Earlier I pointed out some things that are valuable, such as provision of disabled access to schools, energy efficiency in schools, access to rheumatoid arthritis treatment, help for north Belfast and youth and community work. Does the Member agree that those good works show the value of what we are doing here?

All those issues, while important and valuable in themselves, are absolutely peripheral and marginal to the essential governance of Northern Ireland.

What are the main services that people in a modern society look to their Government to provide? Health, for one - the Health Service is a mess. That is acknowledged by everyone, whether Unionist, Nationalist or any other variety of politician. It is the worst mess in the United Kingdom. Our waiting lists are 50% longer than those in the rest of the UK, where waiting lists are already considered to be a disgrace.

We are on the verge of wrecking a perfectly good education system. I am not talking about the abolition of the 11-plus - I believe that that needs to be looked at.

I am not talking about preserving grammar schools just because that is where middle-class children are educated. I received such an education, and I was certainly not middle class, as were many others. Instead of fiddling about waging some sort of class war on education, whether we are in Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party, or any other party, we should be looking at how we can improve that part of our educational system that is not functioning as it should be, rather than taking a hatchet to that part which is good. That is not happening because political battles are being fought about other issues.

Value for money is very much the order of the day. Is the public getting value for money from this Assembly? The Assembly was supposed to provide more accessible, more sensitive, more effective, more accountable Government - it is doing none of those things. All the major services that the people expect a Government to provide have got far worse instead of better under devolved Government. Now this is not necessarily an attack on devolved Government as an abstract philosophy; it is an attack upon devolved Government as practised in this Assembly, and based upon a system which is not democratic at all. [Interruption].

Order. I cannot allow conversations to develop.

For example, look at the cost of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for last year, which was £35·5 million, give or take a few thousand - only marginally less than the cost of running the entire Assembly. What does the office administer, and what does it do? Money is being wasted on maladministration here. I see an hon Member smiling. Perhaps he would not be smiling if he was one of the 136 elderly folk who cannot get a community care package because of maladministration. Bed blocking costs £1,500 to £2,000 a time, but if a fair sum was paid to private nursing care, the cost could be a third of that price - but that is quango control.

The Assembly has done absolutely nothing to attack the cost of bureaucracy in administration and so reform its finances. We had a nicely delivered speech from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, but was it his speech, or was it the speech of the army of bureaucrats that are preparing everything? This is not devolved Government - this place is a bureaucrats' paradise. Nothing in that speech addressed the sort of problems that Mr Close mentioned. We need fundamental reform of the financial system and better use of the funds available to us. I am not an admirer of devolution - certainly not in the form of this Assembly. However, we have devolution, and I am a democrat. Regardless of party, we should look very carefully at how devolution, as practised in Northern Ireland, is serving the people. There is little in these Estimates to indicate that it is doing that efficiently.

I hesitate to follow Bob McCartney, but much of what he said about how we are delivering, or trying to deliver and perhaps not succeeding, is correct. However, I want to take up his last point about a public administration review. In January 1999, we were told that this public review would be undertaken. Three years later there is not one quango fewer, not one trust fewer and not one board fewer.

No Department can plan anything until the matter of public administration has been resolved. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education cannot be blamed for all the ills. However, they do get the blame; and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in particular, is blamed for the waiting lists, the lack of orthopaedic surgery and the lack of cardiac surgery.

The Member will acknowledge that in my speech or my criticism I never mentioned the Minister once.

TOP

I am not suggesting that the Member did. I am merely saying that until the review of public administration has been sorted out, every Department will be hampered in how it advances its particular agenda. That is all I was saying.

The Member is right when he says that we are overburdened in comparison to Scotland or Wales. However, we must take into account the special circumstances and the fact that this Assembly came into being to resolve a political question rather than an economic or a social one - although we are attempting to address those along the way.

