COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
Report on
The Draft Budget 2001/02
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Programme for Government and the Budget Proposal should be among the first items of Executive Committee business presented to the Assembly when it resumes after each summer recess.
2. An assessment of needs should be undertaken as a first step to demonstrating that the current application of the Barnett formula is inappropriate and unsuited to the special circumstances that prevail in this region.
3. The Department of Finance and Personnel should commission an urgent review of the structure and staffing of all departments and the bodies for which they are responsible in order to achieve maximum efficiency in the delivery of public services in the year 2001/02.
4. The Minister for Finance and Personnel should re-assess the departmental allocations in order to take full account of objectives contained in the Programme for Government, objectives given a high priority by ministers, the requirements of New TSN and the safety of the public.
5. All departments should consult with their respective committees during the spring and early summer before finalising their budgetary requirements and submitting them for consideration by the Minister of Finance.
topINTRODUCTION
1.
Purpose
1.1.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel in seeking to fulfil its scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department of Finance and Personnel, concluded that it had a duty to co-ordinate the response of the Assembly committees to the draft Budget Proposal. Members of the Committee were concerned that owing to the time constraints imposed on the Assembly during the current year, it was not possible to undertake the degree of scrutiny this process deserved.
1.2.
On 17 October 2000 the Minister for Finance and Personnel presented the first Budget Proposal to have been prepared entirely under the direction of the Executive Committee. The Minister remarked then that the Budget constituted a significant stage in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement and the cementing of the new Institutions.
1.3.
Mr. Francie Molloy, Chairman, Committee for Finance and Personnel wrote to the Chairperson of each of the departmental committees inviting them to forward their views on the proposed budget allocations for each respective Department. The letter asked for an indication of the priority to be attached to each of the budget headings and any factors relating to these bids that committees would wish to be taken into account.
1.4.
On 14 November, Mr. Molloy, moved a motion in the Assembly:
"That the Assembly takes note of the Draft Budget announced on 17 October 2000 by the Minister of Finance and Personnel."
1.5.
Following this debate, the Committee compiled this report to summarise the matters raised by committees in their written responses, summarise the issues raised in the debate on 14 November and make recommendations to the Minister of Finance and Personnel regarding the departmental allocations contained in the Budget Proposal.
[* The full record of the debate on 14 November can be found in pages 156 to 202 of the Official Report (Volume 7, No. 4)]
topSUMMARY OF WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM
DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES
2.
Request
2.1.
Each Departmental Committee was asked to provide in writing to the Committee for Finance and Personnel, by 10 November 2000, its views on the proposed 2001/02 Budget Departmental Expenditure Limit allocations. These views are summarised below.
COMMITTEE:
3.
Agriculture and Rural Development
2000/01 Budget - 164.2m (millions)
2001/02 Allocation - £190.9m
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 16.2%
3.1.
The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development welcomed the increase in the Department's budget. It was concerned however, that the Executive should not, over-estimate the effect of the allocation in terms of farmers' incomes. The allocation of a revised treatment of Animal Disease Compensation and provision for less favoured areas would effectively reduce the overall increase of 16.2% (£26.6m) to 9.6% (£15.7m).
3.2.
The Committee would be making a number of points to the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, with particular reference to the lack of additional funding to implement the recommendations of the Vision Group. And that, in view of their importance, additional funding should not be reliant on monies from the Executive Programme Funds.
3.3.
The Committee concluded that the Agriculture Minister's bids in the following areas should be met in full in the Budget:
- Additional funding, at a level to be agreed by the Agriculture Minister be provided for the implementation of the proposals arising from the work of the Vision Group;
- A further £2.4m for farm waste and nutrient management;
- £0.675m for the development of good practice in organic farming and the Bio-diversity Action Plan;
- £0.2m for business and environment training; and,
- £0.25m for pig meat promotion.
4.
Culture, Arts and Leisure
2000/01 Budget - £65.3m
2001/02 Allocation - £70.7m
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 8.3%
4.1.
The Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure registered its disappointment that little more than 25% of the Department's bid for extra funds was met. Of particular concern to the Committee were unsuccessful bids of £2m to buy-out commercial fishing nets around Northern Ireland in order to halt the decline in the salmon population and £0.5m to repair and upgrade fishing stands.
4.2.
Other areas of concern noted were the likely impact of the reduced allocation on greater access to the arts and safety improvements to motorcycle road-racing facilities.
4.3.
The Committee recorded its support for the Department in tackling the long-term problem of underfunding of its activities.
5.
Education
2000/01 Budget - £1243.5m
2001/02 Allocation - £1,331.7m
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 7.1%
5.1.
The Committee for Education welcomed the additional funds made available for Education but expressed concern about the effect of the Barnett Formula on the allocation. It noted that there was a shortfall of some £7m when comparisons are made with the extra funds allocated to schools in England. The Committee would seek to see this rectified in the final Budget. The Committee also sought an increase Schools Capital over and above the £9.5m earmarked in order to address the chronic problems facing the Schools Estate.
5.2.
The Committee made the following bids for funding totalling £15m for 2001/02 from the proposed Executive Programme Fund:
- Capital (from Infrastructure Fund) - £4m.
- Literacy and Numeracy (from Social Inclusion Fund) - £6m.
- Special Education Needs (from Social Inclusion Fund) - £5m.
6.
Enterprise, Trade and Investment
2000/01 Budget - £256.3m
2001/02 Allocation - £258.9m
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 1.0%
6.1.
The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment noted that the Department was generally content with the outcome in the Budget Proposals but expressed concern about the very low increase in the overall budget
6.2.
The Committee agreed with the Department's two key priorities in the following areas:
6.3.
Gas pipelines - The Committee noted that the Department's bid had not been met and that the gas pipeline project could not be funded from within the existing budget. It was considered that additional funding would be required from the Executive Programme Funds.
6.4.
Telecommunications - The Committee noted that the Department's bid for £10m for the Information Age Initiative had been reduced to £5.6m. The Committee was concerned that improved telecommunications should be a priority in order to ensure that businesses are able to compete effectively in the global economy.
6.5.
In addition, the Committee questioned the ability of the Department to fully pursue its objectives within the budget allocation of £5.8m for the proposed new tourism company. Concern was also expressed about the budget for Research and Development.
7.
Environment
2000/01 Budget - £87.6 m
2001/02 Allocation - £100.2 m
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 14.4%
7.1.
The Committee for Environment welcomed the increase of 14.4% and the Executive Committee's response to earlier calls for increased funding to address road safety, transposition of EU directives, Planning Service workload backlog, and the real terms value of the General Exchequer Grant to District Councils.
7.2.
Concern was expressed about the adequacy of the provision of £3.5m to help District Councils implement their waste management Strategies. Concerns were also raised about the on-going moratorium on Historic Buildings Grants and the possible consequential loss of Heritage Lottery funding. The Committee was worried also about the bid of £6.3m for landscape protection and nature conservation that was not met in the budget.
