Northern Ireland Assembly

To clarify the matter for Dr Paisley, it seems on these occasions we end up talking about water. My relationship with water, for the few minutes I was out, was not as a consumer.

When I opened the debate, I looked forward to a vigorous but responsible discussion of the Budget, and I believe we have achieved that goal in the debate. Members' contributions have ranged widely. They put their points clearly and forcefully. I have carefully noted these points.

I want to emphasise that the Budget vote tonight addresses the full range of our responsibilities and our total budget of £5·7 billion. There has been a good deal of focus on increases, particularly on those since the draft Budget, but we should remember that tonight we are voting on the Budget as a whole. We have been able to increase spending on agriculture to £200 million, spending on health to £2·3 billion, spending on education to £1·3 billion and spending on regional development to £460 million. The debate touched on many aspects of these budgets. Substantial increases and opportunities paint the total picture of this first Budget under devolution.

I emphasise at the outset that we are determined to improve the transparency of the processes of planning, evaluation and audit. We need good public service agreements at the planning stage before, during and after expenditure. We also need better information under resource accounting and budgeting. Through our own Public Accounts Committee we need a stronger and more appropriate audit. There is considerable scope for Assembly Committees to examine these issues. This should begin as early as possible.

We must now move to the final act of this debate. First, I propose to deal with the amendments. Secondly, I will deal with some general points made by Members. Finally, if time will allow, I will deal with as many of Members' specific questions as possible.

Mr Dodds proposed the first amendment on behalf of the DUP. It attempts to link cuts to the budgets of the North/South bodies to a reduction in the proposed increase in the regional rate. The amendment is designed to undermine the agreement and the basis of the institutional settlement.

It is facile to suggest there can be a reduction to the cost of the services assigned by agreement between the two Governments to these new bodies. The Northern contribution to their budgets in 2001-02 will be approximately £11·7 million. We are also proposing a major drive in the promotion of tourism through the new North/ South company which accounts for most of the £5·8 million we plan to spend on that area. Together with the small budgets for the North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat and the Civic Forum, the total for the function specified in the amendment is £18·5 million. Most of this spending relates to ongoing functions or arenas that make good commercial sense for the Northern Ireland economy.

One wonders if the proponents of the amendment are proposing that these services be cut. What do they say about food safety? What about the promotion of tourism - surely we all want our waterways to be developed? The fact is that there is no real substance to this amendment, beyond the politics and the procedural rectitude. We have an agreement, the North/South bodies are part of that agreement, and they will be properly funded.

The second amendment, introduced by Mr Maskey on behalf of Sinn Féin, also seeks to moderate the increase in the regional rate, this time by taking resources from the Executive programme funds. The Executive programme funds are central to the Budget and the Programme for Government. I re-emphasise that they constitute a new way of promoting the development, on a cross-cutting basis, of priorities set out in the Programme for Government. They will enable the Executive and the Assembly to make a real difference to the allocation of resources in the region.

I stress that in creating the draft Budget, the Executive was disappointed that it was possible to put just £16 million into the Executive programme funds for next year. We were glad to be able to supplement this with £9 million carried forward from the October monitoring round. This is because we want to make the best possible start to the work of the new funds, and to show strongly the devolution difference. The £25 million for the first year is essential if we are to make best use and lay the best plans for the more significant amounts of money that will come through in years two and three. The programme funds have to be allocated to services, and we will do this in the new year. The funds have been created as a response to our new circumstances. They are a positive and imaginative step forward, and they give us a means of showing, in important and effective ways, the devolution difference.

As has been pointed out, both amendments concern the regional rate. The Budget plans for 2001-02 are based on an assumed level of regional rate revenue of £334 million. To generate that revenue, it is estimated that regional rate increases of 8% in the domestic regional rate and 6·6 % in the non-domestic regional rate will be required next year. As I have already stated, the indicative allocations for 2002-03 and 2003-04 would imply further increases of 8% in the domestic regional rate and 5·5% in the non-domestic regional rate.

I have declared those planned increases on the basis of current figures, just as I openly stated the proposed increases in the regional rate, both domestic and non- domestic, in the draft Budget. It is certainly not a stealth tax. We have been upfront, the issue has been well debated, and everybody has centred on it, in one way or another. It is a bit odd that an increase that has been made in such a transparent way - albeit not necessarily universally popular - should be branded stealth tax.

