Northern Ireland Assembly

5.15 pm

Mr Neeson and Mr Hay raised issues in relation to the urgency of a decision on the natural gas pipeline. As Mr Hay indicated, it is no secret that I am keen to see the natural gas industry extended beyond the Greater Belfast area. The Executive however recognise that gas pipeline projects are a matter for the private sector to take forward. At present the Director General of Gas for Northern Ireland is assessing applications for licences to take gas to the north, north-west and the south-east areas. We await the final outcome with interest. It is for consideration what, if any, subsidy these schemes may require and their priority in the Executive's spending plans including the transitional programme.

A question was also raised in relation to Harland & Wolff. As we indicated last week, there has been encouraging news for Harland & Wolff and its employees. Officials at the IDB are maintaining close contact with the company on the details of the project and we will obviously be following progress closely.

Ms McWilliams raised a number of issues in relation to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety including the question of a transfer of responsibilities in the juvenile justice area and also the lack of care packages for people over the age of 65. She also expressed concerns in relation to GP fundholding. She also reminded me of a question that she had raised last week.

First, devolution has not brought about any changes in the responsibilities in the juvenile justice area. If there is any aspect of the system which is of particular concern I suggest that Ms McWilliams or Mr Attwood, who also raised this point, set out their concerns more fully in writing.

On the level of care packages it is more properly a matter for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to respond on the detailed allocation of funding in her Department, and the particular priority that she would attribute to a particular sector. I will ask her to respond directly on this matter.

The GP fundholding scheme will continue in Northern Ireland until at least April 2001. The ending of fundholding is linked with decisions on the development of primary care centre health and social services. These will be matters for the new Administration to consider.

Finally, as Ms McWilliams pointed out, I did not cover the DHSS Vote C in my opening remarks -but I will do so now. The provision sought for this Vote does show a substantial increase over the provision voted in 1999/2000. In that year significant additional receipts in respect of arrears of employers' contributions regarding compensation payments were received. This meant that the actual amount required in 1999/2000 was a lesser amount than normal. However, in 2001 these receipts will not be available and a higher level of provision is therefore required. I will explain this matter in more detail in writing to Ms McWilliams.

Ms McWilliams also raised the issue of student loans - as did many other Members, including Mr Ford and Mrs Nelis. In particular, Ms McWilliams raised questions about a £14 million provision being set aside to cover cancelled loans due to long-term deferment or death, and borrowers defaulting on their payments. In response to those questions, where a financial scheme is driven by loans there inevitably will be an element of bad debt that cannot be recovered. In terms of the broader questions relating to the whole issue of student loans and student finance in general, as Members are aware, a review of student finance in Northern Ireland commenced in March and is due to be completed by the end of the summer. The review will cover full-time and part-time students in further and higher education and in addition to tuition fees will include different forms of support, such as loans, allowances, access funds and discretionary awards. This will take account of recent developments in Scotland, England and Wales.

Ms McWilliams also asked about the significant drop in the provision for urban development and regeneration that was apparent in the Estimates.

This programme is a matter for the Minister for Social Development. However, I understand that the drop from £87m to £61m is attributable to a reduction in the EU peace programme. This is an initial allocation and will be looked at again in-year, when requirements are clear and the necessary public expenditure cover is made available.

Mr Sammy Wilson and Mary Nelis, among others, asked whether consideration would be given to increasing the housing allocation in the 2000 spending review to cope with problems caused by reductions in the current housing budget. Mr Shannon, among others, identified some of the particular problems. In 2000-01, the Housing Executive will have gross resources of £528 million. In 1999-2000, it received an additional £7·5 million as part of the Chancellor's initiative to help improve some of the worst Housing Executive estates. That was a one-off. Together with a reduction of £3·5 million in rental income this year as a result of the successful home sales scheme, this accounts for most of the shortfall Members have identified. The success of the sales programme also means that the Housing Executive has fewer houses to maintain. I look forward to considering the housing requirements of the Minister for Social Development in the Executive Committee during the 2000 spending review.

