I have already mentioned that some expenditure on social security is handled outside the voting system, because there are standing authorisations in the form of specific legislation that allow money to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund or another fund to provide a service. A further example arises when a Department makes a loan under a statutory power. In most cases the issue of the loan will count towards the departmental expenditure limit. However, where there is a standing authorisation for the making of loans outside the vote, the loan would not need specific Assembly approval through the Estimates and Budget Bill system. Some important aspects of the Budget are funded in this way, as distinct from the supply procedure that we are considering today.

The total that determines what we can do is the departmental expenditure limit set by the Treasury. The Budget brings together all the expenditure and revenue that relate to what we can do within that limit to finance public services. The Estimates then set out what that means for the drawing of cash by Departments from the Consolidated Fund and their use of resources in relation to their objectives. I must also emphasise that the convention is that Estimates are not reduced as the year progresses, even if the Department concerned is clear that not all the spending will be required.

By their nature, the figures are estimates. The reason for the Supply resolution is that the Executive and the Departments are seeking authorisation for spending up to the figures quoted in the Estimates. This point is important, because it helps to explain how the figures, which were set out in the Budget planning documents, are ultimately reflected in the amounts that need to be authorised for issue from the Consolidated Fund to cover the approved expenditure. This is complex, but essential, in order to meet the twin requirements that we keep expenditure within the departmental expenditure limit as set by the Treasury, and seek authorisation for no greater amount of cash expenditure than is set out in the Estimates.

The total net resource requirement for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is £223 million. Approximately £172 million is sought in request for resources A. That sum provides for ongoing regional services and support measures, including £73 million for development of agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Approximately £57 million, including £2·4 million allocated under Executive programme funds, is sought for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, animal disease compensation, and processing and marketing grants, which are totally funded by the European Union. Twelve million pounds is for central administration, including information technology and specialist accommodation services, and £9 million is for the rural development programme.

Nine million pounds is in respect of the EU peace and reconciliation programme and structural funds, totally funded by the EU, and £12 million is for non-cash items such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges and depreciation costs. The various market support measures administered under the common agricultural policy, totalling £158 million, are also accounted for under request for resources A. These are fully funded by the receipt from the EU and, therefore, cancel within the Estimate.

Resources of £51 million are sought in request for resources B. This includes £25 million for the Rivers Agency, Forest Service and Fisheries Division, and £5 million in relation to central administration, the EU peace and reconciliation programme and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The remaining £21 million is in respect of non-cash items, such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges, and depreciation costs.

When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking £208 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The total net resource requirement for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is £76 million, an increase of 3% on last year's final net provision. Those resources, which are contained in a single request for resources, include £24 million on expenditure by education and library boards on public libraries, of which £2·3 million is for capital works and £0·3 million has been allocated under the Executive programme funds. In addition, £9·9 million has been provided for the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland. The sum of £8·8 million, including £0·7 million allocated under the Executive programme funds, has been allocated for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and other miscellaneous support for the arts, and £1·5 million has been allocated for the Odyssey landmark project.

Approximately £4·8 million, of which £0·5 million has been allocated under the Executive programme funds, is for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, and £2·2 million is for the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland.

The sum of £3·4 million is sought for sports. The request for resources also provides £1·6 million for the Northern Ireland Events Company and £0·8 million for the Armagh Planetarium and Observatory. Provision of £3·5 million is needed for Northern Ireland's contribution to the North/South language body, and £2·6 million for Northern Ireland's contribution to the Waterways Ireland project is also included. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, it can be seen that the Department is seeking cash of some £74 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

Moving to the Department of Education, resources of some £1,350 million are sought in request for resources. Schools require £1,023 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards and £38 million for boards' capital projects. The figure also provides for £59 million for capital projects in voluntary and grant- maintained, integrated schools, £148 million for recurrent expenditure in voluntary grammar schools and £34 million for recurrent expenditure in grant-maintained, integrated schools. Some £5 million is being made available under Executive programme funds and £7 million under the European Union's peace and reconciliation programme.