These increases are necessary to fund spending in the priority areas identified in the Programme for Government and in various Committee contributions. As I have already made clear, we cannot on the one hand say that the Barnett formula does not provide sufficient resources and on the other hand fail to try to raise further resources from revenue here. That would leave us open to the charge that we expect our services to be paid for by taxpayers in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish Republic, and anywhere else, but that we do not seek funding from our own resources.

We must recognise some points about the regional rate. Ratepayers in Northern Ireland make a much smaller contribution to the cost of local services than their counterparts in Great Britain. On average we only pay half as much, and of course we do not face a separate and additional charge for water and sewerage services. Even when the lower level of household income here is taken into account - and many Members have rightly stressed that point - we are still making a smaller contribution.

It has been pointed out that increases in the regional rate will increase poverty. The housing benefit system does, of course, provide protection for the most needy in society. Overall, about 186,000 people - around 31% of all households - receive some assistance with rate bills through rate rebates. The worse off are completely protected. I recognise that there are deficiencies in the regional rate, and I have recognised those before in this Chamber and in discussion with the Finance and Personnel Committee. That is why I have announced a comprehensive review that will look at all aspects of this tax, including the nature and range of reliefs that are available.

The point has also been made that district councils are blamed unfairly for the regional rate. I agree that there must be clearer responsibility for the different components of the rates bill. We need to clarify the proportion of rates that will go to the district councils and how much will go to the services directly controlled by the Assembly.

At the outset, I said that the Executive accept responsibility for the rate increase as part of grown-up, realistic politics. I confirm that the Rates Collection Agency will take steps to distinguish between the regional and district rates in the rates bills for 2001-02 and in future years.

The supporters of the first amendment sought to make much of the continuation of the uplift in the regional rate going on from the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. Have they forgotten how strongly some argued for the continuation of the increases in water and sewerage spending, which had initially been linked - as they so often reminded us - to those rate increases? The Executive have confirmed those increases in water and sewerage spending.

I point out that, from time to time, I have been urged to link the regional rate to water and sewerage expenditure and turn it, in part, into a water rate levied on households. It would be a household tax similar in form to the regional rate. I hope that some consistency is shown by those who preach to others.

There were also concerns that the regional rate could become an issue akin to the poll tax. Apart from the unpopularity issue, I am at a loss to understand how this comparison is valid. Our rating system - with all its faults - is based on properties and households. It is not based on the taxation of individuals. We will need to look at the effects of the system on different types of households, including single householders, but I do not see any sign of such difficulties as the registration of individuals which the poll tax produced in England.

Mr Dodds indicated the opposition of Ministers to the increase in the regional rate. I am at a loss to recall the circumstances in which information including the proposals for the regional rate was circulated to all members of the Executive or when any representations came to me or to the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister in the terms suggested.

Mr Close suggested that we use in-year monitoring money to address increases in the regional rate. He misunderstands the nature of monitoring expenditure during the course of a year and planning expenditure for future years. In-year changes can rise or fall. This year's pattern is not guaranteed and prudent planning is required. That means taking sensible decisions based on the information available at the time of each decision. It would be imprudent to anticipate that money might become available from end-year slippage or end-year flexibility. Our view is that it is better to take any benefits that come from emerging underspends as and when they might arise.

The regional rate will be finalised early in the new year. We will then need to set a final rate that will produce - on the best available information - the level of revenue that we adopt in this Budget. Members will recall that last February it was possible to reduce the percentage uplift in the non-domestic regional rate below that which I had indicated in the draft Budget statement last December because the forecast yield was slightly higher than previous forecasts. Therefore, we will keep this under review in the same way this year. The regional rate will be examined, but the job will be done properly. These amendments are not the proper way to proceed, and accordingly, I ask the Assembly to reject them.

I will now turn to some general points about the Budget raised by Members. Mr Dodds expressed concern about the adverse effects of the Barnett formula, as did Mr Maskey, Mr Molloy, Ms McWilliams and Ms Lewsley. As the debate went on, nearly every Member who made a contribution recognised the case in relation to the Barnett formula. The Executive have made clear its concern about the Barnett formula. That point has been stressed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, not just here but in other locations as well.

