This is the third Budget to be presented to the Assembly. The Minister says in his foreword that

Now we know where the buck stops for non-delivery of particular services.

Today the Assembly is being asked to approve the programme of expenditure proposals for 2002-03. It is reasonable to ask whether those proposals will help the people of Northern Ireland to forge their own destiny, and whether they have noticed their lives or destinies being changed since the Assembly became a reality.

Is this the best that the Executive can do, and does it thus warrant the Assembly's support? The consultative process has undoubtedly improved - not only in respect of statutory Committees but also so far as civil society, with its many interests and lobby groups who are availing of the opportunity to have their concerns input to the process, is concerned.

While consultation has improved and scrutiny is beginning to have some meaning, further improvement can and must be made. However, in the final analysis the outcome of consultation is measured by results. Have the Executive listened to the consultation? In this regard it would be particularly churlish of me not to recognise and acknowledge the changes that have been introduced since the draft Budget: for example, the reinstatement from October 2002 of free nursing care for the elderly and the restoration of the resources grant to local authorities.

However, other areas have been ignored, and we could not let this opportunity pass without referring to the ubiquitous regional rate. The spending proposals for approval this afternoon require the domestic regional rate to be increased by 7% and the non-domestic regional rate by 3·3%. Do any ratepayers, domestic or business, support these measures? I do not think so. I have not seen any evidence of support; on the contrary, I can point to loud and widespread expressions of total opposition to such increases. The people who are opposed to these increases do not believe that they are being allowed to forge their own destiny; rather they see their future being impaired by these inflation-plus increases.

Who are the Executive representing by continuing with their iniquitous increases, particularly given the impact on small businesses and those on fixed incomes, such as senior citizens? We have been promised a review of the rating system, but, like many other aspects of the Programme for Government that we discussed yesterday, the timetable is slipping. Three years have passed, and nothing has happened.

While I welcome the 7·5% increase in total departmental expenditure over 2001-02, it is crucially important that the Assembly examine running costs and question whether efficiencies could or should be made in order to redirect those finite resources to that which ought to be our number one priority, namely health. I have spent some time looking at departmental running costs in 2000-01 and comparing them with the proposals for 2002-03. The picture is not encouraging; it points to potential savings that should have been made.

Running costs for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have increased over this period by £8·9 million, or 9·7%. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's costs have increased by a whopping 37·9%, or £4·4 million. The Department of Education's costs are up by 16·1%. The cost of running the Department for Employment and Learning has risen by 46·5%, or £12·6 million; the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment by 8·8%; the Department of Finance and Personnel by 8·4%; the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety by 9·2%; the Department of the Environment by 22·6%; the Department for Regional Development by 8·7%; the Department for Social Development by 28·6%, or £41·2 million. The running costs of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have increased by 30·6%.

Over that period, total departmental running costs have increased by £105·9 million to £733 million, which is an increase of 16·9%. Better control of these running costs could have produced savings in the region of £40 million to £50 million. This must be considered along with the overall review of public expenditure in Northern Ireland. It is yet another area where the Executive have promised much, but delivered little.

We are overgoverned and heavily burdened with administrative and bureaucratic costs. There must be more layers of bureaucracy in Northern Ireland than there are skins on an onion. There are 26 local authorities and a plethora of health trusts, boards and quangos, all eating into our financial resources and reducing our ability to deliver the coalface services that the people demand and need.

If people were asked what difference the Assembly has made to their lives, I am sure that many would point to the welcome degree of stability that has followed in its wake. They would point to economic growth and aspire to a better future with the fulfilment of many outstanding promises.

However, they could also point to gross inequalities and the widening gap between rich and poor. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in healthcare. The recent publication by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, 'The Price of Being Poor', should be compulsory reading for every Minister in the Executive. I have said it before, and I will say it again -

Order. I must intervene, because the arrangement, made through the usual channels, is that we will suspend, by leave, and resume at 1.30 pm. I am not bringing the Member's speech to an end, merely introducing an interlude. He may, if he wishes, and with the permission of the Chair, continue when we resume.

Before lunch, I pointed out that the Health Service was in crisis. Even with the additional £41 million allocated in the Budget, the professionals say that that is only a drop in the ocean because of years of underfunding under direct rule. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the people to whom I refer as the "pinstripe suit brigade" and the "know-alls" savaged the hospitals and healthcare by cutting down on the provision of nurses, auxiliaries, beds and doctors. They enforced so-called efficiency savings year on year to such an extent that the fabric of health was damaged severely.