At the core of this - and this was touched on - is the lack of collective responsibility and of a concerted approach at the centre to resolve pressing social, economic, health, education and housing problems. The fact that a public administration review has been taking place since January 1999 without having advanced one iota indicates the lack of collective responsibility for resolving these matters.

Certainly, there may be difficulties with one party, which is prepared and happy to live off the largesse of the Good Friday Agreement without bearing the responsibilities that derive from the agreement, a party whose members put their fingers and thumbs into the political pie of the Good Friday Agreement and pull out the political plums without bearing their share of collective responsibility.

During the last big debate about health in this Chamber, it was said over and over again that health was being starved of money. Seamus Close said that Mark Durkan acknowledged that health was the priority in the Programme for Government when he introduced his Budget. Yet health still remains to be prioritised for funding. During the Budget debate Mark Durkan said that what he was giving to health would allow the health programme merely not to stand still. Bob McCartney and other Members have made it clear that it must do more than not stand still. If we care, if our function is to meet the social needs of the people whom we are elected to serve, health must be at the very centre of how we deliver our responsibilities. If the Executive cannot get their act together on their collective responsibility to health, then how can they get their act together in dealing with other responsibilities?

The Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Services (NICON), which is at the core of the Health Service, has already indicated that the Health Service requires an extra £100 million a year, or £1 billion over 10 years. That sum is necessary to allow the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to plan a strategy that can deliver at the point of need and that can address the serious shortcomings in all the disciplines in the medical services, such as orthopaedics, cardiac surgery and cancer in all its manifestations. The Health Service is badly behind in its infrastructure and is unable to address long waiting lists and delays in dealing with cancer. We have had and continue to have -

The Member raises an interesting point that I referred to earlier. He said that the Ministers in the Executive must get their act together. I presume that he means that they have not yet got their act together. Secondly, is it not the case that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, as other Ministers, agreed with the Minister of Finance and Personnel the budget for her Department? Does the Member confirm that? In other words, each Minister takes responsibility for what he or she has already agreed.

Yes, but in attempting to address the Health Service, not in the short term or on a day-to-day basis -

Long term.

Yes, the long-term aspect has not been addressed. As a priority in the Programme for Government, the Executive undertook to address the long-term ability to deal with the shortcomings in the Health Service. If any Minister goes to the Executive to plead for their particular area of responsibility, they will get only what they ask for. There needs to be a commitment at the centre of Government, not just one Department, to this area that affects everyone; it affects the social, economic and health well-being of the community. There should be a collective responsibility in addressing that issue and the obvious shortcomings in that particular Department. That has not been done.

In their Programme for Government, the Executive have failed to prioritise health and in the collective responsibility to address health. It is clear to most people that that has not been addressed. If it had been seriously addressed, then we would not have the 'Belfast Telegraph' and all health disciplines continually complaining about a lack of funding. The sad fact is that the people at the coalface, those who are most anxious to see an end to waiting lists in whatever discipline, are those who are suffering the most.

It is not good enough to suggest that a budget that is brought before the Executive satisfies a particular Minister. It is not the responsibility of one Minister. The Executive are responsible for addressing health issues and the way in which they are failing the Health Service. I will not make a plea on behalf of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Everyone is aware of the state of health provision in our community.

There is no point in tying the hands of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and then sniping from the sidelines. Health is a priority, so let us get the funding right. Let us get on with the review of public administration that we have been waiting for, and let us allow the Health Minister to get on with her job.

I have listened carefully to Members' comments. Some interesting statistics were quoted.

As a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I have heard how much money is needed to deal with brucellosis, tuberculosis and other diseases - the figures are shocking. What could we do with that money if we had it today? Veterinary scientists who know as much about the matter as some of our departmental specialists have asked me whether the vaccination of all farm animals has been considered. All two- or three-day-old cattle must be vaccinated against various diseases. The need to vaccinate animals becomes clearer every day, but insufficient thought has been given to the matter. The millions of pounds that are spent at the moment are a drain of resources from the country. That money could be put to better use.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the Assembly quorate?

