NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
Monday 5 November 2001 (continued)
12.45 pm
Mr Ford:
I rise as leader of the Alliance Party, a party committed to the centre ground, to support the nominations of David Trimble and Mark Durkan to the posts of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I need not repeat the comments expressed on Friday. Everyone knows where my party stands on the need for progress under the agreement and on the need for people to be seen to be working together and for a collective approach.
It is absolutely clear from the reactions that I have received over the weekend that there is a huge will in the community to see the Assembly make progress and to see the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to match the other Ministers who are in place and to match the workings of the Assembly and its Committees.
Many people have told us over the last several years what they will and will not do. I am prepared to swallow my pride in certain respects. There are clear assurances that there are moves to resolve the difficulties that were demonstrated last Friday. I recognise that others have done what they previously said they would not do. I can remember when Sinn Féin spokesmen told us that the IRA would never decommission, and the IRA has decommissioned. Whether or not some people believe it, I believe that Gen de Chastelain is an honourable man and his word is good enough for me. That is why we asked him to come - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr Ford:
We are incapable of dealing with serious issues such as decommissioning. That is why we have had to ask for help from outside. It is time that we grew up and took on the responsibilities ourselves. That is why we must elect the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
I am also conscious of all that Sinn Féin has meant to the DUP, or what the DUP would not do with Sinn Féin. However, every Member knows that we have rotating, hokey-cokey DUP Ministers playing a part alongside Sinn Féin Ministers and that DUP Members sit in Committees negotiating and talking with Sinn Féin Members. So, if we are going to talk about charades and pantomimes, let us remember that the DUP has made its efforts here a complete pantomime and charade for three years. If some of us must live with that for 24 hours, we shall because the greater good requires it. [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr Ford:
It is also essential that we deal with our problems and that a review makes serious progress on them. I shall be voting for David Trimble and Mark Durkan. I shall do that with pride, not in the designation I hold at the time, but as a representative of the vast majority of the people of this community who want us to go forward together.
Mr C Wilson:
Everything has been said that can be said about the proposed appointment tomorrow of Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan. As we shall not have an opportunity to debate the matter tomorrow, I want to bring these proceedings to a conclusion by appealing directly to the Ulster Unionist Members to examine their consciences, between now and whenever the vote is taken. They should consider whether their loyalty is correctly placed and whether they should have more concern about loyalty to their party leader, which is normal in a party - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. It is only fair to hear the Member out.
Mr C Wilson:
They should have consideration for their party. However, the priority for Ulster Unionist Members, when they consider this matter overnight, should be their country. They were charged, when they were elected, to defend Northern Ireland's position as an integral part of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that the decision of the House tomorrow will greatly affect the future of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. They should disregard the final attempt that was made by Mr Trimble and those in the Ulster Unionist Party to coerce them into supporting his reappointment and therefore the reappointment of Mr Martin McGuinness and Ms de Brún, and the continuation of the Executive and the Assembly.
Members should consider the latest promise - because we have moved on to another piece of nonsense from Mr Trimble and his party. Mr Trimble told Ulster Unionist Party members and its executive - and no doubt he will tell the council when it meets - that all decommissioning will take place by February of next year. I am certain that if the Members on the Sinn Féin/IRA Benches were honest they would tell Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party that there is no chance of any such thing happening.
Mr Trimble has misrepresented the facts. He tells the House that decommissioning will have to be completed because the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning is due to wind up its work in February. A review is to be held in February 2002 as that is normal procedure in United Kingdom legislation. That is not required in the Republic of Ireland. The British Government will review Gen de Chastelain's position in February and then they will appoint it for another five years.
In a few months or a few years, the Ulster Unionist Party may be sitting in an Executive with a party that is inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation - a party that continues to hold weapons and a large arsenal. The violence, targeting and all the other activities in which it still engages will continue. Every member of the Ulster Unionist Party must consider that; they need not point the finger at Mr Trimble or at the party executive when that becomes apparent.
The Ulster Unionist Party Members have a choice. In years to come, when their children or grandchildren ask them where they stood on the issue of putting Sinn Féin/IRA back into Government, it is to be hoped that they will be able to hold their heads high and say that, when the chips were down and the votes were counted, they took a stand, not for the Ulster Unionist Party but for Ulster and for Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom. It is hoped that they will say that they took a stand for democracy, decency, and law and order.