Sammy Wilson also raised the system of allocating funds within the schools capital budget. Within the total resources available, the capital programme is determined on the basis of educational need. This determination takes account of projects in the top three categories of the schools' planning list. It is informed by consultation with the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and other school interests about priorities, together with advisors and the Education and Training Inspectorate about the relative educational and building needs of the schools concerned. In addition, projects must be sufficiently advanced in planning to be considered for the programme.

The make-up of the 2000-01 programme is as follows: controlled schools, nine schemes, £28 million; maintained schools, six schemes, £23 million; voluntary grammar schools, two schemes, £19·4 million; grant-maintained schools, one scheme, £1·1 million. Although this year's capital new starts programme, at £72 million, is the largest to date, it was simply not possible to meet all the demands. A number of high priority schemes could not be included. Unsuccessful projects will be considered again next year. It is for the Minister of Education to comment on operational decisions should Members require further clarification on individual schools.

Mr Sammy Wilson raised the issue of accommodating the Education Minister in Castle Buildings. My Department has overall responsibility for providing Departments and their Ministers with accommodation, using a central accommodation budget. I can therefore assure the Member that any costs associated with the Minister's request will fall on that central budget and will not affect the main spending programmes of the Department of Education. That money comes out of the Department of Finance and Personnel's budget.

Many Members touched on wider accommodation issues with respect to the location of Civil Service jobs. As is obvious from previous questions, I am conscious of Members' interest in this matter. As I have said before, it is my intention to bring forward proposals for a review of accommodation needs as soon as possible, taking account of a number of relevant policy considerations, including the location of Civil Service jobs, new TSN and the broader equality agenda.

George Savage commented on the rural economy, the promotion of agriculture and the low incidence of BSE, and many others took up these points including Mr McHugh, Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr Bradley. I recognise the importance of the agriculture industry and the rural economy generally. In December 1999 Ms Rodgers announced an exercise aimed at developing a strategic vision for the future of the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland. This lay dormant for part of the period of suspension. The terms of reference for this exercise comprise identifying the problems and opportunities in the rural economy over the next decade, taking account of wider national, EU and global issues and, informed by this, developing a vision for the agri-food industry to enable the industry to map out a strategy to meet that vision. On the low incidence BSE status, the Minister has said from the outset that the case for Northern Ireland to be considered as a BSE low incidence region is very strong. I can confirm that she is giving this a very high priority and has been in close contact with the UK Agriculture Minister, who is very supportive.

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials are continuing to work closely with the other UK Agriculture Departments on a plan that explains how Northern Ireland could operate as a low incidence region. It is hoped that this plan will be submitted formally to the commission very soon. Simultaneously, the plan will be issued for wide public consultation throughout the UK.

Mr Savage was also the first of many Members to raise questions about developing new markets in Europe for the textile industry and to ask about what other measures could be put forward to support this vulnerable sector. Obviously the recent announcements of job losses in the industry are deeply regrettable. It should also be remembered that we still have some very strong and competitive companies. The future of the industry depends on the implementation of change and a focus on innovative management, product differentiation and export growth. As I indicated last week, both the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, along with the IDB, and the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, along with the Training and Employment Agency, are looking at precisely this area.

I was asked first by Mr Campbell and then by several other Members, including Dr O'Hagan, about EU social fund grants to community groups. Negotiations with the European Commission over the development of new structural fund programmes are proceeding with all speed, and we aim to ensure that the gap between the old and the new programmes is minimised. The new programme will be shaped to target Northern Ireland's needs for the years 2000-04, and groups presently receiving funding will have to submit an application and compete with any new ideas and proposals which are put forward.

Many questions were raised about the IDB. Both Mr P Doherty and Mr McHugh raised points about the IDB being held accountable for investment in underprivileged areas. Subject to the requirements of potential investors, IDB does encourage companies to look at locations across Northern Ireland and at new TSN areas in particular. However, the final decision on whether to locate rests with the investor. IDB is also working closely with all the councils to improve the quality of information available for inward investors and to promote all areas of Northern Ireland. Changes in the general political and security climate should, I hope, lead to improvements in this area.