Yes.

I listened to the questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety today, and I asked her an important question. I also attended an event at the Long Gallery today during which cancer and the work of Macmillan Cancer Relief were discussed. I do not want to compare the two discussions. The number of doctors per capita in Northern Ireland by comparison to the equivalent figures for other countries does not bear thinking about. It almost seems as if people here do not care.

An environmental point that was not made is that if nothing is done about the pollution of this country we will gradually poison ourselves. It used to be possible to use water from a well, but that is no longer the case, because everything is at risk of pollution.

I hope that the Departments get their act together. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I would have liked to have had the opportunity to propose how much money is needed for specific purposes. Although I do not miss many meetings, I did not have the opportunity to make my case. In December 2000 we put forward a case for an early retirement scheme and long-term low-interest loans for the agriculture sector. Not enough serious thought has been put into those issues. However, bearing in mind what is happening in various sectors, a time will come when the people who come after us will say that we had our opportunity and did not take it.

Mr Close and Ms Morrice talked about the number of accidents on our roads. What have we been doing to counteract that? What cost do you put on a life? People have talked about how much it costs to run the Assembly. What is the cost of saving one life, five lives, or ten lives? It is bound to bear fruit eventually. There are many things that the Assembly could be taking a greater interest in.

Look at the size of the budget we have to discuss - and see how few Members are sitting in the House today. Those who are not here should be ashamed of themselves. I do not know where they are. Ministers - with their big Departments - should be here today to fight their corner. They should show more interest. They need not leave it to the Back-Benchers to do it for them. That will not happen. I will not take the blame for people who should be making more of an effort to debate the matters that come before us.

We have talked about the many issues that face this country at present. Mr John Kelly pointed to the three main questions - health, standards of living and food protection. We can do something about those matters. With all due respect to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and her Department, it would not matter who held that post. The Minister and the Department must address the crisis. There is a large backlog - and we have had a mild winter. I dread to think what might have happened in our hospitals had the winter been a rough one.

One of the big hospitals - Craigavon Area Hospital - is in my constituency. Problems are emerging there week in, week out. If that hospital had the facilities and the nursing manpower, it could do something about the existing problems. The nurses there are heavily overworked, and the hospital does not have the facilities to cope with the number of patients coming through its doors. More money should be put into recruiting young doctors, because there is a scarcity of them. Doctors will not come into the Health Service unless they are going to be able to provide proper care and attention. When you consider the challenges they face and the hours they have to work you cannot blame them for not going down the Health Service route. Dr Adamson, who is sitting behind me, is a very experienced doctor, and I am sure he will bear out what I am saying.

I wish that Ministers would take Committees more into their confidence and allow them to have a greater input into determining budgets. We must be realistic: if we are not, then the work of the last three or four years will have been in vain.

There are some technical matters that I would like to address, the first of which relates to the Northern Ireland Audit Office spring Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02. The Audit Committee has statutory responsibility for agreeing and presenting the Audit Office Estimate, and as Chairperson, I am speaking in support of its bid for a Supplementary Estimate of £49,000. That amount was included in its original submission to the Audit Committee for its 2001-02 funding. However, for technical reasons, it was not possible for the money to be included in the Main Estimates, and it was agreed with the Department of Finance and Personnel that it should be provided by a Supplementary Estimate. The Audit Committee has agreed the amount requested in the Supplementary Estimate, and I commend it for the approval of the Assembly.

The second matter concerns the Northern Ireland Audit Office Vote on Account for 2002-03. The amounts requested for the Vote on Account are £2,096,000 in cash and £2,320,000 in resources. The Audit Committee will soon meet with the Comptroller and Auditor General to discuss his office's spending plans for 2002-03. In the meantime, I am satisfied that the amounts have been calculated using the standard formulae, and I commend them to the Assembly for approval.

Now that that formality is out of the way, I wish to remove my Chairperson's hat and speak as a Member of the Assembly - [Interruption].

and make yourself more money.

