NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
Monday 5 November 2001 (continued)
Mrs Courtney:
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Budget debate. I will make points relating to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, of which I am a member.
In a recent Assembly debate on the safeguarding of industries in Northern Ireland, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment said that Northern Ireland faced its stiffest economic test in more than a decade. He also said that we must ensure that Northern Ireland is strategically placed to take advantage of the upturn when it takes place.
In the proposed Budget for 2002-03 there is a slight decrease in the allocation of funding to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment: £7·7 million this year, £5·8 million next year, and £3 million the following year for the telecommunications strategy. The Department's ability to spend £7·7 million this year has been held back for various reasons. It is therefore important that the Department be given end-year flexibility to carry forward underspending from this year into 2002-03.
There are other concerns, particularly in relation to Invest Northern Ireland, which is the body that is to replace the IDB, LEDU, IRTU and some aspects of tourism funding. We need to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to Invest Northern Ireland for maximum effect and that regionalisation is top of the agenda. There has been an economic downturn with potential for job losses, particularly in the aerospace and airline industries. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee is anxious to ensure that if in-year bidding is necessary, it will be successful.
The draft Budget also indicates a decrease in EU support for economic development. Approximately £870 million of European funding is available to Northern Ireland. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee will be interested in how this money is allocated.
The encouragement of an enterprise culture in Northern Ireland is a stated objective of the draft Budget and requires new and renewed investment. This is particularly relevant at a time of economic uncertainty. The global slow down, together with the terrorist events in the United States, has already begun to affect Northern Ireland's foreign and direct investment, trade and tourism adversely. It has already been noted that the most vulnerable sectors are those exposed to global export markets, such as engineering, information and communication technology and aerospace. In the current economic climate, we must put strategies in place to ensure that the economy remains fast-growing and innovative. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and its agencies have successfully promoted Northern Ireland as an attractive location for inward investment and will continue to do so.
The draft Budget shows that energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources will be supported by an allocation of £1·9 million. It may be that the greatest potential for renewable energy and electricity here will come from immature technologies, which will need grant support to achieve commercial viability. If this is so - and the Committee has seen renewable sources in action - we will wish to ensure that the Department bids successfully for additional support for renewable energy projects. The Department also made a bid for £2 million to enhance the North/South electricity interconnector. This was unsuccessful, and it will need to be re-submitted.
In paragraph 5.7 of the draft Programme for Government, recognition of the important role of local councils in inward investment is welcome. It is noted that work with universities, further education colleges, local councils and the private sector will secure investment in 20 knowledge-based industries each year. It is not said where they will be located, nor is there any reference to TSN in this sub-priority that might suggest that priority will be given to sub-regions with high levels of unemployment. I ask the Minister to take that into account.
In paragraph 5.6, on promoting entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity, it is expected that
"local councils will continue, through the Business Start Programme, to play a key role, particularly in encouraging potential high growth businesses while our universities and centres of excellence will play their part."
The business start programme aims for 600 new business starts by March 2005, and 120 high-technology, value-added spin-out and spin-in companies will be formed in research-linked incubator units. Twenty new and enhanced centres of research excellence will be established by December 2004. These centres are clearly expected to have a major impact on the future industrial structure of Northern Ireland through spinning and start-ups, numbering approximately 700 enterprises over the next three years. They will also, no doubt, affect inward investment opportunities in their catchment areas.
Paragraph 4.7 covers enabling the socially excluded to enter the workplace. Reference is made to 1,000 additional university places. This is most welcome. Travelling outside Northern Ireland to study places a heavy financial burden on those who must do so. The largest growth in forced emigrants has been among those in the less well-qualified categories that often correspond with those whose earlier educational experience was less adequate. However, local higher education places also sustain more local jobs in the higher education industry. I ask the Minister to apply TSN to the allocation of places to the various centres of learning in Northern Ireland.
In the Budget programme for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, I note that £1 million has been assigned to the development of museums. As this represents an important part of the tourist package offered by urban areas, and as industrially oriented museums can also support local industry, can consideration be given to the establishment of a museum in the north-west to celebrate the clothing industry?
5.15 pm
It is also important to note that the Budget provision does not take into account possible major infrastructure projects, such as the recently announced natural gas pipelines and the provision of broadband telecommunications in Northern Ireland. Those will be considered under the Executive programme funds, and grants for the gas pipelines will probably arise in 2003-04 and 2005-06, not in the current budget year.
