Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 14 November 2000 (continued)
5.15 pm
Constructing more roads cannot reduce congestion. An increase of vehicles in Northern Ireland has been predicted, and there has already been considerable growth. Continued construction of new roads will create our equivalent of the M25 car park. While public transport and public infrastructure will play an important role in the reduction of congestion, it would be difficult for anyone to promise to remove it. The public transport system, including railways, will be important for minimising congestion. I would not like Members simply to walk away from the Budget and do nothing. I would like Members to focus and to apply pressure both on Ministers and on the departmental Committees they serve. Let us make savings and have money redirected to the areas where we want to spend it.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development (Mr A Maginness):
Clearly the good wine was left to the last. No, no. I do not mean myself - I mean Mr Roy Beggs.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I think he did too.
Mr A Maginness:
Naturally he would.
I have listened to many speeches today. Some were exhaustive; others were simply exhausting. It has been a good, interesting debate. For most people in the Chamber, today has marked a transition from adversarial politics to the politics of administration and responsibility. Even the DUP, in its semi-detached form, has adopted that mode. The Alliance Party, and perhaps even the Women's Coalition, have not shown the same transition. They are effectively in opposition and can continue to be adversarial in politics. Indulging in the populist stunts of the Alliance Party - attacking the regional rate and saying that Alliance would reduce it without saying where it would make the necessary cuts in the Budget - is utterly irresponsible and deceitful to the electorate. [Interruption].
I am speaking to the electorate from the Assembly. The voters need to know that the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Close) is misleading them by pretending that he can reduce the regional rate while maintaining this Budget, or indeed that he can increase this Budget and thus the level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland. That cannot be done. That is the reality.
Mr Close:
Will the Member give way?
Mr A Maginness:
No, the Member has had his say.
May I ask what his party's solution is to the reduction in the regional rate and the consequent reduction in the rates for its big houses. What is its solution? Its solution is an increase in income tax. Let the Alliance Party go to the electorate and say that it will increase income tax, as that is the reality of its position. The electorate should take that party to task for its deception and dishonesty.
This Budget is a milestone in our politics - [Interruption]
Mr Close:
Millstone.
Mr A Maginness:
There we have the childish antics of the Alliance Party - a millstone.
This is something to be proud of. This is a milestone in our politics; we have produced our first home-grown Budget in 30 years. We should be proud of that achievement. Each party should be proud of that achievement, even the "semi-detached" DUP, for it has unofficially, perhaps indirectly, contributed to this. I pay tribute to its Ministers for the work they have done, though I would love to see them in the Executive. Mr Wells says that they have done very well outside. How well could they have done had they been in the Executive - with their colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin - fighting for their Departments? I stress that if they were in, they could do better.
My constituency, North Belfast, has the worst housing problem in Northern Ireland. We have 880 applicants on the urgent housing list and 1600 on the main list. The Housing Executive produced a strategy to deal with that problem, which it also saw as the worst in Northern Ireland, but the budget allocated - and I have checked this in detail with the Housing Executive - does not provide the additional marginal money necessary to implement the strategy. One must invest in land, for one cannot build houses without it. The Housing Executive needs that money to kick-start the vesting of land and initiate the strategy.
The money is not there, and I blame the Minister for Social Development, Mr Maurice Morrow, for not going to the Northern Ireland Executive and carefully pointing out the necessity of having that money to kick-start the Housing Executive's strategy for dealing with the worst housing problem in Northern Ireland. Not going into the Executive to fight his corner for the additional money was a dereliction of duty. We are talking about £15 million over three years - £4·1 million this year. If the Housing Executive does not get that £4·1 million this year, the whole programme will be set back for another year. Next year we shall need more money, for the price of land will go up, putting the entire programme back. We are increasing rather than diminishing the problem in North Belfast.
I want to see the Minister for Social Development going to the Executive Committee to plead his case and get the extra money for the Housing Executive. If he does not do that, then I send a message in this Chamber today on behalf of the homeless people and those suffering poor housing conditions in North Belfast. Let Mr Durkan look at the Budget again and try to provide money to kick-start this vital strategy to ameliorate the terrible conditions in North Belfast - an area that has suffered more than any other part of Belfast from civil strife and distress. I ask the Minister to apply his mind and those of his officials to sorting out the situation caused by the dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister for Social Development, Mr Maurice Morrow.