I am just regulating the technicalities. The budget of approximately £4·5 million is a huge sum of money that must be spent in the way in which it was intended. There must be no flaws in the procurement procedures, and it must be clearly shown that the public gets excellent value for money. The task of verifying that money is properly spent falls to the Northern Ireland Audit Office under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

I want to place on record my total confidence in the Audit Office and its staff. The reports that the office has produced have enabled the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise public spending in a way that was not possible under direct rule. The Public Accounts Committee has tackled its job without fear or favour, and it deserves the support of the entire Assembly. I am sorry that it does not always receive that support. The reports are, without exception, balanced and fair. I have left it to others to express concerns about health, education, agriculture and other issues that have been discussed.

I want to use my limited time to highlight the absolute need to ensure that all Government Departments and non-departmental Government bodies play their part in rebuilding this economy that has been so damaged under direct rule. During that time bad practices crept in, accountability was less than acceptable, and on some occasions a degree of arrogance evolved when money and, indeed, people were being dealt with. Reports prepared by the Audit Office are agreed and signed off by the accounting officer responsible for the Department to which the report relates. There is a genuine wish that reports are not delayed before they are signed off. It is fundamental that the reports are published quickly, so that the Public Accounts Committee has the opportunity to scrutinise them with the Comptroller and Auditor General before arranging a public hearing at which the relevant Department's accounting officer has an opportunity to answer questions. That is fundamental to change for the better.

I believe that I have the full support of the Assembly when I say that Members will take it seriously if they discover that reports are held up unnecessarily. If that were to become widespread, it would cause enormous damage to the work of the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The problem is not widespread by any means, but there is concern that a report relating to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has not been signed off in order that it could be published this week. As I have said, that concerns me and, no doubt, others.

The Minister recently undertook to ensure, as far as is practical, that reports are not unduly held up. I draw that fact to the Assembly's attention in the belief that the current delay will be brief.

TOP

As Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I note the Department of the Environment's overall planned expenditure rise of 10% to £110·9 million for 2002-03.

Members of the House will recall that my Committee successfully fought to restore the proposed £2 million that was cut from the local resources grant. The cut would have applied to the 16 poorest councils. That would have been a major injustice that would have directly contradicted the Executive's targeting social need policy. It is interesting to note that the proposal to cut district council resources arose because of inescapable new pressures - some £2 million - on EU international obligations. My Committee examined the nature of those new pressures and fully supported the priority that the Department attached to them. For example, there was pressure applied to advance long overdue action on waste management. I shall return to that subject later.

I shall explain to the House what my Committee did to scrutinise the Department of the Environment's budget proposals for 2002-03. We obtained the full breakdown of the Department's discretionary expenditure of £14·6 million, having set aside inescapable expenditure such as salaries, EU obligations, local government derating and the resources grant. We questioned senior officials to justify that expenditure, having categorised it by priority - high, medium and low - and to explain the consequences of not meeting each item of expenditure. We scrutinised the Department's potential asset sales, the scope to increase the use of receipts to fund baseline expenditure and the potential to fast-track EU compliance expenditure for 2002-03 to utilise moneys being surrendered in this financial year.

I noticed that some Members in the House feel that their Committees have not been able to get enough information from Ministers or from Departments. If they accept such a situation, that says more about them than about the Departments, as I assure the House that when my Committee desires to have information, we are not put off easily.

The Committee concluded that there was little scope or flexibility in the Department's budget to make savings or switch resources. It is essential to protect the sizeable budget element, to implement EU obligations, and to maintain and build on much needed services, such as planning services, where there is a clear increase in demand. In the light of the Committee's conclusion, and the reality of emerging EU international obligation budget pressures, I ask the new Minister of Finance and Personnel, along with his Colleague the Minister of the Environment, to consider ring-fencing the provision for local government services and the EU international obligation provision within the Department of the Environment's budget.