8.
Finance and Personnel
2000/01 Budget - £105.4m
2001/02 Allocation - £112.7m
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 6.9%
8.1.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel acknowledged that the Department's allocation was broadly commensurate with the overall increase of 7.3% to all Departments and that the Department was not responsible for expenditure on major public services. Concerns were raised about the effect of the allocation on the Department's plans for Civil Service accommodation and job dispersal.
8.2.
Other issues raised were the impact of the 8% increase in the Regional Rate on monies available to the Executive and the role of the Executive Programme Fund.
9.
Health, Social Services and Public Safety
2000/01 Budget - £2129.9m
2001/02 Allocation - £2,283.7m
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 7.2%
9.1.
The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety did not respond by the due date.
10.
Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment
2000/01 Budget - £513.2m
2001/02 Allocation - £543.6m
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 5.9%
10.1.
The Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment welcomed the increase to the Department's budget but was acutely disappointed that resource constraints will continue to prevent the Minister from progressing key aspects of departmental activity. They sought clarification on forward year allocation, and ring fencing of welfare to work provision. The prevention of social exclusion required more than the current small allocation for Adult Basic Education. The Committee was concerned that only half of the additional F.E. places sought by the Minister had been funded (ie. 500 out of 1000). The Committee also noted that additional funding for student support for the academic year 2001/02 has not yet been agreed and urged the Executive Committee to give a high priority to the funding of these additional places.
10.2.
It was considered that funding for disabled access at education and training establishments was a moral as well as a statutory imperative and inseparable from the action plan for education and training for disabled people - a priority action specified
11.
Regional Development
2000/01 Budget - £417.4m
2001/02 Allocation - £460.0m
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 10.2%
11.1.
The Committee for Regional Development welcomed the extra provision of £19.6m for railway infrastructure and rolling stock and £3.1m for a modern ticketing system.
11.2.
Concern was raised about the inadequacy of the £14.5m provided to the Water Service for capital investment in 2001/02 against the estimate of £3 billion over the next ten years needed by the Water Service to replace the infrastructure. Similarly, it as felt that the increase of £3.8m (i.e. 9.5%) extra funds for roads structural maintenance fell well short of the required increase of about 100%. The Committee was also concerned about the impact of a lack of funding on the implementation of free travel for older people.
11.3.
The Committee has sought clarification from the Department on a number of issues including the use of proceeds from a sale of the Port of Belfast and the use of Executive Programme Funds for 2001/02, £6m of which is earmarked for Infrastructure/Capital Renewal.
12.
Social Development
2000/01 Budget - £385.7 M
2001/02 Allocation - £413.1 M
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 7.1%
12.1.
The Committee for Social Development did not respond by the due date.
13.
Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister
2000/01 Budget - £27.4 M
2001/02 Allocation - £28.8 M
Percentage award over 2000/01 allocation - 5.2%
13.1.
Members of the Committee of the Centre were concerned that the bid of £500,000 for victims had received no funding at all in the proposed allocation for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFM&DFM). This was contrary to the action points set out in the draft Programme for Government. The Committee suggested that this non-allocation should be immediately reviewed.
13.2.
The Committee was also concerned that the request for £14.9m and £0.9m for e-government had not been met, nor was there enough in the Service Modernisation Fund (£3.0m) to fund the costs of this important area. Consequently, the action points in the draft Programme for Government were not supported by the allocation of sufficient financial resources in the budget allocation. The Committee of the Centre was concerned that this lack of funding may lead to underachievement of the targets for electronic service delivery of 25% of key services capable of delivery by 2002 and 100% of key services by 2005.
13.3.
Members of the Committee of the Centre asked for clarification on how the shortfall in funding of £500,000 will impact on the statutory work of the Equality Commission.
13.4.
Members also raised their concerns regarding the funds allocated to the future office in Brussels and the NI Bureau in Washington. They stated that the proposals in the Programme for Government could not be achieved unless the allocation of funds was significantly higher. It was noted that once again the funding of this key area did not correspond to the objectives and action points set out in the draft Programme for Government.
13.5.
The Committee of the Centre suggested that OFM&DFM should reconsider the high level of the increase in the Departmental Running Costs in the light of the Committee's concerns prioritised above.
Summary of Issues Raised in The Substantive Budget Debate on 14 November 2000
topSUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED IN THE
SUBSTANTIVE BUDGET DEBATE ON
14 NOVEMBER 2000
14.
Motion
14.1.
On 14 November 2000 Mr Francie Molloy on behalf of the Finance and Personnel Committee moved the motion:
"That the Assembly takes note of the draft Budget Proposal announced on 17 October 2000 by the Minister of Finance and Personnel."
14.2.
The Assembly debated the draft Budget Proposal for almost seven and a half hours during which Members raised a wide range of issues related to the funding of the public services.
15.
Barnett
15.1.
A considerable number of speakers raised concerns about the application of the Barnett Formula in determining the size of the overall budget. There was a general consensus that the rigidity inherent in the Barnett formula procedure failed to take into account the way in which our population was thinly dispersed across a wide area. There was little recognition given, therefore, to the implications of this in terms of ensuring the appropriate levels of investment in infrastructure and in providing health care and education to people living in isolated communities. There was strong support for the view that Northern Ireland should not be treated as though it were directly comparable to a region of England and Wales. For example, the Barnett formula approach to financial allocations took no account of gross under investment in a wide range of services during the period of direct rule. In addition, there needed to be proper recognition of the special needs of a population emerging from a long period of conflict.
16.
Departmental Running Costs (DRCs)
16.1.
Several speakers referred to the large increases that had been sought for running costs in most Departments. There was concern about the need to maintain a proper balance between overheads and the money directed to improvements in service delivery. It was suggested that greater emphasis was needed in the areas of reducing waste and actively pursuing efficiency in order to effectively increase the money available for improving the returns from our budgets.
16.2.
Some Members expressed concern that not all increases in DRCs were necessarily related to the changes arising from devolution.
17.
The Institutions
17.1.
Members referred to the funds being directed to the North/South bodies. It was suggested that savings or efficiencies in this area could also lead to additional funding for service delivery.
18.
EU Funding
18.1.
A few Members referred to the relationship between match funding and the ability to access EU grants, etc. It was emphasised that this was a particularly beneficial use of scarce resources that should be pursued whenever possible.
19.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
19.1.
In addressing the Agriculture budget, speakers re-emphasised the need to provide sufficient match funding in order to draw down EU money. Members were concerned that the budget for Rural Development was less than the rate of inflation. It was argued that full recognition should be given to the role of farmers as custodians of the land. This was a legacy that the countryside could not afford to lose. It was vital to sustain rural communities by ensuring that farming remained a viable enterprise. The question of the Agriculture Minister's Vision Group was raised and Members expressed concern about the failure of the budget to make provision for implementing any recommendations that are likely to be made.