The 10% increase in the overall regional development budget is a great achievement and represents a recognition by the Executive of the necessity of improving our infrastructure, which has been starved of investment over the past 30 years. We must improve our infrastructure if we are to develop a competitive economy. I welcome the 10·2% funding increase allocated to the Department.
I give credit to the Minister for Regional Development for his work with regard to that and also to the Regional Development Committee that I chair. It also lobbied hard to get that increase in funding. It is a measure of the importance that the Executive places on regional development that it has agreed to a 10% uplift.
The increase in funding for Northern Ireland Railways of £19·6 million next year is long overdue. We could not have avoided allocating that amount of money. Not to do so would have created an almost disastrous situation of paralysis for Northern Ireland Railways and the almost total closure of our railways. A number of Members have said that railways do not affect their constituencies, and I understand that. However, railways are an important aspect of the creation of a public transportation policy which will dynamically change our attitude towards transportation in the twenty-first century. We need to create a modern system in which public transport is in the lead, and the investment in railways is very important from that point of view.
Mr Wells referred to the £3 billion we require for the Water Service. I want to reiterate, as Chairman of the Regional Development Committee, that that money is necessary to bring our ageing water system up to European standards. We cannot neglect that. The real question, which has been posed by many Members, is this: where do we get that finance? We must be innovative in raising finance to carry out that type of development. It is unavoidable, and we must invest that money. If we do not, it will be disastrous for public health and, equally, for industrial and economic development.
I emphasise the point that we need £2 billion for the Roads Service to bring the road network up to a proper standard. That point has been well made, and I am not going to repeat it. The amount of money allocated to the Roads Service, an additional £3·8 million for roads structural maintenance, is inadequate. I have to say this openly and publicly. It represents a 9·5% increase when we needed 100%. I do not say this lightly. The reality is that if we do not invest money in roads structural maintenance our roads will simply decline further and further. That will affect not so much our urban areas, motorways and major roads but our minor roads, particularly in the rural areas. We must take account of that. We cannot deprive our rural population of proper access to road transportation. Many of those living in the countryside are entirely dependent on the motor car as a means of transportation.
There has been an allocation in this Budget to current concessionary fares. We know that the Minister and, indeed, the previous Minister, Mr P Robinson, proposed a new scheme to allow free travel for older people. This might interest you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
5.30 pm
All Members, irrespective of age, will back such a scheme. However, given the absence of an allocation in the Budget, it will be impossible to implement it, unless the district councils - the alternative that has been proposed - are prepared to carry the burden. The money needed for the new scheme could be about £7 million, but it would provide a much needed service for older people.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance and Personnel on the innovative idea of creating the Executive Programme Funds. As Chairman of the Regional Development Committee, I am particularly pleased to note that there is an indicative figure of £146 million in the Executive Programme Fund for infrastructure. I hope that those indicative figures will materialise over the next three years. The Minister should make clear how those funds will be accessed and what criteria will be used to satisfy the fundholder - the Northern Ireland Executive - that the applicant Department is entitled to receive those funds. It is an interesting and valuable new way of distributing funding across the gamut of departmental responsibilities.
I congratulate the Minister on the Budget. It will be recognised as definitive and will bring a greater maturity to our politics.
Mr S Wilson:
Unlike my Colleague Mr Wells, I do not have to worry about making statements for local papers or comments for local constituents. I was not even going to speak in the debate, but I was provoked into doing so by some other speakers. We need to clear up some of the issues that were raised.
It is a pity that some of those who got so incensed about my party's position are not still here. I congratulate Mr Close on staying through this marathon session, although he was one of the people who provoked me. Mr Cobain also provoked me, but he never stays any longer than his own speech, because he does not like it when the spotlight falls on what he says. That is a bit ironic, because it is only towards the end that this lengthy debate has sparked into life. I have never seen the Member for East Antrim (Mr Beggs) - who seems to have got a little tired - so animated. We can always rely on Cllr Maginness - I mean Mr Maginness: I thought I was somewhere else - to get animated when his argument is weak. He always uses bluster to cover the weakness of his argument.
I want to make the position clear from the start: the DUP is opposed to the Budget. We are opposed to it for a number of reasons, and I will go through them. The criticisms that have been made to date have fallen into two categories. They focus either on the way in which the money is to be raised to finance this programme, or on the ways in which the money is to be spent.