The formula is now over 20 years old and has outlived its usefulness. We cannot accept that a formula, which is only based on population and ignores wider needs, is satisfactory for our funding requirements. Our views have been made known to Treasury Ministers and to others. By the time of the next UK spending review, we hope to have the basis of a new arrangement that suits our needs better, and is more acceptable to this Assembly's Members. However, I do not wish the Assembly to believe that this will be a simple task. The formula is clearly well entrenched in the Treasury. Again, I stress that we will do ourselves no favour in this argument by avoiding resource decisions - difficult though they may be - that are within our remit, such as that on the regional rate.

Many Members, particularly Mr Dodds, Mr Molloy, Mr P Robinson, Mr Close, Mr B Bell and Ms McWilliams expressed disappointment about the restricted timetable for this Budget. I indicated before that the time available for consideration of this year's Budget has been regrettably constrained. As the Assembly knows, there was a UK spending review during the year, and that meant that there was not a clear indication of the total resources available. As soon as possible thereafter, we moved to bring forward a draft Budget. Within the time that was available, I believe that all that was possible was done to facilitate meaningful consultation with the Assembly and outside groups.

All Departments have worked closely with their Committees, and I would like, once again, to record my own thanks to the Finance and Personnel Committee for facilitating the Budget debate in November and for its report to me.

We were also able to hold two conferences on the equality dimension of the Budget - one in Derry and one in Belfast. Over 100 groups were invited to these conferences, and the needs of minorities were met by providing summaries of the draft Budget in alternative formats. Next year the process can start earlier, thus giving more time for the Budget proposals to be scrutinised by the Assembly and accessed by wider community interests.

The issue of departmental running costs was raised by several Members. The Executive are committed to a full re-examination of Departments' costs and those of the wider public sector. We face an enormous range of pressures on spending, and the efficient and economic use of resources must be promoted. It is important to note that the increase in costs between 2000-01 and 2001-02 - [Interruption.]

Order. While I understand that Members may want to have a brief and quiet word with each other from time to time, there is a constant hum of conversation, which is unfair to other Members and the Minister. If Members wish to have conversations, I ask them to go to the Members' Lobby or somewhere close by. Please give the rest of the House and the Minister an opportunity.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why stop close by if you can go beyond the range of the Division Bell later?

It is important to note that the increase in costs shown in the Budget paper between 2000-01 and 2001-02 reflects the basic requirement to provide for the cost of employing staff to deliver services to the public. Also, the 2000-01 figures understated the actual level of spending, because they exclude the additions that the Executive agreed in July. The Executive have made realistic provision for the costs of Departments in 2001-02.

Once again we are in a position from which we cannot will the end - to provide good service to the public and to the Assembly - without willing the means. The truth is that the needs of the new institutions, including the needs of Committees, and the needs of many Members in relation to asking questions, have created a major increase in workload for Departments.

The creation of the new institutions results in a great increase in accountability, which is one of the most important steps away from the pattern of direct rule. That has a cost. We need to recognise that, though we also need to ensure restraint. I welcome Members' consideration in that regard.

There were also a number of more specific questions raised during the debate. In particular, Mr Peter Robinson raised the matter of roads capital funding, and wondered if, on raising it for a third time, circumstances would allow me to answer. I can confirm that the Budget for 2001-02, which we are voting on this evening, contains all that the Department for Regional Development sought for roads capital expenditure.

I can also confirm that while the Chancellor's initiative funding does decrease in subsequent years, the indicative allocations for 2002-03 and 2003-04 for mainstream roads capital funding provide for an uplift of over one third on the 2001-02 allocation. In addition, there are the substantial resources in the Executive infrastructure fund, through which the Department for Regional Development can bid for road schemes.

Mr McFarland questioned the approach to the planning of the Budgets for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The position is that the figures set out in the Budget are indicative and will need to be reviewed fully in the next Budget cycle. I have undertaken that there will be fuller scrutiny next year. It follows that there should be genuine scope for these plans to be revised next year, but the published figures, rounded to the nearest £10 million, show the basis on which we are currently planning.

