It is also vital that areas such as research and development, which in the past have been underfunded, are properly resourced in the future. It is important that our two universities be given every encouragement and assistance to increase their research capability. Research students also deserve greater consideration to enable them to pursue relevant and value-added projects.

I particularly welcome the allocation supplement of £2 million to the Department of the Environment for local council spending, which was announced last week. This is particularly good news for the smaller and poorer councils who face above-average increases in district rates in order to maintain scheduled spending plans.

I welcome the commitment in the Budget to ensure that New TSN, together with the statutory equality legislation, will inform spending decisions in all 11 Departments. I also welcome the intention to subject all spending programmes to ongoing scrutiny.

The Budget provides a route map for our regional economy to become more productive through increased investment in infrastructure, vocational education and training, which will improve the skills base of our workforce. It also demonstrates social conscience and quality- of-life initiatives, as shown by the increased spending on healthcare services and community care. I support the motion.

I support the amendment. The warm homes scheme has been mentioned in the Assembly on 12 occasions during the past year. Members felt that one of the priorities in the Programme for Government and the Budget should be that people should have adequate heating in their homes, which would help alleviate the health and social problems that many people, particularly in old homes, face as a result of the cold.

There have been many arguments against the amendment. The Minister of Finance and Personnel said that it was only an attempt by the DUP to exploit those who suffer from fuel poverty. However, as I have just pointed out, Members across the House have repeatedly raised the issue. In fact it is a pity that Mr Cobain has left, because at the last Social Development Committee meeting he said that he was in favour of an amendment to allocate more money in order to alleviate fuel poverty.

Only last week, a member of Mr Durkan's own party raised the issue with the Minister for Social Development, indicating that 600 people could die this winter. Not only did he want money to be spent on improved heating systems, he actually asked the Minister to consider ways in which to provide help with fuel bills.

Mr McClarty of the Ulster Unionist Party said that fuel poverty is one of Northern Ireland's hidden disgraces. Mr Ford even wanted to impose a levy on electricity consumers. Mr O'Connor of the SDLP described that as a stealth tax, but he said that it was important to do it in order to deal with the problem. We are not exploiting an issue; we are simply responding to Members.

Mr Seamus Close is so predictable. He showed his arrogance when he told us that this is the DUP at it again, and that they should have gone to the Executive and fought their case. He was talking as though money for Departments was a kind of attendance allowance handed out for Ministers going to Executive meetings. If that is the case, then Bairbre de Brún must have been living with the Minister of Finance and Personnel; she has had an increase of 33% over the last two years. However, if one takes that argument to its logical conclusion, then why has the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment received a cut?

Will the Member give way?

No, I do not have time to give way because I will be cut down in a moment or two.

If attendance at Executive meetings were the criterion for getting funding, then why have the frequent attenders not received the money that they asked for?

Another argument is that we would be cutting money from essential services - the cross-border bodies. Let us look at the spending of some of these cross-border bodies. InterTradeIreland plans to gather statistics on cross-border trade. They will use money to do work through existing Departments and to duplicate the work currently being undertaken by the Industrial Development Board and LEDU.

The Food Safety Promotion Board is going to use its money to increase the bureaucracy that Mr McCartney talked about. There are to be 20 more staff. I have a lovely quotation on the essential services that Mr Durkan was talking about. The last time it was discussed, Dr McDonnell said

As far as he was concerned, the Food Safety Promotion Board was not then making a difference to people's lives.

Mr Durkan mentioned Waterways Ireland. What is it using its money for? The last time we had a discussion on it in the Assembly, there were three consultation exercises. There were to be consultants to look at a corporate image. I am sure that that takes great priority over putting heat into someone's house to stop them from dying. The body was going to look at new premises. It had underspent, yet Mr Durkan says that money is needed for this body to deliver essential services.

The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is also fond of consultation. Consultants have been employed on recruiting members to the forum, on their staffing structure and on their equality scheme. The commission is tagging salmon carcasses. The Minister has told us that she does not know if it has been effective or not. It is so busy -

Mr Wilson, please draw your remarks to a conclusion.

I will.

It is so busy that it has not even been able to turn in its annual report yet. These are the essential bodies that Mr Durkan has been telling us about. There are many quotations on the ineffectiveness of these bodies, yet we are told that we must give this money to them. It is more important that these bodies be sustained than that people have warmth provided in their homes. I think that -

Sorry, but your time is up.