First, I will deal with the arguments which have been put forward about the way the money is to be raised. My Colleague Mr Dodds made a very clear point in his opening remarks for the party, and I want to reinforce it now at the very end of our submission. We do not believe that the proper way to raise money for this programme is to keep the 8% increase in the regional rate.
Incidentally, that increase was introduced under the direct rule Administration and we were told at the time that it was specifically ring-fenced for two years as the capital investment needed for the infrastructure for the Water Service. In spite of the fact that the two years have now passed, we are simply having it added on once again. I see that it has been described in many ways: the Durkan tax, the SDLP stealth tax, the sneaky tax. The whole point about it is that it has no transparency. I do not believe that that is the proper way to raise the money required for this programme.
Many suggestions have been made by Sinn Féin. We got the usual thing - the people who hate the Brits hold out their hands and tell us that the Brits should pay up. That is what we got from Gerry McHugh. I think he said it in Irish, I am not too sure. He said that the British Government must bear their responsibilities for what has happened over the last 30 years.
My recollection is that over the last 30 years billions of pounds have been spent in Northern Ireland that could have been spent on improving the infrastructure. Billions of pounds have been spent undoing the work of the bombers, compensating families who have had people killed and trying to increase investment in an economy that investors were scared of, or scared out of. All that was not because of the activities of the British Government but because of the activities of the very people who, begging bowl in hand, are now demanding that the British Government should live up to their responsibilities and give us the money for this programme.
I am not too sure where the Alliance Party wants the money to come from. I know where it does not want it to come from. It does not want it to come from the rates or from rent rises or from the tax powers which may come to the Assembly, because it has consistently refused to admit that the tax powers are actually tax raising powers - it calls them tax variation powers.
Mr Close said I was a slow learner, but I do know that you cannot have a spending programme financed by lowering taxes. That is one thing I do know - slow learner or not. What is worse, apparently this Programme for Government is not even sufficient for the Alliance Party.
Yesterday, in five minutes, I counted six new things that Mr McCarthy wanted, and because he did not get the rest of them in he mentioned a few more things today. Eileen Bell wanted more money for five different things which she said either were not covered in the Budget or were not covered sufficiently.
Dr McDonnell:
Santa Claus is coming.
Mr S Wilson:
It does sound a bit like Santa Claus.
However, despite this, taxes are not to be raised. They are to be varied, the regional rate increase is to be stopped and somehow by magic it is all going to be financed.
Mr Close suggested that administration costs be reduced, but they will not be reduced in the Province overnight - and certainly not by the end of December. The First Minister, who also thinks that a magic wand can be waved to get things done, is talking about public administration being looked at in a year.
All attempts, to date, at changing the administration of Northern Ireland by the pro-agreement parties have not saved money - they have cost money. There have been extra Departments, North/South bodies, about 15 review bodies - I think that is what the First Minister told the House - and the Civic Forum, so the forays into administration have not led to any savings.
It is very courageous of Mr Close to suggest that looking at administration costs might save money. That is paramount to a redundancy programme for half the Alliance Party. The Alliance Party peoples the bodies that he is seeking to save money from. I hear that the Alliance Party has an alternative to 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire?' it is a game called 'Who Wants a Quango Chair?' I imagine that some of Mr Close's party members might not be too pleased at his suggestion.
When Members vote on the Programme for Government they should look at the issues where there is no added value, or at those that will lead to discrimination in favour of some of the politically correct issues included in the Belfast Agreement. Look at those things and vote against them. That is the immediate way of dealing with the issue. Members can do that before the end of the financial year so that the Programme for Government can go ahead with those changes. It will be interesting to see if the Alliance Party will be prepared to go along with those immediate remedies.
It is a pity that the Chairman of the Social Development Committee is not in the Chamber. Mr Cobain told us how deeply he felt about the poor people living in Housing Executive houses who were going to be pushed to the poverty line and to starvation by a rent increase. He blamed the Minister for Social Development for something that has not even happened yet. He blamed him for intending to put these people on the breadline as a result of the impending rent increase.
Mr Cobain must have gone to the same mathematics class as Mr Close. He said that the Minister for Social Development intends to raise rents by 20%. He has not been able to explain where he heard that, but he said that publicly.
Mr Cobain is not here, but he did have some cheerleaders when he made his impassioned speech on behalf of the impoverished tenants in Housing Executive houses. Mr Davis, a Deputy Whip, was cheering him on. Since Mr Cobain is not here to reply, maybe one of his Colleagues will answer on his behalf.