Idiots effectively decimated the home help service, which did a first-class job and cost relatively little. If we are to make a difference and create a new beginning that the people of Northern Ireland can look forward to, the Health Service must be targeted as a number one priority, even at the expense of other Departments interests; worthy though they may think themselves to be. We must break out of the departmental mentality and deal effectively with real life and death issues. It is fundamentally wrong for the Executive to treat our senior citizens less favourably than those in other parts of the United Kingdom are treated. I have acknowledged the reinstatement of free nursing care for the elderly in the Budget, effective from October 2002. However, the fact that its removal was considered is an indictment on the Executive and a demonstration that their priorities are wide of the mark. The Executive should not fall into the fashionable trap of drawing a false distinction between nursing care and personal care.

In February 2001, the Assembly called on the Executive to implement fully the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly and to provide senior citizens with free nursing and personal care. Why has that call also been ignored in the current funding proposals? How can we support proposals that ignore the voice of the Assembly? How can we claim to be targeting social need when we allow that anomaly to exist between nursing care and personal care? The provision of money is not the problem; it is the will to prioritise that money that is lacking. A sum of £25 million to £30 million should and could have been found.

Ageism is wrong, and the Assembly should not tolerate it or act in a discriminatory fashion by using semantics as a form of justification. In following such a course, the Executive prevent our senior citizens from forging their own destiny. Therefore, they are failing a large and growing percentage of the population - a group that we all aspire to reach some day.

It is not just our elderly who are suffering from a pigeonhole mentality, whereby each Department believes that it is entitled to its own percentage increase year on year. Day and daily, new nightmarish tales emerge that demonstrate that the Executive are failing to address the health crisis. The Budget perpetuates that crisis. Patients with brain tumours are being sent home, and at the same time beds are closed temporarily. Almost 57,000 patients are on waiting lists, which is 6,500 more than last year. That figure includes 8,000 people who have waited for more than 12 months. Some of those people suffer from heart conditions. Who would dare to say that that is not a life and death issue? Waiting lists in Northern Ireland are now approximately 50% higher than in England in proportion to our population, yet we pay the same taxes and the same National Insurance contributions. Our priorities are wrong. Visit any -

The Speaker indicated that Members had 10 minutes to speak. Mr Close, I have given you some flexibility because of the lunch break, but I ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

To the best of my knowledge, the Speaker - and I stand to be corrected - did not indicate any time allocation before the debate commenced. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to demonstrate a little flexibility, concern and fair play -

I shall try to be as flexible as possible, Mr Close. Please continue.

The parties that have already spoken have Members on the Executive, and some party Members have spoken twice. This is the first opportunity for an opposition party to express its views, so I ask for balance.

I am endeavouring to exercise balance.

The Budget contains expenditure proposals to contain waiting lists at March 2002 levels. Am I supposed to applaud and support that? Is it not more important to reduce hospital waiting lists than to reduce planning applications? The Executive plan to eliminate the backlog of planning applications by the end of 2002. At the same time, they intend to maintain hospital waiting lists at the March 2002 level. There is something wrong with that.

Although the Health Service is not getting what it needs to deal with the crisis, it must also shoulder its responsibility for spending properly what it receives. We must ask why certain things are happening. Why is it that, given that an extra £8 million was allocated to reduce waiting lists, those lists are up by 6,500 on last year? Why have there been improper payments of millions of pounds in exemptions from prescription charges through the family practitioner service? Why has a car park allegedly been subsidised to the tune of nearly £500,000 per year due to some half-baked PFI scheme?

There are other problem areas. Today, the accounts of the local government auditor were published. Time and again, they demonstrate that there are no proper controls on how our money is spent. That needs to be sorted out, and we should learn from it.

Do we need the many glossy magazines and brochures that are produced by each Department? We consult ourselves to death and spend too much of the taxpayers' money in the process. Would it not be better if such reports were placed in a public library or some other public building, where they could be made available, on request, to those who are interested in them?

This Budget fails. I have tried to gauge it according to how it deals with the weakest and most vulnerable in society. I concede that it operates within constraints. However, even within those constraints, it fails the weakest and the most vulnerable people.