20.
Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
20.1.
Concerns were expressed by Members about the fact that the budgets in this area of work had not received any increases over the past 10 years. Speakers argued that it was now essential to address the effects of years of under funding. Specifically, reference was made to the rejection of the Department's bid for funds to buy out commercial fishing nets in order to protect salmon stocks. Members also drew attention to the failure to address in full Department's requests for funds to improve access to the "Arts". The question of funding to address safety concerns in motorcycle road racing was also raised.
21.
Department of Education
21.1.
Members expressed the view that the budget as presented would not be sufficient to enable the Department to meet the targets set for literacy, numeracy and special educational needs and that this must be re-visited. There was concern that the allocation to the Education Department is not ring fenced as in other regions.
22.
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment
22.1.
The matter of the supply of gas was raised and in particular the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the North West. It was suggested that the development of an all island energy infrastructure needed to be taken forward.
23.
Department of Environment
23.1.
Members emphasised the need for the inclusion of £1·38m in the Department's budget to re-instate grants for historic buildings and to enable lottery funding to be drawn down. There was also support for the allocation of additional funds to designate areas of Special Scientific Interest. The absence of any reference in the budget to the allocation of funding to react to the potential difficulties posed by global warming was also mentioned.
24.
Department of Finance and Personnel
24.1.
A number of Members expressed concerns about the proposed increase of 8% in the Regional Rate. The absence of specific justification for the degree to which the proposed rise exceeds inflation was a common theme.
24.2.
The need to press ahead with modernising government in such areas as information technology was mentioned in the context of the need to keep abreast of developments in other countries.
24.3.
Other Members expressed their concerns about inefficiency and waste in the wider public sector, including the new institutions, and suggested that savings could achieve improved returns from all Departmental budgets.
25.
Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
25.1.
Several speakers expressed concerns about the impact on communities of uneven distribution of resources for the delivery of health care. It was suggested that there were pockets of inadequate cover in hospital provision, etc. Members felt that there had been a decline in the quality of health care and its delivery over a number of years. It was considered that the Health Service was in crisis and that the additional allocation of £144m was insufficient to begin to address the problems. Members stressed that it was necessary to ensure that all additional funds reached the public in the form of improved services and that additional administration costs were avoided. The growth in the elderly population required to be taken into account owing to their greater dependence on health care.
26.
Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment
26.1.
Speakers raised the issue of adult education and life long learning and the removal of funds from community projects that support these objectives. Specific concern was raised about the increase of 16% in the Department's Running Costs. It was suggested that a "needs assessment" in this and other areas of social deprivation might present a possible basis for seeking additional funding for these services.
27.
Department of Regional Development
27.1.
A range of speakers raised concerns about the need to invest in the infrastructure of the region. In particular, the requirements of the Water Service, Roads Service and railways were highlighted. The possibilities offered by Private Finance Initiatives were stressed, particularly in respect of the £3b needed to upgrade water and sewerage networks to EU Standards. Safety concerns were highlighted in respect of the railways and the roads network and several Members draw attention to the economic fallout from chronic traffic congestion in both rural and urban areas.
28.
Department of Social Development
28.1.
A number of Members referred to a shortfall in funding for housing needs, particularly in relation to North Belfast. The possibility of a rent increase by the Housing Executive (GDP + 2%) was also a matter for concern and Members asked whether this breached the application of New TSN which sought to eliminate poverty within deprived communities.
28.2.
There was general concern that the budget for the Department of Social Development would not sustain the Housing Strategy produced by the Housing Executive.
29.
The Office of The First and Deputy First Minister
29.1.
A number of speakers referred to the Executive Programme funds and in particular their concerns about the use to which these will be put. It was suggested that these funds should be applied in such a way as to engage the use of the Private Finance Initiative in order to gain maximum benefit.
29.2.
On a more general point, some Members expressed concern about the absence of detailed information in the Budget Proposal document about the funding of the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister. In particular, they asked about the arrangements for scrutinising this budget. Concern was also expressed about a deficit of £500k in the funding allocation for the Equality Commission.
topCONCLUSIONS
30.
Committee for Finance and Personnel
30.1.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel notes that each of the Committees that responded has given careful consideration to the budget allocations for their respective Departments. Members wish to take this opportunity to thank those Committees for responding so fully. The Committee also wishes formally to thank all Members who participated in the Substantive Budget Debate on Tuesday, 14 November 2000.
31.
Timeframe
31.1.
Members were disappointed that neither the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety nor the Committee for Social Development had responded within the short timeframe available. The DFP Committee believes it is appropriate to reiterate the concerns it has raised in the past about the procedures within the Assembly for dealing with the annual financial cycle. The inability of some committees to complete a scrutiny of their department's budget and the lack of time for any proper analysis and discussion between committees demonstrates clearly that the timeframe for this process needs to be addressed.
31.2.
The DFP Committee recommends that the Programme for Government and the Budget Proposal should be among the first items of Executive Committee business presented to the Assembly when it resumes after each summer recess.
32.
Barnett
32.1.
The DFP Committee has concluded that there are significant areas within the budget that require to be addressed. In particular, they believe that measures should be put in place immediately to ensure that the damaging aspects of the present application and operation of the Barnett formula, which discriminates against the population here, are reassessed and revised.
32.2.
The Committee recommends that an assessment of needs should be undertaken as a first step to demonstrating that the current application of the Barnett formula is inappropriate and unsuited to the special circumstances that prevail in this region.
33.
Departmental Running Costs
33.1.
A second general area of concern is the steeply rising level of Departmental Running Costs (DRCs) in many Departments. Members believe there is a real danger that additional resources being allocated to departments will simply be eaten up by increasing administration costs and consequently fail to achieve the desired enhancement of service delivery. The Committee believes that substantial savings can be obtained from DRCs during the incoming financial year.
33.2.
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance and Personnel should commission an urgent review of the structure and staffing of all departments and the bodies for which they are responsible in order to achieve maximum efficiency in the delivery of public services in the year 2001/02.
34.
Departmental Budgets
34.1.
Members of the DFP Committee took particular note of the matters raised in the written reports from the statutory committees and of the issues that were raised by Assembly Members during the debate on 14 November. Members also noted the concerns of Assembly Members about a number of areas in which the provisions currently made in the Budget Proposal were likely to lead to inefficiency, risk to safety or hardship for the more deprived elements within our population. As noted earlier, the Committee was concerned that it had not been possible to undertake the degree of consultation with the departmental committees that would have enabled spending priorities to be proposed. Members expected that this would be the last occasion on which this situation would arise.
34.2.
The Committee recommends that the Minister for Finance and Personnel should re-assess the departmental allocations in order to take full account of objectives contained in the Programme for Government, objectives given a high priority by ministers, the requirements of New TSN and the safety of the public.
34.3.
