in our communities, and it applauds that sector for interfacing across the sectarian divide.
The Minister has probably received letters from these groups and will know that they are making many people redundant, either because they do not have transitional funding to tide them over or because of sustainability. This is a crisis, an emergency, and the Minister is as aware as anyone else of what is facing the groups on the ground.
In order to see a way through this, I would ask what plans we should now be making to draw down funding such as lottery money or other outside funds. The Programme for Government speaks loudly about developing a social economy. I am glad to see the words "social economy", but that idea should be built into the Budget, and I do not see how that can be done if funding and resources are unavailable.
The women's sector of the lottery funds has been spending many millions of pounds on work that has many indicators of success, but the National Lottery Charities Board has said that it is now struggling, either because the lottery is going down or because not enough people are buying lottery tickets. On average, £20 million a year was given out to that sector in Northern Ireland and funding has now decreased. It is no longer able to facilitate the large number of women's and community groups in particular. They have written to us and pleaded for someone to look at this seriously. Perhaps we should look at drawing down National Lottery funding into Northern Ireland - we were told that we might be able to do that after devolution - and then take responsibility for how much comes here. I know that decisions about what happens to the money here are made in London because I once sat on the National Lottery Charities Board when questions were asked about what would happen and how much more flexible it would be upon devolution. The Minister has not been assigned that yet, but, given that we do not seem to be able to mainstream funds, the good work is going to the wall. We are not able to sustain it, so we may have to consider how we use outside funds.
How flexible will this Budget be in terms of policy changes? We are currently undergoing a student review, and we may not have the answers to that in time to incorporate them into this Budget. No doubt they will be held off until next year's. I hope not. However, other issues will arise.
Members may be aware that a High Court judge ruled the other day in the case of a 12-year-old boy who had previously absconded from residential care and had been given a place at Lisnevin juvenile justice centre - where he should not have been for a minor disorder charge. He was there because no secure beds could be found for him. The lack of secure beds resulted in this child ending up in a juvenile centre. There is now a secure bed, but unfortunately, in spite of the High Court judge's ruling that he be given 24-hour supervision, they are unable to find him. He disappeared 45 minutes after entering the residential-care home. That shows the crisis we are in. The Programme for Government and the Budget say that some additional beds will be made available. It is important for us to note that number is only 12 - 12 when we need 115. We have many young boys and girls absconding all over the country.
I am glad that we have got 10 extra psychiatric beds because the mental health problems of our young people are excessive. They have not been provided with the necessary services, particularly in the light of the troubles. We are facing a crisis unless we incorporate some policy changes into the Budget. I would put down a marker that we stop waiving budgets, that particular issue relates to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
I am pleased to see that some Ministers have said what they were not successful in bidding for. The Minister of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment said he was unsuccessful in obtaining any money for foundation degrees. However, I see in the Programme for Government that that is one matter that we will be taking care of. Therefore, if we are talking about cohesiveness, let us have that between the Programme for Government and the Budget. There is no point saying that we hope to do things and then find from the Budget that we cannot.
Finally, can we have a little bit more clarification in the final plan of what was in the Chancellor's initiative in the past, what was non-devolved, and what is now in the Executive programme funds. We can understand the figures. What we cannot understand is that when we voted last year on the Estimates, a figure was available to us yet in this draft there is no longer a figure for the year 2000-01. I want to see those figures because I want to see what is available for this country, the total that was available last year under the Chancellor's initiatives, and what is available out of the Executive programme funds for next year. I want to see how much new money we have and whether we will continue in a crisis management situation.
Mr Savage:
I welcome the Minister of Finance and Personnel's well-presented Budget for 2001-02, especially its laudable aims of transparency and greater flexibility in departmental accounting. However, I have reservations about the real impact of the Budget on farm incomes. In determining the expenditure limit for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the new formula of resource accounting and budgeting has replaced the old cash accounting system. The rationale for this is set out for all Departments in the explanatory memorandum attached to the Executive's public expenditure plan for Budget for 2001-02. The danger of this system, which is consumption- driven rather than cash-driven, is that Departments with the culture of saving as opposed to spending will be the losers, while Departments with a big-spender mentality will gain - in short, waste will be rewarded.
The Department of Agriculture, as in the United Kingdom, sees itself as a regulator rather than as a support mechanism for farmers, which is what happens in France, for instance. This is borne out by the more selective targeting of animal disease compensation - what the Minister calls "enabling planned provision to be aligned more accurately with anticipated requirements". This targeting is reminiscent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's targeting of additional money for pensioners, which has caused such a furore nationally with its implications of means testing. This may be prudent financial management, but it looks miserly in the context of the real crisis in farm incomes and hardship in the farming sector.
The Minister must avoid the temptation, which seems to afflict all Finance Ministers, of becoming the Scrooge of Government. The year-on-year percentage drop in the budget for rural development is disappointing, especially as this is an important supporting mechanism in enhancing farm incomes. I question the calculations because the expenditure remains almost unchanged at £8·3 million, and this implies that inflation is only 0·4%. Even with the United Kingdom's enviably low rate of inflation, and the Irish rate of almost 7%, our figures cannot be as low as that.
Therefore the agriculture sector needs our protection, and so does the fishing industry. It seems that everything under the remit of the Minister of Agriculture is under serious threat. For example, the average net profit of a trawler has fallen from over £29,000 to just under £3,000. This needs immediate action, as it represents a reduction in profitability of over 90%. With so many of the areas under the Minister of Agriculture's control in a state of crisis, I often wonder if the Minister becomes depressed. I am sure that the active solutions the Ulster Unionist Party can offer her must be of great comfort to her, and I hope that the Budget will go a long way to alleviate the present problems in the agriculture industry.
Mr Dallat:
Mr Deputy Speaker, I noted your opening remarks and will confine myself to one issue - one that has been mentioned by Ms McWilliams. I ask for the allocation of greater resources to address the needs of adult education, lifelong learning and community-based projects operating in this field.