Tomorrow's vote, should the Ulster Unionist Party permit it to happen, will affect the future of Northern Ireland. Members are corrupting the democratic process and undermining the rule of law and order in Northern Ireland. The reappointment of Mr Trimble will underline Northern Ireland's departure from democracy and from support for the rule of law.
Ms Morrice:
I add to the debate my voice, my vote, the vote of my Assembly Colleague, Monica McWilliams, and the vote of the people who elected the Women's Coalition so that it might participate in the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Women's Coalition's ability to ensure that its votes counted in the election was only made possible by the initiative that it took on Friday to allow re-designation to have immediate effect.
As Members know, the Women's Coalition Members changed their designation - myself to Unionist and Monica McWilliams to Nationalist - to directly reflect the party's cross-community nature. By its actions, the Women's Coalition called into question the discriminatory nature of a system that does not take the votes of "Others" into account. The Women's Coalition believes that every vote in the House should count in this crucial election and it is pleased that on Friday it opened a door for others to follow.
However, I wish to emphasise one point, perhaps to Mr Trimble himself. It has been said that the Ulster Unionist Party leader, the person who has been proposed as First Minister, should only receive genuine Unionist votes. May I remind the House that David Trimble can only be elected by Unionist and Nationalist votes, and that Mark Durkan can only be elected by Nationalist and Unionist votes.
I want to make this clear. We are voting for a slate that is neither one thing nor the other. It is both. We support cross-community coalition government.
The election is about more than putting the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in place. It is about sustaining the institutions of the agreement. The DUP says that it will use every opportunity to bring down the agreement, including the use of ministerial "musical chairs". That minority will use every procedural mechanism to usurp the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland who voted for the Good Friday Agreement.
As demonstrated on Friday, the Women's Coalition can use procedural measures in a more noble fashion in the pursuit of positive democratic advancement in recognition of the democratically expressed wish of the people of Northern Ireland.
Those who challenge the election of David Trimble and Mark Durkan fail to recognise that the two largest parties should have the posts of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. There is no question about that.
The anti-agreement parties speak nonsensically about legitimacy and motives for re-designation. Mr Mallon pointed out that we have seen schisms, party formations and individual and collective splits throughout the anti-agreement camp. The election is about getting ourselves out of a political limbo and back to the business of government.
That is possible because of new and exciting events in Northern Ireland politics. Parties have been standing separately behind the roadblock of decommissioning. That roadblock has been lifted. We must choose to walk through together or stand back alone.
Mr McCartney:
I listened to Reg Empey defend the agreement with all the ferocity of a toothless sheep. Is this the Reg Empey who, when the Brooke/Mayhew talks foundered upon the rock of SDLP intransigence, wept and said that for people like him, the sticky fingers on the levers of power had gone for a generation?
This is the man who proclaims the great successes of devolution. What are its great successes? The economy and unemployment figures were not dependent on anything that the Assembly did. We simply rolled forward on the benefits of a world economic cycle, which is now going the other way. Reg Empey and the Assembly are powerless to do anything about that. He tells us about the great benefits that the Assembly will bring to the Health Service. The Health Service is in a disastrous situation, worse than that which prevails in the rest of the United Kingdom. He tells us about education. Education was the one area of government that succeeded under Northern Ireland provisions when comprehensive provisions in the rest of the United Kingdom were having a disastrous effect on its education system. That will all go. Those are the benefits of the Assembly.
Mr Mallon tells us about the great changes that have occurred since 1973. Great changes indeed.
We now have the political representatives of armed terrorists, Loyalist and Republican, in Government: that is a great change. He dismisses adherence to the procedures of government as unimportant. One of the greatest English jurists, Sir Henry Maine, said:
"Many of the most important and major principles of the law are contained in the rules of procedure."
The rules were not laid down by anti-agreement Unionists; they were put into the Belfast Agreement by the pro-agreement parties and by the two sovereign Governments as a safeguard against a breach of the kind that is intended today. The rules were put there to ensure that the balance between Nationalist and Unionist opinion was preserved and that the form of government was truly cross-community.