District councils are at the forefront of many important initiatives under way to protect our environment that link directly to EU Directives. For example, waste management plans and the local air quality schemes are important issues. Therefore, to ring-fence the local government budget would provide the financial stability to allow councils to implement quickly that essential work, which would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland. My Committee has taken a particular interest in recent months in getting the three regional waste management plans funded and operational.

We questioned representatives from the three groups and also departmental officials on two separate occasions in an endeavour to find ways to hasten their work and to help them to meet their EU obligations. Members of the Committee welcomed the long-awaited launch of the plans last week, and I assure the House that my Committee will continue its monitoring and will do whatever is necessary to ensure that those plans are delivered quickly.

The Committee was alarmed to learn that £1 million of the Department's budget for waste management was surrendered in October 2001. Having pressed the Department of the Environment and the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Committee has received written assurances that any shortfall in the waste management budget for 2002-03 will be favourably treated in in-year bids, bearing in mind that the work is essential to meet EU obligations. The Committee was reminded of the importance of that work last week, when it was advised that failure to meet the EU Directive on waste management could incur United Kingdom fines of £400,000 a day at the end of the year. The Northern Ireland Executive Budget would contribute directly to such fines if Northern Ireland failed to implement the Directive.

The Committee recognises the strong case for increasing expenditure in some other Departments but makes the point that a sizeable increase in the £111 million allocated to the Department of the Environment's baseline would be marginal in the Northern Ireland block of over £6 billion. That increase would, however, have a significant impact on the protection of the environment - a Cinderella during direct rule. The Assembly should consider allocating proper funding to secure and sustain Northern Ireland's primary asset before it is too late.

I shall remove the hat of the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment and speak on other issues.

Mr John Kelly stated that we were overburdened and that additional resources were necessary and quick action was needed on the public administration review. Coming from Sinn Féin those are interesting remarks. It was to please Sinn Féin party sponsors that the Assembly was overburdened, in relation to the size of Northern Ireland, with 108 elected Members. It was to placate Sinn Féin's greed that 10 Departments were formed instead of six. That was to allow Sinn Féin to get its greedy hands on two ministries. It was also to placate the idealism of so-called Sinn Féin that over £50 million is being spent on cross-border bodies. All of this was at the insistence of Sinn Féin and its fellow travellers. It is rather rich, to say the least, for Sinn Féin to lecture the Assembly about the need for allocating money to Departments for which it has responsibility.

There is no doubt that people's health is a priority, and the House has recognised that in allocating resources in the past, and I trust that it will do so in the future. I have said it before, and I shall say it again - it is not simply the allocation of resources that makes an effective Department. One of the major catastrophes of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not just lack of funding in the past but that the Department is without leadership. The ship is rudderless because the Minister is totally ineffective, without vision or effort.

We have a crisis in the Health Service. Mr Close mentioned the British Medical Association. Much of the Department's work has been dictated by various Royal College instructions and diktats, rather than by a consideration of the whole picture and the needs of acute services throughout the community.

For example, the elderly feel forsaken. We had several debates on that issue in the Chamber. We allocated money for nursing care for the elderly in nursing homes. However, we have been told that the elderly will continue to be drained of their savings until October. It will be another eight to ten months before the will of the Assembly will be implemented.

It was the Assembly's will that the Department should take the responsibility for nursing costs. The Department will not take that responsibility immediately. The Minister tells us that the elderly will have to wait until October. They will have to pay for their own care, and their resources will be drained away while the Assembly's resolution that the elderly should be relieved of that financial burden is set aside until October.

I have heard the fanciful statements about who is to blame. New Labour blames the Conservatives for everything. Certainly, there are problems for which the Conservatives must carry the blame. However, we have had direct rule under the Conservatives and under Labour. The lack of resources is the responsibility of the Labour Government as well as of the former Conservative Government.

