Northern Ireland Assembly

Mr Bradley raised points about our proposals for providing free travel for elderly people. As you will know, the Executive are committed to introducing free travel for older people in the Programme for Government. Provision of £4 million has been made in 2002-03 and 2003-04 to take this important new proposal forward, subject to a full policy appraisal.

Points were raised about finance for road gritting by Mr Bradley and Ms Morrice. The Budget contains provision to sustain the current programme of road gritting, however, prioritization within this programme is, of course, a matter for the Minister for Regional Development.

Rev Dr William McCrea, as Chairperson of the Environment Committee, raised a number of issues. He acknowledged the fact that the Environment and Heritage Service is enjoying an increase of over 30% more than the funding provided in the current year. This will allow for the first stage of a progressive implementation of European environmental legislation. We cannot do everything we wish to do immediately, especially when faced with a range of competing priorities. Nevertheless, I can assure the Member that a major part of the additional funding will help district councils meet the cost of their obligations under the waste management strategy, as has already been provided for in Great Britain.

I also note the reference to the moratorium on the historic building grant applications. In fact, the extra in-year allocations to this area should enable an earlier lifting of this moratorium, but the precise timing is a matter for the Minister of the Environment. Rev Dr William McCrea also mentioned the possibility of European infraction proceedings because of the backlog in implementing European legislation. The substantial increase in this area demonstrates the Executive's determination to move quickly to eliminate the backlog. If, despite this evidence, infraction proceedings are taken, we will address the issue of any resulting costs at that time.

Issues were also raised about the overall underfunding, as it was put, of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Mr ONeill asked why no funding was provided to buy out commercial fishing nets or to improve safety in road racing. While I acknowledge that only 25% of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's bids for funding were met, all bids are considered according to relative priorities and not on the proportion of bids submitted by each Department. This year the Executive have recommended that the Department's budget be increased by 7·8% compared to last year, and I should point out that this is the fourth highest increase proposed in the Budget. In addition to the Budget allocations, the Department will also have the opportunity to bid for funding under the Executive programme funds.

With regard to the buying out of commercial fishing nets, although the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure submitted a bid for funding, its policy in this area is still being developed. Until the policy is developed and evaluated, the Executive cannot consider allocating funds, as we are not yet able to determine a relative priority of the policy within the Programme for Government.

As far as improving safety in road racing is concerned, the Department is currently consulting with interested parties and has set up a working group to look at addressing the long-term safety of motorcycle racing on both road and track. Until the policy in this area has been developed and evaluated, the Executive are, again, unable to allocate funds.

Mr Close asked about receipts from the sale of Housing Executive houses. Additional receipts from all sources need to be looked at in the context of the most pressing needs across all our programmes.

It would not be sensible to assume that they should be allocated to the area from which they have arisen. Not all Departments have an equal ability to generate receipts. The present practice ensures that their needs can be taken into account when the allocation of additional receipts is considered.

Mr McHugh asked where the increase of £7 million - which was allocated to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety since the draft October Budget - will be spent. The capital budget for next year has been increased by £5 million, and an additional recurrent £2 million has been allocated to the acute services budget. The precise distribution will be determined by the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Mr McHugh raised an issue which had been mentioned earlier by Mr P Robinson. He said that free travel for the elderly would do little for those living in rural areas because they currently have few public transport services. As I said earlier, a policy appraisal of the proposal is awaited. The Executive will want the differential impact and benefits of free travel to be properly appraised.

Mr Savage and others expressed concerns about the effects of European Union funding. The Executive have to work within the total allocation of funding set by the Treasury. That includes the amounts available on a ring-fenced basis for the Peace II programme, for which we are especially grateful to the European Union. The Executive are able to work alongside the European Union on programmes such as community initiatives.

In these instances, and in aspects of transitional Objective 1 funding, we have decided to allocate additional funding within our departmental expenditure limit, because we can support those actions on their own merits. For example, the urban community initiative initiates actions that we support. Furthermore, we have provided for complimentary actions to be listed among the bids on the Executive programme funds.

Mr Paisley Jnr has challenged the costs arising from the structures of Government. This demonstrates a failure to recognise the sheer value of having a local administration. There are 11 Departments in the Assembly, and this structure makes for substantial scrutiny and accountability of the workings of Government. This is a major change for the better, by comparison with the restoration of direct rule, where we had no accountability at this level. Some of the more prolific questioners of that accountability should bear in mind that every activity in this Assembly, at both Committee and individual level, does have a bearing on departmental running costs and does bear down on other performance aspects.

We were also asked by Mr McHugh and Mr Poots about whether the allocation for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should be spent on administration costs, rather than on farmers. In the past, the Department has run capital grant schemes for farmers. However, the time is not appropriate to ask farmers to contribute further to such schemes. Instead, the Department aims to increase education and training, information technology, and to introduce a focus on quality competitiveness, such as in beef quality. To that end, the Budget provides for important work, including the launch of the beef quality initiative, business development, education and training for farmers, and the introduction of the scrapie eradication programme.