1.00 pm
The enlightened Jane Morrice talked about the discriminatory nature of the system. The system was put in place by the parties to the agreement as a safeguard provision. Now, because the system does not suit, it has suddenly become discriminatory. Safeguards are abandoned because they no longer suit.
Ms Morrice also spoke about sustaining the institutions of the agreement, but she forgets that she tore up one of the most fundamental institutions of the agreement - a safeguard for ensuring that only a majority of Unionists and a majority of Nationalists could take certain decisions, including the election of the First Minister. She also talked about majorities. I understood that the difference between devolution in Northern Ireland and that in Scotland and Wales was that the latter had majority systems. We did not have a majority system; we had a cross-community system, based on securing a majority of Unionist votes and a majority of Nationalist votes. It was not intended that that would be defiled and distorted by transvestite Members and horses' asses.
There are people here who do not understand the basic principles of democratic procedure. The ends are being used to justify the means. Ms Morrice is a very mixed-up person. The Assembly is being turned into a laughing stock, and the man and woman in the street know that.
Mr Speaker:
We have reached the end of the debate. In the normal course of events, I would put the Question, but, because the matter is subject to a petition of concern, it will, as with the previous Question, be put at a later time.
Assembly: Business Committee
Resolved:
That Mr Maurice Morrrow should replace Mr Nigel Dodds MP on the Business Committee. - [Rev Dr Ian Paisley.]
Mr McGrady:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the discussion about timetabling and the need for the Business Committee to meet to consider that matter, may I suggest that the Assembly adjourn for approximately one hour to allow that business to be done.
Mr Speaker:
The Assembly suspends - rather than adjourns - for lunch. That happens by leave of the Assembly. Are Members content that the House suspend for one hour and resume at 2.00 pm?
Members indicated assent.
The sitting was suspended at 1.04 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) -
2.00 pm
Draft Budget Statement
The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr Leslie):
We return to more prosaic matters. If all the huffing and puffing, by some mischance, blows the House down, it would be just as well to leave the books in good order. I beg to move
That this Assembly takes note of the Draft Budget announced on 25 September 2001 by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
On 25 September, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, presented the Executive's draft Budget proposals for the financial year 2002-03, in accordance with section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In making his presentation, the Minister acknowledged that Departments suffer serious pressures and shortfalls. The Committee recognises that, in producing the draft Budget, difficult decisions had to be made to strike a balance between competing demands across Departments, of which there were plenty.
I have no doubt that the Minister and the Executive devoted much thought and a considerable amount of arm-wrestling to allocating finite resources so as to obtain the maximum return and to support the Programme for Government. Members must ask whether the correct balance has been achieved.
This debate will provide Members with an opportunity to comment on the priorities outlined in the draft Budget and to argue a case for any change to them. The Finance and Personnel Committee will be taking note of the issues raised by Members. It will reflect on those issues, together with written submissions from other Committees and produce a co-ordinated report on the draft Budget. On behalf of the Committee, I express appreciation for the timely and full responses that it received from every statutory Committee and from the Committee of the Centre. Those responses will be included in full in the report.
The Budget that we will finalise in December covers the second year of the 2000 spending review. There has been a relatively rapid growth in public spending since the comprehensive spending review of 1998. The departmental expenditure limits allocated by the Treasury show a rise of 5·8% in public expenditure in the financial year 2002-03, which is about 3% above general inflation. The allocations build on the 5·5% real-term increase in the 2001-02 Budget. However, even with these increases to the departmental expenditure limits - which the Treasury has indicated that we should not expect to continue after the 2002 spending review - it remains the case that most Departments are running to stand still.
The Minister, when discussing the draft Budget, and indeed any matter relating to finance, referred to the Barnett formula. Many Members feel that much can be gained by renegotiating that formula. The Finance and Personnel Committee has questioned officials closely about its application to Northern Ireland. The Committee recognises that Barnett is often weak at reflecting the particular needs of Northern Ireland, following some years of underinvestment in infrastructure and transport and in the acute needs of the health and education sectors.