The Committee also recommends that all departments should consult with their respective committees during the spring and early summer before finalising their budgetary requirements and submitting them for consideration by the Minister of Finance.
topAppendix 1
Minutes of Proceedings
of the Committee
The Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee for Finance and Personnel relating to consideration of the Budget 2001/02 are given below:
1. Minutes of Proceedings for 10 October 2000.
2. Minutes of Proceedings for 12 October 2000.
3. Minutes of Proceedings for 17 October 2000.
4. Minutes of Proceedings for 24 October 2000.
5. Minutes of Proceedings for 7 November 2000.
6. Minutes of Proceedings for 16 November 2000.
7. Minutes of Proceedings for 21 November 2000.
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
[EXTRACT RELATING TO THE REPORT]
TWENTY FORTH MEETING
TUESDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2000
ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
Mr James Leslie (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Billy Bell
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Nigel Dodds
Mr Peter Weir
Apologies: Mr Derek Hussey
In attendence: Mr Martin Wilson (Committee Clerk)
Mr Peter Hughes (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Sharon Bowman (Administrative Support)
The Chairman declared the meeting open at 2.00 pm. The meeting was held in public session.
Mr Dodds attended from 2.50 pm.
Mr Hussey left the meeting at 3.00 pm.
The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 4.20 pm.
Matters arising:
Meeting with Speaker - Financial Planning Procedures
The Committee deliberated on the outcome of the meeting of 3 October on arrangements for handling the 2001/02 Budget Proposals between the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, and the Speaker and Minister of Finance and Personnel. Members expressed concern at the difficulties that statutory committees faced, such as the late introduction of the Budget into the Assembly and the effect of the autumn recess, in attempting to undertake a full and effective scrutiny of the Budget Proposals in the time being allowed for approval of the Budget by 11 December 2000.
Resolved: The Committee agreed that the Chairman should write immediately to The Speaker to inform him that the Committee would not request responses from other statutory committees nor attempt to prepare a report on the 2001/02 Budget unless there was adequate time to undertake a proper scrutiny of the proposals.
FRANCIE MOLLOY
Chairman
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
[EXTRACT RELATING TO THE REPORT]
TWENTY FIFTH MEETING
THURSDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2000
LONG GALLERY, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
Mr James Leslie (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Alex Attwood
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Nigel Dodds
Mr Derek Hussey
Mr Donovan McClelland
Mr Peter Robinson MP
Mr Peter Weir
Apologies: Mr Billy Bell
In attendence: Mr Martin Wilson (Committee Clerk)
Mr Peter Hughes (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Sharon Bowman (Administrative Support
The Chairman declared the meeting open at 1.45 pm. The meeting was held in public session.
Mr Robinson attended from 2.06 pm.
Mr Dodds attended from 2.10 pm.
Mr Maskey attended from 2.15 pm.
Mr Hussey attended from approximately 2.20 pm.
Mr Attwood, Mr Dodds, Mr McClelland, Mr Maskey and Mr Robinson left the meeting at approximately 3.00 pm.
The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 4.10 pm.
Matters arising:
Financial Planning Procedures
The Minister appeared before the Committee to speak on the arrangements for handling the 2001/02 Budget Proposals. The Committee deliberated.
Resolved: That the Business Committee be asked to re-consider and revise arrangements for the forthcoming autumn committee recess to enable statutory committees to conclude their consideration of their respective departmental budgets and provide responses to the Finance Committee by 10 November. That the Business Committee be asked to reconsider the commencement date for the Christmas recess to allow for the Assembly vote on the Budget Proposal to take place on 18 December, so allowing an extra week for the completion of the Finance Committee's report. That the Assembly Commission be asked to pursue urgently arrangements for additional staffing resources that are needed to enable committees to conclude their work on the Budget Proposal.
FRANCIE MOLLOY
Chairman
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
[EXTRACT RELATING TO THE REPORT]
TWENTY SIXTH MEETING
TUESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2000
COMMITTEE ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
Mr James Leslie (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Billy Bell
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Nigel Dodds
Mr Alex Maskey
Mr Peter Robinson MP
Mr Peter Weir
Apologies: Mr Derek Hussey
In attendence: Mr Martin Wilson (Committee Clerk)
Mr Peter Hughes (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Sharon Bowman (Administrative Support)
The Chairman declared the meeting open at 2.05 pm. The meeting was held in public session.
Mr Maskey attended from 4.05 pm.
Mr Robinson left the meeting at 3.15 pm.
Mr Dodds left the meeting at 4.10 pm.
The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 4.45 pm.
2001/02 Budget
The Minister of Finance and Personnel, supported by officials, appeared before the Committee and was questioned on the 2001/02 Budget. The Committee deliberated on the Barnett formula, bids and allocations, Regional Rate and the impact of the Executive Programme Fund. The Committee sought further information from the Minister.
Resolved: That the draft Press Notice 216/00 be issued.
FRANCIE MOLLOY
Chairman
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
[EXTRACT RELATING TO THE REPORT]
TWENTY EIGHTH MEETING
THURSDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2000
COMMITTEE ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
Mr James Leslie (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Billy Bell
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Derek Hussey
Mr Donovan McClelland
Apologies: No apologies were made.
In attendence: Mr Martin Wilson (Committee Clerk)
Mr Peter Hughes (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Sharon Bowman (Administrative Support)
The Chairman declared the meeting open at 2.02 p.m. The meeting was held in public session.
Matters arising:
Department of Finance and Personnel Budget and 2001/02 Budget Motion
The Committee deliberated on a paper from The Department of Finance and Personnel on its Budget and on a motion to the Assembly calling for a Substantive Debate on the 2001/02 draft Budget for 13 October.
Resolved: That the DFP Budget paper be considered at a later date and that the motion be adopted.
FRANCIE MOLLOY
Chairman
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
[EXTRACT RELATING TO THE REPORT]
TWENTY NINTH MEETING
THURSDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 2000
COMMITTEE ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Nigel Dodds
Mr Derek Hussey
Mr Alex Maskey
Mr Peter Robinson
Mr Peter Weir
Apologies: Apologies were received from Mr James Leslie and Mr Billy Bell.
In attendence: Mr Martin Wilson (Committee Clerk)
Mr Peter Hughes (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Sharon Bowman (Administrative Support)
The Chairman declared the meeting open at 2.10 p.m. The meeting was held in public session.
DFP Budget
The Committee deliberated on the draft Department of Finance and Personnel Budget allocation for 2001/02 and the Substantive 'take note' Debate on the Budget on 14 November.
Resolved: That the Clerk should write to the Department of Finance and Personnel to seek information on: the effect of the shortfall in the allocation against the bids made e.g. what objectives may not now be achieved with regard to accommodation and job dispersal? The rise in the allocation for the North/South Body: Special EU Programmes from £0.3M to £0.6M and any requirement for matching funding. The Regional Rate and any linkage of the 8% increase in the Regional Rate to the funding of certain Water Service based projects. And the reason for deciding that 8% was the appropriate increase for the incoming financial year.