Recently the 'Belfast Telegraph' published an article showing that six years ago, under direct Conservative rule, there were 22,000 nurses in Northern Ireland. However, under the Assembly and the Minister there are 16,000 nurses. Surely there is something wrong. It cannot be blamed on the then Conservative Government, because the figure of 22,000 refers to the period when the Conservatives left office. The lower figure refers to the period under the new Labour Administration and then the Assembly. If the figures are correct - and they have been in the public arena - the Department of Health ought to hang its head in shame.

This is why our nurses are overworked and why many of them are at the end of their personal resources and suffering health breakdowns. That decline did not happen under the Conservative Government, behind which the Minister seems to hide, but under her stewardship. The bottom line is that the Minister is not capable of doing the job.

If we want more resources, we should look at the 10 Departments, the constant stream of finance that goes to the cross-border bodies, and the number of elected representatives in this Chamber. There are quangos and a public administration review that does not seem to get off the ground. Many people heralded that the Assembly would grasp the quangos and the public administration by the neck and arrest the decline in our public services.

That has not been the reality. We have gone in the opposite direction. The stream of finance to the quangos flows on; money flows into more quangos and cross- border bodies, which are not answerable to this Chamber of elected representatives.

The increase in finances being pumped into the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must be examined. Resources must be scrutinised carefully in order to determine the purpose for which they are being used.

TOP

Let us consider the roads. I appreciate that the Minister is right in relation to finances for particular schemes. However, the Minister cannot evade his responsibility in relation to the infrastructure. Unless money is allocated to the Department for Regional Development, the need to enhance the infrastructure throughout the Province cannot become a reality. Members agree that transport - roads and rail - has in the past been a disaster with regard to finances. Transport was put on the back-burner, as were many other things. However, that is no excuse for the Assembly not providing for, or meeting, the challenge.

I mentioned the Magherafelt bypass. The bypass would not only enhance the economic future of my own district of Magherafelt but also that of Cookstown, which is where all traffic must go in order to reach the seaports and airports. The constant blockages and the time wasted sitting in traffic in Magherafelt are detrimental to the economic development of the Cookstown district as well as Magherafelt. Adequate finances must be made available, and that is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Farming has been mentioned already. I reiterate the demand for a retirement scheme that will allow farmers to retire with dignity. Many of the problems facing that industry, more so than any other, have not come about as a result of the irresponsibility or neglect of the farming community in Northern Ireland, which has produced primary goods and given us its best. Many of the challenges that have arisen, such as BSE and other problems in the pig and sheep sectors, have been out of the control of farmers. Farmers looked to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for guidance. They were given guidance, to which they adhered. Unfortunately, farmers paid the price for listening to that advice.

A retirement scheme would allow farmers to retire with dignity and honour. However, there must be a young entrants scheme so that the young people of the Province's rural community can see a future and a vision for farming. If Northern Ireland's farmers do not provide food, farmers in some other part of the EU will do so instead. Why should our farmers have their backs to the wall because of negativity in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and in the Administration?

Farmers are being assisted elsewhere. When Northern Ireland's pig farmers had their backs to the wall, the Department was unwilling to help them. We were told that EU regulations would not allow that. France is in the EU, and it was one of the guiding fathers of those regulations, yet the French Government were able to help their farmers. The French Government provided resources for their farmers and bailed them out when their backs were against the wall. Ministers told me that EU rules could not be broken. Of course, France and the Irish Republic can break the rules, but Northern Ireland cannot. In the end, those farmers who were supported by their Government managed to stay in the field.

They continued and, in actual fact, their financial position has been enhanced. It is sad to say that our Government let many farmers go to the wall. It is also sad to say that many of the banks and finance houses in this country that goaded the farmers into debt turned on them when their backs were against the wall and looked for their pound of flesh, rather than assisting them.

I want to speak on a subject as an elected representative for my constituency. It is very difficult to get through even as many as eight questions in Question Time, especially questions on health. A person speaks in gibberish and then in English, and that is given as an excuse for not answering questions. Fewer questions are answered because it takes double the time.