Anyone listening to this objectively will support the DUP amendment and will support warm homes for people who are living in fuel poverty.

I want to comment on section 7 of the Budget.

I apologise for this delay - you have caught me on the hop.

It is not often that the Member is caught on the hop - [Interruption].

Somebody else has been caught on the hop.

Time is going on.

My remarks will be brief. I am concerned about the reduction of the indicative allocations, set in December 2000, for each Department for 2003-04 by around £125 million, to be known as the Executive SR 2002 allocation. The Minister talked about this last week, saying that the Executive would reduce indicative baselines for that year by £125 million through the allocation of indicative minima to Departments.

I have a few questions for the Minister. When will Departments be informed of the indicative figures? How will this affect their departmental plans to work toward efficiency targets? Will this reduction encourage Departments simply to bid again for activities previously dropped to achieve efficiency savings, rather than to target limited resources on new activities? Is there a danger that the transparency of the Budget process will be lost if resources are creamed off to meet unspecified needs?

Will the Minister give us some indication of these needs? Will he also tell us how the rationale for withholding £125 million differs from the approach in the Executive programme funds, and what criteria will be set to determine how resources are allocated to Departments? The Minister is aware of concerns that Executive programme funds are sometimes regarded as something that should have originally been allocated to Departments. I have already put this point to the Minister. I am concerned that the reduction of £125 million in indicative baselines is creating a similar scenario to that of the Executive programme funds.

I support the Budget. It is a fair and professional attempt to meet the comprehensive needs of our society. This is a difficult task, given the complexity of trying to meet the needs of every Department, which cannot be achieved by offering so-called simple solutions.

Sammy Wilson said that doing away with North/South bodies would save about £1·3 million. I agree with his passion for creating warm homes. However, this cannot be an either/or situation. The Department for Social Development will have £6·8 million extra for housing associations, but there will be £0·5 million less for the Housing Executive, and there will also be a £5 million reduction in money for urban regeneration and community development. However, the Minister seems to need an extra 20% - £35 million - for social security administration. Mr Wilson has not mentioned cutting down the social security administration budget and using that money to provide warm homes for people. These figures are set out on page 53 of the 2002-03 Budget.

The needs of our Health Service are paramount. I had the misfortune to be in hospital recently. Staff are being run off their feet, and cubicles are being shared in casualty departments. Money must be invested. Bob McCartney was right when he said that there was a historical underinvestment of £6 billion. We must redress that situation.

Since devolution, an extra £687 million has been put into the Health Service - an increase of 37%. The Assembly should be proud of the financial astuteness and prudence of the Minister of Finance and Personnel in being able to deliver the introduction of free nursing care. We all care about people, and the delivery of free nursing care to the people of Northern Ireland has been a big plus for the Assembly. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that.

Mr McCartney was right when he said that the Barnett formula is unfair. However, he did not address one single issue in the Budget. I want to see the historical underfunding being addressed. We were promised a peace dividend. However, the money that does not now have to be spent on security and security installations, and the mechanics of a war machine, has been taken away from the people of Northern Ireland. We should be having our peace dividend now that that money is not being spent on security apparatus.

It is about time that we pressed the Government for an increase in the block grant.

I wish to talk about health and care in the community. There are 19 trusts and four health boards, which poses a problem. A sum of £1 million was paid out last year to non-executive directors in the Health Service here alone. That is almost equivalent to the amounts included in Mr Morrow's amendment. I am all for reducing the quangos. We and the councils must be accountable, so let us do away with boards that seem to gobble up endless amounts of money.

Do away with the cross-border bodies.

It is all right for Mr Wilson to chirp from the sidelines about cross-border quangos, as he calls them, but they were voted for by 71·12% of the people as an essential part of the Good Friday Agreement. Whether Mr Wilson likes it or not, they are here to stay.

With regard to reducing expenditure on bureaucracy in the Health Service, I wish to address parallel imports, which allow pharmacists to claim a maximum amount of money for prescription drugs, only to bring them in from abroad. That takes away vital resources from patient care.

Please draw your comments to a close, Mr O'Connor.

I support the Budget and reject the amendment.