Mr Close also raised some points on agriculture and rural development and, in particular, identified what appeared to be a significant drop in the budget for that Department's programme. That point was also taken up by Mr Bradley. As I have already said, I recognise the difficulties which the farming industry has been facing.

5.30 pm

Although the provision sought for 2000-01 is 38·4% lower than the final net provision for 1999-00, this disguises an increase in expenditure overall because of the treatment of receipts from the Intervention Board. On domestic policy, lines one and two of the Estimate, the reduced provision sought in 2000-01 arises because of additional resources allocated during 1999-00 to meet payments made under agri-environment schemes and for hill livestock compensation allowances. The Estimate does not yet reflect the additional resources announced by the Prime Minister at the agriculture summit on 30 March, which are worth some £16 million.

Mr Close, Mr Attwood and Mr O'Connor raised the issue of tourism. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board's budget for the 2000-01 financial year is £15·8 million. As the Members have stated, tourism continues to play an important role in the economic development of Northern Ireland. During 1999, an estimated 1·641 million visitors came here, contributing £255 million to the local economy. Spending by holiday visitors and domestic holiday makers accounts for approximately 1·8% of Northern Ireland's GDP and is estimated to sustain around 14,750 jobs. Given a peaceful scenario, tourism has the potential to reach levels similar to those of our neighbours in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland and to sustain an additional 20,000 jobs.

In a point not dissimilar to the one raised about superannuation in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's budget, Mr Close queried why net spending on teachers' superannuation has risen to £76 million, compared to £67 million last year. These payments reflect the working of the scheme, and that can vary year to year. Members should note that the expenditure is counted as annually managed expenditure, which means that the funds are automatically made available to Northern Ireland and do not impact on other spending. Naturally, the other side of that coin is that the savings on that budget cannot be used elsewhere.

Dr Hendron raised several issues in relation to aspects of health and social services. The provision for 2000-01 includes £169 million above the planned amount for 1999-00. As I said last week, that represents cash growth of over 9%. On residential childcare, an additional £1·5 million is being made available to health and social services boards in 2000-01 to make improvements in this area.

Of the additional resources announced by the Chancellor, a further £5 million is being made available to support the provision of more residential places, and to continue with the implementation of the Children Order 1995.

The development of cancer services is a key area for health and social services. This year an additional £8 million of recurrent money has been allocated, which will enable further improvements to be made in cancer services.

Mr Leslie highlighted the need for close liaison with Scotland in some areas, and flagged up the greater role that the private finance initiative could play in public service projects. He also emphasised the need for careful scrutiny of administrative costs. I fully agree with him. The debate today has highlighted the many demands that are being placed on our public services, and clearly we will not be able to achieve all that we desire without significant contributions from the private sector. PFI and PPP schemes provide a realistic and achievable way of securing this. Through my Department I will be pressing other Departments to be innovative and imaginative in this area, and I will also be looking to do all that we can to reduce the burden of administrative costs.

Mr Alban Maginness raised the issue that not enough money was being invested in the Water Service. This is clearly a matter for the Minister for Regional Development. However, I understand that the Water Service has a water resource strategy which is reviewed periodically to maintain the balance between increasing demand and the supplies of water available. Long-term proposals arising out of this strategy enable the provision of new sources to be planned and allow the efficient management of existing demand and supplies. The latest periodic review has just commenced and is due to report in 2001.

James Leslie and Patricia Lewsley questioned the number of bodies involved in administering education. Other Members subsequently took this point up and asked about the number of intermediary bodies involved in the administration of other programmes as well, not least in the areas of health and social services. This is an important concern and will obviously have to be dealt with within the Programme for Government and the overall allocation of public expenditure. I am sure that the respective Departments will welcome the support and involvement of the departmental Committees.