The £2 million per annum funding of the beef quality initiative is an example of a successful idea emerging from the expert vision group set up by Ms Rodgers to develop a strategic vision for the future development of the entire agri-food industry. With regard to Mr McHugh's other queries, there is scope for an increase in administration to deliver all of the Department's statutory obligations, including a satisfactory equality scheme.

On modulation, the Budget provides for farmers' money to be matched pound for pound by the Treasury, which will bring more money into the Northern Ireland economy and to the agriculture industry as a whole. The Department will be consulting with farmers' bodies about the use of modulation money and match funding for the 2003-04 period. Also, the payment of compensation is an important element in the control of animal disease, ensuring that farmers report outbreaks early so that effective remedial action can be taken.

Mr Savage asked what Ms Rodgers was doing about the crisis in farm incomes. The increase in the allocation to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development provides very substantive evidence of the Executive's commitment to farming. There will also be significant funding allocated through European subsidies, which will be additional to this budget.

Mr Paisley Jnr queried waste, and pointed in particular to the £2,000 spent on a cross-border rural development group. I know that the Minister of Agriculture supports that proposal to build stronger rural communities on a cross-border basis. She also supports the proposal for the new peace maze in Northern Ireland, which is funded by the peace and reconciliation fund, because of its particularly strong cross-community appeal to young and old alike. She considers both to be valuable initiatives.

Mr Ford queried the indicative allocations in the Budget for free travel for the elderly and the question of the remainder falling on district councils. The estimated cost of existing half-fares scheme is £4 million. On that basis, the increased travel by the elderly due to the availability of free travel is likely to raise the full fare cost to £11 million. However, as I said before, a policy appraisal is awaited. A common feature of free travel schemes is that the operator should not be placed in a better position than he would have been had the scheme not existed. In other words, he should not gain because an empty seat is now occupied by someone travelling free. On that basis, the cost of free travel to the public purse is still far from clear. Against that background, the Executive have proposed that funding of twice the current level should be made available. The rest, if any, will come from district councils, based on an assessment of the benefit that their residents enjoy.

Mr Ford also asked about a public/private partnership for Translink. Obviously, that is initially a matter for the Department for Regional Development, but we must recognise that a single monopoly that is not exposed to competition is unlikely to provide the most efficient service delivery, and forthcoming European legislation could well force change. I am sure that, in scrutinizing proposals, the Department for Regional Development, the Executive and the Assembly will recognise the problems created by the highly fragmented railway privatization in Britain. I hope that Members are assured on that point.

Mr Dallat, among others, referred to problems with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Trust. The additional allocation of £1 million to the service's budget in 2001-02 will fund the replacement of the existing vehicles, thereby contributing to the fleet's modernization. The recently completed strategic review of the ambulance service highlighted a range of problems. We will need to consider carefully what options exist to address these. The outcome of the review into the acute hospital sector will also be relevant in defining future needs.

Ms Morrice commended the decision to fund recruitment of road safety education officers, increasing their number from 11 to 21, and more significant investment in road safety promotion issues. That investment has enabled the Department of Environment to reinforce its key road safety messages. More importantly perhaps, the Department of the Environment, in conjunction with others across Government, is currently preparing a new road safety strategic plan for the period 2001-10. A consultation document will be published shortly, and I am sure that what Ms Morrice properly calls "a life and death issue" will be fully and rigorously addressed in that review.

Ms Morrice also sought further information about the allocation of funding to victims, women's issues and community relations. The Budget provides for the work of the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, and that includes funding for community relations, and the promotion of gender and equality issues. As I mentioned earlier, the draft Programme for Government aims to put in place a cross-departmental strategy to ensure that the needs of victims are properly met.

Mr Kennedy is anxious that we address the backlog of repairs to the school estate in future years and arrange retainer payments for term-time staff. The Executive recognise the importance of maintaining safe and appropriate school facilities, and has allocated an additional £10·5 million for that purpose this year. I assure the Assembly that the Executive will continue to address the inherited backlog in repairs when allocating Executive programme funds and constructing the Budget in future years.

Ms Gildernew asked about the impact of the reduction in urban regeneration and community development funding. While the mainstream funding is falling by £3·1 million as the 94/99 EU Single Programme comes to an end, there is an increase in EU Peace funding of £6·2 million. In addition, there will also be £6 million in the social inclusion community regeneration Executive programme funds if the Sinn Féin amendment does not succeed.

Ms Gildernew then went on to say that receipts from the sale of Housing Executive houses had been returned to the British Exchequer. In fact, all receipts from Housing Executive house sales have become available to spend in Northern Ireland, on housing or other programmes. Decisions on where that money should be allocated are taken by the Executive and ultimately by the Assembly.

Mr Poots commented on some aspects of the budget for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and laid particular emphasis on library capital works. Responsibility for determining which projects should be given priority within that budget lies with the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment on any particular library, much as Mr Poots might want me to do so.

Mr Weir suggested that the increase in the regional rate could be forgone simply by reducing departmental running costs. This relies on the assumption that departmental running costs are spent on bureaucracy. I emphasise that that is far from the case, as many front line public services, such as roads; water and sewerage; environmental services and the payment of benefits are met from these costs. It would be impossible to make the sort of reductions that are being called for without cutting back on these and other vital public services.

