Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 12 June 2000 (continued)
Mr McCarthy:
There are many items that one would wish to comment on. The discussion has been wide-ranging, but perhaps a couple of sharp points might get a better response from the Minister. I see that he is taking notice now.
I wish to express the disappointment of my Committee - the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee. The budget for the education and library boards and the miscellaneous library services remains the same as last year. We all know that more and more people wish to use these services, particularly the libraries. It is obvious that the library service will not be expanded as we would wish. Indeed, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure has already acknowledged this deficit. The libraries in Newtownards, Bangor and elsewhere could do with further investment. We should be prepared, as far as possible, to have a library service available to all local communities. Indeed, many of the budgets for Culture, Arts and Leisure remain the same or have been reduced, and that must be regretted. The arts, museums, sports et cetera are being expected to function on a reduced budget. Surely this must be rectified.
The roads budget of the Department for Regional Development looks large indeed, but the budgets given to the local section offices are not. Rural roads maintenance is almost non-existent. As has been mentioned earlier, the provision of road safety measures, such as zebra crossings and traffic calming measures, all depend on funds being made available. Thus, we endanger the lives of young children and senior citizens every time they cross a busy main road or street. I appeal for more funding for a real road-safety policy.
I now want to refer to the Strangford/Portaferry ferry service, which is very important for the many people who use it daily. Our present two vessels are now outdated, particularly the Portaferry. We have been waiting for years for a replacement. Not a second-or third-hand vessel, but a new, modern, up-to-date one with the latest equipment and technology on board is what we want and expect. I ask the Minister if the funding for such a vessel is included in these figures and, if so, when we can expect the new vessel to be in service. Perhaps the Minister would like to consider funding a bridge across Strangford Lough. At present, momentum is growing for this to be the long-term answer to the problem.
3.15 pm
Mr Attwood:
Firstly, I would like to introduce a number of themes that have been running through meetings of the Enterprise, Trade and Industry Committee in relation to the integration of further and higher education provision, to graduates and to work opportunities in the North. Before suspension, the vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster attended the Committee, and he outlined a number of requirements he sought in order to bring about a situation where further and higher education provision matched the availability of work in the North and elsewhere. When the Minister, Sir Reg Empey, attended a Committee last week he commented positively in respect of these matters. I think it is important that in planning the Programme for Government and in deciding the finance for government, that the initiatives and requirements outlined by Professor McKenna are endorsed broadly and carefully considered by the relevant Departments and by the Minister himself.
Professor McKenna referred to three issues that were important in relation to bringing about graduate opportunities and the relevance of further and higher education training in the North. He commented that the level of funding for higher education institutes in the North was less than that which was being enjoyed by universities in Britain. Over a number of years there had been a proportional decrease in the level of research funding to our further education institutes. He highlighted that that was impeding the training of undergraduates in the appropriate skills for job opportunities in the North and elsewhere. He asked that the Committee, the Assembly and the relevant Minister look at the issue of increasing research funding for higher education. The proof and the relevance of that request is diverse.
When a trade mission from Belfast City Council attended Boston, Pittsburgh and elsewhere in North America in recent weeks, the number of companies anxious to have relationships with companies in the North whose personnel had come from the universities in the North was, as John Cullinine, a North American friend of Belfast, put it, exceptional. There was a recognition in America that the educational skills of our graduates were very high and that the research output of our universities was of a high calibre. That experience has been duplicated in many other places in many other ways, making Gerry McKenna's point a valid one.
His second point was that there needed to be a re-examination of student numbers and funding for increased student numbers in the North, where, in his view, there were additional opportunities for many thousands of undergraduates if they could gain access to third-level courses. That would not only stop the haemorrhage of students going to universities in Britain and the South, but would also ensure that graduates of universities in the North were available for local job opportunities. There is clear evidence that 90% of graduates in informatics from the University of Ulster now go South. They do not stay in the North, because the job opportunities do not exist here. In respect of the job opportunities that do exist, it will be necessary to have graduates in informatics, high technology and other relevant skills available for those positions. This will require an increase in the number of students going into third-level education.
His third point was that there was a need for further provision, both financial and legislative, to protect intellectual property. Given the trade in ideas and the value of ideas and the transmission of ideas into practice, especially in the high tech area and given the skills that exist in the University of Ulster and particularly at Queens where Professor John McCannie and his department are based, the protection of intellectual property and investment in intellectual property through the various agencies in the North are going to be important requirements if we are going to increase and improve the quality of our education and the quality of jobs for our graduates.
My second point concerns the future workings of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. When he was before the Committee, the Minister quite properly and correctly said that the board had been working in an adverse environment for the last 30 years because of the civil conflict and resulting image problems. He said that the board would be a key agency, perhaps leading to the development of tourism as the largest industry in the North. He also would have acknowledged that it is necessary for the board to re-examine and revise its management, promotions, structure and policies generally to ensure that it is as energetic and dynamic as possible so as to exploit and enlarge tourist opportunities in the North. That will have consequences for Ministers, as well as for funding.
I will give a small example. The destruction of the tourist centre at the Giant's Causeway is an opportunity to create a better centre for the greater promotion of that part of the North. Out of difficulty comes opportunity. That will have financial and practical consequences for the Assembly, the Executive and the relevant Minister. The Minister of Finance and Personnel needs to be aware of it.