Mr Dodds pointed to the increase in the figures for departmental running costs. We need to be careful when interpreting these figures. They now include the costs of running Welfare-to-Work programmes, which were previously accounted for separately. Also, it is wrong to assume that all increases in departmental running costs simply add to bureaucracy.

Large amounts of departmental running costs go towards providing services to the public. For example, in the Department for Social Development - one of the Departments that Mr Close was targeting in his remarks on departmental running costs - some £12·5 million of a rise of £18·6 million has been allocated for the implementation of the Welfare Modernisation Programme. That programme is designed to provide work for those who can work, and security for those who cannot.

In relation to the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, the allocation proposed includes an additional £2·25 million in 2001-02 to meet the cost of the PFI contract for the provision of IT services. That increase is required because provision was inadequate to meet existing demands for Phases I and II of the contract. In addition, Phase III has recently been negotiated to allow for a significant increase from 500 to 1,150 in the number of simultaneous system users. Those facilities are vital to the proper functioning of the Department and its jobcentre network.

Questions were raised about the peace dividend - the matter was raised first by Mr Molloy and followed up by other Members. Our Budget is quite separate from that of the NIO. We do not have to make any contribution to the cost of reforming the Police Service and the Prison Service. We are also protected from any pressures arising from the review of criminal justice or, indeed, any other aspect of NIO business. In short, it is unlikely that any available savings will fall to us during the period of this spending review.

Questions were also raised - again, the issue was first raised by Mr Molloy - about the acute services review, and why provision had not been made for this in the Budget. The independent review group, appointed by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and chaired by Maurice Hayes, is due to report by the end of February. After that there will be, as the Minister has indicated, wide public consultation.

We will need to carefully assess the cost of the emerging strategies to ensure that what we propose is affordable. The Budget allocations for 2002-03 and 2003-04 are indicative and we will have to decide how best to address the costs of the acute services strategy as part of next year's Budget considerations.

Mr Molloy, Mr Gallagher and several other Members raised the issue of the rural community. There are significant increases in the Budget for agriculture and rural development. It is planned to provide £193 million, an increase of £28·7 million over 2000-01. Even allowing for distortions in animal disease compensation and considering that provision for less favoured areas (LFAs) is normally adjusted during the year, the increase for 2001-02 is £16·8 million, or 10·2%. That allocation will provide for, among other things, the introduction of a scrapie eradication programme, the launching of the beef quality initiative and business development and training. The allocation also includes £3·9 million for match funding relating to modulation.

Some Members appeared to suggest that those programmes are not directly benefiting farmers, and therefore do not count. I hazard to guess that if that money were not put into those schemes, members of the farming community would soon tell us of the importance of those schemes to their continued operation.

Mr B Bell, and other Members, raised the matter of housing funding. I assure him that the Executive do not regard housing as a low-priority matter and that the Housing Executive budget is not being cut. The Programme for Government contains the commitment to work to provide high quality and affordable social housing for those on low incomes. We spend two-and- a-half times more on housing than is spent in England. Therefore, on any objective basis, it continues to be given priority. For 2001-02 the Housing Executive budget is being increased by £6·5 million and the budget for housing associations will rise by £1·5 million. All told, housing funding will rise by 4·3%.

Members will be aware that in past monitoring rounds we have continued to respond to particular pressures in the housing programme. So long as resources are available in future monitoring rounds we will continue to respond to those pressures and ensure the best possible spend of the available money.

Mr Ford, among others, suggested that there is nothing new in the Programme for Government. On the contrary, there is much that is new. Local politicians have agreed on actions across a range of local public services that directly affect local people's lives. Priorities have been set out for Northern Ireland's future for which we will use the resources available to improve people's health, education skills to create jobs, tackle disadvantage and protect the environment. We have set out challenges that need to be addressed.

The Programme for Government also explains the importance to Northern Ireland's future of co-operation for mutual benefit - north and south, east and west, with Europe and America. In short, we are getting down to the business of improving the services to the community for which Ministers are responsibility.

Ms McWilliams asked when the regional development strategy would be published. The Programme for Government commits the Executive to agreeing a regional development strategy and seeking the Assembly's agreement by spring 2001.

Ms McWilliams also claimed that the Executive have no information on the number of children living in poverty on which to base their spending plans. She rightly identified that as a matter for Mr Morrow.