For resources to cover youth service and community relations programmes for young people, resources of £27 million are being sought. This includes some £18 million for recurrent and capital expenditure by education and library boards, £2 million under the Executive programme funds and £2 million under the European Union's peace and reconciliation programme. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking cash of some £1,377 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate. In the Estimate for teachers' superannuation, resources of £80 million are being sought along with a corresponding cash requirement of the same amount.

In the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment the total net resource requirement is £322 million. The sum of £306 million is sought, first, to cover the Department's economic support and regeneration measures. This includes £123 million to help the Industrial Development Board to attract and support industrial development in Northern Ireland and £28 million for local enterprise to assist in developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of the important small firms' sector. Also included in this request for resources are £23 million to support the tourist industry and £26 million to increase industrially relevant research and technology in industry.

In this request for resources, which covers the Department's regulatory services, the sum of £16 million is sought. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure taken into account, the Department is seeking £306 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

Turning now to the Department of the Environment, a total net requirement of some £112·8 million is being sought, together with £2·5 million for capital investment. This is a significant increase over the resources available last year, reflecting the need to resolve historical underfunding of the Department's functions. Around £9 million of the new funds will be used to help meet international environmental obligations, including the development of a new strategy for the disposal of waste.

The remainder of the increase, some £3 million, will be directed in a variety of ways, including assistance to district councils, the continuing effort to reduce road casualties and support for the planning process. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking almost £103 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department for Regional Development's Estimate comprises two requests for resources with a total net requirement of £1,384 million, together with £173 million to meet direct departmental investment in capital projects. Requests for resources to cover the roads, transport and strategic planning functions of the Department with related central administration amount to just under £915 million, of which almost £692 million is attributable to non-cash costs such as depreciation and capital charges, substantially in respect of the road network.

Provision is also made for capital expenditure of some £63 million, mainly by the Roads Service, and this includes an initial allocation of approximately £2 million from Executive programme funds to enable four priority road schemes to progress.

On the transport side, the request for resources includes the additional £20 million approved in the Budget to fund capital expenditure by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company to bring the railway network up to modern safety standards. This is included in the grants column on the resource side of the estimate. Almost £14 million is needed for other railway services and some £20 million for road passenger services, including concessionary fares.

Requests for other resources relate to the provision of water and sewerage services, for which a total net amount of slightly over £469 million is required. This includes some £5·5 million made available in the Budget approved by the Assembly in December 2000 to meet the additional cost associated with the Kinnegar waste water treatment works and alternative means of sludge disposal. Depreciation and capital charges amounting to £367 million are also catered for.

The £110 million needed for capital investment in the water supply and sewage treatment and disposal infrastructure includes the extra £14·5 million allocated in the Budget and £1 million for flood prevention work allocated from the Executive programme funds. After accruals to cash adjustments are made, the Department for Regional Development's net cash requirement for the year is just over £509 million.

Turning to the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, the total net resource requirement is £604 million. Some £396 million is being sought, which includes over £147 million for colleges of further education, £167 million for universities and colleges of education, and net resources of £81 million and capital provision of £95 million for student support, including provision for new arrangements emerging from the recent review of student support.

Some £208 million is sought, which includes £42 million to provide 15,000 places in a range of employment and training measures, mainly within the New Deal initiative, for 18 to 24-year-olds and the long-term unemployed. This will also provide for the introduction of an enhanced New Deal for the over-25s from April. Over £66 million is to provide over 12,000 places under the Jobskills training programme, and a further £14 million will be spent on other training and temporary employment programmes providing some 3,000 places for long-term unemployed adults who are not eligible for the New Deal.

When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking £662 million cash to fund the expenditure in the Estimate.

Over £2,060 million is sought for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That figure includes £1,968 million to be spent on delivering an effective, high-quality health and social care service to people in need, £57 million for fire services and £34 million for departmental administration. When adjusted for capital payments and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is just over £2,124 million. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's Main Estimate identifies £48·6 million to meet the cost of the health and personal social services superannuation scheme. The net cash requirement for that estimate is also £48·6 million.