Several Members also raised issues to do with pressures on the running costs of the Department of the Environment. Dr McCrea, in particular, said that these were having a detrimental effect on road safety education, the planning service and the incorporation of EU directives into Northern Ireland legislation. I am aware of the pressures referred to, and I am pleased that Dr McCrea and other Members have recognised the efforts made by my Department to help the Department of the Environment to resolve the matter. Discussions with the Department are continuing in an effort to find further flexibility, though I am sure that Members will appreciate that this is only one of many areas where we face pressure on running costs.

Dr O'Hagan asked at least five questions. I will try to answer them briefly. She asked how much money had been set aside for the Civic Forum. Some £300,000 has been set aside in 2001 for the Civic Forum. She asked if the principle of additionality would be guaranteed in EU funding. Both the European grant and matching funding elements of the new Peace II programme will be directly additional to the Northern Ireland block, as was the case with the first peace programme money. I was also asked whether I would ensure that the Department would enshrine the principle of North/South co-operation in accordance with all relevant agreements? I will, of course, make every effort to ensure that the principle of North/South co-operation is enshrined in the Department of Finance and Personnel's contribution to the development and management of the peace programmes and other European programmes. I give a similar commitment to operating in terms of openness and transparency.

Dr O'Hagan's final question was about whether EU funds would be routed through councils rather than district partnerships, as at present. The peace programme and the structural funds are obviously subjects of further, developing discussion. Indeed, there is a meeting of the interim monitoring committee this week, and we will be looking at precisely how best to build on the success of those models that developed during the life of the first peace programme. We want to try to harness the capacities that exist at both council and partnership level to ensure that we make the most of the Peace II programme, and to ensure that we actually sustain those models beyond the life of the Peace II programme.

I am not one of those people who praises partnerships, says that they were great and then allows them to become a biodegradable carrier bag that dissolves at the end of the peace programme. We need to look very carefully at how we develop the work of both councils and partnerships, and take up many of the comments that were made about the need to make sure that people at local level do not just contribute to community development, but actually contribute to economic development as well.

Mr McCarthy had asked about plans to replace the Strangford ferry, and, in particular, raised questions about the estimates. It is obviously a matter for the Minister for Regional Development. However, I understand that provision has been made in the current 2001-02 financial years for replacement of the Strangford ferry.

We were also asked about the Ballycastle/Campbeltown ferry service by Ian Paisley Jnr. The latest position is that, in April, a new carrier expressed interest in operating the service for the 2000 summer season, and approached Moyle District Council for assistance to run the shore-based activities at Ballycastle. The Council has made a business case to the Department for Regional Development for financial support and this is currently being considered.

We were also asked by Mr McCrea and Mr Paisley Jnr when the money is going to come to the farmers. Obviously, several schemes are involved, each of which has a specific timetable for the submission of claims and the resultant payment to the claimant. These are covered by citizen's charter targets and every effort is made to meet these.

I referred earlier to the fact that my Department had allowed the Department of the Environment to use some of its receipts to relieve some of its serious service pressures. Some Members have subsequently raised the point in relation to the Housing Executive asking why, similarly, it should not keep its receipts. All receipts need to be looked at in relation to the most pressing needs across the block, and not linked automatically to any particular area, even the Department in which they arise. I think that Members would agree that that is only fair, because not all Departments have receipts available to them. It could skew the allocation of resources if we said that all receipts automatically fell within the programme area of the Department in which they arose. That said, I note the problems in housing that many Members have articulated today.

Mr Beggs raised concern about student awards and, in particular, asked whether additional funds could be allocated to that programme. I have already referred to the review that the Minister began earlier this year. Opportunities will arise in the monitoring rounds for the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to flag up any pressures arising in the current financial year. In relation to future years, this will be addressed in the 2000 spending review and will take account of the current review of student finance in Northern Ireland.