I thank the outgoing Minister of Finance and Personnel, who is now the Deputy First Minister. We operate under a strange political system, which has a multiparty Executive. Undoubtedly some members of the Executive are playing to different galleries. However, it is the Minister of Finance and Personnel who takes the flak. He has been able to deal with that flak due to his larger- than-life personality. At times, he has even managed to cut the sting from a thorn such as myself, for which I give him credit. I wish him well in his new position, but I feel sorry for his successor.

It would be wrong not to mention the amendment tabled by the Democratic Unionist Party. Fuel poverty concerns and taxes us all. However, I envy the Democratic Unionist Party. It has two seats on the Executive, from where its Ministers could have argued that justifiable case. I do not have a seat; I wish to goodness that I did. One must question whether there is a political motive behind the amendment. Will I support it? No. My vote in this important debate treats me as some sort of "lesser-spotted democrat". I do not even have a vote that counts. Therefore, I shall not support the amendment, and I certainly shall not support the Budget.

It is difficult to manage the debate. The Business Committee has allocated it three hours, and many Members have indicated that they wish to speak. If I am to include everyone, I must limit subsequent Members' contributions to six minutes.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Members of the House and the public are becoming increasingly aware that the most important and serious matters, such as this debate, are being limited in a draconian manner. For a House that sits on only two days a week, one must question why only three hours were allocated for the debate.

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been the custom of the House that each party has the right to speak for at least 10 minutes in a Budget debate. As Mr Close said, we consider our parties to be the Opposition. Our Members will be restricted to six minutes, although other parties made at least two or three speeches before the ruling was made.

I remind both Ms McWilliams and Mr McCartney that that was not my decision. It was taken by the Business Committee, on which you sit, Ms McWilliams, and on which you have the right to sit, Mr McCartney. There is a time limit of three hours for the debate. I am willing to allow Members from smaller parties to speak for much longer, but that will limit the number of Members who are able to speak.

Essentially, the larger parties control the Business Committee. It speaks volumes that not a single Member of the largest party in the Assembly, the Ulster Unionist Party, is in the House. The SDLP has only the Minister and one other Member present.

That is not a point of order. Valuable time is being wasted.

As a member of the Business Committee, I assure you that the Committee did not decide to limit the time allocated to each Member to six minutes. Indeed, my clock tells me -

I did not say that the Business Committee allocated only six minutes to each Member; I said that the Business Committee limited the debate to three hours. You may check that in Hansard. If all those Members who put their names forward are to be allowed to speak, there must be a limit on the time allowed to each Member. I shall not waste any more time.

I wish to comment on some of the Executive's priorities, and to reflect on those issues that were deemed to be unimportant. I welcome the generosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose intervention to the tune of £9 million has secured free nursing care for the elderly. That measure should bring neither praise nor thanks to the Executive, from whose Members it received no support. They did not consider it worthy of inclusion in the original draft Budget. Instead they chose to support other elements that, in my opinion and that of many others, pale into insignificance when compared to healthcare and the well-being of our senior citizens.

One example that has already been mentioned is found in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's budget. The North/South Language Body has been allocated £3·8 million. Would the electorate of Northern Ireland consider that body to be more valuable than elderly people? I suggest not.

I thank Mr Brown for giving the Assembly an injection of cash, common sense, and common values. However, despite our gratitude, free nursing care is not the end of the story. We must not ignore personal care. Members will be aware that all senior citizens in Scotland will have their care needs met, regardless of whether they live in their own homes or in nursing homes. That care is vital. It can often be the difference between life and death. The Executive must address that issue.

There can be no justice when people work all their lives and save for their retirement, only to be punished in their senior years for being careful with their money. Nobody should be forced to sell his or her home and property in order to pay for care. The only expense that the elderly should incur should be the cost of living. Resources must be found. The elderly in Northern Ireland should not be disadvantaged. They must not become the poor relations of the British Isles because of variations in devolved power.

I am glad to hear the various ideas that the Executive are investigating to address the infrastructure deficits in the Province. Although I am not an avid supporter of private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships in their barest form, there is a need to find ways to enhance and improve our infrastructure. It would not be possible to do so out of public receipts without increasing the taxation burden on people in Northern Ireland.