It is also noted that the Executive have identified the areas of regional development, education and health as being in need of special support. It is unfortunate that due to a lack of resources the introduction of free nursing care for the elderly has been deferred. That shows the tough decisions that the Executive have had to make and will continue to make. I support the motion.
Mr McHugh:
Go raibh mait agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion and wish to debate some points regarding all Departments, not just the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Some Members have already mentioned the importance of departmental priorities. Members will agree that outcomes should be more important than the functioning or costs of a Department. That is certainly what those outside the Assembly believe. However, the reverse applies. Departments hold dear their spending power and sustainability - at the expense of everything else that happens beyond their Department and in public.
The needs of different areas should be regarded by Departments as a higher priority than they are at present. There must be a change of mindset in how Departments prioritise their bids, what they do with their money after receiving their funding and how they spend their money.
West of the Bann, areas such as Fermanagh and south Tyrone - indeed all of Tyrone - have always been given low priority by all Departments. Investment policy in those areas must be examined in the light of recent job losses in Fermanagh. How much will be spent on trying to change the situation in the likes of Lisnaskea, or will it be forgotten about as time passes?
I have a question for the Department for Regional Development concerning roads. Recent meetings with the last rotational Minister gave little indication that Fermanagh and south Tyrone would be treated with any sort of priority compared with urban areas or those that normally receive a high level of funding. Members request that funding for public transport and rail be dramatically increased in comparison with that devoted to roads. That is a very nice environmental policy, but those in rural areas do not have an option. The motor car as the main form of transport is not just an option there; it is essential and will probably be essential for many years.
It is unlikely that any future Budget will see a great deal of money being spent on public transport or a rail system into the rural areas of Fermanagh and Tyrone in particular. It is a non-event; it will not happen. How many passengers are brought by public transport - by bus or rail - into Belfast city centre on a weekday? How can the system be improved to move people out of their cars and on to public transport? People have got the wrong end of the stick when they start pushing larger amounts of money into public transport at the expense of rural areas, particularly where the local people will have to depend on their own transport for many years to come.
The aggregates tax is an environmental tax that exists for the right reasons in the right places, but it is an anti-roads policy.
I suggest to the Minister that road projects in rural areas need to be prioritised now because there may not be the possibility of road budgets in the future. The environmental policy will become stricter and rural areas will be given a lower priority and it may be impossible for rural roads to be brought up to the standard of roads in eastern areas. Roads in urban areas such as Belfast and Dublin will be looked after in the future. I ask that rural areas be prioritised.
Sue Ramsey mentioned that at present the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has a standstill budget. That is intolerable. Other Members have mentioned the prime importance of health. Individual Members have priorities, but health must come above everything. Waiting lists must be examined. Cancer sufferers in Fermanagh must travel to Belfast to receive treatment where there are long waiting lists. That happens on a weekly basis. I was told recently that the trusts and boards have no idea how much money they are getting to deal with winter pressures and expenses. We are close to that critical time.
Massive savings could be made through providing better community care. Monica McWilliams made the point that when cuts are made in community care the cost of acute services increases. People have accidents in the home because they do not have the proper care, equipment or facilities to meet their needs. When care is not given at an early stage, the later costs are vast.
The main priority of rural areas such as Fermanagh and south Tyrone is that of overall acute care and the sustainability of services. The Hayes review is heading towards final decisions and implementation. A large amount of the Budget is required to bring those services to the proper standard. Due to the lack of consultants wanting to move to those areas, there is a real danger that some services will either collapse on to one site at Omagh or Enniskillen or will collapse altogether. Some people might think that that might be a good thing for their particular empire, but it is not something we should look forward to. It is important to sustain present services and we need an increased budget to do so. As one Member remarked, it is important that health concerns are given priority over individual departmental concerns.
How is the Budget to be allocated? The Department of Finance and Personnel must stop "top slicing". It discriminates against rural areas by giving some £1·5 million each to the Southern Health and Social Services Board and the Eastern Health and Social Services Board at an early stage and dividing the remainder among other areas later. That is working against rural areas that are the most deprived in the Six Counties. Money must be allocated on an equitable basis.
I have a particular interest in agriculture and most of my concerns have been covered in the vision group's report. The Chairman mentioned that we were all in agreement. However, I have not argued exactly the same line. There are issues in that document that do not require money and should therefore not be allocated for. However, a section of that report concerns the important area of rural development. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development requires a budget that allows it to implement its priorities. It does not as yet have such a budget. Which parts of the document does the Department intend to implement, given that it does not have a budget for that in the coming year?
There is also a need to work across Departments to implement much of it, including planning and roads.