Mr Beggs and Mr O'Connor both asked about the case of EU funds to support trans-European networks. Negotiation on the new EU programmes is still in progress, and it is too early to know precisely what projects will be funded. I fully support the case for the development of trans-European networks, but there will be many conflicting demands on the new EU programmes. It might not be possible to support all the areas we wish.

Road maintenance funding was also raised by several Members, including Alban Maginness and Seamus Close. The maintenance of road and footway services and their underlying structure is vital to Northern Ireland's social and economic well-being. I understand it is the top priority of the Roads Service of the Department for Regional Development. The Main Estimates include some £39 million for expenditure on structural maintenance.

In the forthcoming spending review the Executive Committee will be looking very carefully at the priority which needs to be given to roads and public transport in the future.

Towards the end, Edwin Poots asked about the Barnett formula for determining Northern Ireland public expenditure allocations. That is not unrelated to some of the issues we will be dealing with in the 2000 spending review. The Barnett formula largely removes the need for detailed negotiation with the Treasury on spending needs, and is also applied to Scotland and Wales. To that extent it allows allocations to be scrutinised here. The Executive recognises the disadvantages of the mechanism, and we clearly have to look at these issues in the future.

5.45 pm

In relation to many of the questions identified earlier about railways and the need for new rolling stock, as well as raising questions Danny O'Connor proposed that asset leasing should be used to help the Transport Holding Company to buy new stock. This is not always a cost-effective means of procuring assets in the public sector, as the Government is able to borrow at lower rates than the private sector. There is not any great advantage in that option, if any at all. There may be considerable advantages in the sort of PFI/PPP options that some Members mentioned and which are currently being considered by the railways task force.

Several Members referred to underfunding in programmes in respect of the budget for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. As Members have recognised, the budget reflects the Executive Committee's decision to adopt the inherited public expenditure plans for 2000-01. There will be opportunities in the monitoring rounds for the Minister to flag-up any pressures that cannot be contained in the existing provision and in relation to future years. This will be addressed in the 2000 spending review.

Time is working against us, but I will make a couple more points. There was a suggestion from Mr Poots that EU receipts had not been spent to the best possible effect. As Minister of Finance, I attach a high priority to ensuring that EU receipts are spent to the best possible effect, with due regard to proper accountability and value for money. A wide range of projects has been funded under the current programme, and these projects have made a positive contribution to almost every aspect of Northern Ireland life. Like every programme it needs to be subject to continuing scrutiny and appraisal.

Some Members also raised questions about the payment of agri-monetary compensation. We are fully aware of the difficulties faced by the agriculture industry here, and the UK Government have already made - or are making - considerable sums of agri-monetary compensation available at considerable cost to the taxpayer. Payment of compensation cannot, however, be varied on a regional basis. In view of the many competing pressures on the public purse, compensation has been targeted on the hardest-pressed sectors - the various livestock sectors.

I will not have time to go through all the questions I wished to answer. However, I assure Members that the points they made about how unsatisfactory this process has been have been well registered. There is nobody who has more interest than I in ensuring that these areas are properly probed and examined at the level of the respective departmental Committees. When this happens there may be fewer questions of that nature for me to answer. There may be far more positive ideas for us to follow up, in terms of improvement, achieving greater efficiency and identifying other ways of resourcing these important programmes. As indicated, I take to heart the points that were made in relation to people's wish to have a full and proper input into the considerations on the 2000 spending review.

Unsatisfactory as it has been to have had to go through accelerated passage, as you, Mr Speaker, pointed out a fair number of Members have participated in this debate. If you discount, for instance, the Ministers and yourself, Mr Speaker - not that I would normally want to discount you - we are certainly doing very well in comparison to other places in terms of the range and breadth of involvement in the Chamber. We should not lose sight of that. Members have done a good day's work in this debate. It will give me and my ministerial Colleagues many more days work to do, and obviously it will be up to others to judge whether that turns out to be good work.