TOP

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I reiterate the comments made by my Colleague Mr Morrow, who identified the vulnerable section of the community that suffers from fuel poverty. I want to focus on another vulnerable group - people who need basic adult education.

In today's meeting of the Committee for Employment and Learning, Prof Loreto Todd quoted from an article in the 19 November 2001 edition of the 'Irish Independent', which stated that

That is a terrible indictment of a system that seems to have failed a sizeable section of the population surveyed. Indeed, the findings of the international adult literacy survey (IALS), in which Northern Ireland was benchmarked against almost all the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, indicate that 24% of the adult population of Northern Ireland performs at the lowest levels of literacy. That is equal to some 260,000 people and compares poorly with our economic competitors such as Belgium at 18%, Germany at 14%, the Netherlands at 11% and Sweden at 8%.

Members from all parties have highlighted the subject of basic skills on numerous occasions in the House. Rarely does a meeting of the Committee for Employment and Learning, of which I am the Deputy Chairperson, go by without reference to the problem of literacy and numeracy. It is good to hear Mr Byrne and Mr Dallat on the SDLP Benches continually raising the subject. If the amendment originally tabled in my name had been deemed competent, I would have expected Mr Byrne and Mr Dallat to support it. They will not have the opportunity to do that now. Perhaps they will consider supporting the warmer homes amendment.

There is a flaw in the Budget in that there seems to be a lack of co-ordination on basic adult education between it and the Programme for Government. The Programme for Government states that the Executive are

If the problem has forced its way into the Programme for Government, one would expect to be able to identify the accompanying and appropriate funding to tackle it. However, so far as I can ascertain, the Department for Employment and Learning's public service agreement does not give any prominence to the problem. Furthermore, the service delivery agreement appears to be silent on the issue. With unemployment falling in recent years, the cohort of 260,000 adults who lack basic literacy and numeracy skills have become an important entity in the socio-economic agenda in Northern Ireland.

The Department for Employment and Learning presented a business case for a financial resource requirement of some £13 million for the three years commencing 2001-02. In the current year, there was a shortfall of £2 million because the Department was unsuccessful in its bid for Executive programme funds. In 2002-03, there will be a shortfall of £2·2 million because there was a shortfall in the Executive programme funds requirement. Having applied for £3·4 million, the Department succeeded in getting only £1·2 million. An application for £3·5 million from the Executive programme funds was made for 2003-04, but only £1·2 million was allocated - a shortfall of £2·3 million.

It is time for the lip service to cease; it is time for action. More than 250,000 adults are vulnerable due to their lack of literacy and numeracy skills. There must be funding to accompany the fine words in the Programme for Government. Otherwise, it is simply a lot of talk and window dressing. As I said before, there must be action now.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel reminded the House this morning that the Executive listen and respond. How many times do Members have to remind the Executive and the Minister that funding is needed for that critical section of our population? It is vital that the money come now - not in 2003 or further down the line.

I know that you are pushing hard on time, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to accommodate you. I have listened carefully to Members' remarks, and it is ironic that none of them has said that the idea of providing more resources for a warm homes scheme is not a good idea. Even those Members who have said that they will not support the amendment acknowledge the need to tackle fuel poverty in Northern Ireland.

I have listened to one or two Members who are somewhat sceptical, but perhaps that is to be expected from those who have no real reason to vote against the amendment. I was particularly concerned to hear Mr ONeill question why both rich and poor receive the £200 fuel payment. That is how it is. I suspect that he has not thought the whole matter through. I thought that he would know that the fuel payment of £200 is a parity issue. Some Members who spoke today seemed to be confused about that.

Social security was also mentioned. Members know that, while it is administered in Northern Ireland, social security is a parity issue. Mr O'Connor was also critical of the administration of social security. However, the Department for Employment and Learning will roll out one service across the Province. Members of the Committee for Social Development were invited to visit the pilot scheme in Dungannon. Mr O'Connor may have attended that. I have heard no criticism from people who have visited the scheme and have seen it up and running. Therefore, all those who say that they are concerned about fuel poverty now have an option and an opportunity to put their vote where their mouth is. It is one thing to talk about the issue, but another to deliver on it.

Perhaps Mr Close will change his mind before the day is out, but I am disappointed that he cannot find it in his heart to support the amendment. He has also said that he will not support the Budget, so at least he is neutral. Perhaps that is the position he always wants - neutral, whatever the issue. However, Mr Close should get off the fence and join the rest of us.