The Department for Social Development has sought £2,473 million for resources A, which covers the Department's social security and child support programme. That figure is made up of non-contributory and income- related benefit expenditure of £2,303 million, £145 million for administration and £25 million for non-cash items such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges and depreciation costs. Included in the administration cost is £18 million to enable the Department to take forward the welfare reform and modernisation programme.

The Department for Social Development is seeking £266 million for resources B, which covers the housing programme. That figure includes programme expenditure of £260 million, administration costs of £2 million and £4 million for non-cash items. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rent and capital receipts from house sales are taken into account, the gross resources available for housing will be over £600 million.

In its request for resources C, which covers the urban regeneration and community development programme, the Department for Social Development is seeking £73 million. That figure includes programme expenditure of £57 million, administration costs of £6 million and £10 million for non-cash items. In programme expenditure, £30 million will be provided to promote and implement a comprehensive approach to physical and social regeneration, and £8 million will be provided for grants to voluntary bodies. Under the European Union peace and reconciliation programme, £16 million will be made available, of which £12 million will be funded from European Union receipts. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash figure and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department for Social Development is seeking £2,773 million to fund the expenditure in the Estimate.

The Department of Finance and Personnel has sought a total net resource of £133 million. For resources A, the Department has sought £23·4 million to maximise the benefit to Northern Ireland of public expenditure, including European Union funding. For resources B, the Department has sought £93·7 million to support public sector business performance. For resources C, the Department has sought £16·4 million to administer specialised public services including Ulster Savings Branch, General Register Office, maintenance of the valuation list for rating purposes, Rate Collection Agency, Office of Law Reform, Land Registry and Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland. When adjusted for capital and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is £124·6 million.

On superannuation, the Department of Finance and Personnel is seeking £18·5 million to cover the payment of pensions and lump sum benefits to those covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £18·4 million.

For the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, total resources of some £32 million are sought. Some £13·1 million is to support the Executive in making and implementing well-informed and timely policy decisions and improving public services, while £18·7 million is to promote equality of opportunity, human rights and improved community relations and to meet the needs of victims. When adjusted for capital and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is £32 million.

The Northern Ireland Assembly is seeking £37·7 million to cover Members' salaries and expenses and the Assembly Secretariat. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £38·8 million.

I remind the Assembly that the spending plans that we are debating today derive from the first Budget cycle for which the devolved institutions have been solely responsible. We have collectively risen to the challenge of looking afresh at what our priorities should be, and at the social and economic outcomes that we wish to achieve through public expenditure.

Through the Programme for Government we have established a number of important priorities upon which we will wish to build our policies and develop our thinking further. These include meeting our equality obligations and giving proper recognition to need through targeting social need and the priority areas and initiatives that will attract additional funding through the Executive programme funds.

In commending this Supply resolution to the Assembly, it is right that we should reflect on the importance of being able to make these decisions in a devolved Assembly for a complete financial year for the first time. It is also appropriate that we ensure proper levels of management and control over the use of these resources so that they give maximum effect and deliver the highest quality and the greatest range of services possible for the citizens of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his detailed account of the Supply resolution and for the opportunity to contribute to this debate as Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee.

Due to the suspension of the Assembly last year, the Committees had little time to consider the Main Estimates on the Supply resolution. This year there was disruption because of the Westminster and local government elections. There has, however, been limited time for the Committees to scrutinise their departmental spending plans.

The Finance and Personnel Committee questioned the Department's officials on three occasions on the Main Estimates, as proof copies became available. The Minister has today given a detailed account of the Supply resolution. The Committee welcomed the Minister's proposal that the Committees should have the opportunity to scrutinise and focus on the Supply resolution to ensure that they were content that it reflects the needs of their respective Departments in the Programme for Government. The Committee advised the Minister of its preference to present the Executive funds as a separate functional line within the request for resources, as this is the case for expenditure such as the European Peace programme.

However, the Finance and Personnel Committee has expressed concern at the complete absence of prior consultation with the Assembly Committees regarding how to allocate the funds that become available through the monitoring rounds. These allocations are simply presented to the Assembly as a fait accompli, with no opportunity for the Statutory Committees to bring any influence to bear on how they are spent.