FRANCIE MOLLOY
Chairman
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
[EXTRACT RELATING TO THE REPORT]
THIRTY FIRST MEETING
TUESDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2000
COMMITTEE ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present: Mr Francie Molloy (Chairman)
Mr Billy Bell
Mr Seamus Close
Mr Nigel Dodds
Mr Derek Hussey
Mr Alex Maskey
Mr Peter Weir
Apologies: Apologies were received from Mr James Leslie.
In attendence: Mr Martin Wilson (Committee Clerk)
Mr Peter Hughes (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Sharon Bowman (Administrative Support)
The Chairman declared the meeting open at 2.25 p.m. The meeting was held in public session.
Budget 2001/02 Draft Report
The Committee deliberated on the draft Report on the 2001/02 Budget.
Resolved: The Committee agreed the draft Report subject to a number of amendments.
FRANCIE MOLLOY
Chairman
Appendix 2
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE COMMITTEE
FROM DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Francie Molloy, Chairman, Committee for Finance and Personnel wrote to the Chairperson of each of the departmental committees inviting them to forward their views on the proposed budget allocations for each respective Department. The letter asked for an indication of the priority to be attached to each of the budget headings and any factors relating to these bids that committees would wish to be taken into account.
The written submissions to the Committee for Finance are given below. The Committee for Finance and Personnel did not make a separate submission but recorded its views in the Summary of Written Responses and in the Summary of the Substantive Budget Debate of 14 November.
Annex 1 - Agriculture and Rural Development
Annex 2 - Culture, Arts and Leisure
Annex 3 - Education
Annex 4 - Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Annex 5 - Environment
Annex 6 - Health, Social Services and Public Safety
Annex 7 - Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment
Annex 8 - Regional Development
Annex 9 - Social Development
Annex 10 - Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister
ANNEX 1
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE'S PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The Clerk,
Committee for Finance and Personnel,
Northern Ireland Assembly,
Parliament Buidlings.
October 2000
Budget Proposals Announced by the Minister of Finance on 17 October 2000
Further to the letter of 12 October seeking views on the proposed budget allocations for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, I am writing to confirm that my Committee discussed the budget with the Minister on 18 October and subsequently considered its views on 20 October.
The Committee broadly welcomed the proposed increase to DARD's budget but was concerned that the Assembly should not over-estimate its effects in terms of farmers' incomes. It was recognized that in his budget document, the Minister of Finance had clearly acknowledged that the DARD budget was distorted by a revised treatment of Animal Disease Compensation and that the provision for less favoured areas will be adjusted later this year. When these factors are taken into account, the DARD budget increase of £26.6M or 16.2% for 2001/02 is effectively reduced to £15.7M or 9.6%.
The Committee was also concerned that many of the areas to which additional funds have been allocated are essentially long-term in nature and few will have any immediate beneficial effect on farmers' financial situations. The Committee was pleased to see that funds had been secured for the LFA Scheme, as had been recommended to the Minister by the Committee, in order to reduce the need to use funds modulated from farmers subsidies to underwrite this scheme.
Members agreed the following points to be relayed to the Minister of Finance and Personnel in relation to the treatment of DARD in the Budget Proposal.
1.
The DARD Vision Group
The Committee was disappointed to note that the Agriculture Minister's request for additional funds to carry forward the work of the Vision Group had not been addressed in the Budget Proposal. The findings of this Group may well represent a vital opportunity to enable the hard-pressed farming industry to begin the hard road back to profitability and hence viability. The Agriculture Minister had sought a sum of £10M to ensure that the various recommendations of the Vision Group could be implemented. None of this money has been granted.
The Minister has advised the Committee that it may be possible to obtain some additional funding for this work from the Executive Programme Funds. However, the Committee notes the relatively small scale of these Funds and the likelihood that there will be many other demands upon them. It is the Committee's view that the area of work being tackled by the Vision Group is much too important to be left to the vagaries of this approach. The Committee recommends that additional funding, at a level to be agreed by the Agriculture Minister, be provided for the implementation of the proposals arising from the work of the Vision Group.
2.
Farm Waste Management and Nutrient Management
The Committee strongly supports the Agriculture Minister's bid for additional funding to meet costs arising from the implementation of environmental regulations. This is an area where farmers are required to invest large sums of money to meet standards that are applied through tough new regulations but in which there is no actual return from the expenditure. The Minister had sought an additional sum of £2.4M to assist farmers implement the measures needed to satisfy these requirements and again no part of this bid has been met. The Committee recommends that additional funding of £2.4M be provided to meet farmers needs in the areas of Farm Waste Management and Nutrient Management.
3.
Added Value Areas - including Bio-diversity and Organic Farming
It is the Committee's view that farmers in Northern Ireland must be given the necessary support to become truly competitive in the global marketplace. It is essential that the Department be enabled to offer assistance to those farmers willing and able to move into new areas of opportunity. The international perception of the Northern Ireland farming industry as a producer of the highest quality should and can be built upon. The Committee recommends that the Minister's bid for additional funds of £0.675M be accepted in order to develop and promulgate good practice in Organic Farming and to carry forward the Bio-diversity Action Plan.
4.
Business and Environment Training
The Committee was disappointed that the Minister's bid for £0.2M to provide Business and Environment training for the farming industry was not met in the Budget Proposal. It is our members' view that these are vital areas of expertise if farmers are to regain a competitive position in the world market. It is also vital that young people entering the industry are given a solid grounding in the skills involved in running a successful business. The Committee recommends that the Minister's bid for additional funds of £0.2M for Business and Environment Training be accepted.
5.
Pig Meat Promotion
The Committee was delighted to see that the Minister's bid for £0.5M for the Red-meat Strategy was accepted in the Budget Proposal. However, it was particularly disappointed to note that a smaller sum of £0.25M for the Pigmeat Promotion Scheme was not met. The parlous state of the Northern Ireland Pig Industry is widely acknowledged and it is the Committee's view that every possible step to alleviate the problems of these farmers must be taken. What is at stake is the survival of an entire sector of the Agriculture Industry in Northern Ireland. The Committee recommends that the Minister's bid for £0.25M for Pigmeat Promotion be accepted.
GEORGE SAVAGE
Deputy Chairman
ANNEX 2
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE'S PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
CULTURE ARTS AND LEISURE COMMITTEE
1. The Committee wishes to register its disappointment that many of the bids supported by the Committee were not met. Historically the Department's existing activities have been under-funded and for this reason more funding should have been made available. The Department's total bid was modest when compared to its assessment of need and yet little more than 25% was met.
2. We were particularly concerned to note that the £2million bid to buy out the commercial fishing nets around the Northern Ireland coastline had not been successful. Commercial netting has been identified in the Committee's Inquiry into Inland Fishing as a major contributor to the decline in the salmon population in Northern Ireland rivers. We were further concerned to see that the £0.5 million bid to repair and upgrade fishing stands was not met. The inquiry into Inland Fisheries has underlined the importance to the Northern Ireland economy of an attractive recreational tourist industry. The Committee believes that the Department must pursue other resources to get the buy-out of nets started as soon as possible, as commercial netting has been identified as a major contributor to the decline in the salmon population in Northern Ireland rivers.