5.45 pm
We would have no problem obtaining the money to avoid the 2% above-inflation increase in Housing Executive rents by cutting the amount spent on North/South bodies by 50%. I invite Colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party who have a deep social conscience to tell me - as Mr Close said, in a simple "yes" or "no" answer - if they are prepared to vote for an amendment which cuts the North/South bodies budget by 50% in order to save livelihoods and put bread on the tables of Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants?
Mr Leslie:
Will the Member advise the House - his Colleague Mr Dodds failed to do so - how he would avoid having this money spent in West Tyrone? It could indeed be saved.
Mr S Wilson:
Again, for the slow learners. When you are making amendments to a budget, you simply amend it. You do not spend money on one thing - you spend it on something else. It is as simple as that. When an amendment of that nature is put to the Assembly, will those who so vociferously spoke up on behalf of Housing Executive tenants be prepared to vote for it?
Mr Davis:
I am surprised by Mr Wilson's comments. I was always led to believe that in Belfast city hall Mr Cobain and he were on the same wavelength.
Mr S Wilson:
Nobody is on the same wavelength as Mr Cobain - including many of his Colleagues. I have not got an answer to my question yet, but I am still prepared to give way if anyone wishes to give me an answer.
Mr Davis:
I always wondered why Mr Wilson got the name Red Sam. That is why I am pointing out that he is on the same wavelength as Mr Cobain.
Mr S Wilson:
I suppose Red Sam is better than red-faced Cobain - if he had been here and had had to reply to that. There are people such as Mr McElduff who would say that to cut North/South bodies would be to reduce a service provided by a very important element. Mr McElduff, in his usual Republican rhetoric, went overboard and talked about the all-island economy, this new Canaan -a land flowing with milk and honey. Mind you, he is not too far removed from the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party who eulogised about North/South bodies and how important they were in developing an all-island economy when he was questioned by Mr Dodds, Mr Poots and myself on the Programme for Government. He also talked about sailing down the river during his holidays and how the tourist body would help to promote that.
Significant savings could be made if we cut out all the political trappings that were included in the Good Friday Agreement simply to please IRA/Sinn Féin. If they were removed it would make no difference to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland.
With regard to other areas of the budget, mention was made - as I pointed out to the Member for East Antrim and I am not going to point it out again - about administration costs in some of the Departments. Ironically, the First Minister's Department is the one that has had the highest departmental expenses.
Mr Beggs:
Does the Member also acknowledge that Departments, which Members from his party have responsibility for, have also had high administration costs and that a reduction in those high central funding increases is needed?
Mr S Wilson:
I know the Member had difficulty with reading the document, because he could not find the figures for the Office of the First Minister. I had to point them out to him, although it was on the same line as all the others being read. He will notice, however, that the lowest increase is in a Department run by a DUP Minister. The increase for the Department for Regional Development is 3·5%, and that is the lowest increase of all the Departments.
Mr Beggs:
Is the Member talking about simple administration costs or the departmental running costs? If the Member examines the centre of the section on administration costs, he will find that he is incorrect.
Mr S Wilson:
The odd thing - and the record, which the Member can check tomorrow, will show this - is that the Member went through the catalogue of figures that he referred to. He went through the figures for administration and quoted the departmental running costs on every occasion. That is the figure on which he based his complaint about administrative costs. I have made it quite clear, and the Budget makes it quite clear, that the lowest increase in departmental running cost was for the Department for Regional Development.
I want to speak for a minute about education. I notice that the Minister of Education is not here today, in spite of the fact that yesterday a Sinn Féin spokesman, who was trying to play down the row about the flying of the flag over this Building today, stressed the importance of today's Budget and said that the Sinn Féin Ministers would be playing a full role. It is a great pity that the Sinn Féin Minister of Education is not present to hear some of the views being expressed. If the flying of the flag above this Building keeps Martin McGuinness out of it, I would advocate that we fly it every day.
If we look at the figures for the Department of Education, we find that the departmental running costs have gone up by 11·9%. However, the Minister expects schools to exist on an increase of only 7·2%. He cannot live within certain figures, yet he expects schools to live within a far smaller increase. On top of that, he is squandering money on yet another body to oversee Irish-medium education. He wants to discriminate in favour of Irish-medium education and integrated education. I hope that we will see a less biased use of the Budget next time. In the past, the Minister of Education has also dealt with the money that he has been given stewardship of in a most cavalier manner, as can be seen in the way that he divided up the capital spending last year.
