Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Budget Bill

Final Stage

I beg to move

That the Budget Bill [NIA 10/00] do now pass.

I will be brief. The Final Stage of the Budget Bill is the conclusion of the first full financial year during which the Assembly has been responsible for approving Estimates. The Assembly has had the opportunity to question and debate the detailed expenditure proposals for the 2000-01 financial year. I am glad, for want of a better word, to say that it has taken full advantage of that opportunity. This began with the Supply resolutions associated with the main Estimates early last summer. We had a full debate again in February on the 2000-01 spring Supplementary Estimates. It is right that there should be full that which we had today on the Programme for Government. That is the important difference that devolution is helping to make.

These expenditure proposals emanate from our devolved Administration, which is fully accountable to the Assembly. The Assembly has the ultimate say on whether to accept them. I can assure all those who participated in the various debates and in the deliberations of the Committees that the points they raised are of interest. Their validity and merit is recognised, not least because they reflect the concerns of the wider community that Members represent.

If this Assembly has the final say, why is it that we were not able to put down an amendment on this today? We tried to put down five amendments and were told that we could not do so. If we have the final say on everything that we are passing tonight, why is it not amended?

My understanding is that no amendments can be put down at this stage.

This is the Final Stage. There would not be amendments at this stage. Amendments were submitted yesterday for the Further Consideration Stage, but those amendments were not taken. The Speaker gave his ruling and his grounds for it, in answer to points raised by Mr Dodds. Those points were accepted. It was the nature of the amendments, not the fact of amendments, that was ruled out. The Speaker in his ruling said that the particular nature of the amendments would have had the effect of making the Bill ultra vires. That was the reason that those particular amendments were not taken. That is a matter for the Speaker, not for me or, indeed, the Executive.

The Minister accurately records what happened. However, the Speaker, in his ruling, agreed with me that the amendments - which would have deleted expenditure on the all-Ireland aspects of the Belfast Agreement (the North/South bodies) and kept it within Northern Ireland Departments - were not acceptable because those particular bodies were given a special position in the legislation. You can amend and remove expenditure in relation to health, education and agriculture, but you cannot do so for the North/South bodies. It illustrates a point that we have made in the past - that those bodies are given a special position within the institutions set up under the agreement.

I support the ruling of the Speaker yesterday. I therefore do not see any point in taking amendments at the Final Stage of the Bill.

The debate that has taken place yesterday and today on the Programme for Government has served to underline the fact that the Executive and the Ministers in the various Departments have been getting to grips with their responsibilities and tasks. The Ministers have taken up their respective responsibilities and, more importantly, have collectively taken up the key responsibilities of the Executive.

This past year has also seen the various Assembly Committees get to grips with their responsibilities. I know that points of concern have been reflected at various stages of budgetary consideration, and I want again to underline the fact that departmental Committees have a crucial role to play in scrutinising expenditure proposals and presenting their views on priorities and allocations.

I know from the interest that Committees have shown in financial issues that their contribution will develop further. I have no problem with encouraging that, but I also know from the way in which Members' interests are being pressed in Committees that I have no need to encourage it.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the role and contribution of the Finance and Personnel Committee. Its work is very difficult and thankless, and it has to work within strict time limits. I appreciate its members' commitment and understanding in helping to develop financial procedures. We need to develop these further and improve them in the interests not just of the Finance and Personnel Committee, but of all the Committees and of the House.

We will continue to work with the Committee and the Assembly to help establish improved practices and procedures. These should facilitate the management of the budget cycle and provide greater confidence that the Assembly is fully exercising its scrutiny responsibilities, and that it is being consulted appropriately on expenditure proposals.

That developing confidence in the activities of the Assembly should in turn help the development of public confidence in the Assembly. This Administration will be seen to have a proven ability to recognise and reflect local interests and priorities in a way that simply was not possible under direct rule.

The 2001-02 Main Estimates will be coming before the Assembly in a few months. I look forward to that further round of discussions and debate, including those in relation to the greater and more timely involvement of the Committees. I must stress that the interests and concerns on expenditure which people have expressed in budget considerations and in the course of today's debate do not have to wait for the return of the Main Estimates before Committees. People can pursue those interests now. The public service agreements on which so many useful comments were made in the previous debate should be an aid to Committees in exploring those issues.