Does the Member not accept that under this perverse voting system, on what should be the most important date in the Assembly's calendar, people such as me, who are described as "Other", do not have a vote that counts? My electorate is disenfranchised - I cannot vote on its behalf.

That point is worth arguing. However, did Mr Close not sign up to this? Did he not help to bring all this about? Was his party not party to the whole thing? Surely he cannot sit here now and grouse. He should be re-designate and support us, because re-designation will be nothing new for the Alliance Party. It has jumped through that hoop before, and it will jump through it again.

A relatively small sum of money is being requested. There should be no problem obtaining that funding from the different resources that have been highlighted. It would not impact significantly on the workings of those quangos, and it would better many people in Northern Ireland's lot. I urge everyone who sits in the valley of indecision to step out with us and vote to improve the lot of the elderly and the fuel poor in Northern Ireland.

This has been a helpful debate that has raised and explored several issues. However, I share with many Members the regret about the time constraints that have been imposed. Members have not been allowed to discuss fully the range of issues in the Budget, and many Members have been unable to participate in the debate. Some Members have insinuated that the time limit was sought either on my behalf or on the Executive's behalf. I remind Members that I have sat in the House faithfully through long Budget debates and - believe it or not - have been happy to do so.

I am available when statements are being made on financial allocations. Ms McWilliams said that there may be too many statements on allocations, but for each statement I have also been available for an hour of questions. I have not attempted to evade or curb debate on the Budget.

Maturity and realism have been evident across the Chamber as Members addressed different issues. That is good to see and it shows that we are maturing as an Assembly. We have a firmer grip on understanding our responsibilities and understanding the limitations of resources. We are beginning to understand that we must develop better ways to meet the needs of the services about which we all care.

I have heard nothing from Members who spoke in favour of the amendment that would change my view that it is a cynical attempt to injure the agreement by manipulating an important and emotive issue. I understand that that is classic opposition politics, and the agreement allows for that. It is just a pity that the DUP will not do more of what the agreement allows for and play its full part in decision-making by attending Executive meetings. There, their Ministers could contribute their views, not only on their departmental responsibilities but on all matters relating to government. In that regard, I appreciate Mr Carrick's thoughtful contribution; he did not raise the warm homes scheme issue but returned to an issue that he has addressed before - basic adult literacy and numeracy.

None of the ways suggested by the DUP to slice up the Budget alters the fact that the Department for Social Development did not present fuel poverty as a priority for either the Budget or the Executive programme funds. I referred Members to the position report issued in June, when the then Minister for Social Development tabled an amendment. Neither he nor his Department presented the matter as a priority. I hope that Members will appreciate that fact. In the bilateral meetings that we conducted on the Budget, the Department for Social Development did not give the issue priority. Given the extravagance and the exaggeration of some of the claims made in the Chamber, people should bear that in mind.

In December 2000, the Executive provided £2 million to allow the new warm homes scheme to proceed. The Department for Social Development then introduced the enhanced scheme without seeking additional resources from the centre. Warm homes are important, but we must remember that the current Minister for Social Development announced on 21 November that the £4·3 million that the Department was spending would rise to £8 million next year. That should be set in context. That provision is also part of a wider fuel poverty package that totals £12·5 million. It is not the case that the Executive have done nothing or that the Budget does not make provision to tackle fuel poverty.

The Budget recommendations reflect the level of priority that the Department for Social Development places on fuel poverty. If expenditure on the warm homes scheme is to double next year, it is for the Executive to consider any further proposals that the Department might make to reassess the level of priority given to fuel poverty in its own budget, in the Executive Budget or in Executive programme funds. Those issues can be considered on their merits as they arise. That is the proper way to show the importance of issues - not through gimmicky stunts and ambushes. What Mr Close said about the DUP's amendment was right.

The Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Molloy, highlighted the Committee's interest in the management of Executive programme funds. Mr Hussey suggested that money should go straight to Departments, rather than into Executive programme funds. Mr Close complained that there was some sort of syndrome by which Departments assume that the money is destined for them. They regard it as their money, and they do not think about the Budget's wider priorities. Executive programme funds were created as an antidote to that syndrome. They were to ensure that we did not decide that we were dealing with fixed envelopes that could not be reprioritised between budgets. Executive programme funds have been a means to try to bring greater Executive strategic priority to the Budget.