In revisiting some points that he had made in winding up the substantive debate on the draft Budget, Mr Leslie emphasised the benefits of housing investments. At present, sales of houses are running at record levels, and far from reducing investment in housing, the Budget produces a 4·2% increase next year in housing provision. We have already indicated our determination to ensure that our housing programme continues to target social need. Despite the comments from some Members, housing continues to be a priority for the Executive. We also have to make sure that we pursue that priority alongside the many other competing measures we are advocating. We will continue to keep that point and other matters under review as regards future budget rounds and monitoring rounds.

I have tried to cover most of the issues raised in this debate. Some points were more substantive than others. Any that I have not covered I will follow up by letter, regardless of how Members vote on either the amendments or the Budget.

I want to pay tribute to all the Members who participated in the debate. It has been a useful exercise and has demonstrated that this Assembly is functioning as an Assembly should. There has been the challenge of alternative perspectives. Different opinions have been aired. I did not come here with the expectation that the Budget would be a lap of honour, either for the Executive or myself.

Proposed amendments have focused on one particular aspect - the regional rate. Most of the offerings have tended either to indicate some approval and welcome of the increases that the Executive have been able to afford to various programmes, or to ask for more expenditure on others. I am at a loss to understand how we could meet all the demands and suggestions for even more expenditure, when we are also under pressure, through the proposed amendments in relation to the regional rate, to reduce the resources available to us. I have said previously how I liken these occasions to close encounters of the absurd kind. We have seen some of that again. We are being asked to reduce the resources available to us, and at the same time increase expenditure.

Nevertheless, I recognise that people have their own case to put and their own role to play. I have a particular role as the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and I hope to discharge that properly on behalf of, and on a good working basis with, all my ministerial colleagues.

I want, as some other Members did today, to pay tribute to all my ministerial Colleagues for the contribution that they have made to the first Budget round. They have all put forward good cases. They all made bids, as their respective departmental Committees know. Unfortunately, the Executive do not have the resources available to meet all of those bids, and that is why we have had to develop a budget exercise very much informed by the key priority setting of the Programme for Government. In paying tribute to my ministerial Colleagues, I want to pay tribute to all the other members of the Executive Committee who have deliberated on the Budget decisions with us. We have taken these decisions collectively. I pay tribute, in particular, to the work of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in overseeing and in sharing in, not just this Budget round, but also the important work on the Programme for Government.

I appreciate that Members are still saying that they would like to see more of the public service agreements before voting on the Budget. However, let us be clear - the public service agreements will be coming forward to the Assembly in detailed form in January. We cannot really do anything about those public service agreements until we have confirmed the Budget. Their finalisation will be on the basis of the Budget lines confirmed here, and will set things out in a more meaningful way than we have been able to do in the tables so far. Members have rightly said that some of the more meaningful detail is absent from the Budget at this stage. That more meaningful detail should be available and set out in the public service agreements, which will form part of a consolidated Programme for Government.

Hence, the requirement in the agreement for the Assembly to be able to vote on a Programme for Government that incorporates an agreed Budget will be fulfilled. This is an important stage in that process. We have a Budget that is derived from a Programme for Government. It is not the end of the process. Confirming the Budget will lead to the further elaboration of the Programme for Government and will fulfil the information needs that many Members have outlined.

I hope that Committee members will further pursue the details of the public service agreements and the valid concerns that they have indicated. Through the Committees, they can ensure the best use of resources. People should not wait for a flag to fall from me, or from the Department of Finance and Personnel, before they scrutinise those issues.

Tonight we must decide if we are to confirm the Budget for next year. Indicative figures, consistent with the priorities reflected in the Programme for Government, have been provided for the following two years. I ask the Assembly to reject these amendments. They would damage the Budget, and, specifically, its realisation of our commitments to North/South structures under the Good Friday Agreement, and to the key priorities set out by the Executive in the Programme for Government. Having rejected both amendments, I also ask the Assembly to strongly endorse our first Budget under devolution.

The amendments will be taken in the proper order - first, number 2, then number 1 - followed by the motion in the form then agreed. If the motion has not been amended, it will be taken as on the Order Paper. As I reminded the House at the start of the day, it is clear from section 64(2) of the Northern Ireland Act (1998) that votes on the draft Budget require cross-community support. Until now, in the case of all propositions requiring cross-community support it had to be clear that there were no votes against; otherwise the Chair has pressed the House for Division. However, at this late hour I am hesitant to put the House to unnecessary and time-consuming Divisions. If it appears absolutely clear to the Chair that a proposal has not achieved a cross-community vote, I will so declare following the collection of voices. However, if it is challenged in the normal way by restating, then I will call for a Division. If it is not necessary to have a Division, I will not press the House to do so. The matter is in the hands of Members.

Question That the amendment in the name of Mr Maskey be made put and negatived.

Question That the amendment in the name of Mr Dodds be made put.

<< Prev