Although it would appear that Westminster accepts that the shortfalls in public services require fundamental review, and, at the Westminster level, significant additional resources are being allocated, there is no guarantee that any Barnett formula consequential for Northern Ireland will focus on the same priorities. I reiterate that it is a question of deciding what our priorities are in Northern Ireland. I trust that that will consume some of Members' attention in this debate.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel shares those concerns about the Barnett formula and wants to see Treasury allocations to Northern Ireland reflecting the needs of the people. The Committee recognises that there is some need for caution. It is not axiomatic that Barnett should be regarded as the root of all evil. The Finance Committee welcomes the Executive's determination to address the Barnett issue and looks forward to an early report from the Minister on whatever progress is being made.
The Committee recently agreed that a research paper on Barnett that it commissioned should be made available on the Assembly Intranet. I urge Members who have an interest in the matter to have a look at that paper. The Barnett formula is by no means straightforward - it is surprisingly sophisticated in some of its manifestations. To inform a worthy debate on it and to drive any representations that are made to the Treasury, the more Members who get their heads around it, the better.
During last year's debate on the draft Budget, Members raised concerns about the Budget timetable and the need to involve Statutory Committees at an early stage when departmental spending priorities were being considered. The Minister said that those concerns would be borne in mind for the current Budget cycle, which would be initiated and run in tandem with the drafting of the Programme for Government.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel recognises that the Executive have gone some way to meeting those concerns. This year's timetable has certainly been better than last year - although that would not necessarily be difficult. On this occasion the Minister has brought the draft Budget to the Assembly at an earlier date, thereby giving the Committees an additional two weeks to scrutinise the departmental allocations. There is a general consensus that the extended timetable has proved valuable in allowing Committees, among all their other work, to plan and consider the details of the proposals for their Departments. There is also a feeling that it would not matter how early you started - you could always do with more time to consider those matters.
The publication for consultation of the Executive's position report prior to the summer recess was also a recognition that Committees and the public need to be consulted on the Executive's developing plans for the Budget and the Programme for Government. The preparation of and consultation on the report was, in effect, an additional stage in the Budget and Programme for Government consultation process. The Committee for Finance and Personnel found that useful.
The position report provided the Committees with a focus and a starting point for the commencement of budgetary considerations. In future budgetary cycles, that stage will grow in importance as Committees have access to service development agreements, providing much more detail than is currently available to use as benchmarks against which to assess departmental plans and allocations.
Most of us are just starting to focus on these public service agreements, but they will have an important role to play in enabling us to focus on whether there has been an increase or a decrease in efficiency of delivery within Departments. The Committee for Finance and Personnel welcomes these developments. However, the Committee remains concerned that further improvement in the process is necessary if Committees are to have sufficient and appropriate opportunities to contribute to the Budget process.
It remains the case that the earlier a Committee starts looking at the Budget for the subsequent year, the more impact it is likely to be able to have on the outcomes. Essentially, it is never too early to start. Committees are beginning to identify, as the Finance Committee has, that the Departments may not be keen on Committees starting early. Indeed, from their point of view, Departments have more chance of getting their proposals accepted if a Committee starts late.
Members are now more familiar with the structures of the Departments that they scrutinise. I trust, therefore, that they can examine those matters further in advance and that they will be in a better position to drive the policies that are attached to the budgetary decisions. Nonetheless, I put on record my Committee's generally positive reaction to the improvements in the budgetary cycle. The Minister should, however, note the intention of the Finance and Personnel Committee to pursue further improvements through its report on the draft Budget, which will soon be published.
Committees have expressed almost universal concern about the failure of Departments to consult them appropriately during the bidding round for the second tranche of the Executive programme funds. The allocations made to successful bids from the Executive programme funds represent a real increase in the Department's spending allocation, both in-year and across the budget cycle. There is probably a greater impact - certainly a greater discretionary impact - from the Executive programme funds than is likely to derive from this Budget round.