However, although some information is available here on child poverty from the family expenditure survey, the main survey used in Great Britain for investigating poverty is not carried out in Northern Ireland. I am advised that the extension of the family resources survey to Northern Ireland is currently being considered.

Dr Birnie raised matters relating to student support concerning how the proposals address equal opportunities issues and how information flows can be improved. With regard to how the proposals address equal opportunities issues, the package of measures announced by Dr Farren is designed to ensure that more students from lower income backgrounds have access to further and higher education. These measures will open up access to further and higher education for many more people who would not have previously considered participation and, therefore, will help to promote much greater equality of opportunity.

On how information flows can be improved, I draw Members' attention again to Dr Farren's statement of last Friday. He announced that he asked officials to work with the education and library boards and student representatives to develop material for advice to potential students on financial matters. Ms McWilliams also raised the issue about the Department of Education and consultation before selling land in South Belfast. That sale was carried out as part of the provision of a new school for Wellington College, which is being provided under the private finance initiative.

During the bidding process the Belfast Education and Library Board negotiated a value-for-money deal with Northwin Construction Limited, which included the transfer of land at full market value. The board is not required to consult on the sale of the land, but I understand that the development of any surplus land at the school is subject to the normal planning procedures, and that is only right.

With regard to the use of private finance initiative solutions, we have to be receptive to new ways of securing the services that our community needs. These deals are looked at very carefully to ensure value for money.

Mr Roche asked, in certain terms, why the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development did not lift the ban on BSE when she had the opportunity. The Minister has never been in a position to lift the BSE ban in Northern Ireland. That ban was imposed by the European Union and can only be lifted by the European Union. The Minister has made every effort, since taking office, to have the ban in Northern Ireland removed or relaxed. However, the current climate relating to BSE across Europe makes it unwise to raise the case now. The Minister has made it abundantly clear that she will take the case forward as soon as the climate is right, and that commitment is clear cut.

Some concerns were also raised about the Health Service's budget, including arrangements for funding the boards and trusts and, in particular, some Members followed up Ms McWilliams's point on the whole notion of audit trails. No one can deny that the system for the management of boards and trusts is complex, yet it is essential that these organisations and structures are best suited to our needs.

Now that devolution has been achieved, there is a recognised need to consider the efficiency of all existing public administration structures. The Executive are committed to doing this through the Programme for Government. Ms McWilliams also queried the apparent reduction in the capital budget for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Budget contains revised figures for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's capital budget compared with the October draft. The revised figures do not alter the Department's spending power.

Following the publication of the draft Budget some technical adjustments had to be made to facilitate the move to resource budgeting. These resulted in a shift of provision from capital to resource. This reflects more accurately the new resource budgeting classifications and does not affect the spending power on the ground. Since the draft Budget was announced, an additional £5 million has been allocated to the Department of Health's capital budget in 2001-02. The Executive programme funds will offer further opportunities for capital expenditure.

The proposed closure of Downe Hospital was also raised. Generally, our hospitals serve much smaller populations than those elsewhere in the UK, and many are in need of modernization, as Members will agree. With expert staff so widely dispersed, the viability of some smaller hospitals has come into question. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety - [Interruption.]

Order. Not content with disturbing the peace, some Members are disturbing the furniture as well. Please allow the Minister to speak.

In preparing its report, the review group appointed by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be expected to take into account the views of individuals, organizations and groups which have an interest or involvement in the provision of hospital services. We will need to develop a strategy for acute services, and that strategy will have to be costed, for consideration in next year's Budget negotiations.

Ms McWilliams also raised the question of funding for provision for mental health and children. In 2001-02, there will be an additional £4 million to help address the gaps in community services to people with severe and enduring mental illnesses and learning disabilities; that should significantly reduce hospital admissions. An extra £3·5 million has been allocated in 2001-02, to facilitate the implementation of 'Children Matter' in areas such as learning care, adoptions, and preventive care services. Finally, the children's fund will provide the Executive with a useful means of providing support for children in need and youth at risk. The Deputy First Minister has already said that consideration would be given to the proposal for a children's commissioner, possibly funded out of Executive programme funds.