Monica McWilliams has already mentioned the third matter I want to raise. She raised questions about the funding of juvenile justice centres. Justice continues to be a matter reserved to the British Government, but it appeared from what she said - I am open to correction on this - that the funding obligation may fall to the Northern Ireland institutions. A number of financial and practical issues arise from that.
The Northern Ireland Office is conducting a review of the future provision of juvenile justice centres. At present there are three, but it is suggested that there should be only one. I urge any Minister of Finance, whether here or in London, with a funding responsibility for juvenile justice centres, to ensure that we do not go down the road of having only one such centre. We should consider having two. There would be cost consequences, but the benefit would be significant, and not just for juvenile justice. The proximity of juvenile justice centres to the areas where offenders have previously lived is essential for rehabilitation, but there would also be significant benefit for certain communities in the North, particularly west Belfast. There is one juvenile justice centre there at the moment: St Patrick's. The consequences of closure for its 40 staff would be severe. Juvenile offenders' access to justice provision would be put in jeopardy.
I trust that the conclusion will be to guarantee the two-centre option and ensure that St Patrick's remains open, that the jobs remain in place, that the community in north and west Belfast is still served, and that that disadvantaged community continues to have the benefit, financial and otherwise, of the centre.
My final point is a broader one. I do not wish to reintroduce the issue of the Patten Report and the Police Bill, but in relation to future police funding, it is our understanding that when funding for the Patten recommendations were discussed, the British Government indicated that they would accept, in full, the financial consequences of the change, including severance packages and all other financial consequences that would arise. There is some suggestion that the British Exchequer is taking the opportunity to target funds out of the Northern Ireland budget to fund part of the policing change. Without going into any detail of the change, it would be disadvantageous to the economy in the North and to the financial budget of this institution if that were allowed to happen. I trust that it will not.
Mr Kennedy:
I realise that many of the main points have already been made. I am reminded of what Henry VIII is alleged to have said to one of his wives: "I do not intend to keep you long." I am speaking on behalf of the Education Committee, of which I am Chairman. Like all departmental Committees, we have had very little time for an effective scrutiny of the main Estimates and spending plans contained in this report. It is my strong view, and that of the Education Committee, that we must ensure that this does not happen again in the next financial round. We call for an agreed procedure of the annual cycle to be put in place as soon as possible. It must include all elements of the public expenditure process, including the spending review and a requirement for all Departments to consult Committees as part of in-year monitoring rounds. If the Assembly is to work properly, efficiently and effectively, all Committees must be involved in that process.
Will the Minister say if and when this procedure will be put in place, so that the Committees can schedule it into their work programmes, which is an important aspect?
My Committee welcomes the additional money for the education sector announced in the March budget. We realise that education has many needs, and that clearly there will not be enough money to provide for all areas, especially in the maintenance of school buildings and the new building capital starts that are required. We will be making a strong case in the future for additional resource allocations, as we are aware that many schools require upgrading. The main fabric of many school buildings is in a dreadful state and we want to address that problem as quickly as possible.
There is also concern about the cost of administration and the fact that not enough money is reaching the classroom or school principals and hard-working teachers, to allow them to carry out their duties effectively and efficiently. The Education Committee will consider how we can achieve that, but our primary concern is that measures should be put in place urgently, so that for the next financial cycle the Committee will have full access to all of these matters.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Last week, when the Minister of Finance introduced the Estimates to us, we were told that we could speak on anything from Dan to Beer-sheba. I hope that the Minister of Finance will be pleased that I shall go only from Kells to the Causeway and no further. It is not every day that you get to spend £4 billion, give or take two or three million. Some Members told to me that their wives would make a very good job at spending £4 billion for them, but the reality is that we must not miss the importance of this debate today.
3.30 pm
Members have to decide today whether they are going to approve a Supply resolution that will allocate billions of pounds to people in Northern Ireland. Some Members think this is a done deal and that we are therefore wasting time discussing it. However, there are many issues that we can flag up to the Minister of Finance, and to the other Departments, to draw attention to policy and how resources are allocated to achieve policy, and I hope that Members can do that.
Last week my party was criticised publicly by the Minister for fun and freebies, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure - I do not see him here today. He said that my party had the opportunity to wreck this process by not voting through the appropriation. My party is not interested in hurting the people of Northern Ireland, but it is interested in targeting enemy number one: the Republican movement.
This debate does not lend itself to attacks of a party political nature, and I hope that the Minister for fun and freebies, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will remember that, the next time that he cares to open his mouth about this particular subject.
Many parties have said that they want to see this money allocated on a fair and equitable basis, and we can all agree with that. The north-east of the Province is growing in population, yet the Estimates clearly show that Government spending has not increased on a pro rata basis for that area. I believe that my constituency is deprived in the housing, health, education, and economic development budgets. There is nothing in these Estimates or in this Supply debate and motion that shows to me that that is going to change radically. Cash is in short supply, but so too are imaginative and constructive policies. Until Ministers actually develop imaginative and constructive policies, all that the Assembly will be is a rubber-stamping house for policies that are initiated in Whitehall and elsewhere.
As regards the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Estimates do not show how much of the budget for that Department will be spent on meeting the Minister's key policy priorities versus that spent on administration. We see the millions of pounds that are going to be allocated to the administration of the Department, but we do not see how that money is going to achieve key policies and priorities. In fact, the Agriculture Committee is still waiting to hear from the Minister of Agriculture what the key priorities are. I hope that we will hear them soon because we need to see not only those key priorities and policies but also a key strategy on how to implement those policies.