I just want to come to the last point, and I see that Mr Alban Maginness has gone. No, he has not. I thought his pseudo rage was spent earlier on. Comments were made about the performance of the Minister for Social Development and the effect that his poor performance and non-attendance at the Executive was having on the waiting lists in north Belfast.
I am the first to admit that there is great housing need in north Belfast. It is important that funding be made available to ensure that the housing programme for North Belfast is put through. Mr Maginness is known for the sharpness of his mind and the brilliance of his logic - and his French, of course - but they were not demonstrated today. He criticised the Minister for Social Development for not getting enough money for housing in North Belfast because he did not go to the Executive. He had hardly got the words out before he was praising the Minister for Regional Development, who also did not go to the Executive, for getting so much money for the railways.
Either you get the money because you go to the Executive, or you do not get the money because you do not go to the Executive, but you cannot have it both ways. At the end of the day the Budget and the way the money is divided out fall at the door of his Colleague. I am sure that he has spoken to Mr Durkan about housing need in north Belfast. It appears that his pleas have been ineffective, because the money has not been allocated. However, when it comes -
Mr Byrne:
Surely Mr Wilson will acknowledge that Mr Maginness made a passionate plea to the Minister of Finance to hear the call from north Belfast, and surely that was good politics. He was not afraid to ask one of his party Colleagues.
Mr S Wilson:
I wonder if the passionate plea has just been made now - whether this thought has just occurred to Mr Maginness, or whether he made his plea before the budget allocation was made. That is usually the best way of doing it - get the crumbs before the cake has been sliced up.
Mr A Maginness:
Is the Member saying that he has knowledge of the Minister going to the Executive and asking, specifically, for extra money in order to implement the north Belfast housing strategy? Is he saying that the Minister did that?
Mr S Wilson:
I am saying that the Minister for Social Development made an impassioned plea, probably more impassioned than the Member for North Belfast would ever be capable of - [Interruption]
Three of the last four minutes have been taken up by the Member for North Belfast trying to justify himself. It has not been my responsibility that it has gone on for that length of time.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I was addressing him as well.
Mr S Wilson:
Thank you. I am going to finish now.
The Minister for Social Development made his point to the person who makes the final decision on the Budget. Many people would say that the drift in the amount of money available for the housing budget has actually stopped as a result of the representations made by the Minister for Social Development. In previous years there was a large fall in the housing budget, which has now stopped, and the Minister needs to be thanked for that.
At the end of the day Mr Maginness, and others who feel strongly about this, will have the opportunity to vote for money for housing when amendments come before the House. As he has quite rightly told us, there is a cake that needs to be sliced up, and we will be suggesting were the slices could be made smaller with the minimum of pain. I look forward to his support in times to come.
6.00 pm
The Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr ONeill):
We have been entertained by a wide-ranging debate that has travelled the length and breadth of Northern Ireland and has gone through mountains, lowlands and all kinds of animals.
I rise with trepidation after your remarks to me earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, it is interesting to note the areas that have been covered with the main argument being over how to raise money to fund the programme. I was outside a few minutes ago and picked up a letter in my pigeonhole from Mr Gibson, the DUP Member for West Tyrone. Mr Gibson has invited Members to a special meeting in the Long Gallery to discuss how to reward councillors adequately, how to acknowledge many years' service for which they were paid. Perhaps the DUP, in its enthusiasm for saving money, could tell us how this will be funded and what policy of the rest of the House, unpopular to the DUP, it wants to remove. Whether it is a cross-border body or whatever, it is just a little hypocritical. However, Members will be relieved, having listened to all of the -
Mr P Robinson:
I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Is the Member aware that the national association represents all political parties in this Chamber and that a united view has been put forward? The Member must answer himself the question that he poses to this side. The difference is that this side has an answer; we will put forward proposals on savings. I wonder what proposals the Member will bring forward.
Mr ONeill:
Today I listened very carefully when Mr Robinson told us about his new colleague Rover, which is of as much political importance as the contribution he has just made.
I even heard a jocular suggestion from behind me that perhaps Rover is the new Minister-in-waiting. He could be a Minister for Regional Development who knows that sheep do not graze on the Mournes in winter. However, I have only two areas to comment on.