It is good news that the review will be completed by March 2002 and actioned during the course of the year in those areas that are deemed suitable. I welcome the completion of the rating policy review by October 2002. However, I wish that a structure movement was indicated in the review of local government. That would be a way to save money, which could be re-allocated for more useful purposes. Northern Ireland must have the most top-heavy public administration in the British Isles, with 26 local councils and 108 Assembly Members for a population of 1·6 million.

A swift rationalisation of local government, as well as health boards and trusts, education and library boards and numerous other quangos, would surely reduce duplication of workloads, bureaucracy and red tape. That would release more resources for front-line services - where they belong - instead of using them to pay for increasing volumes of paper that are pushed from pillar to post and never properly dealt with.

There are many admirable and achievable aspirations in the Budget. However, I caution against window dressing, which can obscure the real needs that should be met. As a society, we must look after those who are most vulnerable and identify areas that hold that aspiration to ransom. Finances can be cut and savings can be made. That money can be allocated where it is most needed from the outset and not fed in later by the Chancellor, whose aims are often different from our own.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, on what is probably his last Budget. That said, I am concerned about the number of times that funding allocations are presented to the House. I am glad that the Minister said that there must be another way to consider allocations.

The Business Committee decided at a meeting earlier this afternoon that the December monitoring round will be debated at the first sitting after Christmas. The Budget is being debated today, and the Assembly recently considered the September monitoring round. If one adds end-year flexibility and the Executive programme funds, it leads to a great deal of confusion. It would be useful, alongside the forthcoming needs and effectiveness evaluation of the Departments, if Committees could have an alternative opportunity to consider the demands of the Departments in their entirety. The present method is bitty.

I am also concerned that the Minister felt the need to withhold £125 million for allocation by the Executive next September. A much clearer justification for that is needed, rather than the one-line explanation that was given. That is a substantial sum of money to withhold when we are in such a crisis.

I thank the Minister for noting the sum that will be allocated the following year, but Members must be made aware of exactly how much is being withheld. When the Assembly looks at next year's allocations, it will know the minimum allocations that will be given to Departments. Nonetheless, until we have a clear understanding of all the sums of money that are being held back, we shall be unable to effectively scrutinise departmental allocations.

Despite the extra money that the Minister has given to health and education, the concern from the community is such that I cannot, as an Assembly Member, justify the fact that £125 million is being withheld.

The details for funding allocated to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are still only single-line explanations. I have raised that issue in every Budget debate. There is still an insufficient breakdown for the units in that Office. Indeed, we are told that an extra £0·8 million will be set aside for the creation of a victims' fund. It would be useful to see the breakdown of the various functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If there is to be an allocation for victims, a line explaining that would also be useful.

I am concerned - although it may be an administrative error - that £1·5 million has been set aside in the Executive programme funds for a victims' strategy. That is detailed on page 83 of the Budget. Again, in the next round, £1·5 million is being set aside for a victims' strategy between 2002 and 2004. Does that mean that a total of £3 million from Executive programme funds is to go to a victims' strategy, or is that simply an administrative error? I am concerned that a strategy to deal with victims may receive £3 million, when only £0·8 million is allocated from the victims' fund. That means more bureaucracy and less money for those on the ground.

We deserve a breakdown of the suggested increase of 7·2% for equality, human rights and community relations work. How much will go to the Equality Commission? How much will go to human rights groups and how much to community relations groups?

Health is one of the major concerns. It is clear that health administration eats up a great deal of the funding; that problem must be addressed. Salaries take up more funding than service development. Some 40% of the block grant goes to health, but we have no assurance that that level of funding will continue, despite the increases. Estimates have indicated that the real figure represented by 40% of the block grant will go down rather than up.

It was good to hear that the Programme for Government included reference to 1,000 care packages. However, is it guaranteed that that money has been set aside, or will it have to be found elsewhere? There is still concern that free nursing care will be introduced only in October 2002; it could have been introduced in April. That it will not be is not entirely the fault of the Minister; I lay responsibility for that at the door of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which has failed to pass the legislation to allow that funding to be freed up. That legislation has not yet reached Committee Stage. Had the Minister decided to introduce free nursing care next April, he might have been unable to do so because the legislation would not have been in place. The Department and the Executive must get their act together and ensure that Bills that affect financial resources are put before the Assembly in time.