Unfortunately, the timetable for the Executive programme funds bidding process did not, in the eyes of many Committees, deliver an opportunity to be fully involved, informed or even properly engaged in the process. Owing to the serious problems identified with the process, the Committee for Finance and Personnel decided to act on behalf of the other statutory Committees, and of the Committee of the Centre, and to raise their concerns with the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
As a consequence, on 19 October 2001 the Committee published a report co-ordinating its views with those of the other Committees. The report outlined the problems and detailed 16 substantial recommendations for the attention of the Minister of Finance and Personnel and of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who share responsibility for managing the Executive programme funds bidding process. The Minister is considering the report and will return to the Committee shortly to discuss methods and suggestions for improvements to the process. I assure him that Members and Committees expect to see a substantial improvement in that area in the future. In that context, it is never too early to start focusing on the next Budget, and by the same token it would never be too early for Committees to start focusing on the next round of Executive programme funds. In any case, the general criteria and the allocations to those funds are already well laid out.
I will not go into details of the Budget; my remarks are more general. However, I draw attention to one matter in the Department of Finance and Personnel. As well as conducting a thorough and strategic examination of the Executive programme funds, the Finance Committee took considerable pains to examine strategic issues in the Department of Finance and Personnel's central finance group section - if you like, the engine room for the Budget and the Executive programme funds process. Our aim was to ensure that the resources available to this pivotal part of the Budget management process were appropriate to meet the Department's objectives as set out in the Programme for Government. From the concerns expressed to us by senior departmental officials, it was clear that resources in that area have been stretched to meet challenging objectives. As a result, the Committee for Finance and Personnel agreed that effective management of the financial process is essential if the outcomes that we all desire are to be achieved. The Committee, therefore, has supported, and will continue to support, the allocation of extra resources to the central finance group in the Department of Finance and Personnel in order to secure those objectives.
The purpose of today's debate is to give Members the opportunity to raise their concerns, to support various provisions, to pose further questions and to probe the issues. It will enable the Committee for Finance and Personnel to listen to and note the issues raised, to inform its proposals and to advise the Minister accordingly.
2.15 pm
That concludes my remarks as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel; I now wish to make several personal ones.
Whether public services are delivered in the most effective way has become a national issue, particularly since the last general election. A great deal of soul-searching is going on over that. An interesting question arises as to whether responsibility for any fundamental changes, such as in how the Health Service is operated, should be transferred from Westminster, letting the devolved Administrations decide whether they should adopt them or not. That may well be what Westminster expects to happen. It does not need to be done in that way. We should also consider whether there is scope for the devolved Administrations to take the lead in reviewing how some services are provided and whether there is scope within existing departmental expenditure limits to look at things in what could turn out to be a radical way. I toss that thought out for consideration.
Members, and in particular members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, must always focus on the fact that we are dealing with taxpayers' money. Those taxpayers come from throughout the United Kingdom, and it is important to ensure that they get value for money from the public services. The public service agreements and the service development agreements are new initiatives to assist in that. However, we must look at the administrative structure that surrounds how Departments exercise their different functions. Money is tighter than it was, and that should be a further stimulus to examine whether the administrative structures are appropriate or whether there is scope to pare them down and place more focus on outcomes and less on process. I trust that when Committees are scrutinising the work of their Departments, they will take account of those matters.
Taxpayers are becoming concerned about whether they get value for money from public services. If there is to be an increase in general taxation, to go with the considerable increases that have occurred in past years, albeit of a stealthy nature, taxpayers will become increasingly cynical and question the real value that comes from that extra taxation.
I look forward to hearing the views of Members, and I welcome today's opportunity to have an extended debate on the draft Budget.
Ms Lewsley:
I welcome the opportunity that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has given Members to take part in a wider debate on the draft Budget. There is much to be commended in its proposals. The Minister has shown insight and fairness in dealing with the difficult task of allocating funds to areas of need and social deprivation.
As I have said before, it is easy to advocate change when in opposition, but it is not so easy when in Government. It is absurd to see the people who claim that they want change, and who are the most vocal about the Executive programme funds, resisting the mechanisms in the Budget for change.
We are all aware of the problems that many of the public services face, but rapid growth in that area is essential. At present, that growth still falls short of meeting expectations for service delivery, particularly in the health sector, where there is a serious deficit in funding for current needs, let alone increased future requirements.
The promotion of interdepartmental co-ordination to deal with issues that affect people with disabilities is a positive measure for building a stronger, more concerted way to alleviate current difficulties and to promote the social inclusion of one of the most disadvantaged sections of our population. Our aim is to provide better access to services and facilities for people with disabilities and to give them better access to education and employment. I commend the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning for addressing the issue in the draft Budget, because they are bringing people with disabilities in to line with the rest of society.