The entire community relies on the economic activity of the farming community, yet incomes in that community are down, in some areas by over 50%, and we need activity to generate incomes in the agriculture sector. In my constituency, the Agivey pork processing plant and the Ahoghill processing plant have been lost, resulting in the loss of over 300 jobs. It is essential that we get alternative employment opportunities in this sector. Dr McCrea asked the rhetorical question about when the farmers would actually get money in their pockets. Looking at the Northern Ireland Estimates and the Supply resolution, I say to my Colleague that it looks like they are not going to get that money in their pockets. The Supply resolution does not allow for it.
My constituents are also concerned when they see ex-prisoners being retrained, re-educated, rehoused and rehabilitated, while those who have worked in society, especially the farming community, do not appear to have those same opportunities and privileges. I would like to see a farm retirement scheme adopted by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, and to see the Government construct a policy on this issue. I would also like to see the Minister showing Members that she has the teeth to face Europe on the beef labelling categorisation policy that is currently before the European Union.
I would like to see subsidies paid effectively and on time to the farmers. I would also like to see a farmland planning easement scheme on the agenda. This would allow farmers to release their land for special planning projects.
With regard to economic development, the region which I represent is ripe for investment. Infrastructure is improving. There is a young, educated workforce; there is an excellent research university on our doorstep; and there is a tradition of a hard work ethic. Yet these Estimates, like previous Estimates, have ignored the fact that there should be investment in the north-east. In the last 10 years there has been no IDB investment in Ballymoney at all. Many of my constituents have asked why. Many people from west of the Bann, and indeed from west Belfast, feel that their area is in most economic need because of high unemployment. In reality, the most recent unemployment statistics show that the Moyle area is Northern Ireland's unemployment black spot, not west Belfast and not parts of Northern Ireland west of the Bann. In the Moyle area 10·4% of people are unemployed, yet there does not appear to be an economic or investment strategy from Government or in these Estimates to address that issue.
With regard to LEDU, I am glad that the record appears to be a little better. In Ballymena, 44 clients employ 822 people. That is a vast improvement on the IDB figures. I want to see this expanding to Ballymoney and Ballycastle and, indeed, the development of the entire constituency.
I am also concerned about the loss of the service between Ballycastle and Campbeltown. That service is essential for tourism and for infrastructure, yet it appears to be on hold. I hope that the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry can co-operate to ensure that this service is reintroduced.
Mr Attwood mentioned the development of the Causeway Centre, and I welcome some of the points he made on that. I am pleased that Gerry Loughran has said that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will now be taking a lead on behalf of the Department. Ian Henderson, the former Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, is now the project manager responsible for the development of a new Causeway Centre which will be bigger and better than ever before, and I welcome that.
My Colleague, Mr Sammy Wilson, mentioned the loss of finances to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Everyone across the Province must be concerned at the loss of £13·7 million there. In North Antrim central heating projects will be set back by three years. That causes me great concern, as it must do to other Members.
Many Members have attacked the Minister for Regional Development on how he intends to use these Estimates. There have been some welcome developments in his Department. More than £600,000 has been allocated for minor road works in my constituency, and there is going to be a massive road safety development costing over £150,000 on the Frosses Road, which will be very welcome. A new dual carriageway is also to be developed between Woodgreen and Ballee. That is excellent news for the entire area. We all look forward to seeing more money put in to the Province's roads.
Health has many problems, including the loss of occupational therapists, and there does not appear to be money available to ensure that more occupational therapists are employed.
We are here either to administer Whitehall policy or to be innovators. The current Estimates give us little room for innovation or creativity. We must prove that devolution is more than just an expensive administration process.
Mrs Nelis:
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. This has been a very constructive and worthwhile debate, and, while many Members may feel it is a fait accompli, the concerns Members have raised are reflected across the Six Counties. I know that the Minister - and it is great to have a local Minister - will take note of these concerns.
I want to raise the issue of the £13·7 million reduction in the Housing Executive Budget, £10 million of which was a planned reduction from the previous year and £3·7 million of which was due to the loss of rental income on house sales. The impact of that will be a 28% reduction in adaptations. Members have raised this matter before, and those who sit in councils know that there is already a lengthy waiting list for adaptations. That reduction and the insufficient budget will further compound that problem, because the demand for adaptations always outstrips the budget for them. More particularly, it will put a stop to the installation of oil heating, which a lot of elderly people have been waiting for for years.
Many of the schemes that the Housing Executive had planned are going to be moved back until after Christmas, and the kitchen schemes have been abandoned. No kitchens at all are to be installed as part of the Housing Executive's planned cyclical maintenance. That is very serious.
The reason I am flagging these issues today, a Chathaoirligh, is that we are talking about next year's budget. We are already saying that this is what we want to happen next year. Next year's budget is crucial because a lot of what the Housing Executive is going to do after Christmas will gobble up next year's budget.
I want to make the case - and I think this will be supported by every Member in the Assembly; at least, we should agree it in principle - for allowing the Housing Executive to keep its surplus capital receipts to enable it address the serious underfunding in its budget, an underfunding that has been going on for years. Perhaps that could be agreed in principle over the next couple of years.
The Good Friday Agreement made special consideration for Irish language provision. I want to raise the issue of accommodation for Irish language teacher training. It may be included in the budget; I am not sure if it is. I want to remind the Minister that there is a very big demand for Irish language teacher training. However, there are only six available places in St Mary's College, Belfast, for teacher training through the medium of Irish, and that is hopelessly inadequate.