Provision for victims is a matter of considerable concern to the Executive Committee, particularly to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Their Department has specific responsibility for making sure that all Departments give due consideration to the needs of victims. The Executive aim to put a cross-departmental strategy in place, to ensure that high quality help and services are available to meet the needs of victims. The Executive have already agreed to provide £200,000 this year to get work under way to identify the needs of victims and raise public awareness of those needs. It is also anticipated that funding from the European Union's Peace II programme will be available for a programme for victims. Once the strategy is in place and the Peace II position is clear, we will be better placed to identify the additional resources required.

I was asked, not least by Mr Roche, to confirm that the student support proposals were well thought through. Although the findings of the student support review are still under consideration, the Executive have taken the view that resources should be made available now to meet the most pressing needs. In the next few weeks, further proposals will be subject to policy appraisal and evaluation, to ensure that they are effective and can meet their objectives.

I was also asked how the Minister for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment could make an announcement on student support in advance of the decision on the allocation of the Executive programme funds. The position was set out clearly in my statement last week: the Executive have definitely agreed an allocation of £5 million for 2001-02, £7 million for 2002-03, and £8 million for 2003-04 for some key aspects of the review.

We have also set aside further money in the New Directions fund, which is our way of showing clearly that there is further provision available for aspects of the student support review after the details have been considered further by the Executive. The Executive's decision on these resources, and on other aspects of the Executive programme funds, will be decided and announced in the new year.

Mr McGrady, Dr Paisley and Mr Shannon asked what could be done to assist the fishing industry. The Budget allocates £125,000 per annum to cover costs associated with the Cod Recovery Plan. In addition, the Minister announced her intention to formulate a scheme to assist the decommissioning of fishing vessels - you know why I took a gulp of water before I got to that word. The quota cuts made at the December meeting of the EU Fisheries Council now make this a top priority.

Dr Paisley commented that Bríd Rodgers was not supported by other UK agriculture Ministers on the issue of quota cuts. On the one hand, I welcome the fact that there was no attempt by the Chairman of the Committee to apportion blame. However, negotiating priorities are jointly determined by all the United Kingdom's Ministers who are responsible for fisheries. I am glad that Dr Paisley appreciates that the Minister has done her best.

Mr McFarland raised the issue of health costs, which he said needed to be reviewed. There are many demands upon the health budget, and it has to respond to the increasing health demands of an ageing population, costs of modern medicine and greater public awareness and concern about heath issues. To deliver the necessary services to the public, the structure of boards and trusts must be best suited to our needs and that is relevant to the consideration of a wider public administration review.

Several Members have raised the issue of the projected increase in the Housing Executive rents. The discussions on the Budget have been based on the assumption that rents would increase by 2% more than the rate of inflation, which is forecast by the Treasury as being 2%. I have looked further at the cost implications of this and, following further scrutiny, it does appear that the difference between a real increase in line with inflation at the GDP deflator, plus 2%, would be £5 million - not the £7·8 million, which I reported last Tuesday. That figure was a revision of the £5·4 million I reported previous to that. I am saying this before anyone else might take the reins and try to do an announcement trail on this.

The final decision on the rent increase is a matter for the Minister for Social Development. The Executive are proposing a budget for the Housing Executive, which is £6·5 million higher than in 2000-01, and an increase of 5.3%. This funding more than reverses the £3 million reduction proposed by the Labour Government, which had been built in to the plans we inherited on devolution. I recognise, as many Members have stressed today and on other occasions, the strong concern to ensure that we carry through with proper investment in social housing, particularly in relation to the Housing Executive's budget. I also recognise the particular pressures and challenges faced by the Housing Executive. We have tried before, in monitoring rounds this year, to make good those other pressures as they arise, as well as making this significant commitment to the annual Budget.

Several points were raised about the public service agreements and the regional rate. I think it was Mr Ford who alleged that, in relation to the regional rate, we are simply following a catch-up policy. The proposed increases on the regional rate are needed to generate the resources that the Executive deem necessary to deliver their priorities. The estimates of how great the increase in rate poundage should be will be kept under review. These increases will be adjusted if there is greater buoyancy than we have allowed for.

Public service agreements are vital to the effective and efficient pursuit of our objectives. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel have joint responsibility to work with Departments on developing public service agreements and policing them.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>