The draft Budget contains a proposal to allocate an extra £20 million for education in 2002-03. That represents an increase of 4·8 % on last year's allocation. However, is that funding enough to make a real impact, particularly on TSN? Many schools are still experiencing funding difficulties, and, to advance the review of post-primary education and the review of local management of schools (LMS) grants, adequate funding will be needed to implement real change.
It is commendable that the Executive have recognised the difficulties faced by the education sector and that they have prioritised those needs. However, a revision of the Barnett formula would be preferable to ensure a more equitable allocation of funding in line with England. However, there has not been a spending review in Westminster, and it seems that we still have to work within the constraints on our spending power.
I am concerned about the effects of the proposed £2 million cut in the local government resources grant. The consequences of that could leave less-well-off councils in a serious situation with regard to services for local communities. We need all Departments to examine their spending patterns to ensure that they are relevant to the real needs of those communities.
Our targets in the Programme for Government must be reviewed and examined regularly to enable us to turn them into realistically achievable objectives. However, we cannot do that without adequate funding in the first place. To achieve that goal, we must show support for the Minister of Finance and Personnel in his endeavours to secure greater levels of funding to benefit all of our constituents.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Rev Dr Ian Paisley):
My Committee met the Minister on 12 October to discuss the draft Budget and the draft Programme for Government. Members also agreed their formal response to the draft Budget during a meeting on 26 October. They had the chance to consider a draft of the contribution that I will make to the House today, and no comments were received.
One issue in regard to the draft Budget concerns the Committee more than any other: no provision is made for the implementation of the findings of the vision group's recently published report on the future of the agrifood industry. The Committee has not completed its own consideration of the report, and we will not agree with all of its recommendations. However, through the Assembly's research services, the Committee has established that many areas could be described as compatible or consistent with recommendations already made by the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in its inquiry reports.
On 19 October, the Committee met some of the authors of the vision group report, who expressed disappointment that the original bid for money had not been met. One of the subgroup chairmen pointed to the group's 208 recommendations and pleaded with the Committee to help secure the resources required to implement them. The Committee takes a similar line, pointing to its own two inquiries, which have resulted in four reports containing 73 recommendations. The vision group deliberated for more than a year, while the inquiries of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee lasted a year and a half. If there is no finance available to at least implement a proportion of those well-thought-out proposals, then all our time has been wasted.
The Executive's position report published in June 2001 asked Committees to concentrate on what will be achieved through Departments' programmes, rather than on bids. However, in this case the Committee cannot separate those two aspects. If new actions are not financed there can be no new outcomes. At best, the agriculture industry will remain in the doldrums it has descended into in the last few years. At worst, it may not survive at all.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's original bid was for £10 million per annum for implementation, but this bid seems to have been totally rejected. The Minister explained to the Committee that the proposed budget settlement was a satisfactory outcome for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. She went on to outline her intention to bid for Executive programme funds for the necessary resources for the vision report, which she described as being £10 million - in total, presumably.
The Committee accepts that, for example, the new directions fund would be an appropriate source of funds for some of the actions proposed by the vision group and, indeed, by the Committee. There may also be scope for some reallocation of existing resources within the Department's budget. In the face of massive change in the industry, it is inevitable and desirable that the Government's approach must also change. However, it is not prudent to put all your eggs in the one basket. The Executive programme funds are limited, and there will be great pressures for access to them from all Departments. The Committee is concerned that the funds will not be able to satisfy the Department's implementation demands. Members are therefore convinced that there should be some mainstream element in the Budget to fund those actions. I would like to hear the Minister of Finance and Personnel's response to that theme.
There is a clear commitment in the Programme for Government to implementing an action plan for the strategic development of the agrifood industry. If the Executive are genuine in this commitment to the people of rural Northern Ireland - which we welcome - they must underpin that commitment by providing adequate resources that must be firmly established in the Department's budget.
I will continue when I am called again after Question Time.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
We shall resume the debate on the draft Budget statement at 4.00 pm.