I have been asked to deliver the first comment on behalf of the Committee I chair - Culture, Arts and Leisure - and I want to raise a few points with the Minister for the record. The Committee wants to express its disappointment that many of the bids that the Committee made have not been granted. Historically, the Department's existing activities have been underfunded and for this reason more money should be made available. Members might be interested to know that there has been no Budget increase in any of the major activities of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure for almost 10 years. Consequently, there has been a reduction in available funding. There is a serious need to readjust that. The Department's total bid was modest when compared to its assessment of need, and yet little more than 25% of it was agreed.
The Committee is particularly concerned that the £2 million bid to buy out commercial fishing nets around the Northern Ireland coastline was not successful. In the Committee's inquiry into inland fisheries, commercial netting has been identified as a major contributor to the decline in the salmon population of Northern Ireland's rivers. If there is one thing we can do to help stabilise salmon stocks, this is it.
The Committee's inquiry into inland fisheries has underlined the importance of an attractive recreational tourist industry to the Northern Ireland economy.
The Committee believes that the Department must pursue other resources to get the buying of commercial fishing nets started as soon as possible.
The Committee was also concerned that the bid for arts funding has only been met in part. Inevitability, this will be detrimental to the Department's plans to open up the arts to a greater proportion of the people in Northern Ireland and, by doing so, to improve the quality of life for all. I can announce that the Committee has decided to make accessibility to the arts the subject of its next inquiry. I can almost guarantee that this will draw attention to the lack of funding available.
It is also noted that the Department's spending plans do not include any funding for safety improvements to existing motorcycle road-racing facilities. We are all aware of the major concerns that surround that sport. It has been the subject of much debate - by the Committee and in the Department and the various groups involved in the sport - and it is an area that requires urgent attention. It is vital that funding be made available for safety in this sport. Even small amounts of money would go a tremendously long way in trying to improve the situation.
The Department ought to pursue this underfunding situation rigorously by registering its disappointment at the shortfall in the meeting of the bids and by looking for additional funding in future years. The Committee pledges its support for the Department in that activity.
The second area that I will comment on relates to my membership of the Social Development Committee, and my interest in housing in particular. I express, as other Members have done, deep concern that the funding bid for north Belfast was not met. When bidding for funds, one expects not to get every bid that one puts in. That is understandable. However, it is a great pity that this bid failed, because, as almost everyone is aware, there is a great need for housing in the north Belfast area. People should also be aware that the strategic plan prepared by the Housing Executive is very imaginative, thorough, competent and realistic. It was a great disappointment that the money was not found to begin to implement it properly this year. My Colleague Alban Maginness has dealt extensively with the matter.
I believe - and I am not saying this to score a political point - that had the Minister for Social Development been in there fighting his corner, his arguments, backed up by such an imaginative plan, would have made a significant impact in favour of securing that additional funding. I do not think that any of his supporters here this evening would disagree with the fact that he could have made an impact. I believe that he would have liked to do so. I had hoped that a start could have been made. It is not necessarily the Minister that I criticise; it is the foolish policy of the DUP in not involving itself in the central and full Executive activity. That is a great pity.
I will not comment further. All other aspects have been adequately covered in this wide-ranging debate.
The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Durkan):
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I was grateful too for the opportunity of listening to it, even though I felt at times that I was in detention. It has been a useful debate. I am sure that all Members of the Assembly will join with me in thanking the Finance and Personnel Committee for its work that has led to today's debate. I look forward to the further results of its work that will flow from the debate.
At times this has been a constructive debate, and it has certainly been wide-ranging. The draft Budget is obviously an important document that requires careful study by the Assembly and by the respective departmental Committees. It has been guided by the Programme for Government, which was debated yesterday - albeit not in the most satisfactory circumstances, given time constraints. In time, through the allocation of resources, this Budget will clearly support the objectives of that Programme for Government.
I have listened carefully to the contributions made to the debate. Together with colleagues in the Executive, I will reflect on the concerns expressed by Members and on some of the suggestions made both here and at Committee level. I know that the Finance and Personnel Committee has further work to do to prepare conclusions, which I will find very helpful in understanding fully, and in reconciling, some of the diverse views on the draft Budget which have been expressed in the Assembly and its Committees. Those conclusions will need to be available in time for consideration of any revisions to the Budget for the next financial year. We need to complete those revisions early in December, so that a revised Budget can be introduced on 11 December, prior to the final vote, which, subject to the usual consideration of timetables by the Business Committee, is scheduled for 18 December. Obviously, the timetable is tight, and the cycle has been very demanding for all concerned. However, even with those difficulties, the fact that we are engaging in debates on a Programme for Government and a Budget manifests clearly the real politics that have been made possible by the Agreement and the new arrangements.