The Minister of Education, in reply to a question, talked much today about our children being equal. I invite any Member of the Assembly to visit schools in Magherafelt and see if our children are equal. There is a primary school and a secondary school in Magherafelt in the state, or controlled, sector that are in deplorable conditions. In the maintained sector, millions of pounds have been spent in St Mary's. Millions of pounds have also been spent, and are currently being spent, in St Pius's. In the person's own constituency, however, Magherafelt High School is in a deplorable condition.

Children are not equal. Protestant children in that constituency are being discriminated against. We are compiling the figures, because they will speak for themselves. When equality of treatment for all schoolchildren is paraded as a supposed ideal, I, as a public representative, must ensure that equality of treatment for all schoolchildren - in the controlled, maintained and independent sectors - will be a reality and that discrimination against the state or controlled sector will be brought to an end.

All is not well in education - far from it. Even in this debate I trust that, as an elected representative, I have the opportunity of blowing the trumpet with a very certain sound to ensure that we have action rather than pious words.

We know, as the wider public knows, that the resources from the Treasury are not sufficient to meet the needs of this society. One of the few ways of raising funds for health, education, roads and all other services that have been mentioned today that are needed by people in our constituencies is through the rates. Although no one in the House likes to raise the issue of rates, realistically we must depend on rates to raise much needed revenue. It is, of course, essential to develop innovative means of funding and efficiency so that we can reduce our dependence upon rates.

I welcome the Minister's statement. I am very aware of the pressures faced by the Executive in meeting demands with limited resources. As a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I am heartened by the statement. It is clear that the new Minister is as committed to making those funds go a long way as his predecessor was. It is important that we support and approve the actions of the Minister of Finance and Personnel. His job is a difficult and complex one, and he is doing it fairly and professionally. However, it is insufficient just to offer congratulations from these Benches.

All Members, and particularly those in the Executive and the Committees, must work ceaselessly in pursuit of the goals of everyone in our community. We must be watchful of expenditures that do not meet existing priorities. We must continually question the use of resources in every Department and ask if such use represents value for money. The pressures on the Health Service have been discussed today and have been recognised by the Minister and the Executive. In the 2001 Budget, the whole allocation of £27·8 million for Northern Ireland announced in the pre-Budget statement went on health, together with an immediate cash injection of £8 million for this year. In total the amount allocated to health for the next year represents an increase of 9·7% on the current year's provision. That must be welcomed.

It has been said before that the Health Service needs resources, but the House must be assured that funds are being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. I, therefore, welcome the needs and effectiveness evaluations that have been undertaken in several Departments. Will the Minister tell us when those reviews will be completed?

The Minister said that the reviews of the Executive programme funds were under way. I agree with the concept of those funds; they are a sign that the new Administration is committed to using the funds in an innovative way that truly supports cross-departmental actions. In reviewing the Executive programme funds, I ask the Minister to ensure that the concept remains intact. What is the timetable for the completion of that review?

I appreciate that the Barnett formula can be misunderstood. It is not simply a case of seeking a review of the formula, with the subsequent assumption that we will receive a larger share of the block grant. Members should take into account the risk involved in pressing for a re-examination of the Barnett formula - it could end up with a negative result. I ask the Minister to address the issue in his summing-up and to outline how the Executive intend to take it forward.

I welcome the changes brought about by the monitoring process and budgets, which we decided for ourselves. Local decision-making is beginning to take effect, and we can set our own priorities. Again, everyone should welcome that.

I share some of the frustrations expressed about the process and timing of the Supplementary Estimates. The issues are difficult, and Members want to understand them fully and contribute to the process. Perhaps the Minister will consider providing a summary of the decisions or take steps to assist us in fully buying into the budgetary process.

I support the Supply resolution, and ask the House to do the same, and more, to build a resource base for the future.

At this point much of what had to be said about the general issues surrounding the allocation of resources has been said. I do not want to make a plea for special cases in areas in which I am particularly interested or which would benefit the constituency and the groupings that I represent. That plea ought to be made, but I will look first at the general concept of the debate.