Oral Answers to Questions
Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Cruise Initiative
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Armstrong is not in his place, so we will move to question 2.
2.
Mrs Nelis
asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to give his assessment of the specific economic benefits of the cruise initiative.
2.30 pm
The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey):
The international cruise industry has been one of the fastest growing sectors in our travel and leisure industry. It brings substantial benefits not only directly to our ports but also to our visitor attractions, retail outlets, tour operations and hospitality establishments.
Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair.
Mrs Nelis:
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am very encouraged by the Minister's reply, and I thank him for it. I seek assurances for local councils that will invest considerable finance in the cruise initiative. I understand the Minister's proposals to improve this. Can he give assurances to local councils that are investing in the project so that they can assure local businesses that they will benefit from the spending of passengers who visit our cities through the cruise initiative?
Sir Reg Empey:
The Member is correct in saying that one of the key benefits - which we all hope for from this initiative - is that significant numbers of people who would otherwise not be visitors to Northern Ireland will come here. They will have an opportunity to visit various locations and will spend money in the areas where they shop or visit.
Ground handling agents are responsible for those visits, and they determine the itineraries on offer to passengers. This initiative, which is largely based around the Belfast and Londonderry conference, is only to get vessels into port. After that, the ground agents will offer various trips, which could comprise bus tours or walks into city centres.
The Tourist Board supports attendance at the major international conference, which showcases the cruise line industry. This projects Northern Ireland ports and helps them to attract attention. It has enjoyed a degree of success. Unfortunately, there have been some setbacks since 11 September. Renaissance Cruises has gone into liquidation - a company that accounted for three to four visits to Belfast per annum. Londonderry has done well in recent years and is improving in this market. During this summer it has been clear that significant numbers of passengers can be brought in. I assure the Member that we hope to follow this up with a sales initiative later in the year.
However, events since September are working against us, as the Member will understand. I have no doubt that there is significant potential. I can confirm that we will link up with the western isles of Scotland. Our tourist office in Glasgow is discussing opportunities with Cruise Scotland Ltd for joint marketing and a possible joint Northern Ireland/Scotland initiative to ensure that cruise ships visit both destinations. We are also working with Cruise Ireland. We hope to cover as many bases as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr McGrady has requested a written answer to question 3.
Bombardier Shorts
4.
Dr Birnie
asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline the implications for the scale of design work at Bombardier Shorts as a result of the recently announced job losses at the company.
Sir Reg Empey:
Details of the redundancies are still being discussed by the company and the trades unions. However, the company has assured me that the job losses will not affect its design and engineering capabilities in Belfast. I have also met trades union representatives and have asked them to keep me advised of progress.
Dr Birnie:
Does the Minister agree that it is of critical importance that, in order to maintain the durability of Bombardier Shorts employment in Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole, the design department be retained at as large a level as possible within Belfast?
Sir Reg Empey:
My views on that are well known. It is important to have the capacity to protect the long-term future of this and other companies. Some sectors have been under severe pressure in recent months, and those that have a significant research and development capability are the more stable.
Trades unions asked the question about design capability, and Bombardier assured my Department, not for the first time, that it remains fully committed. We are watching that closely, and we can tailor the letters of offer that the Industrial Development Board (IDB) makes to companies such as Bombardier to encourage that kind of development.
I assure the Member that I am satisfied with the replies I have received, but vigilance and care are needed to ensure that the potential for development is not lost, because that is the key to the long-term security of the manufacturing facility.
Mr Wells:
Following the lesson that has been learned from the excellent work done by his Department at the B/E Aerospace plant in Kilkeel, does the Minister accept that if Bombardier Shorts has the choice between downgrading a plant here and one in the States it is possible, with a high degree of support from the Department and the IDB and a good productivity rate, to retain the plant in Northern Ireland and save jobs? Shorts' productivity in Northern Ireland is good, so that can be argued successfully.
Sir Reg Empey:
The Member is correct. Nortel announced that it is to cease manufacturing operations in Co Galway and that it will move production to Monkstown, because there is a substantial research and development department of nearly 500 people. In the case of the A/E Aerospace, I should put on record my appreciation of the help I received from several South Down representatives in that difficult situation.