I also want to raise the serious situation of student grants. I know that the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, Mr Farren, is currently undertaking a review of student finances, and we hope that the review will recommend the restoration of student grants.
The replacement of student grants by loans has the potential to create a two-tier system in higher and further education. It is ironic - and I am sure that this is not lost on Members - that one hears the Labour Government currently enquiring into class discrimination in education admissions. However, if this Government continues, and if we do not address this issue in our budget allocation over the next few years, we will have exactly the same situation here.
I am glad to see that the Scottish Parliament has recommended in the Cubie Report that there should be a full restoration of student grants and the removal of tuition fees, because our future wealth is in our students and young people.
3.45 pm
Last, but not least - and I think the Minister is acutely aware of this - is the amount allocated to the IDB for grants. In Derry City and the Foyle area, which I represent, IDB's grant aid allocation to their client companies fell by 15% last year. I have serious concerns which are shared by the Public Accounts Committee. I come from a city that has the highest long-term endemic unemployment. We have lost 3,000 jobs over the last three years. We may not be able to do very much about the allocation to the IDB this year, but I would like to see this concern addressed. Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.
Mr Beggs:
I wish to discuss a range of issues, some of which will be relevant to everyone, and some of which will use local illustration. I am a Member of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee, and I want to turn first to that Department. In the Estimates £21·5 million is allocated for student fees. Can the Minister tell us what provision, or options, are available for increasing departmental funding so that student arrangements, which have already been introduced to Scotland, England and Wales, can be reciprocated here? Are additional funds available? Are there reserve funds? That is a major issue which we must address soon.
With regard to capital expenditure, I, like many other Members, regret that there has not been an opportunity for detailed discussions of the Estimates. We do not know what lies behind many of the figures - for example, the capital expenditure reserved for further education colleges. It has not been possible so far to get to the bottom of what is envisaged here. How is this money to be spent?
My constituency, East Antrim, is one of the few in Northern Ireland without a further education college. The college servicing the constituency is in North Belfast. It is not convenient to the centres of population in East Antrim. Some of the £16·5 million should be used to support the planned redevelopment of a Larne campus building, which is currently closed. Again, there is an equality issue here. It is about equality of access for the people of East Antrim - particularly those in part-time education - who have to travel considerable distances.
Turning to wider educational issues, we are all aware of deficiencies in many school buildings. Millbrook Primary School - a state school not far from where I live - has been closed, not on educational grounds, but on health and safety grounds. That has resulted in the local community being scattered and disrupted, despite the fact that there is a need - and the local area plan highlights the fact that there is an estimated future need - for a school in the vicinity.
There is a great deal of concern that Irish medium schools with as few as 12 pupils are being considered while existing schools with 40 or 50 pupils are being closed, and the requirement of 100 plus has been set out for new builds in other areas. Again, where is the equality?
Turning to the roads and transport budget, I notice that £16 million has been set aside for rail services and approximately £20 million for road passenger services. These figures are only about half the levels of Government funding provided in England, Wales and Scotland for public transport. The Transport Research Institute in Edinburgh recently revealed that in 1998 Translink received 5·3p per passenger mile, while Scotrail received 22·1p per passenger mile, and Liverpool 41·5p. We are not funding our public transport.
During this period £1·42 per head of population was spent on Translink and the bus services in Northern Ireland, compared to £3·10 per head in Great Britain, excluding the London area.
There is inequality in the funds being put in to public transport. There is a need for re-investment in this area.
As was mentioned earlier, there is growing car ownership and growing congestion, whether on the M1, the M2 at Mallusk, on the A2 into Carrickfergus or the route into my own constituency in Larne. How is this going to be addressed? Improvement of public transport is one way of doing so, along with further investment in roads and rail. In order to encourage people to use public transport we must invest in it. We must improve the service and develop it to a level where people will choose to use it because it provides a better and faster service than the car.
A recent report by the transport watchdog of the General Consumer Council revealed that only 12% of Translink passengers at present have the option of travelling by car. Many people using public transport have no other option, so it is important that we invest in this area.
This is also an environmental issue that will affect the health of everybody in Belfast, whether in north, south, east or west Belfast. There is a great deal of congestion in the centre of Belfast, and the pollution is being released into the atmosphere. Everyone in Belfast, including children, is breathing that in. We have also an obligation to reduce pollution on a global level. Everyone recognises that public transport is a more energy-efficient means of transport for conveying people from A to B, and funding for this area must be increased in the future.
After reading the Estimates it is unclear whether EU funding has been allocated to any of the public transport services in the next financial year; perhaps the Minister will clarify that. I have had previous reports about this which gave me cause for concern. In particular, I am thinking about the Larne to Belfast railway line in my constituency. It is supposedly part of the trans-European network which transports people from Belfast to Glasgow, London or Dublin. I am not aware of funding from Europe having been allocated to upgrade this rail service, despite the fact that previous European money has been used for the Belfast to Dublin route and even the Bangor line. I urge that European funding should be made available for the rail services in East Antrim.