I suggest that the way in which in-year monitoring is handled should be re-examined. The procedures that were adopted during the direct rule era have continued on and carried across without serious consideration having been given as to whether they are appropriate in new circumstances. In the Committee's opinion these procedures are far from being appropriate. A revised arrangement is needed in which the Department of Finance and Personnel anticipates the likelihood of additional resources becoming available as a result of the in-year monitoring. The Assembly Committees could be given advance information about the scale of the funds and their availability for reallocation, and their views could be sought in relation to how these funds could be reallocated, before the Executive Committee takes its final decision.

I speak for all departmental Committees when I say that the Committees must be fully consulted on future spending plans, including related financial matters such as the spending review, the regional rate, and the European Union structural funds. This should be undertaken early in the year to ensure that the Committees can make an effective contribution.

The Committees can demand this within the existing structures. Each Committee has the right to question its Department on what bids it is making and how it proposes to spend the money. Additionally, there is a duty on each Department to ensure that its respective departmental Committee has the information it needs to perform its statutory role of scrutinising, considering and advising on the departmental Estimates.

I refer to one of the principal points raised in the Committee for Finance and Personnel's report with regard to the Budget proposals in November. The Committee suggested that steps needed to be taken to reassess the application of the Barnett formula with particular reference to its inability to address the present infrastructure deficit, the low population density across most of our region and, significantly, social need and deprivation. We suggested that the Minister look again at a joint approach with our counterparts in Scotland and Wales. With the involvement of the Committees a co-ordinated approach could be made to the Treasury.

I would like to impress upon the Minister the overriding need to agree procedures for the handling of the annual financial cycle. The Committee for Finance and Personnel is extremely concerned about the Minister's proposal for the handling of the early stages of the public service financial cycle.

It is clear in the Belfast Agreement and reiterated in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that the Committees have a statutory duty to advise Ministers in the formulation of policy. The role of the Committees in relation to the preparation of budgets is a central theme in their work. However, in this area it appears that the Executive Committee and the Department of Finance and Personnel are paying lip service to the functions of the Committees. It is clear that the various Departments have been told not to discuss their bids and proposals for the 2002-03 financial year with Committees until tomorrow's announcement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. This effectively prevents Committees from becoming involved with their Departments' crucial stage of development of financial policy. The involvement of Committees in early consultation is crucial in planning ahead.

In virtually all other areas my Committee Colleagues are content with the procedures proposed by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. We still question the issue of early consultation. The success of future procedures depends on the ability of Committees to become involved in the early formulation of financial policy by individual Departments. To my knowledge there has been no coherent argument put forward to justify the withdrawal of rights of Committees to obtain policy papers relating to the bidding process, to be consulted and to have their views taken into account.

This situation is unacceptable to me and to the Committee, as it is to other Committee Chairpersons and members. I ask the Minister to look at this again. With this proviso in mind, I am content to recommend the Minister's Supply resolution to the Assembly.

My Committee met on Friday 15 June and agreed that I should speak on its behalf in this debate. This Supply resolution allows consideration of the 2001-02 Main Estimates. Committee members received papers, including proof copies of these Estimates, in mid-May. At a meeting on 18 May Committee members agreed that their main interests in exercising their statutory powers regarding budgets lay in budget bids and allocations specifically related to the Department, rather than in the overall format and presentation of Estimates and general financial procedures. They therefore passed no comment on the proof copies of the Main Estimates. On Friday, however, members compared the final estimates with the plans previously tabled in the Programme for Government and the announcements regarding Executive programme funds.

Members were reassured by the Department's explanation of the differences in the figures, due mainly to the change from cash to resource terms. The Committee noted the inclusion in the Estimates of £2·4 million for Executive programme funds in this year, and it was content that this reflected announcements made by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Through the Executive programme funds the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has secured important resources additional to those agreed in the original Budget. At that time the Committee supported the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's unsuccessful bids under farm waste management, nutrient management and organic farming.