3. The Committee was also concerned to note that the bid for 'Arts' had only been met in part. This will inevitably be detrimental to the Department's plans to open up the arts to a greater proportion of the people in Northern Ireland and by doing so improve the quality of life for all. The Committee has decided to make 'Accessibility to the Arts' its next inquiry and this will inevitably draw attention to the lack of funding available.
4. The Committee has noted that the Department's spending plans do not include any funding for safety improvements to existing Motor Cycle road racing facilities. This has been the subject of much debate both by the Committee and the Department and it is an area which requires urgent attention. Small amounts of funding would go a long way.
5. The Committee strongly believes that the Department should pursue this under-funding situation rigorously by registering disappointment at the shortfall in the meeting of the bids, and looking for additional funding in future years.
6. The additional funding provided should enable a start to be made to redress the situation and it will be important that best use is made of the resources obtained. The Committee will continue to take an active interest in the impact that the Department's activities are making on the Northern Ireland economy.
7. The Committee will continue to support the Department in tackling this long-term problem.
EAMONN ONEILL
Chairperson
ANNEX 3
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Purpose of the Memorandum
The purpose of this memorandum is
- to set down the Education Committee's views on the 2001/02 Budget bids and proposed allocations
- to indicate the priority to be attached to each of the budget headings and bids, including related factors
- to give the Education Committee's initial views on resource needs in 2002/03 to 2003/04
Background
The Education Committee welcomes the opportunity to give its views and comments on the Executive's Public Expenditure Plans for 2001/02 presented by Mr Mark Durkan MLA, Minister of Finance and Personnel, on Tuesday 17 October 2000.
However it wishes to express its concern about the timetable for the Budget process for this year and hopes that such tight timescales will not prevail in future years.
Committee Views on 2001/02 Budget
The Committee welcomes any additional monies made available to Education. However it does note that this budget allocation has, for most of the spending areas, allowed for little more than maintaining current spend with an uplift for inflation.
The application of the Barnett formula also has had a significant effect on the allocation. We are pleased to note the consolidation of the March 2000 Budget Addition of £15.2m for schools. However with the Barnett formula being applied to the Chancellor's July announcement so only giving the Department some 3.3% rather than the 5% actually needed this means a shortfall of some £7m compared to the extra funds being allocated to schools in England. As a result, schools here will fall even further behind and will, rightly, see themselves as being less favourably treated than their GB counterparts. The Committee would seek for this to be rectified and reflected in the revised Budget.
The Committee will be holding discussions with the Department on the options for allocating the distribution of these resources among schools.
The Committee would also seek an increase in the Budget allocation for Schools Capital. We see from the Budget statement that only £9.5m has been earmarked for the schools estate. Given the recognised appalling condition of the school estate we would fully support the Department's bid for this figure to be at least doubled in an attempt to address the chronic problems faced in this area with corresponding increases in the later years to meet run-on costs.
Priority of Budget Headings/Executive Programme Fund
The Committee would be in support of the overall priority order of the budget reflecting as it does the Programme for Government and the need to address other related issues. The Committee however does note from the Programme for Government announcement that the Executive Committee has yet to allocate the £16m set aside for the Executive Programme Fund. Given that the focus of this fund will be on policy issues that will directly affect right across the Education sector the Committee would wish to make the following bids for 2001/02:
|
Area |
Related Executive Programme Fund |
Amount £m |
|---|---|---|
|
Capital |
Infrastructure Fund |
4 |
|
Literacy & Numeracy |
Social Inclusion |
6 |
|
Special Educational Needs |
Social Inclusion |
5 |
The Committee appreciates that the Executive Committee will have difficult choices to make when allocating this Fund. However, given that any additional resources allocated to these three areas listed above will have a significant impact on the needs of the most disadvantaged members of the school population throughout Northern Ireland the Committee would strongly press for these allocations.
Budget Allocation - 2002/03 and 2003/04
The Committee would like to take this opportunity to give its initial views on the next two years Budget allocation and resource needs.
Turning first to the Executive Programme Funds the Committee notices the proposal to rapidly increase the value of these funds - £100m in 2002/03 and £200m in 2003/04.
The Committee would want to continue to press for monies to be allocated to the following areas:
- Capital
- School Budgets
- Special Educational Needs
- Literacy and Numeracy
- Discipline/Disruptive Pupils
- Travellers/Ethnic Minorities
- Youth and Community Relations
In year 2002/03 this would amount to some £53m and £69m for year 2003/04 with the highest percentage of the money being allocated to Capital.
Resources Needs in 2002/03 and 2003/04
The Committee decided to take this opportunity to gives its initial views on the next two years resource needs.
In order to maintain the 2001/02 levels of spending power the Department would require funding in the order of £76m for 2002/03 and £110m for 2003/04.
To further develop and improve services and to enhance links to the emerging Programme for Government themes the Department would require the following:
- 2002/03 £200m
- 2003/04 £226m
These bids are in addition to the funding required to maintain 2001/02 spending levels.
The Committee considers that, in addition to the amounts required to maintain 2001/02 spending levels, it is essential that, not withstanding other pressures, a high proportion of the other bids be met if the Assembly is to invest properly in our children's future.
DANNY KENNEDY MLA
Chairman
ANNEX 4
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE'S PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
ENTERPRISE TRADE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE
1. The Committee is required to report to the Finance and Personnel Committee by 10 November giving its views on the budget proposals for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for 2001/02.
2. Officials from the Department gave evidence to the Committee on 24 October on the budget proposals. The officials answered a number of questions put by members of the Committee.
3. The Committee expressed concern at the small increase in the overall budget (only 1%) - the smallest increase of all the Departments. The officials explained the difficulty of comparing budget areas on a year to year basis. They gave the example of intervention aid to Harland and Wolff: the intervention aid is contract based and therefore the actual budget reflects the contract profile.
4. The officials stated that the Minister was generally content with the outcome on the budget proposals.
5. The Department indicated the following priorities for additional funding -
- Gas pipelines - the Department made it clear that the gas pipeline project could not be funded from within the existing budget. The Department made an additional bid of 7m for this project for 2001/02, but this was not included in the budget proposals. Additional funding will therefore be required through the Executive Committee's funds.
- Telecommunications - the Department consider that it needs to be at the forefront of what is happening in the Information Age society. The Department is concerned that the telecom infrastructure outside Belfast will not be met by the private sector. The Department made an additional bid of 10m for the Information Age Initiative, but the budget proposals only accounted for 5.6m. The balance will therefore need to be met from the Executive Committee's funds.