In relation to the Water Service, I welcome the increase in funding - it will receive £171 million during the next financial year. I recently attended a public meeting of the Friends of Larne Lough at which a celebrated environmental expert expressed major concerns about the environment and the pollution going into the lough, largely as a result of sewage, inadequate treatment, out-of-date treatment works and continuing expansion of new housing with no regard to the public infrastructure that has been provided to deal with the sewage problem which that has created. This pollution has arisen despite the fact that Larne Lough is an area of special scientific interest. I am flagging up the fact that it is an area that will require a great deal of expenditure in the future. It will be costly, but if we are to protect our environment, we will have to consider additional funding.
I hope that in the future we will be able to enjoy real scrutiny of the Estimates and have a better understanding of what has been presented. Decisions will not be easy because difficult cuts will have to be agreed. It will not be a case of everybody just wishing for additional expenditure. But that is what responsible representation and responsible, accountable democracy is about. I hope that we will all be up to making those difficult decisions which will be presented to us.
Mr O'Connor:
Like other Members, I am particularly concerned about the 3·5% cut in the housing allocation. As inflation is running at about 2·5%, we are talking about a 6% cut. It must be borne in mind that people in a Housing Executive house cannot afford to buy a house. When we talk about targeting social need, they are the people who need to be targeted.
Much has been made about house sales capital. Sooner or later that particular well will run dry and we shall have to make alternative provision. Owner occupancy is already 70% and it is unlikely to go much higher. We will have to make contingency plans for the future.
Mr S Wilson mentioned housing adaptations which presently cost £22 million per annum. If proper legislation were introduced, ensuring that all social housing would be built to the highest standard, we could do away with the need for many of these adaptations. Indeed, when multi-element repairs are being carried out and houses are being rewired, it would be just as easy to make the power points and light switches accessible for disabled people at no additional cost. I am concerned that many of these houses are between 35 and 40 years old, and because of this cut, there will be no new kitchens or bathrooms in the incoming year.
I turn to the Department for Regional Development's budget. As has been stated by Mr Beggs, who is also from East Antrim, two trans-European network routes run through the area - the railway link from Larne through to Dublin and Cork and the road network from Larne to Rosslare. I wonder what European funding is available for these particular routes, given that in the South of Ireland similar routes receive 85% European funding. Is there any potential for that here?
In the Department for Regional Development's budget, £20 million has been set aside for road passenger services, and £16 million for rail passenger services. That concerns me, although I appreciate the need for public transport and the need for a good public transport infrastructure in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company has been allowed to build up reserves of £40 million, when it should have been spending money on these projects all along. I am concerned about the financial management of such money.
This is the product of a comprehensive spending review announced to the Assembly 18 months ago by the former Minister, Paul Murphy. I believe that we should have our own comprehensive spending review and that we should start to look at the priorities for the people of Northern Ireland and how to deliver them, as opposed to discussing what someone from England thinks they ought to be.
With regard to the budget of the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, the Larne campus, as Mr Beggs has said, has been closed. To get a new campus, we have been told, ground will have to be sold to raise the finance.
4.00 pm
In the area where I live, we are talking about trying to educate and retrain, to motivate people for today's ever-increasing technological world, and without the provision of an institute-
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Will Members please refrain from carrying on a conversation while somebody is speaking?
Mr O'Connor:
The absence of an institute where that can be done is disadvantaging the people of East Antrim. I would also like to mention the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I was glad to hear the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety talk about the increased level of co-operation that was taking place. Hopefully, the research that the Department in Dublin has carried out will reduce some of the costs that are currently being incurred here on research into illnesses such as cancer.
In that Department there is also a public safety element, and when we hear about joined-up government, we should be considering that in terms of public safety. If the Department for Regional Development has to spend £10,000 straightening a particular part of a road, we must ask ourselves if it is better to do that, or treat God knows how many people who are going to have an accident there? When we talk about how much it is going to cost to put seat belts into school buses we must ask ourselves how much is it going to cost if we do not?
In terms of the whole aspect of public safety, I believe that each Department has a responsibility. If we are able, through this joined-up governmental process within our Executive, to make decisions when Departments interlink, that will save money in the long-term and be for the overall good of our people.
I would like to touch on two small points. The first is tourism, and we welcome the fact that there is going to be a 5·7% increase in the Culture, Arts and Leisure budget, particularly as this is one of the areas where there is potential for growth. In areas that I represent, such as Glenarm and Carnlough, where there are not many employment opportunities, I hope that this will bring some wealth to the local economy. The second point is that I notice the Department for Regional Development refunds approximately £7 million on fuel duty to Translink. I am not quite clear about that, but I think it is a very serious issue and one that has to be looked at. Our road haulage industry is going down the pan. Unfortunately, we depend greatly on our road haulage industry and on our ports for our survival and economic prosperity. Something must be done to ensure that our road haulage operators can operate on a level playing field with those in the Irish Republic. That is what we have to aim for.
I would like to finish by saying that it is a pleasure to stand here and speak in an attempt to serve the people I represent in the presence of a locally elected Minister of Finance and Personnel. Indeed, I notice that the Minister for Social Development is also here. These are the people who are going to be delivering the goods to us - we hope. I thank them for their presence, I thank the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his attentiveness, and I hope that we will be able to paddle our own canoe from now on.
Mr Poots:
A number of Members said that there is not enough money in this budget. Of course, there never can be enough money in the budget, no matter how large it is. I am sure that Members could make demands of the Minister which would spend all that money. Nevertheless, there is some validity in that point, and a lot of it is down to the Barnett formula that sets the budget for Northern Ireland. As I understand it, that is basically a mere formula calculated solely on population and not taking other situations into account which could increase the budget.