The revised Budget will include some clarification and some adjustment of the figure work. At a more significant level, the Executive will wish to consider whether changes could be made to improve the balance between spending areas. The views of the Assembly on this point will obviously be important. In principle, with a fixed departmental expenditure limit, any increase has to be offset by a corresponding decrease. We will, as ever, continue to look in the Departments' planning figures for any savings which could be redeployed. It is clearly a very important principle that money not required for the purpose for which it was originally allocated should be reabsorbed for reallocation by the Executive and the Assembly.
There were several contributions during yesterday's debate, and again today, on the difficulties arising from the Barnett formula. As I have made clear on many occasions, the Executive is determined to seek the best possible outcome for our spending processes, and we do not find the Barnett mechanism satisfactory or appropriate. While seeking additional resources from the Treasury however, it is important to bear in mind that we are likely to be regarded as well provided for, and it may be argued that we do reasonably well in terms of parity service. There is much to discuss. This is not a matter of simple tactics, or of walking into the Treasury and getting things changed overnight by Barnett-storming. Clearly, there are delicate and sensitive issues involved - not just for ourselves, but for others elsewhere as well.
We need to look very carefully at the regional rate which, as everyone is aware, forms an important part of the financing of our spending power. I have already indicated that we propose a substantial review of rating policy.
6.15 pm
The fact that that review is pending does not mean, if we choose to forgo revenue in the meantime from the source that the rates offer, that it is not going to be very difficult to expect the Treasury to make up the resulting deficiency in our spending power. Any deficiency that we choose, by either abolishing or not increasing the regional rate, will have to be lived with or made good by ourselves. It is not a deficiency that the Treasury will pick up.
The reality is that there are limitations on our allocation, and that is unsatisfactory for all the reasons that Members have identified. I am glad that Members appreciate the significance of the Barnett formula and that they are becoming aware of its adverse effects, which will be compounded further over time. There would not have been that appreciation, nor would there have been that degree of political or public awareness, were it not for the fact that we now have the various institutions in place. That itself is a score for transparency in relation to our Budget-setting exercises.
The Executive is determined that the resources available are used in the best possible way and that action is taken to improve efficiency and effectiveness, and the targeting of actions on a priority basis. That is constantly emphasised in the Programme for Government and the Budget. We need to work together to maximise our advantage in relation to the Treasury. That is central and important.
I hope that Members appreciate that, within the available resources, more money can only be spent in one area if there are offsetting reductions elsewhere. The Executive will therefore need to be convinced that the benefits of any proposed changes will clearly outweigh the sacrifices that will have to be made in other service areas.
A number of points and questions have been raised during the debate, and I will cover as many of those as I can now.
Mr Molloy, as Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, made a point that was taken up by others, including Mr Close, Mr Neeson and Mr Beggs. That question was in relation to the difficulty arising from the timetable and the process that we are dealing with this year. It has been constrained, and it does cause difficulties for all concerned. That includes the Executive as well as the Assembly and its Committees. The intention is that the cycle will be different next year and that the agreed Programme for Government should be the starting point to inform the process.
Members should appreciate that when we adopt the Programme for Government in the new year it will lay down a prospectus, including budgetary precepts, for future years. Those precepts will already be there. They will be information that the Assembly and the various Committees will already have.
When we present the revised Budget in December we will also present indicative figures for the Departments for years two and three. Mr Dodds raised the point that the draft Budget statement presented indicative figures for the Executive programme funds for years two and three, but not for the Departments. At the time of the Budget statement, given that people were criticising the fact that the draft annual Budget for next year was published before the Programme for Government, I made the point that it would have been ridiculous for us then to have issued full indicative allocations for all three years. We want to continue the work on those indicative allocations for years two and three.
Members and Committees should remember that they will have that work available to them as well. That is information that the Committees can use and work on from now on - they do not need to wait for a starting gun from me, the Executive or anyone else.
The Committees can carry on the important scrutiny work that many Members have emphasised, and they are free to pursue that on the basis of that information to see how good the plans are for that expenditure. When we bring forward the consolidated Programme for Government in January it will include detailed public service agreements for the Departments.
Those public service agreements must spell out the actions and targets. That will assist the Committees in monitoring and tracking the performance of Departments - or those who are using departmental money - and the effectiveness of spending. That is all information that will contribute to the Committees' being able to get into their stride in their important role.