Significant developments have come from Executive programme funds. However, the Finance and Personnel Committee was right to identify the need to improve the way in which the funds are planned, managed and accounted for through positive evaluation and reportage. The Executive will proceed on that basis, and they will follow some of the Committee's sensible and helpful recommendations. Those recommendations do not move against the Executive programme funds, but they try to ensure that we make best use of them.

Mr Molloy also mentioned the needs and effectiveness evaluations. They are substantial pieces of work. The findings will be used to support our case on the Barnett formula, and they will influence our work on next year's spending review. That work concerns our Departments as well as the Treasury.

There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber. Having asked the Minister so many questions, it would be unfortunate if we were not afforded the opportunity to listen to his response.

Part of the work that will flow from the needs and effectiveness evaluations will address the points raised by Mr Close, Ms McWilliams and Mr Leslie. We must see whether we are spending money where it is most needed and where it will have the most impact on our regional needs, whether they be social, economic, environmental or cultural.

Members have queried many aspects of the Budget, and they have asked whether our tests for departmental budget bids have been searching enough and whether we have been thorough in our appraisals for Executive programme funds. I hope that those Members will join with us to ensure that we have honest and thorough reflection on the issues that arise from the results of the evaluations. There is no point in rehearsing the line that programmes must have the sort of spending that they have always had. There is no point in insisting that new needs must be the subject of new bids that may or may not succeed because limited money is available.

The total discretion that we have must apply to the entire Budget. Several Members said that we concentrate too much on the question of additional bids, and I agree. Ms McWilliams complained that too many allocations were announced and that that causes confusion. That is the price of transparency. If I tried to get away with fewer allocation announcements, said less, or said that we would save up the announcements until we have a nice aggregate, many people would say that matters were being obscured - rather than confused - and that they did not know what was happening. If people can follow it, there are clear and consistent patterns. I would prefer some of the major spending decisions that are taken by the Departments to be subjected to the same sort of scrutiny and exposures to which mere fractions of the total budgetary allocation are subjected. Considering the proportion of the Budget accounted for by Executive programme funds, and the level of scrutiny that that attaches to them - compared with some of the big decisions that are taken elsewhere - there are issues that need to be addressed by the Executive and the Assembly Committees.

Mr Leslie's point about asset management is correct. It is not only an issue now; it will become a bigger issue because of the impact of resource accounting and budgeting. We, as an Assembly and not only as an Executive, must start to get our heads around some of the issues involved. Among the proposals to help the targeting of next year's health budget was the suggestion that there would be £5 million worth of asset sales. On a previous occasion, some Members objected to that proposal and raised scare stories about the family silver being sold off. In trying to achieve asset sales of £5 million from a total asset holding of £3 billion we are not looking at the family silver being sold off, we are trying to identify ways to put more money into health, for which many Members have rightly pressed.

Points were made about the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's budget. I understand that Department's circumstances and that, historically, some of its programmes have been underfunded. The Executive have seen to it that major increases have been made in that Department's funding programmes in the past few years.

I remind Members to my right that if they wish to conduct private conversations there is adequate space in the Great Hall.

On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr Paisley mentioned the vision group's report. There was an allocation towards the work of the vision group in a previous Budget, which was intended to be a pre-allocation of the Executive programme funds. The vision group's review is now subject to consultation, after which proposals will be made. Any firm bids for implementing the report's recommendations will be developed and considered in that context, with access given to Executive programme funds as is appropriate. The vision group previously received an advance allocation from Executive programme funds, which proves its eligibility for funding. The Executive must ensure that we take into account any necessary prioritisation in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Its Committee often raises points on that matter.

The Executive also want to ensure that we do not just implement structures and policies in a new way, without knowing that they will deliver results. There is no difference between the approach to the vision group's report and the approach to the soccer strategy. In both cases, funding will depend on satisfactory business cases being advanced.

Dr Paisley also raised points about compensation for the fishing industry and the impact of the fish quota cuts. He is aware that it has not been policy to compensate for reductions in quotas or for closures. The Commission's proposals are unwelcome as far as the Northern Ireland fleet is concerned, and that has been reflected in the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development's fight for an approach that takes account of the industry's difficulties while respecting the scientific evidence. She will attend next week's Fisheries Council meeting.