There has been a considerable increase in funding for disease control, but, as has already been mentioned, much of that funding has been wasted, which may be largely due to fraud. I must point out to the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee that fraud is not confined to just a few areas, as the DUP has been saying recently. That was on a narrow margin compared to the £22 million mentioned by Ms McWilliams. There are farmers who have made more profit from bringing the disease onto their farms than from ordinary farming - not just here but also in England, Scotland and Wales. The money could be better used in other areas. Why does this happen year after year? We should be getting to the point where there is eradication, rather than continually pouring money into a bottomless pit.
The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development questions the commitment of the British Government with regard to their policies on the North/South element. How much money is to be spent, for example, on a benchmarking exercise to compare business practices here with those in the South?
Mr Armstrong mentioned early retirement for farmers, and it is feasible under match funding and even other self-financing methods which could be considered. It is vitally important that we have new entrants.
We do not want to face another foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. This one has cost the Department very dearly in time and in commitment to other issues which it should have been getting on with. We need to know how much of the budget will be spent on an inquiry. The cost will be considerable, but it is necessary if we are to avoid another crisis.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development may think that it is not its responsibility, but it needs to budget for advice to farmers regarding on-farm audits. The citizens advice bureaux provide this service at the moment, but do not have adequate funding. Farmers need help to prevent debt, and the funding for that should come from the Department rather than from local councils, which is ratepayers' money. Certainly the Department could match the funding - that is something that is amiss with the bids. I hope that, if not this year, perhaps next, that aspect could be considered. Also, the issue of women in agriculture could be mainstreamed at some point in the future. Go raibh maith agat.
Mr McCarthy:
It is good to take part in a debate such as this, particularly when one compares it to the events of this morning. Perhaps it is because only the good, sensible and important people are left in the Chamber to take part.
I fully understand that the Finance Minister works under extreme budgetary pressures. I realise that the Barnett formula does not give us the expenditure that we in Northern Ireland need and to which we are entitled.
Nevertheless, with these limitations in mind, I can only conclude that this Budget is not what we would wish for.
5.30 pm
I reiterate the comments made by my Colleague, Mr Close, and by others that we should get our priorities right. As the Alliance Party's spokesperson on health, I want to concentrate on health issues, as many of my Colleagues have done. First and foremost, the Budget fails in its provision for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. There is no increase to help with the very serious problems in that Department. Total expenditure may rise by 8·1%, but this does not represent an increase in the money available for the Health Service.
In the Minister's own words, it includes a transfer of expenditure that provides no new spending power for the Department. There will be no money available for the Department to introduce new service developments. There are many needs in the community and, for example, dwindling resources for people with learning difficulties throughout Northern Ireland.
Commitments that were made in the Programme for Government will be left unfulfilled. It is to be regretted that the Assembly is now unable to introduce free nursing care for the elderly, despite having given its full approval to such a scheme some time ago. Who suffers from such a deferral other than the senior citizens and frail, sick people? That simply is not good enough.
This winter will bring the inevitable hospital bed crisis - it has already begun. Services will not improve, advances will not be made, and the consequences will be more pain and suffering caused by extended waiting lists for many of our ill constituents.
More money must be found, and it must be better managed. It must not come from the Minister's back pocket as a result of some underspending. It must be upfront and immediate. Also, there must be greater flexibility so that health and social service funding can be more effectively and efficiently used. This may be a matter for the trusts. However, it has already been mentioned in the Chamber. For example, it is indefensible that a hospital service should be subject to severe additional costs as a result of bed-blocking when relatively small amounts of additional expenditure on care-in-the-community schemes could relieve the problem. In the Ulster Hospital up to 70 people are awaiting discharge, but they cannot leave because there are no community-care packages. This must improve immediately, and I shall be taking this matter up with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
I am pleased to see the increase in spending for the Department for Regional Development. A sum of £8·7 million is to be used to improve roads. That is something that must be done, and we have been calling for it for some time. The rural electorate depends upon good roads for access to health care. Therefore I am relieved by the commitment to maintain and improve roads. I hope that my constituency of Strangford will benefit from the increase in funding.
When does the Minister plan to find the funds to implement the commitment that he made a year ago? When does he plan to find the money to avert, rather than manage, the annual winter health care crisis? When will he produce a Budget that will help to improve the health system for everyone? We know that our Minister of Health has asked for increased funding to provide better health facilities. There are many other financial and budgetary concerns, but the quality of our Health Service should be our first priority.
Mrs Carson:
It is a delight to hear local politicians debating something sensible after the acrimonious debate this morning and especially debating how we spend our money.