Many Members spoke about the opportunity to scrutinise. Ms Lewsley said that we must work ceaselessly and be watchful of expenditure that does not meet priorities. Mr Savage wanted a bigger input into determining the Budget. I listened to special cases for health, for cutting waiting lists, for dealing with the environment, farming issues and all the other areas of disadvantage. I find it difficult to believe that Members want to have a bigger input into the Budget but also want to examine matters that should not be priorities. What priorities do they have in their minds?

How enslaved are they to their party Whips?

Is it a bigger priority to spend over £50 million on the political correctness of cross-border bodies than it is to spend the money on hospitals so that people who are hobbling about in pain can have hip replacements? Is it a bigger priority to give the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister a budget equivalent to that required to run the Assembly? The Programme for Government states that its budget should be used to

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is allocated almost £16 million to do that. Is that really a priority? Are those things a priority in the minds of Members? Those are just a few examples.

I am sure that the Member will remember from his previous professional expertise that there is a strong argument that the significant demand for healthcare is practically infinite in the United Kingdom because it is provided free at the point of use. Can he help the House by outlining how many extra millions are necessary for healthcare? All the £50 million from the North/South bodies could be put into the health system, only to find that it makes little difference.

TOP

I am glad that the Member raised that point, because I intend to speak about resources. We could, perhaps, pump another £50 million into the Health Service and find that it is still not enough. However, even if that were the case, I should prefer to see that money put into services that affect the lives of constituents than see it go to politically correct institutions that are in place only to satisfy the demands of Sinn Féin and the SDLP.

The question of whether the Assembly has made the Administration accountable has not been asked. Either that or Members really do have a skewed sense of what is important. My Colleague Dr McCrea reminded us that we were told that there would be an assault on quangos. Quangos, to use his words, would be "grasped by the neck". They have been grasped by the neck - they have been hugged.

The two main parties in the Assembly have definitely hugged them. They could not wait to set quangos up and put some of their prime members on them. They did not want to do away with quangos; they wanted to institute more of them.

Has the Assembly addressed the way in which the costs of administration have burgeoned? It has not.

One of the reasons for that is that the Assembly's pro-agreement parties have put in place layers of administration to suit their own political demands. Some are too afraid to upset the others and are therefore whipped into backing certain views. Their words in the House show that they are not happy that money should be spent in such a way. However, their votes in the Lobbies belie their words, because they vote for the very things that they say they oppose. This should be a significant debate - it should be a debate about priorities and resources. At the end of the debate, Members should vote according to how they have spoken. That will not happen, because they will find someone else to blame. Mr John Kelly epitomises that approach.

The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has received a big increase in resources, as Dr Birnie mentioned. Nevertheless, we are told that there is still a crisis. They used to be able to blame the Brits. There are still Members who blame direct rule, even though direct rule ended four years ago, just as the Labour Party still blames the Conservatives. Mr John Kelly has refined that approach; he no longer blames the Minister responsible, but the Executive. Someone else is always to blame. He should consider how the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has used resources. She seems more interested in employing linguists to do her interpretations than she is in employing doctors and nurses to do what patients need; yet we still hear criticism and people crying and moaning that they need more resources.

Certain areas must be addressed. I shall not say a great deal about this matter - I said that I would not make pleas for special cases. However, we must consider housing provision. I say that because I am on the Social Development Committee and have a special interest in that matter. It is wrong to think that we can rejuvenate run-down areas of Northern Ireland if we do not put money into urban regeneration, including housing. It is fair to ask for additional resources. I have not been pleading many special cases. On occasions, I have made pleas for more money for the roads network or for schools - I recently tabled a motion on the need for additional capital for school buildings. However, it is not enough continually to hold out our hands to the Exchequer and say that the Barnett formula must be improved or changed. I would dread the Exchequer's doing that.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>