The result is evident, and people often point out how well the Irish Republic is doing in comparison with Northern Ireland. In terms of business growth, the Irish Republic is not doing that much better than Northern Ireland. Growth in Northern Ireland is sitting at around 6·5% whereas in the Irish Republic it is around 8·5%. The key difference arises when it comes to public spending in that the growth that has taken place in the Irish Republic has allowed public spending to increase significantly. I suspect that the growth that has taken place in Northern Ireland has led to a reduction in the subvention that has normally come from the United Kingdom budget.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
There have been historical problems with our budget and historical reasons for our not having enough money to spend. The Minister of Education could do with £500 million to build new schools and the road and rail infrastructures are in a very bad condition. This is not just because of the actual budgets that have been allocated to us over the years. Much of the problem stems from the fact that the budgets have been dipped into by the Government to pay for security and compensation measures. The blame for that has to lie, more than anything else of course, with the people who carried out the terrorist acts, namely the paramilitary organisations. They must carry the can for the fact that so many schools are crumbling down around us and so many roads have bends on them where people lose their lives.
The Republican agenda is, of course, still being followed to the detriment of public spending in Northern Ireland. For example, the North/South bodies now set up are eating into budgets which could otherwise be better spent. The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is costing £431,000. The Food Safety Promotion Board, which the Minister told us this morning is advisory and therefore a talking shop, is costing £1 million. Waterways Inland is costing £1·3 million. The North/South Language Body is costing £2,303,000.
When we turn the page we find that funding for the libraries has been cut. Investment in those inland fisheries and waterways unaffected by the cross-border aspect has been cut. The Youth Council's budget has been cut. These cuts have taken place to finance North/South bodies, which we do not need.
I want to touch on how the budget cuts will affect some of the Departments, particularly the Department of the Environment. First of all, I should like to welcome the fact that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has allowed extra money raised in the Department of the Environment to be spent in it. Many more planning applications have been made. More money has come into the Planning Service. However, it has a backlog of over 4,000 cases. People may say that planning is a fairly trivial matter compared to health or education issues, but it affects these issues directly. If the planning system becomes clogged up, it delays virtually every other aspect. If one wishes to carry out development, and the planning for it does not go ahead within a reasonable period, it can often cost a great deal more money for the Department of Education and the Department of Health to carry on with those parts of their remits.
I also express concern at the funding available for the Environment and Heritage Service. That service currently needs 23 new professional officers to carry out its work. For a number of years now, it has not been operating properly. We hear many people expressing concern about the environment. In Northern Ireland we do not have enough money to employ the environmental officers needed to ensure that the environment is properly managed and maintained.
If one turns to the Department for Regional Development one sees more problems. In total, its budget amounts to around £400 million. It was recently announced that £180 million was needed to improve railway services alone. People from that Department recently told our council that they would need £200 million per annum just to maintain the current road infrastructure.Clearly they are not going to get that. An example is the case at the Spelga Dam, where the road collapsed. Basic maintenance was not carried out, with the result that it cost more than £1 million to repair that road, when a much smaller amount of money would have repaired it in the first instance.
Roads are breaking up, but the money is not available to carry out proper drainage and resource work, resulting in significant amounts of extra money being poured in to carry out necessary improvements. When towns get clogged up and bypasses are needed or when there are accident black spots, the money is not available for those roads either.
I am also concerned about the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, which has decided to cut its budget on the promotion of skills and abilities of those in work. One of the most important benefits that we could have in Northern Ireland is for people who are currently in work to receive further training and education. It is a major selling point in encouraging inward investment if we can say to investors that we have a Government who are prepared to help and invest in staff to bring them on, and a Government who are willing to educate staff to be better able to carry out their jobs, allowing their work to be done efficiently.
One glaring aspect of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is that it costs more to administer agriculture in Northern Ireland than is actually made by farmers throughout Northern Ireland. Something must be done when we have a Department that is spending more money than the people whom it is supposed to represent are making. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has to start delivering to the farming community of Northern Ireland. Many new measures have been introduced and implemented by that Department, yet the beef ban has not been lifted. Many conditions have been imposed on farmers in Northern Ireland, who are part of the United Kingdom, but which are not imposed on farmers in other parts of the European Union. This creates a problem as farmers are working at a loss. The Department is introducing and implementing these pieces of legislation at a high cost to the taxpayer, but they will deliver no tangible benefit to the taxpayer in the long run. That must also be addressed.
Mr McElduff:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is mian liom labhairt ar na meastúcháin le haghaidh seirbhísí agus caiteachais na Roinne Cultúir, Ealaíon agus Fóillíochta agus Roinn an Oideachais don bhliain 2000-01. Go bunúsach, is mian liom béim a leagan ar an mhaoiniú breise atá de dhíth ar-agus idir-an dá Roinn; sa dóigh is gur féidir cláir thábhachtacha a chur i gcrích agus déileáil le hachair thosaíochta go héifeachtach.
Ciallaíonn drochstaid cuid mhór d'fhoirgnimh ár gcuid scoltach go bhfuil gá le hathchóiriú raidiceach, mór-infheistiú airgid, agus ollphlean um thógáil scoltach leis na fadhbanna a bhaineas le droch-chóir a shárú. Tuigim gur achar é seo ina bhfuil suim faoi leith ag an Aire Máirtín Mac Aonghusa agus fáiltím roimh a fhócas ar an achar seo.