Mr Speaker:

If it is to pass, the motion must have cross-community support. I shall call for Ayes and for Noes. If it is clear that on all sides of the House there are Ayes, nem con, we shall not have a Division, in order to save time. If, however, there are Noes, the House will divide.

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

Resolved:

That a sum not exceeding £4,296,588,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund to complete the sum necessary to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 March 2001 for expenditure by Northern Ireland Departments.

Assembly Business

TOP

Mr Speaker:

Before moving to the next item of business I need to make a ruling. At the start of business today Dr Paisley raised the question of having a debate and was advised that it might be possible by leave of the Assembly. Under Initial Standing Orders 6(4), leave of the Assembly could be given, at that time, on the Floor of the House for a motion to be debated. However, this provision was not included in the new Standing Orders, which were agreed by the House. I therefore consider that it cannot be used in this case.

A private notice question can be put down on the day and considered. However, a private notice question, like any other question, must address a responsibility of a Minister or the Commission. I do not consider that the question of a visit by His Royal Highness Prince Charles is a matter over which any Minister has responsibility. Finally, even if a motion were put down for Standing Orders to be set aside to facilitate a debate, there would have to be a notice of motion on the Order Paper that had been passed by cross-community support. Since I am not at all clear that His Royal Highness has made any statement in this regard, and as one would be questioning his decision, albeit on advice, I consider that it might well be a debate that encroached on the Royal Prerogative. That would be entirely out of order for the Assembly, as for Westminster, and my ruling is that no such debate can take place.

Appropriation Bill: Second Stage

TOP

Mr Speaker:

The Second Stage of the Appropriation Bill has to be passed with cross-community support too, and I remind Members that business will be interrupted at 6 o'clock.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Durkan):

I beg to move:

That the Second Stage of the Appropriation Bill (N/A 5/99) be agreed.

We have had a full and useful debate on the Supply resolution. As the Appropriation Bill is concerned with the same matters, I do not propose to add to the points that I made in my introduction.

Mr Close:

We in the Alliance Party hope that this is the proverbial bottom line for the type of procedures that we have had to go through to arrive at this stage. I shall emphasise that point. When one considers that there were something like 27 Votes in the Estimates, covering £7 billion or £8 billion, and we were each allocated 10 minutes to speak, each Vote received only about 22 or 23 seconds. That demonstrates the inadequacy of this procedure.

I also hope that it is the bottom line in relation to unaccountability. I hope that, through a proper Programme of Government, those of us on the Finance and Personnel Committee will be given an opportunity to cost that Programme of Government properly, so that we can deliver the best possible services to the people of Northern Ireland who elected us. We are all here to serve them.

We also have a responsibility not only to seek more in our begging bowls, but to look at the figures in the Bill and try to realise the areas where savings can be made. The question that has already been touched upon is whether we need that number of education and library boards, health boards, health trusts and local authorities in Northern Ireland?

We must look at areas such as these to try to provide the savings necessary to provide better services for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Durkan:

It was clear from my remarks last week and today that I fully sympathise with the frustration of many Members and, in particular, with the frustration of the Finance and Personnel Committee. I have had to tell Members of the Committee that there are two Committees in my life: the departmental Committee and the Executive Committee. Unfortunately the way these things work means that often I can only go to one after I have been to the other. I know that is frustrating for members of the departmental Committee. In exploring how best to develop bespoke procedures that suit our particular circumstances, we need to address that issue so that we can have all the necessary scrutiny and include all the additional input into planning that Assembly Members can offer - not just via the Finance and Personnel Committee but via all the Committees. One of the things that struck me about today's debate was the very clear strength of insight and interest that was coming from Members, based on their experience in the departmental Committees. We want to try to build on that, and to harness that, to ensure that we improve how we plan and manage, so that in turn we can improve the delivery of public services.

Mr Speaker:

As I have indicated, this motion requires cross-community support too. If there are Ayes from all sides, nem con, I will consider that we do not need a Division.

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Appropriation Bill (NIA 5/99) be agreed.

The sitting was suspended at 5.57 pm.

<< Prev