6. The Committee considered the above priorities highlighted by the Department. The Committee agreed with these priorities. In particular, the Committee considered that the gas pipeline project should be a priority in order to improve business competitiveness and create greater consumer choice. And that an improved telecommunications system should be a priority in order to ensure that businesses are able to compete effectively in the global economy.
7. In addition the Committee expressed some concern about the following budget areas -
- Tourism - the Committee questioned whether the amount of 5.8m proposed for the new tourism company was sufficient, given the potential for employment in this sector and in related sectors such as retail and leisure. The Committee noted that the Republic of Ireland's contribution to the tourism company is likely to be 14m - 18m.
- Research and Development - the Committee also expressed concern about this budget. The Committee note that the Department have commented that there has been a steady increase in R&D over the past few years. However, the Committee consider that a substantial increase is needed in this area if the Department's aim of a knowledge based and innovative economy is to be realised. The Committee also believe that the R&D in this budget area. budget and support for innovation, creativity and design should go not only to new knowledge based industries, but also to restructuring of the traditional industries. The proposed budget for Industrial Research and Technology Unit has only been increased by 5.7%. The Committee is not convinced that the target in Strategy 2010 of increasing business R&D by 1.5% of GDP will be achievable, unless there is a substantial increase
PAT DOHERTY MLA
Chairperson
ANNEX 5
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE'S PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Mr Sam Foster MLA
Minister for the Environment
Clarence Court
10-18 Adelaide Street
Belfast, BT2 8GB
9 November 2000
Dear
Thank you for your informative presentation to the Committee on 26 October 2000 on the draft Departmental budget. In particular, we appreciated your recognition of the Committee's contribution in the bidding process.
The Committee discussed the matter in full at today's meeting and it was agreed that I should write to you with the Committee's response.
We are very pleased to note that the increasing demands being made on the Department have been recognised with a significant increase in funding for 2001/00 - while we accept the low overall base within which the Department operates, an increase of over 14% is a significant achievement. There are some areas that we are particularly pleased to note. These are:-
(a) the £854k provided for increased numbers of Road Safety Officers and additional Road Safety advertising - with road deaths already higher this year than last, this is clearly needed;
(b) the £689k provided to address the backlog in transposition of EU environmental directives;
(c) the agreement to retain receipts within the Planning Service that will allow it to make significant inroads towards reducing the existing backlog;
(d) the £463k to maintain the real terms value of the Resources Element of the General Exchequer Grant to District Councils.
We do recognise the £3.5m set aside to help District Councils implement their Waste Management Strategies but there are serious concerns at the lack of information on the distribution and adequacy of these funds.
We accept that not all of the bids made were met but are particularly concerned at the ongoing moratorium on Historic Buildings Grants. If this is allowed to continue, there will be a knock-on loss of Heritage Lottery Funding that may well effectively double the loss of funding to this area. We would urge you to bear this in mind, particularly if the Department is given an opportunity to submit a bid during the in-year monitoring rounds.
Another area of concern is the unmet bid of £3.6m for landscape protection and nature conservation. This is a significant amount that will not be available for the type of projects that a Department with the responsibility for the environment would be expected to provide.
The Committee also considered the issue of additional funding for planning enforcement and would like to know if the Department is allowed to retain any funds raised as a result of fines or if these are returned to the Treasury?
I hope you find this helpful and I can assure you of the Committee's ongoing support in obtaining funding to address all the outstanding issues.
A copy of this letter will be sent to the Committee for Finance and Personnel to assist that Committee with its scrutiny for the Department of Finance and Personnel.
Yours sincerely
DR WILLIAM McCREA MP MLA
ANNEX 6
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON THE EXECUTIVE'S PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
10 NOVEMBER 2000
Thank you for your minute of 24 October outlining the arrangements for the handling of the DFP Committee report on the 2001/02 Budget, providing a composite summary of the statutory Committees' responses.
The HSS&PS Committee regrets that it is not in a position to respond to the DFP Committee with its views on the Budget bids and proposed allocations by the deadline of 10 November, as it is still involved in discussions with Departmental Officials on this matter.
GEORGE MARTIN
Committee Clerk
ANNEX 7
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE'S PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
HIGHER AND FURTHER EDUCATION,
TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
BUDGET 2001/2002
1. In relation to the Executive's Public Expenditure Plans for Budget 2001/02 presented to the Assembly by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on Tuesday, 17 October 2000, the Committee has the following comments in relation to the proposed settlement for the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.
2. The Minister briefed the Committee on 26 October 2000, and the Committee shares his view that, in the light of competing priorities, the budget settlement for the current year is fair. The Committee recognises the many positive aspects of the settlement - it enables the Minister to sustain existing levels of activity in many areas, it enables a much-needed increase in employment programmes, it provides for a very necessary increased rate of capital investment, and additional places in Higher Education. It fulfils the commitment of Government to the enhanced SPUR programme for University research and development, and it enables the Department to carry out its statutory duties in relation to tribunal cases.
3. However, the Committee is acutely disappointed in respect of the resource constraints which continue to prevent the Minister from taking forward key aspects of departmental activity. The small allocation to Adult Basic Education, particularly in reference to Northern Ireland's well documented problems of adult literacy and numeracy, enables little more than the piloting of a few projects. While the new PEACE 2 (and possibly also the Executive Programme Funds) can be expected to assist new and innovative developments in this area, the Committee has a particular concern that the Executive should quickly progress its key concern to prevent social exclusion from becoming embedded within Northern Ireland society.
4. Again, the Committee notes that there is some scope for additional capacity in terms of funding which will enable 200 additional Higher Education places. This is far short of the Committee's identified target, and short of the number of places needed if we are to stem the flow of some 35% of the age cohort which leaves Northern Ireland at the school leaving stage, to undertake university study elsewhere. The Committee is also concerned that only half of the additional FE places required (500 extra places, in place of the 1,000 which the Minister had sought) can be provided within resources allocated.
5. The Committee notes that funding is available to continue the existing student support and loans schemes, but is concerned that additional funding for student support has not yet been agreed for the academic year 2001/02. This is an area closely linked to the crucial need to provide 2,000-4,000 additional places, (over and above those already announced for 1999-2004) which the Committee identified as key to stemming the 35% outflow of young students, and to support our future economic and social prosperity. We urge the Executive to give high priority to the funding of these additional places, and accompanying student support arrangements which will widen access.
6. We advised the Minister that we were concerned at the lack of funding for disabled access at education and training establishments. This is a moral as well as a statutory imperative, and inseparable from any action plan for education and training for disabled people (which is a priority action specified in the Programme for Government).
7. The Committee has asked the Minister for a full explanation of the terms of the transfer of responsibility for the Welfare to Work Programme. We were surprised and in some ways pleased to learn of the transfer of responsibility to the Executive, particularly as the Committee has taken evidence on, and contributed most actively through debate in plenary, and dialogue and correspondence with the Minister, to developing New Deal policies best fitted to Northern Ireland's needs. We wish to know (and perhaps this is an issue for the Minister of Finance and Personnel) how the ringfencing arrangements translate within the transferred arrangements; how carryover applies; the amounts granted for next year and successive years; and any technical problems which have been encountered.