I welcome the increase in the Department of the Environment's budget from £100·8 million to £108·9 million. That increase is a recognition of the pressures on the Department and will, I hope, support the Department in meeting its objective of improving the quality of life in Northern Ireland by protecting the environment through sustainable development and planning policies, promoting efficient local government and through improving road safety.
Further areas of special scientific interest must be designated and staff provided to monitor fully the existing sites. More finance is needed for that, otherwise the Department's objective is only fine words.
The 12·5% increase in the previous expenditure for road safety is also welcomed. Road safety is an important part of the Department's work. The number of vehicles on the road increases each year, and there has been a 1% increase from 1999. Unfortunately, the increase in the number of road vehicles has been accompanied by an increase in road accidents. During 1999-2000 and 2000-01, road traffic injuries increased by 7%, road casualties rose by 5% and fatalities as a result of road accidents rose from 150 to 163. We cannot have that. More must be done with increased spending to reduce those levels. A sum of £1·4 million was mentioned for road safety. However, more money should be spent, with an emphasis on the training and education of young persons before they even get behind the wheel of a car.
I welcome the emphasis on waste management and the moneys that have been made available to enable the Department of the Environment to continue its programme of waste management and pollution control. There is a statement that ensures that Northern Ireland continues the work towards meeting EU Directives on waste management. The Budget allocation provides the Department with an additional £3·4 million on the previous Budget. However, I am concerned that £1·6 million has been reallocated from departmental resources to meet new pressures in that area. It sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Provision has been made for local government services to meet fully the cost of councils' de-rating policies and to provide resource grants to poorer councils. However, because of EU Directives, there is a reduction of £2 million in that grant. That reduction will be acutely felt in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The resource grant for Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council will be reduced by £109,000; Fermanagh District Council's grant will be reduced by £127,000.
That will inevitably lead to a domestic and non-domestic rate increase and will put more pressure on councils, on the commerce of the area and on the residents. That will be most unwelcome, because my constituents in that area are already under great economic pressure due to the differential in the exchange rate with the Republic of Ireland. That differential has hit petrol stations, the quarry industry and the textile industry. They have all felt it greatly. I shall not mention agriculture because it has already been debated.
Fermanagh has been particularly hard hit because of substantial job losses over the past year. The Department documented £0·9 million for planning; I expect that that is for ongoing planning pressures. However, I ask the Department to find more money to co-ordinate planning policies across Northern Ireland in order that there is a similar approach to planning permission in all areas. I hope that these points are considered, and I welcome the opportunity to put them forward.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development (Mr A Maginness): The Committee welcomes the significant increase of £42 million - representing 8% from 2001-02 - in the Department for Regional Development's budget. That increase is a recognition of the years of underfunding that have occurred in our roads, water and public transport. Poor infrastructure has had an adverse affect on many aspects of our lives, and the situation will be rectified only through the provision of proper levels of sustained funding. This increase is a recognition that this must be done and that it will be done.
The importance of our infrastructure cannot be overestimated. The road network is critical to our economy. Ninety-nine per cent of Northern Ireland's goods are transported by road. A well-maintained road network reduces the time taken to transport freight. That in turn helps to improve business profitability, competitiveness and efficiency. Improvements in the road system will also help to reduce the number of road accidents; something that we all acknowledge is unacceptably high.
The Regional Development Committee welcomed the announcement by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that an additional £40 million will be made available for the trans-European network routes, Larne to Belfast and Newry to Dundalk, as well as a significant contribution to the upgrading of the Westlink. That is very important, not just for Belfast but for the whole Northern Ireland economy.
The Committee would like to see the targeting of similar funding at other trans-European network routes in Northern Ireland, particularly those in areas not serviced by the rail network. I accept Gerry McHugh's point that parts of this region look longingly at the money given to the development of the railway network.
Improved public transport helps to ease congestion by making people less dependent on their cars, and the extension and improvement of cycle lanes provides a healthier option to driving. Furthermore, reliable and accessible public transport will make a positive contribution to the promotion of social inclusion - a key priority of the Executive. This is particularly noticeable in rural areas where up to 30% of households do not have access to a motor vehicle.
Undoubtedly, investment in our water pipelines and sewerage systems will help to improve water quality and to avoid health risks such as the cryptosporidium outbreaks experienced in the past two years.
I could mention many other benefits, but I do not want to take up the House's time by reciting a long list. However, I seek to explain the importance and benefits of a properly funded and maintained infrastructure to all of Northern Ireland society. Page 39 of the draft Programme for Government states:
"The provision of infrastructure and major public services such as public transport, roads, water and sewerage is essential for the social and economic well being of the region."