The Committee, having considered the draft LEADER programme last October, also welcomed the additional funding for the LEADER+ programme. However, when considering the Department's Executive programme funds bids, the Committee noted that here had been no bid for funds to implement early retirement or new entrants schemes for farmers. These are imperative for the future of farming and for farming to remain the main job provider in Northern Ireland. It has long been the Committee's view that such schemes are needed urgently. The foot-and-mouth disease crisis has simply brought this home, and we will be looking for action on this front - not pleasant words or promises on the dark horizon, but real action for the farming community in this year's and next year's budgets.

Bad news for the fishing industry seems to be coming from Europe. Our fishing industry has already been decimated. There is an urgent need to deal with the decommissioning of boats in a realistic way. Why should fishermen, who have been given money to keep their boats in seaworthy condition to face bad weather conditions, be invited to pay back what they have received before they get any compensation whatsoever? That is an insult to the fishing industry.

While the Committee welcomes the increased funding for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for 2001-02, members agree that there should be no illusion in the Assembly, as quoted in the Ulster press, that the farmers are the big winners in this Budget. That is not a fact.

Farmers will need significant additional help, and, if we are realistic about keeping our farming industry, this year's resource allocation can be seen only as a beginning.

I will start in my capacity as Chairperson, and then speak on behalf of my party.

I note that in the Estimates relating to the Department of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment, the allocation for central administration appears to have increased considerably this year in comparison to the previous year, from £27 million to £37 million. The justification for that cannot simply be the cost of introducing the new Department, as such changes would have already fed through the system. I wonder whether this is the result of reallocations under different definitions, or if it is a real change in administrative costs. That might be a cause for legitimate concern, both for the Committee and others.

I want to make two other points on the estimates allocated to the Department of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment. These remarks will be based on a report published last week by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The report, 'Education at a Glance', provided statistics for all OECD members - basically, the Western economies - and made two points that are relevant to the situation in Northern Ireland.

First, of all OECD members, the UK has the largest number of 21-year-olds graduating from university. Northern Ireland has a considerably higher so-called participation rate amongst its young people than the UK average. That is a cause for some satisfaction. However, the Minister will not be surprised that I will not say that everything is fine. There are some worrying issues that continue to require attention, and hence there are implications for the allocation of money to our universities and other parts of the Department.

There is a question mark over whether that high level of participation in Northern Ireland has been compatible with the maintenance of quality standards. Certainly, as in the rest of the UK, the cost per unit of output in higher education has been squeezed over the last 10 or 15 years, and there is a resultant strain - sometimes a considerable strain - on staff and students.

Moreover, although Northern Ireland has a considerable proportion of 18-to-21-year-olds in higher education, around one quarter cannot stay here because there are insufficient places. While there has been some improvement in that regard, the need for increased numbers of places will have funding implications for the future.

Secondly, I want to address the area of adult basic skills.

The OECD report also showed that while the United Kingdom has a very good record of producing a high number of university graduates relative to the younger population, it also has the infamous position of being near the bottom of the OECD league with respect to the proportion of the working-age population who do not have basic numeracy or literacy skills. In this regard, Northern Ireland is no different from the United Kingdom average.

On behalf of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee I welcome the funds that have been allocated to deal with this problem. I also welcome the Executive programme fund moneys, but I put down a marker to say that those funds are probably inadequate, given the scale of the ongoing problem. It is a major social and economic issue that must be tackled.

I will now make some more general remarks. The motion concerns the fate of up to £5 billion, which is a considerable sum of money. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, it is a demonstration that we have, thankfully, moved away from the direct rule system, wherein such moneys would have been dealt with in an entirely different manner.

No one of any sense ever argued that the introduction of devolution per se and the introduction of these new arrangements to deal with the authorisation and accountability of public money would immediately and necessarily lead to Northern Ireland's becoming a land flowing with milk and honey. However, what can be reasonably argued is that we now have a process where the quality of decision-making is improved relative to what happened under direct rule. That improvement, while subtle, will, in the long run, create an economic and, ultimately, financial benefit which will exceed the considerable costs of running this Administration.