Later today, we shall debate waiting lists and cutbacks in the Health Service. Many of us visited hospitals in the past year. I never thought that I would see such sights in a hospital run by the National Health Service. One patient, in a bed, was paying for his own drugs. Another patient, also in a bed, was waiting for his arthritis drug. A third, in the next bed, was already being given the drug. Imagine how the second patient must have felt.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you do not intend to restrict me to six minutes -

I ask the Member to draw her remarks to a close.

I shall take the matter up with the Speaker. It has never before been the case in the House that leaders or members of parties whose representatives have not spoken are suddenly restricted to six minutes when other Members have been given in excess of 10 minutes. I shall do as you say and bring my remarks to a close.

I am concerned that we have before us only the first round allocations of Executive programme funds, not the second round. I am aware that £69·8 million is still outstanding in the infrastructure fund. I had hoped that the Minister would tell us today that an allocation was being made from that fund for the cancer hospital on the Belfast City Hospital site. Again, I cannot explain to people why such large sums remain in the programme funds, when urgent decisions about cancer hospitals are outstanding.

I congratulate Ms McWilliams and Mr Close on their clear analysis of what has been going on. This is the Christmas season. It is the season of great expectations, of lists to Santa Claus. It is also a season of great reality, when many children realise that Santa Claus cannot deliver their wish list. The Programme for Government is a wish list; in cold, cruel reality there is little prospect of its grand aspirations being delivered.

The reason for that is the absence of adequate resources. The fault in the inadequacy of the resources is the terms on which the major parties, distinguished only by the paucity of their appearance here today, created the Assembly. One was so anxious to have a devolved Administration that it could claim was protecting the Union, and the other was so anxious to have a Nationalist agenda of institutions that were a transitional mode to a united Ireland that both failed to negotiate properly with central Government for sufficient resources to do the job. Now, of course, they find themselves in the position of having insufficient money to fulfil the bargain into which they entered.

It is a matter of common knowledge among economists that at the date of devolution there was a deficit of approximately £6 billion in infrastructure investment due to underinvestment during direct rule. There is absolutely no prospect, under the Barnett formula, that the devolved Government will find enough money to make good the deficiencies in our infrastructure, let alone have sufficient funds to run the day-to-day administration of the Province.

Mr Close mentioned the cost of administration. More than 10% of the block grant - £730 million - is allocated to the administration of government, and that share is increasing. Why is that? It is for political reasons, not for reasons of efficiency or economy. We have 10 Departments when six would have sufficed. There are about 160 quangos that spend more money and cost more money to run than the 26 local government authorities.

What do we have? We have a Health Service that is a disgrace in a modern Western democracy. We have waiting lists that are 50% greater than in the rest of the United Kingdom, where waiting lists are already a matter of acute criticism. What has the Minister of Finance and Personnel done? Essentially, he has abandoned the fundamental principle that Northern Ireland should have parity of treatment, which even under the old Stormont Government and Prime Minister Andrews was considered a cornerstone of Northern Ireland's being part of the United Kingdom.

Why did the Minister do that? He did it because, under the new deal of devolved Government that was supposed to deliver more efficient, accountable and sensitive government, we have a burgeoning bureaucracy. It is the most overgoverned, overpaid bureaucracy in Western Europe. There are 108 Assembly Members, 47 of whom receive additional payment, and the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) is considering whether they should be paid even more. That money should be devoted to the people who really need it.

It has been rightly said that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members - the very old and the very young. Certainly it is reflected in the care of the very old. The vast majority of those people paid National Insurance contributions to ensure that they would be protected and looked after in their old age. That is not the case. However, the grasshoppers who never worked and who never wanted to work, but who indulged themselves at the expense of those who did, and who saved nothing, got nothing and preserved nothing, get free care. Those people who worked like ants all their lives, who paid their income tax and National Insurance contributions, and who took out mortgages so that they could live in their own homes and not be a burden on the state, are screwed by what amounts to robbery by the state.

Those people are robbed of their savings. This Budget does absolutely nothing for them. It does not take a page out of the book of its Scottish counterpart.

The aged are often also the sick, the people who need elective surgery. Elective surgery is not available as a priority in Northern Ireland. The Musgrave Park Hospital, the Royal Hospitals and the Ulster Hospital have all suspended elective surgery for lengthy periods. Strokes and heart conditions are also the products of old age, and people who suffer from them are not looked after properly. I recently heard of the case of a man who was told by his cardiologist that he should have a bypass operation within seven days, or 10 days at most. The man was a member of the British United Provident Association (BUPA). The earliest that the operation could be done in Northern Ireland was in three months' time. If the man had been an NHS patient, he would have had to wait two years. That is an indictment of what the Executive provide.