I fully endorse that. The Regional Development Committee wholeheartedly agrees with this statement. Improving our infrastructure must be a key priority for Government. There still exists an approximate £100 million backlog in road maintenance, while the Water Service also requires major capital investment to update the pipelines and sewerage systems. If we are to achieve our objective of a socially inclusive society, we must provide an efficient, accessible and affordable public transportation system.
As a positive step towards that goal, the Executive have earmarked £48 million in 2002? for the purchase of new train sets.
5.45 pm
As with roads and water services, investment in the public transportation system is playing catch-up after many years of underinvestment. New train sets will undoubtedly make train travel more appealing, and the proposed Railway Safety Bill will help to ensure high standards. We cannot be complacent; there is much more to be done if rail travel is to become a major form of commuter transport. More money must be invested in train sets and in the improvement of access and facilities. The same is true of our buses.
By encouraging commuters out of their cars and into trains and buses, we shall alleviate congestion, particularly in the Belfast metropolitan area, as well as contribute to the economy and the environment. A reliable and efficient bus network is especially critical to those people who live in rural areas. There are genuine concerns that rural bus services may be significantly reduced if private operators continue to target the more profitable routes, thus forcing Translink to reduce services on the less profitable rural routes. Consequently, the Committee for Regional Development encourages Government to provide additional funding to improve the Northern Ireland bus fleet and to aim at reducing the average age of buses in line with the UK target.
The Committee for Regional Development is conscious of the funding pressures on the Northern Ireland block, and it believes that new approaches to funding should be considered. The possibility of leasing trains for public transportation and the development of the railway network should be considered. The Committee knows of leasing arrangements in the UK. If leasing were introduced, it would release funds for investment in other infrastructure improvements.
I note that health expenditure has increased by about 8%. That represents more than 40% of the Budget. However, standards are falling; we see underperformance in practically every area of the Health Service. The public should know why that is happening in spite of the fact that health services receive the largest share of the Budget and have received an increase in spending. There must be an explanation; it cannot simply be the lack of funding.
There are 19 trusts in an area with a population equivalent to that of Greater Birmingham. Is that the most efficient way to administer the Health Service? Does that not prevent the efficiencies that we desire? Does that not eat up valuable money and resources that we need to apply to health and to other areas? I have no answers to those questions. However, I pose the question that people are asking - if so much money is spent on health, why do we not see the results?
The Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre (Mr Poots):
I apologise for my poor attendance at this debate. I may be unable to stay because a school in my constituency has been threatened with closure, and there is a meeting about that tonight.
The Committee of the Centre scrutinised the draft Budget at the beginning of October and has discussed several concerns with the junior Ministers. The concerns centred on the approach that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had adopted towards the bidding process and the inadequate funding of several important programmes. The Committee noted that the draft Budget that was presented to the Assembly on 25 September had been developed in the context of the priorities and principles of the Programme for Government. The Committee is not convinced that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be able to deliver on its Programme for Government priorities with the funding in the draft Budget.
During the discussion with the junior Ministers, the Committee was advised that much of the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is of a cross-cutting nature and deals with many sensitive issues. The Committee endorses that assessment, but it adds to our concerns about the Office's ability to make progress on work in many high priority areas. There should have been a more vigorous approach to bidding to secure baseline funding, at least, for the children's commissioner post, the review of public administration and the implementation of the cross-departmental strategy for the promotion of community relations.
The draft Budget provides for increases in expenditure in five areas: £300,000 for work on the Single Equality Bill; £200,000 for the Civic Forum; £200,000 for the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington; £100,000 for TSN research and evaluation; and £100,000 for the establishment of a new strategic issues unit. The Committee questions the priority given to several of those areas and the benefits that that additional funding will provide. We also question whether the right balance has been struck between those and other high priorities, such as the Economic Policy Unit.
The Committee was concerned to learn, during the discussions with the junior Ministers, that the draft Budget did not contain sufficient provision for an increase in the cost of running the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. There will be a shortfall of about £200,000. The Committee was advised that, in order to meet the costs, the Department would, in the first instance, consider the outcome of the ongoing staff review. The Committee welcomes that. However, the Minister should explain how the pressure will be dealt with. For example, the cost of the children's commissioner is estimated to be between £1 million and £2 million. The review of public administration may cost £2 million, and a second permanent secretary post for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has recently been advertised. How will those costs be met without cuts in high priority programmes?