From time to time, the Executive will make mistakes in the allocation of money, but the point in comparison to direct rule is not that mistakes are not made, it is that those mistakes will, I hope, be corrected more rapidly than was the case before 1999. Today we are considering £5 billion expenditure in the Northern Ireland block, but whatever happens to the Barnett formula it would be unwise to assume or bank on any big jump - much though we might like it - in the amount of public money provided per capita. That is not at all likely. The imperative is, and no doubt always will be, one of a careful stewardship of our resources. I support the motion.

I thank the Minister for his in-depth examination of the Supply resolution. We were very glad of his grasp of the financial situation, because at times it seemed quite expansive to me. The Committee welcomes the additional allocations in the Budget this year in respect of libraries, health and safety in sports grounds, the languages body and improved access to, and participation in, the arts by young people and those who are most disadvantaged in the community. As we have pointed out already, the Department's total allocation is modest compared to its assessment of its need for this year.

The Committee hopes that the Department will fare better in 2002-03. We, like all other Committees, have aspirations in that regard, although we have not yet been informed of what those needs are.

We were also glad that the Executive programme funds provided much-needed resources - totalling £7 million over three years - in critical areas, including some that we have pushed very strongly for. One example is the £400,000 to be spent this year on beginning the process of buying out the commercial fishing nets around the Northern Ireland coastline. As I have said before in the House, the impact of this measure in arresting the decline in the North Atlantic salmon population in our rivers will be enormous.

There is also £300,000 additional expenditure to begin work on the vital and imaginative Northern Ireland electronic libraries project.

Our Committee has expressed its concern to the Department that following negotiations nothing was included for the safety improvements of existing motorcycle road racing facilities. Again, I take the opportunity on behalf of the Committee to remind the House and the Minister of Finance about this issue, which has been the subject of much debate in the Committee, the Department and the community. It is an issue requiring urgent attention, and it is one in which small amounts of funding could go a very long way.

The Committee is also concerned that the current year's funding for the arts is so low. The Minister referred to it as an improvement in expenditure. For a couple of months, we have been taking oral evidence in our inquiry into cultural tourism and the arts, and it is clear that this area is very poorly funded despite the tremendous potential and talent that exists in all aspects of the arts in Northern Ireland. I am amazed that there are so many enthusiastic and committed people in the arts. With a small nudge in the right direction, that potential could achieve a tremendous amount for the whole community and could help to create sustainability.

The closure of the Navan Centre has very seriously concerned the Committee, and it would be remiss of me not to mention it. The main reason given was resource problems. The Committee has asked for a meeting with the Minister to go through the detail of the situation, and I do not want to pre-empt that. However, this is as good an opportunity as any to make a point on behalf of the Committee. A pre-emptive move such as this closure, without a proper examination - at least, as far as we are aware there was no proper examination - of the circumstances that led to that decision seems to have been very hasty indeed. It came towards the end of the foot-and mouth disease crisis, when one might have hoped to see an upturn in visitor figures. Considering the importance of that facility for Northern Ireland, the whole island, and internationally, it is a very abrupt way of dealing with a situation.

As we all know, once something is closed it can be very difficult to get it up and running again. Is there any possibility that the Minister of Finance might have an idea of how to handle this type of crisis with support until such times as a proper publicly accountable examination can be carried out to ensure that such decisions are not too hasty?

The Committee also shares the view of the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee and other Chairpersons that finding adequate time for consultation is problematic. I recognise that time laid aside for consultation can be freely interfered with by events such as elections. I applaud the Minister on his clear attempt to improve on last year's timescale. As we should also continue to look at ways in which we could make the timescale even better, I am glad that the Minister announced that intention earlier.

In general, the Committee welcomes and supports this stage of the Supply resolution.

I want to focus on the shortfall that will affect the road system and the education system in my constituency and on its periphery, despite the proposed increase that the Minister spoke of.

Many of us in the Ards borough and on the Ards Peninsula sat by while road improvements took place elsewhere. That must be proactively addressed. It is all very well for people to say that the Minister for Regional Development can do that. On the contrary, he can only do so if he is given the funding. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance and Personnel's statement estimated that the increase for the Department for Regional Development should amount to 2·58%. Obviously that is of great concern to us, because that 2·58% could be used in the Strangford constituency alone.