The fact that we are changing the nature of the information and management systems means that Committees can do much more, all year round, in advancing probing and developmental work in these areas. There is no question of Committees being denied opportunities. The arrangements that will be brought forward will equip and enable them to perform their role and their public duties in a way that satisfies them and is much more effective.
As I have already mentioned, I agree that next year we should introduce the Budget at an earlier stage. We will be able to do that, as we will be working in a more established context because we will have the Programme for Government and the indicative allocations for the next two years already established.
Dr Birnie raised a number of points, particularly in relation to the budget of the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. He touched on the issue of adult basic education, a subject that John Dallat also mentioned. I recognise, and the Executive recognises, that serious problems exist. The Department will be able to compete for Executive programme funds to supplement the amount that has been allocated. The provision made for the Department will allow for pilot projects to take place, and the Minister, Seán Farren, has made it clear that he will be using money from the Department's budget to do that.
Dr Birnie, Mr McGrady, Mr Dodds and several others highlighted the limitations of the Barnett formula and asked what was being done about it. As I said in my opening remarks, Barnett is a flawed mechanism that does not directly address need. That said, it has the attraction of being reasonably simple to apply. Once we get the allocation, we have discretion in how we use it, rather than having to trace and clear everything through the Treasury. The Barnett formula, however, is a very serious problem for us in that it does not address need or allow us to get the increases in service spending that are going elsewhere as part of the headline announcements made during the summer. It raises issues of basic equity that we want to address properly and competently.
When we set out to do this at Executive level, not everyone counselled us that we should do so. Some counselled against raising the issue with the Treasury at all. It is interesting to note that more people are now of the view that we need to take up this issue robustly, with a planned approach. We must take a planned approach because the Treasury is not an easy touch on anything, and it is certainly not going to be an easy touch on this point. It will respond in ways that challenge aspects of our situation.
Representations were made in the context of the 2000 spending review. The scope of the Barnett formula was increased as a result of representations from the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and myself to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That increase in the scope of the formula gave us more than £40 million more on our baselines over the next three years. That is welcome but not enough. I remind Members that when a lot of people raised concerns, they were about the £23 million that the Treasury had wrongly allocated to us, and then took back.
People are not so appreciative of the fact that we managed to increase the amount of money allocated to us under the formula - we secured a "Barnett" share of money, which had originally been allocated to London transport. There has also been some improvement in the way that abatement has been handled: this was achieved during the summer. We will be seeking to ensure that a more equitable means of funds allocation is adopted before the next spending review.
The allocations announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are to last for the duration of spending review period. Therefore we need to mount the best possible case, with strong arguments, so that by the next spending review we have a strong basis, better than the Barnett formula, for winning our share of resources.
Mr Dodds suggested that there were discrepancies in figures for North/South bodies which were presented to the Finance and Personnel Committee. The figures refer to two different periods: the £8·2 million figure quoted referred to the 2000 calendar year, while the £8·9 million was quoted in relation to the 2000-01 financial year. That figure also included an allowance for the tourism company. The overall figure of £18 million which was referred to covers the financing of all bodies and their activities in the 2001-02 financial year.
Reference was made to the expenditure by bodies of £11 million on political initiatives. This money was not spent on political structures but on ongoing services, such as inland waterways and trade and business development. The funding allocation for the tourism company will pay for a major publicity drive to market the region as a tourist destination, something that is clearly needed, and from which there will be direct economic benefits.
Mr Dodds, and others, raised the issue of the regional rate. Income from the regional rate can fund any service, which gives the Executive maximum flexibility. I underline the point that it is the Executive Committee that agreed these budgetary provisions in their entirety, in case some Members do not fully understand that. These increases are needed to deliver the services set out in the Budget and without them we would have to adjust the Budget accordingly. Therefore, if a lower regional rate is to be fixed, where should expenditure be cut?
Mr Beggs sought a comparison between rates bills in Northern Ireland and those in England. An average rates bill here is significantly lower than an equivalent council tax bill in England, where households also pay a water charge something that must be considered. These are the arguments that the Treasury will raise when we begin negotiating the Barnett formula. When we state our particular need and argue that resources are not sufficient, others will wonder why we do not supplement our resources through the means available to us. They will also point out that households in Northern Ireland pay a significantly lower rates bill, compared to that paid by their English counterparts.