The Programme for Government gives a target date of June 2002 for appointment to the post of children's commissioner, but the Budget does not contain any funding for it. The junior Ministers said that they might be able to get money from the Executive programme funds. However, a considerable proportion of those funds has already been used in the Budget, and any funding that might have been expected to come from the Executive programme funds is already accounted for.
In the past, substantial Executive programme funds came from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment as a result of the declining need for large-scale investment in attracting jobs. However, because of the worldwide downturn in the economy and the effect of the events of 11 September, that money may not be available to the same extent, and the Executive programme funds will come under greater pressure.
The need for a children's commissioner may not be considered to be so great if there is less money available from the Executive programme funds. There are also continuing needs in the Health Service that will have to be dealt with. I want to highlight that potential problem now. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has not presented the case for funding for the children's commissioner post well enough.
From the outset of the Assembly, when 11 Departments were created, a radical review of public administration was promised to offset the cost of having five additional Departments. We were promised root and branch reform, that the quangos would be cut to an absolute minimum and that the core issues would be examined. However, we have dragged on and on, and, to date, we have no funding set aside for the review of public administration. How can we have a proper review if we do not dedicate any resources to it? That issue will not be dealt with in the Assembly's lifetime. However, it must be dealt with - a radical review of public administration is important for the credibility of this institution, although it does not have much credibility at the moment. We want those programmes to begin without further delay.
The Committee was pleased to learn that a late bid of £750,000 for Executive programme funds for victims was lodged after we raised the matter with the Ministers. It was alarming that the Committee knew that a second tranche of Executive programme funds was available, of which neither of the Ministers appeared to be aware. It was only when the Committee raised the matter with the Ministers that the bid was lodged. I hope that it is successful. The victims' unit needs support; it is a big issue, and we want the victims to get as much support as possible.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Education (Mr Kennedy):
I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Mr Speaker, I admire the patience and long-suffering not only of the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, but also your stamina. You are showing remarkable endurance.
Dr McDonnell:
What about the rest of us?
Mr Kennedy:
Mr Speaker, you have the honour to listen to the rest of us. I acknowledge the efforts of Mr Leslie on behalf of his Committee. Those efforts have resulted in a more satisfactory amount of time's being made available for Committees to consider this important matter in detail and to carry out their statutory duties. I hope that similar arrangements are put in place for the next round of Executive programme funds. I ask the Minister to comment on that.
My Committee welcomes the additional £20 million allocated to education over and above the original indicative figures. That represents a real increase of 4·8% on this year, which will enable most, but not all, the inescapable education bids to be met. My Committee has considered proposals from the Department of Education to cover those inescapable bids that have not been met. Those amount to £4·6 million. In general, my Committee supports the proposals. However, it does not wish to see a reduction in the maintenance budget for schools for longer than a year, as that would have an adverse effect and, in the longer term, could lead to increased capital costs. As Members are aware, we already face a huge capital-building problem.
I am pleased that the Executive acknowledge that as education is one of the services faced with the most difficulties it must be given high priority. My Committee believers that education must be given top priority because it is a foundation for a strong, vibrant and growing economy in Northern Ireland and that funding it is a long-term investment in the future of Northern Ireland. The pressures that schools face are very great and therefore the proposals in the draft Budget are essential.
The Education Committee wishes to highlight that this funding enables schools to meet only identified, inescapable pressures, and to mark time. It does not provide any scope to improve or expand services, which is a concern. We are also concerned that some schools appear to be struggling on an ongoing basis and are not receiving the core funding necessary to provide essential services and the core curriculum for all pupils. This was a recurring theme during evidence taken by the Education Committee in respect of the primary and post-primary funding arrangements.
6.00 pm
The Committee will therefore be looking for a substantial increase to improve school budgets in the next comprehensive spending review. In my view that will also be crucial if the reviews of LMS funding and post-primary education are to be brought forward.
The Education Committee is firmly of the view that early learning, early intervention initiatives and capital building investment must continue to be given a high priority for funding. The draft Budget will enable the pre-school initiative to continue, but it does not allow for expansion or improvement beyond what was already scheduled to take place. Members found that extremely disappointing. Similarly, the small increase for capital spending will not allow swift progress in addressing the problems with school buildings.
Given the amount of money spent on education administration, the Committee is concerned that there has been no clarification, or detailed timescale, produced for the review of public administration; a point touched on by other Members. The Executive must take this forward as a top priority, and the review must begin as quickly as possible to enable important decisions to be taken urgently. The Committee believes that an evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of all non-school activities must be carried out to ensure that the Department of Education focuses on the key priorities. The Committee also recommends that further work be carried out to establish clearer links between public service agreement and service delivery agreement targets.