Tá gá le héalú ó bhotháin shoghluaiste mar sheomraí ranga.
Tá tábhacht na réamhscolaíochta luachmhar againn uilig agus tacaímid le leathnú an chur ar fáil de áiteacha maoinithe sa réamhscolaíocht d'iomlán ár gcuid páistí. Beidh tuilleadh maoinithe de dhíth-níl aon imeacht air seo.
Lena chois sin, beidh mór-infheistiú airgid de dhíth le Comhairle úr na Gaelscolaíochta a mhaoiniú mar is cóir agus chomh maith leis sin le freastal ar na riachtanais atá ag fás leo san oideachas lánGhaeilge-mar a leagadh amach chomh beacht sin i reachtaíocht Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta.
Beidh riachtanas do thraenáil fhóirsteanach do mhúinteoirí agus dá bhfoirne cúnta fosta.
Cuireann athrú na gcritéar reatha do aitheantas agus do mhaoiniú na nGaelscoltacha agus do na haonaid taobh istigh de scoltacha an Bhéarla béim ar an riachtanas le caiteachas breise san earnáil seo atá ag borradh léi.
Tá an iomad achar eile ar fhreagracht na Roinne Oideachais a chuireann brú ar an bhuiséad reatha.
Orthu seo tá dálaí seirbhíse, agus struchtúr agus riarachán thuarastal na múinteoirí; níos mó saoire ag múinteoirí gluaiseacht ar fud na hÉireann; tabhairt faoi fhadhb na ndaltaí nach mbaineann amach na spriocanna a leagtar amach dóibh sa chóras oideachais; agus airgead úr a fháil le díol as saináiseanna den scoth le riar ar riachtanais an oideachais speisialta.
Treoraíonn na pointí seo uilig an t-Aire chuige go gcaithfidh sé aithbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar mheastúcháin na Roinne Oideachais. Go raibh maith agat.
4.15 pm
I want to talk about the 2000-01 Estimates for services and expenditure by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and by the Department of Education. Essentially I wish to emphasise the need for increased funding for and across both Departments, so that crucial programmes can be delivered and that priority areas can be addressed effectively. Dr Birnie referred to
"a bigger cake, if not a bigger slice of the cake".
I appreciate that an already significant amount of money goes into the Department of Education. However, and this has been mentioned, the poor condition of many of our school buildings demands a radical overhaul. It demands a building plan, a major school capital investment programme, to overcome the many problems associated with inadequate and outdated accommodation. I know that this is an area in which our Minister for Education has a special interest, and I welcome this. We must move beyond the proliferation of mobile huts as classrooms.
We all value the importance of pre-school education and support the objective of extending the availability of funded pre-school places to all our children. Naturally, this will require additional funding, and there is no escaping this reality.
Major financial investment will be required to properly resource the new council for Irish medium education and to meet its growing needs, as outlined in part by Mrs Nelis and as legislated for so precisely in the Good Friday Agreement. The need for suitable training for teachers and their support staff, and the revision of the existing criteria for recognition and funding of Irish medium schools as well as units within English medium schools highlight the need for additional spending in this burgeoning sector. To refer to Sammy Wilson's unenlightened comments earlier, what is taking place is that actuality is being given to the Good Friday Agreement. Nothing is being sneaked in by the back or the front doors.
There are many other areas within the remit and responsibility of the Department of Education which place pressure on the current budget. These include the need to review the conditions of service and the structure and administration of teacher salaries; greater freedom for mobility of teachers throughout Ireland; the tackling of educational underachievement; and the need to find new money for better specialist facilities to ensure that the needs of pupils with special educational needs are met. One specific example is autistic children who need very specialised units and for whom provision at present is nowhere near adequate.
In my opinion, all of this should steer and guide the Minister in the future when he is reviewing the Estimate figures for the Department of Education, and as a member of the Statutory Committee for Education, I look forward to being properly consulted in advance.
Specifically in relation to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, I believe that a greater share of the budget than the allocated amount of £64,320,000 needs to be made available. I concur with Mr Close's remarks regarding the very positive potential of this Department. Mr Close quoted the example of sport, and that is very relevant. This is a fledgling Department which needs all the support it can muster to help unify our community.
To all intents and purposes, the overall arts allocation is inadequate having effectively remained static for a number of years now. There has been a marginal increase but I am calling for more. Community arts have suffered most as a consequence. This situation has persisted over recent years, and the reorientation of public money in this direction is required.
The business of promoting the Irish language and of contributing substantially toward the work of the North/South Language Body also present a challenge with major resource implications as we give what I call actuality to the Good Friday Agreement.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to the need to invest in road maintenance. The people west of the Bann need a re-balancing. I concur with Mr McCarthy and Mr McHugh, among others, who emphasised this earlier. Geoff Allister of Roads Service has said that where £30m is provided, £80m is required. That type of investment is urgently needed west of the Bann, with reference to secondary as well as primary roads. Go raibh maith agat.
Mr Ford:
Despite the efforts of the Minister and of Members around the Chamber, this debate is a charade. The Minister has laid the Estimates before us. We are all making our points, be they local or general, but at the end of the day we have no choice but to accept the Estimates and pass the Appropriation Bill by the accelerated procedure. Until the Assembly has a proper Programme of Government before it, there is no point in discussing a budget statement. We badly need to see the Executive's Programme of Government. What we have at the moment - and I am not insulting the Minister, because he has no choice at this time, and I say "at this time" advisedly - is a slavish read-across from the English Government. It is a programme prepared by the UK Government, who are now responsible solely for setting spending priorities in England.