8. We expect the Statutory Committees of the Assembly to have a key role as regards public scrutiny and accountability, although has yet these processes are evolving. We expect to take an active role in monitoring delivery of outcomes against targets set in the Programme for Government. As we have said in our commentary on the Programme for Government, we look to the Public Service Agreement to clarify some of the Programme's objectives and targets. For example, the question has been raised whether the targets for higher and further education and vocational training are ambitious enough, given the changing state of the market for skilled people. In our scrutiny of the delivery of the Programme for Government, in the future, we will wish to return to this point. At this stage we examine the rationale for the targets. We will also wish to examine how and whether they have been met, and whether, given the benefit of hindsight, they were set at the right level. We will wish to find out what has been "bought" for the £12m investment this year, £19.6m in 2001/02, in Further Education capital; and how a year on year increase of over £4m in spending on central administration and miscellaneous services has helped deliver DHFETE's priorities in the Programme for Government.
9. We also seek assurance on how we may engage our powers and duties in relation to the 5 Executive Funds, to which the draft Programme proposes to allocate an increasing proportion of the resources under its command - reaching £200m by 2003/04. What are the specific arrangements for Assembly involvement in the development and scrutiny of these Funds, which, by their very nature, will not fall within the remit of just one Department?
Concluding Remarks
We hope that, together with our views on the Programme for Government which accompany our comments and queries on the Executive's budget proposals for 2001/02, this submission will help produce an agreed budget statement. We look forward to clarification of the issues raised, which we will use to assist us in our policy development and scrutiny role.
Dr Esmond Birnie
Chairman
ANNEX 8
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE'S PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
DRAFT BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/02
Some of the proposals are very positive.
- The additional provision of £19.6 million for railway infrastructure and rolling stock is very significant and reflects the efforts of the Minister, the Department (through the Railways Task Force which included representatives of NITHCO) and also the Committee, all of whom pressed the case for additional resources. However it would be useful to establish the Department's commitment to obtaining the funding required in 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 to complete the consolidation of the network.
- The additional £3.1 million to provide a modern integrated ticketing system is also welcomed.
Some of the proposals raise concerns.
- The Water Service urgently needs resources to replace the infrastructure. The presentation to the Committee on 25 October 2000 highlighted the problems and estimated the requirement at £3 billion over the next ten years. The additional allocation of £14.5 million for capital investment falls well short of what is needed. The Committee is concerned about the implications of this shortfall.
- Apart from allocations under the Chancellor's Initiative, only £3.8 million extra has been provided for roads structural maintenance. This equates to a 9.5% increase and falls well short of the required increase of about 100%. The Committee is again concerned about the shortfall and its implications.
- The position in relation to the Chancellor's Initiative needs clarification about whether or not the funding under the initiative is additional and where it is brought to account.
- Lack of funding for the proposed scheme for free travel for older people may hamper and cause problems with the introduction of the scheme.
There are some issues which require clarification.
- The position in relation to proceeds which would result from a sale of the Port of Belfast needs to be clarified.
- The indicative spend under the Executive Programme Funds for 2001/2002 is £16 million of which £6 million is earmarked for Infrastructure/Capital Renewal which includes roads and rail. It would be useful to know how this money can be accessed and what criteria will be set for allocating the money.
Confirmation is required that the funding available to the Department as set out in the draft budget does not include receipts that actually increase the Department's spend by £50 million.
The Minister agreed to consider a proposal from the Committee to the merits of setting up a service-wide team with expertise in PFI/PPP to provide guidance and sharing of best practice.
ALBAN MAGINNESS
Chairman
ANNEX 9
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE'S PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
10 NOVEMBER 2000
Thank you for your minute of 24 October outlining the arrangements for the handling of the DFP Committee report on the 2001/02 Budget, providing a composite summary of the statutory Committees' responses.
The Social Development Committee regrets that it is not in a position to respond to the DFP Committee with its views on the Budget bids and proposed allocations by the deadline of 10 November, as it is still involved in discussions with Departmental Officials on this matter.
GEORGE MARTIN
Committee Clerk
ANNEX 10
COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE'S PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PLANS
BUDGET PROPOSALS 2001/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COMMITTEE OF THE CENTRE
The Committee of the Centre's response is presented below, in priority order.
1. Victims - Members were very concerned that the bid of £500,000 for Victims had received no funding at all in the current Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister's (OFMDFM) proposed allocation. This is contrary to the action points set out in the draft Programme for Government. The Committee seeks this non-allocation to be immediately reviewed by the OFMDFM.
2. e-Government - The Committee is concerned that the request for £14.9m and £0.9m had not been met, nor was there enough in the Service Modernisation Fund (£3.0m) to fund the costs of this important area. This is further compounded with the £3m in the Service Modernisation Fund likely to receive bids from a number of departments. We would like clarification on the funding proposals which are being considered to enable e-Government to be taken forward.
The action points in the draft Programme for Government are not supported by the allocation of sufficient financial resources in the budget allocation. The Committee of the Centre is concerned that this lack of funding may lead to underachievement of the targets for electronic service delivery of 25% of key services capable of delivery by 2002 and 100% of key services by 2005. The bid as set out for the Committee in the OFMDFM brief of 13 October 2000 detailed that it would assist in increasing the accessibility of government services for all, improving efficiency, effectiveness and economy of government services. Furthermore this bid was to enable social inclusion and put in place the concept of 'tell government once'. The insufficient early funding of this work may place these achievements at risk and leave Northern Ireland at a disadvantage; this will be contrary to the ethos of a knowledge-based economy. The Committee seeks a full explanation why funding is not allocated to this area of work.
3. Equality Commission and Equality (including New TSN) Research - Members of the Committee of the Centre would like clarification on how the underfunding of £500,000 will impact on the statutory work of the Equality Commission. The Committee would also like to know what work plans had been drawn up within the research bid of £200,000. Secondly, what are the specific proposals for spending the current allocation of £100,000?
4. European Affairs and International Matters - Members also raised their concerns regarding the funds allocated to the future office in Brussels and the NI Bureau in Washington. They stated that the proposals in the Programme for Government could not be achieved unless the allocation of funds was very significantly higher. Once again the funding of this key area does not correspond to the objectives and action points set out in the draft Programme for Government. The Committee seeks an urgent response and a full justification of the decision.
5. Departmental Running Costs - The Committee of the Centre requests OFMDFM to reconsider the high percentage committed to additional Departmental Running Costs bids in the light of the Committee's concerns prioritised above.
In conclusion, the Committee of the Centre seeks a full review of the above concerns and has requested a written response from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
CLLR EDWIN POOTS
Chairperson, Committee of the Centre
Menu / Reports