There is competition between the various portfolios because the Ministers are not a cabinet - they cannot prioritise anything. Each Minister is a warlord over his own portfolio, and all the Ministers compete against one another. May I say that -

Mr McCartney, please bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the leader of the Alliance Party was rightly given 13·5 minutes; that was the level of flexibility that you showed towards him. I endorse what Ms McWilliams said. As one of the few Members of the Opposition in the House, I cannot see why I should be hampered from having a proper opportunity to speak. It is a disgrace to democracy, and it is a disgrace on the part of the Business Committee.

Mr McCartney, your time is up.

I sympathise with Members who have points to make about what is probably the most important debate of the year.

At last month's debate on the draft Budget, I spoke on behalf of the Committee for Social Development. I said that the Committee's programmes and spending priorities were the most marginalised. Yesterday, I spoke again on behalf of the Committee for Social Development in the debate on the Programme for Government. I repeated the message that the Department for Social Development has a weighty responsibility to serve those who are most vulnerable. It is a responsibility that must not be ignored or sidelined, and it must certainly not be regarded as secondary. It is no less important than the responsibility that we rightly accept to offer a decent standard of healthcare. Several Members have already spoken about that issue.

When the Minister of Finance and Personnel published his revised spending plans on Monday 3 December, I asked him if he would confirm whether he recognised that the Department for Social Development dealt with the most marginalised people in society. I also asked him to explain why the Department for Social Development's budget was the only one that had been reduced since the draft proposals were first published in September. I sought confirmation that the urban regeneration and community development element of the budget had been reduced. I was disappointed with the Minister's answer, and I wrote to tell him so. I also copied the letter to the Minister for Social Development and asked for his observations.

I apologise for my absence earlier today when the Minister of Finance and Personnel elaborated on the technical adjustments to the Department for Social Development's budget. There was an irony in my being absent this morning. I was in my constituency to hear an announcement about an investment in housing in North Belfast. I marvel at the way in which Ministers are able to recycle that news story regularly. The public receives the impression that an unlimited amount of money is available, and that Ministers are doing wonderful things.

I am grateful to the Minister of Finance and Personnel for acknowledging the points that I made last week. I will read Hansard with interest, but I am sure that he will understand that I insist on written replies from him and his ministerial Colleagues. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts to respond directly to questions that were raised in the Budget debate. If he finds that he is unable to do so, perhaps he or his successor could review the Official Report of the debate and give a commitment to providing prompt and full written answers to the points that are raised. Most of the figures that I will quote are taken from page 53 of the December 2001 version of the Northern Ireland Executive Budget 2002-03.

Much has been made of the fact that the Department for Social Development's budget will increase by 7·5%, compared to this year. If we scratch the surface, we will find that the Department has three stated objectives in the Programme for Government. Our task is to agree the levels of public spending that are needed to meet those objectives.

The first objective relates to the services provided by the Social Security Agency and the Child Support Agency. The effective and efficient administration of benefits is extremely important to many of my constituents and those of other Members. Sadly, benefits continue to be the main source of income for far too many people in Northern Ireland. The cost of administering those benefits is expected to amount to £204 million next year. Of that amount, £195 million is destined for the Social Security Agency. That is a 20% increase on this year's allocation. Interestingly, the Child Support Agency's budget will be £1·5 million less than this year's; that is a reduction of 22%. The Committee has been led to understand that the agencies were implementing efficiency measures that would also lead to improved levels of service.

The Committee is concerned that the administration of the benefits system should run smoothly and that those entitled to benefits should receive the correct level of financial support - at the right time. The Committee accepts that some short-term investments were required to deliver those efficiency savings. However, the bottom line is that the cost of benefit administration next year will increase by 17·5% compared to this year's spending. The Committee has urged the Minister and the Department for Social Development to ensure that that increase will lead to efficiency savings. The Committee intends to monitor the situation carefully and will insist on more regular and detailed reports about progress on efficiency savings, improvements in the level of service and reduction in fraudulent claims.

The increase for running costs is highly disproportionate in comparison with the Department's other spending plans.

The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

I have several other issues that - [Interruption].