The recent assurance given by the Minister of Finance and Personnel to the Assembly that he remains determined to seek improvements to the Barnett formula is welcome. The application of the formula has had a significant affect on the allocation of money to schools, and it raises issues of basic equality. Northern Ireland schools perceive that they are being treated less favourably than schools in England, and this must be addressed.
The Education Committee welcomes the extra funding for education provided in the draft Budget. This is clearly in line with the Programme for Government priorities and is an investment in the future of our children and our economy. However, we are disappointed that this level of real funding will enable schools and education initiatives to meet only existing pressures, and to mark time. It will not enable improvement or expansion of the services to take place. However, we endorse the motion.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Dr Hendron): We are witnessing the slow disintegration of important aspects of the Health Service in Northern Ireland, and previous speakers have mentioned that. The morale of patients and staff is at an all-time low. Waiting lists are increasing, and the unacceptable practice of patients being placed on trolleys continues. In many areas, service availability fails to meet demand. Recently Monica McWilliams and I visited the Ulster Hospital's accident and emergency and intensive care units, and we were appalled at what we saw. Patients were on trolleys and sitting on chairs. No more trolleys were available, and that was a daily occurrence. Staff members were under so much pressure that they could not deal adequately with patients.
The position is the same at accident and emergency departments throughout Northern Ireland. If extra funding is not found, then the closure of accident and emergency departments at times is a distinct possibility in the future. The Royal Victoria Hospital is the main trauma hospital for Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there is meant to be cover for major trauma every day, seven days a week. A senior consultant recently told me that there is now only adequate cover every other 24 hours. I cannot go into details, but that is a serious situation.
Elective surgery is being cancelled routinely in many hospitals because of a shortage of beds. There is also a chronic shortage of specialist theatre nurses in areas such as orthopaedics and neurology, with the resulting cancellations of theatre lists. Cancer patients are regularly inconvenienced by the breakdown of old equipment at Belvoir Park Hospital, and the funding has not yet been identified for the planned regional cancer centre at Belfast City Hospital. The saga of the planned regional maternity hospital also continues, even though the Jubilee has been closed and demolished some time ago.
The Committee is greatly concerned that the annual percentage increases in health spending over the next two years are over 2% less than those in England. In 2002-03 the figure is 7·2% as opposed to 9·3%, and in 2003-04 it is 5·4% as opposed to 8%. The bulk of costs are driven by developments in England, such as in the areas of pay, drugs and clinical and other standards. Unless there is match funding, there will be a continuing deterioration in the levels of service here compared to those in England.
None of the figures takes into account the higher levels of need and demand in Northern Ireland, compared to those in England. My Committee fully supported the Minister of Health in her bid for an extra £122 million, and it is greatly concerned that only £31·6 million was allocated. Although it was hoped that the latter figure would cover essential expenditure, it is now apparent that the cost of junior doctors' pay will be £3·5 million more than was estimated, and that the care cost for people with learning disabilities will be an extra £2 million.
The total inescapable bids are therefore £37 million - some £5 million short of what has been allocated. The remaining £91 million was to be for developments to help the Health Service to maintain its current levels. It has been noted by the Committee that the overall spending for 2002-03 is proportionately on a par with the current year. There is not, therefore, a proportionate increase in the health share of the Northern Ireland block, despite the ever increasing demands. In his Budget speech to the Assembly on 25 September, the Minister of Finance said that the Executive had come
"to the view that health, education and roads were among the services that face the most acute difficulties".
I pay tribute to the Minister and his Colleagues for giving that emphasis. Nevertheless, while I appreciate that all Departments need more money, it is time for all of us - and for the Executive in particular - to sit up and look at the current situation in the Health Service.
We are concerned that the draft Budget will do nothing to reverse the increase in waiting lists. It is alarming to note that the recent draft Programme for Government has a target, by March 2003, to maintain the waiting lists at the March 2002 level.
No one knows what the latter figure will be, so it is not possible for my Committee to accept such a target. The trend is upwards - the latest figure is 54,000. The first Programme for Government, published earlier this year, had a figure of 48,000. That was to be reduced to 39,000 by March 2004. Clearly, that target will not be met, bearing in mind the current spending proposals for the next two years.
Another major problem is the bed-blocking system. There is no extra money to provide sufficient community-care packages. With an average stay per patient, other than for those requiring community-care packages, of approximately seven days, it is estimated that the waiting list could be reduced by at least 7,500 per year if that problem could be solved.