Mr Close raised several issues. Some of them are familiar to Members because of his contributions in the Chamber. For example, he mentioned the regional rate. Others may be less familiar to Members because they have come via his contributions to the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

As regards the regional rate, I make the point again: where we recognise that we do not have enough money available as a block of expenditure to use at our discretion, we must supplement it from our own resources. If we are committed to public services and to public expenditure - and this Minister of Finance and Personnel is - we must be prepared to ask the public to make further contributions.

That is particularly relevant in the light of next year's spending review. We are supposed to be raising issues about the Barnett formula, but we will be approaching the Treasury from a weak position, because less revenue is raised here by comparison with the contributions paid by households across the water. Many Members rail against the regional rate, while as councillors they vote for higher increases in the district rate. Accusations that some Ministers are inconsistent might apply equally to other Members.

Seamus Close is right that we need to attack bureaucracy and take action to improve efficiency and effectiveness. We must do more to ensure that resources are used in the best possible way. That relates to my earlier point on the application of scrutiny and the intervention of Committees to scrutinise.

I mentioned that we need more joined-up scrutiny so that such issues as are examined by the Public Accounts Committee, arising from the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, are properly monitored. A more joined-up approach would ensure that the implications of those issues and the application of Departments' commitments are properly monitored to ensure their full effectiveness. There are ways to ensure that that relays into the Budget process.

Several Members mentioned departmental running costs. I recommended to the Executive that they make a 1% cut in departmental running costs across all Departments - the Executive did, therefore, consider the issue. Committees' responses to the position report and the draft Budget show that Departments and Committees identified that the term "departmental running costs" is sometimes a mislabelling of what those costs cover. For some Departments, departmental running costs do not simply relate to the bureaucratic costs of civil servants at the centre of the Department. In many cases, those costs cover direct, frontline service providers. That distinction should be recognised. For some Departments, the term is something of a misnomer. The Executive have recognised that they need to address that inaccuracy. The Committee for Finance and Personnel might want to address that also.

Some Members highlighted the increase in departmental running costs of the Department for Social Development. Those Members might have thought that they were helping me by making that point, but the significant increase in departmental running costs for the Social Security Agency is part of the welfare reform and modernisation programme. Investments are aimed at introducing new measures that will, in turn, yield savings over time. It would be unfair of me to omit that fact.

Members have welcomed the fact that the Executive have been able to do more for the Health Service, but I appreciate that Members are frustrated that the extra money will not be adequate to tackle all its problems. Members commented on the serious problems that they have seen when visiting hospitals and other services in either a personal or official capacity. We are investing more into the Health Service than is allocated under the Barnett formula.

I resent Boyd Douglas's insinuation that, had it not been for the Chancellor, no more money would have been allocated to the Health Service or for care of the elderly. Prior to the Chancellor's announcement of an extra £28 million in the pre-Budget report, the Executive decided to increase the Health budget beyond that provided in the draft Budget. In last year's Budget I announced that the Executive would provide money for free nursing care for the elderly. Unfortunately, the legislation was not then in place. Other pressures also bore on the situation. No money was taken from the Department, but other pressures were able to absorb the money. However, with available extra money, we have been able to make good that commitment, and I hope that the Executive and the Assembly will facilitate that by passing the necessary legislation.

Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I have been unable to answer all of the points made by Members. I am usually criticised for trying to answer too many questions. I will certainly try to follow them up, as I have done in the past. I also hope that Members will follow up those points themselves in their respective Committees. I am fascinated by some of the points that Members have made to me as Minister of Finance about some discrete issues within their Committees. I would be even more fascinated to see some of those points pursued at Committee level and to see what results from that.

I must ask the Minister to conclude his remarks.

I want to thank Members for their contributions to the debate. Some Members paid me compliments for my work as Minister of Finance and Personnel, and I appreciate those. The Committee for Finance and Personnel has helped the Executive and the Assembly to develop very effective and transparent arrangements for examining public expenditure planning and allocations, and I place on record my appreciation of its work. Our budgetary process is more transparent than that found in any other jurisdiction in this hemisphere. I am glad to have played some part in creating that, but I particularly pay tribute to the work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. I hope that the Assembly will endorse the Budget.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I remind Members that this motion requires cross-community support.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 49, Noes 27.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>