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to extend the time for the debate to 4 pm, given that the original schedule indicated that the debate on the crisis in the Health Service would start at 4 pm?

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it not be best to suspend Standing Orders until the debate has taken place properly?

I have taken advice on the matter, and I understand that Standing Orders cannot be suspended at this stage. Like Stephen Hawking, I have difficulty bending time. The Business Committee has allocated three hours for the debate. That is the Business Committee's decision, not the Speaker's. All that I can do is try to ensure that every Member who wishes to speak gets the opportunity to do so, and that sufficient time is given to the proposer of the amendment and to the Minister for his response. The debate must be carried out within the time allocated by the Business Committee. Perhaps this is a matter to which the Business Committee may wish to apply itself. I will take another point of order, but I am concerned that we are eating into valuable time.

I am not attempting to overrule you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but surely the Assembly is the ruling body. I understood that it would be possible to extend the time, with the permission of the Assembly.

I have taken advice on the matter, and I believe that that is not possible.

I congratulate the Minister of Finance and Personnel on his third Budget, and on the extensive consultation process conducted by the Executive, both in the House and with organisations and individuals.

First, I welcome the revised Budget proposals, which take account of the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement and the decision by the Executive to provide an extra £41 million for health and social services. The General Consumer Council's recent report on poor health outlines the extent of the relationship between poverty and poor health in the North, and the effect that that is having on the life expectancy of those who are less well off. The report underlines the fact that health, economic development and education are closely linked issues that require a co-ordinated approach from an Executive working on a collective basis.

Many patients, and people who work in the Health Service, greatly appreciate the recently increased allocations. However, it is important that patients, rather than administrative needs, benefit most from those budget increases.

Overall, I welcome the 14·8% increase in the budget of the Department for Regional Development, and the planned expenditure of £538·3 million on roads, transport, water and sewerage infrastructure. I am pleased that the maintenance and upgrading of the region's roads is a departmental priority, and I particularly welcome the allocation of £48 million for the purchase of new rolling stock.

As I stated in yesterday's debate on the Programme for Government, the new regional transportation strategy must mark a radical departure from what we have experienced in Northern Ireland to date. The Committee for Regional Development has highlighted the importance of investment in our physical infrastructure in order to promote and sustain economic development across Northern Ireland. The Executive's plans to increase spending on our transport facilities are therefore very welcome. I believe that it is necessary to pursue private finance, by one method or another, to get the necessary funds to invest in capital spending projects. All possible options should be objectively pursued. Value for money criteria should be a key priority in evaluating such proposals.

The Chancellor's announcement in the pre-Budget statement, signalling the delay of the introduction of the aggregates levy on processed products subject to EU state aid approval, is a welcome one. As the Budget states, it will create additional spending power for the Department for Regional Development. Despite the fact that taxation is a reserved matter, it demonstrates the influence that we can have as Members of the House. It is an acknowledgement of the Assembly's concerns, expressed last December when it passed a motion from Mr Hussey and myself to reject the introduction of the aggregates levy in Northern Ireland. However, the proposed exemption is only a short-term measure, and it falls short of what the quarry industry in Northern Ireland wanted. I am sure that the quarry industry and Members of the House look forward to the publication later today of the report by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the aggregates levy.

On Employment and Learning, I particularly welcome the additional £37·3 million allocated to expand the number of further and higher education places, and to improve access to student support. It is vital to the economic health of this region that we place such emphasis on further and higher education. Although November's labour market bulletin states that the number of graduates of working age has more than doubled - from 60,000 in 1990 to 123,000 in 2000 - that figure, which represents 12·1% of the working population, is still below the UK average of 14·5%. Therefore, the measures in the Budget to expand access to higher and further education demonstrate the importance which the Executive attach to the issue.

The improvement of the skills level of the workforce is critical in sustaining economic development. Although expenditure on the employment programme will be reduced by £10·3 million, the Department must remain focused on promoting lifelong learning and helping the long-term unemployed back into work through appropriate and adequate training schemes. The findings of the international adult literacy survey are in November's 'Labour Market Bulletin'. It is stated that poor levels of basic skills pose a significant problem for the Northern Ireland economy. It is therefore vital that the Department place greater emphasis on addressing that weakness in the immediate future, and ensure that the New Deal is delivered effectively and directly to those most in need.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>