I welcome the fact that my Colleague, Alban Maginness, talked about the structures of the Health Service. There has also been talk about the review of public administration. We have raised that issue here before. The review of public administration seems to be years away. The Health Service cannot wait that long. I urge not only the Minister present, but the Executive, to co-operate and encourage the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety to at least take an initial look at the structures of the Health Service. Our Committee persuaded Dr Maurice Hayes in his acute hospitals report to look at those structures.
The point has already been made that there are 19 trusts for a population the size of Greater Birmingham. The Committee also believes that free personal care for the elderly should be made available. It is most concerned therefore to note that not only is this service not to be provided, but that free nursing care is to be deferred. With the prospect of even fewer available resources in 2003-04, it appears that free nursing care could be a long way off.
I have already mentioned the regional cancer centre. We all know the number of people in Northern Ireland who are dying of cancer. Cancer death rates will soon be higher than coronary artery disease death rates. We have had a number of meetings with people from Belfast City Hospital and Belvoir Park Hospital. We have visited both centres; we visited Belvoir Park Hospital quite recently, and I sympathise with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety regarding funding for Belvoir Park Hospital. It is going to take three years to build the dedicated regional cancer centre. In the meantime, should the Minister spend money on it, or should she wait for the new unit in Belfast City Hospital? It will take three years to build the new unit in Belfast City Hospital, but that is three years from the date when the financial package is worked out. I understand that that package has not yet been worked out.
Monica McWilliams made reference to the infrastructure funds. In our last meeting with the Minister, we put great emphasis on those funds. Over the next couple of years, £51 million should be made available. I therefore hope that those funds will be used, and that all Ministers in the Executive will support the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Services in freeing those funds for the building of that cancer centre for all the people of Northern Ireland.
I mentioned free personal care for the elderly. There is also a great need to find funding for many facilities and services, including £1·1 billion for the implementation of the acute hospitals review.
Members of my Committee and I are unhappy with the whole overview of health spending. I appreciate the massive job that the Minister and her Department have to do. We understand that, but I sometimes get the feeling that with all the boards and trusts, people seem to be going round in circles. Of course there is a huge shortage of funding, but it is difficult to see how people's health would be improved even if funding were increased. Our Committee has discussed whether we should ask the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland to examine the Health Service in that regard. I am not sure that we have the right to do that, but we have asked our Clerk to look into that matter.
Even if the Department's budget bid of £122 million had been fully met, the standard of service for the people of Northern Ireland would be lower that that to be provided in Scotland and England. With only £31·6 million being provided for 2002-03, the service must fall even further behind here. Our Committee is therefore concerned that whatever extra funding for health is announced in England, the Northern Ireland share does not go directly to the Health Service here. It is redistributed through the Northern Ireland block, and invariably the full amount is not allocated to health. There is a question mark surrounding that; I am sure the Minister will clarify the matter. This would result in Northern Ireland falling further and further behind comparable standards of service. I respectfully ask the Minister and his Colleagues in the Executive to declare that the Health Service is the number one priority in Northern Ireland.
The Chairperson of the Social Development Committee (Mr Cobain):
James Leslie said at the beginning of the debate that, along with other Committees, the Social Development Committee formally responded to the Finance and Personnel Committee on the draft Budget for next year. The element of the draft Budget with which we are specifically concerned is the suggested overall increase by 8·6% in the Department of Social Development's budget. On the face of it, such an increase is not bad, until you note that the departmental running costs will have increased by almost 12% this year. The disparity in these increases seems inappropriate, given that the Department's aim is to tackle social disadvantage and to build communities.
6.15 pm
The Social Security Agency provides front-line services, and the Committee acknowledges the difficult role it plays, but we are concerned about the continued increase in its running costs. The administration of the benefits system should run smoothly, and those who are entitled to benefits should receive the correct level of financial support at the right time. The Committee has been told that the agency required short-term investment to make efficiency savings through measures that would also improve levels of service. I hope that the increase for next year will lead to efficiency savings, and the Committee has urged the Department for Social Development to ensure that it does.
The Assembly will not be surprised to learn that the Committee has again felt the need to register concerns about the proposed allocation of funding to tackle fuel poverty and housing needs. The Warm Homes Scheme is a one-off capital cost. It has no recurring implications. If it were to be properly and urgently funded, it would have positive effects not only on the standard of housing, but on people's health and well-being. There would be consequential savings for the Department of Health. I urge the Minister of Finance and Personnel and his colleagues on the Executive to think long and hard about that.