Quality, expertise and being at the leading edge of production give the best security for the future, and it was the deciding factor in the two examples that we have witnessed when confronted with potential job loss. I have no doubt therefore that it is the same for Bombardier Shorts.
Dr Farren and I have recognised that the ability to provide the right mix of skills at the leading edge of industry is necessary in the long term to protect jobs and to prevent plant closures, which were a feature of life in the 1970s. Northern Ireland gained much in the 1960s and lost it again in the 1970s, when we had a branch economy where factories were closed down. I agree wholeheartedly with the Member.
Dr McDonnell:
The Minister told us that at present design facility and design work at Bombardier Shorts are guaranteed. Has he had any direct contact with the Bombardier Shorts management in Montreal? Is it possible to establish whether there is any further downside potential?
Sadly, one announcement of job losses may soon be followed by others. While I accept what the Minister has said - and I do not want to be negative - I am, however, a little worried that six weeks or two or three months down the line, gloom could set in again and the position could be reversed.
Sir Reg Empey:
I share a certain degree of the Member's anxiety. I have had contact with Montreal-based senior management. I intend to visit the company there in the near future. I have taken those points up with the company. My concerns were dismissed as wholly unfounded, and I was assured that there was no intention to reduce the Belfast plant's design and engineering capability.
However, we all know that any business today is only as good as its last order. We all know that events can completely change estimates. Unforeseen circumstances can arise, as has happened in the last couple of months. Having said that, we have tested the company to the best of our ability. The company knows that we are helping it in processes and transactions that are focused. We are encouraging investment in that capability by profiling the assistance that we give to the company. In so far as I have sought guarantees, I have received them, but we must all understand that they are always subject to external issues. The Member will understand that.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Although it is rather breaking with precedent, I shall, given that Mr Wells has already asked a question on behalf of his party, let Mr Shannon break with it because we shall probably have some time left.
Mr Shannon:
Thank you for breaking with precedent. Can the Minister confirm that 619 people were employed in the design team in Bombardier Shorts in 1997 but that that number has been reduced to 368 in 2001, as a result of the 40 job losses in that area? That is at a time when the workforce at Bombardier Shorts has risen to perhaps its highest level for years. I am concerned about the numbers in the design team, given the past staffing levels and the numbers now.
Sir Reg Empey:
I cannot confirm from personal knowledge those figures but I accept the general thrust of what the Member said. I repeat that I have sought and received undertakings from the company. Regarding the precise methodology that a company with a design capability uses, the requirement for staff numbers may be linked in part to technology. The Member must understand that Shorts is an integrated operation with sites in different locations around the world. He must also understand that the company has been moving from the manufacture of aircraft to part manufacture of aircraft, so the processes and requirements are different.
However, I take seriously his main point that there are now fewer people carrying out that function. That does not necessarily mean that their output or capability is reduced by a similar amount. Senior officials in my Department are acutely aware of the situation; they are watching it and are contacting the company. We are in direct contact with the trades unions, and we have met the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Representatives from all the unions have spoken to the Department; we have discussed those matters with them; we are working closely together; and liaison arrangements have been established to ensure that the necessary information is flowing freely. I had a meeting with the company at the end of last week to pursue several issues with it.
I am acutely aware of the importance, strategically and otherwise, of this company to the Northern Ireland economy, and my Department is being as vigilant and helpful to the company as it possibly can.
2.45 pm
Derry City Council Area (Job Losses)
5.
Mrs Courtney
asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail the number of jobs lost in the past year in the Derry City Council area; and to make a statement.
Sir Reg Empey:
Between September 2000 and October 2001 there were 6,930 redundancies confirmed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Of those, 604 were in the Londonderry jobcentre area. Despite this level of redundancies, almost 600 new jobs were created in the city last year. Furthermore, my Department's commitment to New TSN will ensure that disadvantaged areas such as Foyle will be effectively targeted through initiative measures such as Invest North West.
Mrs Courtney:
I know that the Minister's commitment to securing jobs and reskilling the workforce is second to none. The previous question was about Bombardier Shorts, and I am anxious how the situation there might affect Maydown Precision Engineering Ltd. Was any question of further job losses in the Derry area raised during discussions with Bombardier Shorts?