Our roads have continued to deteriorate and are now in the worst condition seen for many decades. Last winter saw the Ards borough road network in especially bad straits. While some improvement work has been done, the number of serious potholes in the area has highlighted the need for more attention. It is clear to any regular car user that the deterioration of the roads is ever-increasing, to the extent that drivers may be unable to control their vehicles.

The Roads Service has a number of appointees whose duty it is to locate and mark parts of the roads which need to be repaired. A great deal of the deterioration appears to have been missed. The Department seems to be playing catch-up with the amount of repairs that are needed to the roads in my area. This must be addressed.

In addition, the Roads Service was allocated only about half the amount needed to maintain the road network. Divisional road managers in the service are currently preparing proposed road maintenance programmes for 2001?. They will inform councils about that programme at the end of June. The Roads Service advised me that the focus will be on the structural maintenance of the road network through carriageway resurfacing and surface dressing, along with the repair and augmentation of the road drainage system.

Will there be adequate funding for the Roads Service's proposals? My constituents and I are worried that we will again find that the roads in the Ards borough and the Strangford constituency fall far behind those in other parts of the Province. My Colleague Mr Gibson always tells us that the roads in west Tyrone are the worst, but if he comes to the Ards Peninsula he will see what bad roads are.

As a result of the inability to cope with repairs, the Department for Regional Development hears a litany of compensation claims. Over the past months, an increasing number of my constituents in Strangford have come to the advice centre in Frances Street with complaints about the state of the roads, the damage caused to vehicles by poor road conditions and the length of time they must wait to obtain compensation.

Some have been waiting for more than six months for compensation claims to be properly processed despite the fact that the average waiting time is five and a half months. There is something seriously wrong if the claims can not be processed on time. Changes need to be made as soon as possible to make the system more efficient so that the Department can give the public a satisfactory level of service.

Our roads are disintegrating as a result of gross underfunding, and the number of claims for compensation reflects the dire nature of the situation. In 1999-00, 1,702 compensation claims were submitted in the area that I represent. In 2000-01, 2,094 claims were submitted which is a rise of almost a quarter.

Mr McCoubrey of the Roads Service stated that

In spite of this, his Department, because of its lack of funding, has been unable to grasp the nettle. We are desperately seeking to attract business and employment to the area, but I am sure that the poor condition of the roads has been a major factor in the failure by interested parties to secure investment. We need to ask why people who have come to our constituency with a view to developing factories or businesses there have not stayed.

I have lobbied the Department on several occasions, and I will continue to do so. However, Members, and Mr Durkan in particular, must add their voices to the list of concerned parties. Perhaps Mr Durkan can release the necessary funding. The situation is wholly unacceptable. After ten years of lobbying, the main route between Portavogie and Ballyhalbert has finally been upgraded. Such delay is unwarranted, and the state of disrepair is unparalleled. That message must be made very clear.

The situation is such that the Department's commitment to providing and maintaining a satisfactory road network and its compensation procedures must be questioned. We must ask why there has been such underfunding of roads that their deterioration is increasing the number of compensation claims. The Minister for Regional Development has assured me that he will be pressing for further funding. However, beyond the 2·58% increase, what funding can the Minister allocate to our area?

I will highlight areas in my constituency where there is insufficient funding for education. The education budget has been increased by 9·7%, and this is to be welcomed, but will any of that money be spent on the people that I represent? In the mid-Down area, which includes part of the area Mr ONeill represents, most people, especially those with children who are approaching secondary school age, are aware of the difficulty in obtaining school places. They are also aware of the public pressure for the reopening of Killyleagh High School.

The cases of pupils who were refused admission to Saintfield High School have been well documented by the media. As a result of the fundamental problem of insufficient places, weaknesses have filtered through all aspects of the transfer procedure. As a result the criteria used in the area, and especially in Saintfield, to allocate places have become inefficient and profoundly unfair. In other areas there are no such problems, and criteria can be used successfully without alienating or offending anyone. In Saintfield, however, the use of the same criteria over the past few years has resulted in prejudice against some local children.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>