In this context, we need to start using the size of the Assembly to its greatest effect and to make a real difference. In this developing, enlarging and deepening Europe, it is clear that, as someone once said, the nation state is now too big for the small things and too small for the big things. Our priorities should be those that we set, in light of policies set largely by Brussels, in areas like agriculture. The Assembly will be judged on its ability to get the small things right. That will be the test for Ministers and those who hold power here.
The first thing that we should look at, and which has been largely ignored as we all produce our wish lists - the Minister should not worry, I have a wish-list too - is the economy of Northern Ireland. Clearly we are not competitive compared to our competitors, or as we sometimes regard them, our colleagues, in Scotland, Wales or the Republic. There are many factors in this, such as the consequences of the troubles, which we should not make cheap political points about but must acknowledge, and over-dependence on a small number of declining industries. The problem with our inward investment strategy in recent years is that it has been largely targeted on dependency on grants rather than having some kind of tax break arrangement. Under-investment in our transport infrastructure has created problems for the economy. There is a major lack of skills in our workforce, particularly in the information economy, despite the high standard of education in the Province.
There are two particular factors affecting us in contrast to the Republic. First, we have no say in fiscal policies such as business taxation. Secondly, we are not just excluded from the Euro zone, but we are right up against the Euro zone. Members only have to look at the way certain businesses, such as petrol suppliers, are being affected all over Northern Ireland to see the problems that is creating.
We still have one of the largest public sectors, as a share of gross domestic product, in Europe. It is coming down, but it is still unnaturally high. I am not arguing for less public spending because it is quite clear that we need to preserve the level of public spending on essential services. Rather, we require more growth in the private sector.
There has been a lot of common ground in this debate. I do not intend to rehash all of it. Members around the Chamber have brought up the issue of finance for third level education. As the parent of one student and one potential student, I declare an interest. Our Scottish colleagues have shown, thanks to my political friends in the Liberal Democrats, that it is possible to change the way student finances are organised in a part of the United Kingdom. If we mean anything by what we say in the Assembly, we will be looking to Ministers to produce changes there.
We have had quite a lot of talk about the transport infrastructure and, as somebody who has been complaining about public transport, and especially railways, in his constituency for nine to ten years, I am delighted that we are talking about this and not just about pot holes in the Glenelly Valley or the state of the A26 or the Toome bypass. Work is clearly needed in all sections of transport, but it is needed more in public rather than in private transport and roads at this stage.
There is also the major issue of the Health Service, which is probably the number one concern for most people, especially when the annual winter crisis comes round and people react as if they did not expect it. People are clearly not happy with the quality of care. There is a major problem with the times of waiting lists and, while most of the debate has focused on the question of acute hospitals, there are many other parts of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's remit that also need to be looked at. Community care and preventive medicine are both integral parts of the quality of care we provide, and yet they are underfunded, significantly more so in many ways than the acute hospitals. It is all too easy to react to the needs of an acute hospital and forget the other basic underlying services which are just as essential, but much less politically sexy.
To go back to my past life as a social worker, there is absolutely no doubt that both psychiatric services and family and childcare services have not been funded at a level they should have been, and this is a major problem which needs to be addressed. We must ensure that those services are brought up to a reasonable level. Over a period of years we should be seeking to see that the proportion of spending on health and social services, as a share of GDP, rises to something rather closer to the European average, rather than lagging well below it. Those funds have to be found from somewhere, and the Minister will not be surprised to know that we should be seeking to do that by tax-varying powers. What we must ensure is that we do not just look to the regional rate or to devolving certain functions to district councils without giving them the money they need. They must not be used as a cheap way of providing essential services. We have to look to something which gets some sort of progressive and transparent taxation, and the rates, whether they be district or regional, are neither progressive nor transparent.
Tax-varying powers are going to be crucial for the future of the Assembly, as they are going to be crucial for the future of the Scottish Parliament. Even in the short to medium term, before we can address that issue, other issues could be addressed which could help to make some of the savings we need. We have a huge problem with administrative costs and bureaucracy, particularly in the Health Service with its four boards and seventeen, eighteen or nineteen trusts and massive duplication. I can never remember the number of trusts because the amalgamations seem to come and go at times. That all needs to be looked at. We also need to look at shared integrated services. There are too many cases - and education is the most obvious - where there is a duplication of services because people apparently will not travel from one area to another. We need to overcome that communal separation, which would benefit both the community and the finances.
I trust this is the last year in which we will have a budget statement without a complete Programme of Government before us. I would like to see a programme which will address the needs of Northern Ireland and begin to make a difference. We can then have a real debate on priorities and not this sham charade we have gone through today, with a series of wish-lists which do not address the real problem. That is the test which will be applied in years to come to the Ministers of this place, both collectively and individually.
Mr Speaker:
There are still seven Members who wish to speak in this Supply debate, which requires a cross-community vote. Then we have to take the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, which also requires a cross-community vote. Standing Orders require that we finish at 6.00 pm, so I appeal to Members still to speak to keep their remarks as concise as they can so that we complete as much business as possible. We must also be fair to the Minister who wishes to reply. Clearly he will not be able to do so briefly, given the number and range of matters that have been raised.