7.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to explain (a) why administrative officers' absenteeism at 10% should be almost 3% higher than the levels for civil servant grades above and below that grade; and (b) what action is being taken to manage such high absenteeism levels.

(AQO 820/01)

The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has developed robust statistics to help Departments identify underlying trends and areas for more in-depth analysis by age, grade and gender. For example, those statistics revealed that the female absence rate is twice as high as the male one, and that has an impact on absenteeism at the level of administrative officer, which is predominately female. A copy of the report 'Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Northern Ireland Departments, 2000-01' by NISRA is available in the Assembly Library.

My Department also assists other Departments in tackling absenteeism through a range of corporate initiatives, including the development of a web site called 'Attendance Matters' for staff and managers. Service-wide seminars and workshops on managing attendance, as well as an awareness leaflet on support and early-return mechanisms, are available to Northern Ireland Civil Service staff. However, in that context it is important to bear in mind that approximately 80% of all lost working days were supported by a doctor's certificate.

I welcome the news that the Minister is taking the matter seriously, that web sites are being developed and that additional training is being provided. Does the Minister agree that such high levels of absenteeism are unacceptable? They are almost three times higher than those in the private sector, as illustrated in a recent Confederation of British Industry (CBI) survey. Furthermore, will he confirm that high levels of absenteeism place additional burdens and stresses on those members of the Civil Service who are at work serving the general public?

This is an issue that must be approached sympathetically. It is notoriously difficult to carry out meaningful comparisons with other organisations, in both the public and the private sectors, for a variety of reasons. Sick absence rates are often calculated on a different basis and do not allow for factors such as the gender and age profile or the volume of part-time working to be taken into account, all of which have been shown to have an impact on absenteeism rates. Similarly, a recent CBI survey identified that company size is a key determinant of absence rates, with the smallest firms having a sick absence rate of approximately 40% less than the largest ones.

I can assure the Member that Departments are not at all complacent about this. As he acknowledged in his question, action is being taken to address some of the areas in which absenteeism is at its highest.

8.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he will give an undertaking to provide adequate finances to the Department for Regional Development in order to secure the Magherafelt bypass.

(AQO 774/01)

I wonder whether I should be flattered by the amount of authority that the Member's question seems to invest in me with respect to funding for the bypass at Magherafelt. Funding of Roads Service capital schemes and prioritising spending of the capital budget for roads are matters for the Minister for Regional Development in the first instance, and not for the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Any request by a Minister for additional funding is a matter for consideration by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and, indeed, the whole Executive.

The Minister should not flatter himself too much. He should understand that the roads' infrastructure throughout the Province is in a state of grave neglect. The Executive must give higher priority to the Department for Regional Development when funds are being allocated to enable schemes such as the Magherafelt bypass to become a reality. It has been in the 15-year programme for many years. I am not asking the Minister in any way to suggest which road or scheme should have higher priority, but the allocations of money made by his Department to the Department for Regional Development are vital to getting this road built.

The Member may appreciate that I am too humble a person to flatter myself. I was suggesting that he might be flattering me.

What would he do that for?

The Member better ask him. He is his party leader. Perhaps Dr McCrea is thinking about changing his mind on some issues.

However long a particular proposal or scheme is in the pipeline, ultimately the responsibility for making the case for it has to fall to the Minister responsible. Perhaps the question in the first instance might have been better directed to the Minister for Regional Development, who, I understand, is still a Colleague of the Member.

9.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the number of applications received under measure 2.1 of the Peace II European Support Programme; and to make a statement on the success of the online completion of applications.

(AQO 811/01)

Applications to this measure are ongoing. To date, 25 have been formally submitted, of which 13 were submitted online and 12 manually. A further 55 online applications have been initiated under this measure.

The application form is in two parts. Part A can be completed either online or manually, and part B must be completed manually. The online application process is working well, with some 3,900 applications initiated. A total of 1,603 applications have been submitted formally for building sustainable prosperity and Peace II, of which 1,014 are for Peace II.

Can the Minister say if there were any drawbacks for online applications because of the closing date in December? Were any communities hindered?

There were no inhibitions or hindrances to applicants. There was heavy online traffic towards the closing date for receipt of applications, which made it difficult to gain access. However, steps have been taken to address that problem, and no applicants have been inhibited from making an appropriate application.

There was some concern about community organisations not having access to the Internet. Can the Minister assure the House that that was not a problem and that it did not affect those who wished to apply using the traditional method?

Applications can be made in the traditional way. The 12 paper applications referred to in my main reply were submitted using the traditional method, and both methods of application were equally acceptable.

TOP

10.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in view of the underspend in the NHS in the last financial year, to outline what mechanisms are in place to ensure that additional departmental budget allocations are spent in-year.

(AQO 809/01)

The Executive are determined to ensure that resources, once allocated, are spent where they are most needed. That is achieved through the in-year monitoring process, where spending is monitored by Departments with significant underspends - actual or forecast - being notified to the Department of Finance and Personnel on four specified occasions. At each point any spare capacity is reallocated, at the discretion of the Executive, to other pressures that may have arisen in other spending programmes.

Time is up. The Minister will reply in writing to any supplementary questions.

We will resume the debate - [Interruption].

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

In his reply, the Minister said that the Noble indices were being used to target and spend departmental moneys. The Minister of Education is not using the Noble indicators as a way of spending departmental moneys, and that issue needs to be raised.

On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister of Education said that he had consulted widely before coming to the conclusion that the Nobel indices were the best way of indicating social deprivation. The House has not had a chance to debate those issues, even though there has been wide consultation outside the House.

That is not a matter for the Minister of Finance and Personnel but rather for the Minister of Education. I strongly suggest that you take up the matter with the relevant Minister.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is supposed to be collective responsibility in the Executive. We are supposed to have spending programmes that run through all the Departments. That cannot happen if each Minister is using different indices to tackle social deprivation.

I repeat: take the matter up with the relevant Minister.

Supply Resolutions: Spring Supplementary Estimates (2001-02)
and Vote on Account (2002-03)

Supply Resolutions: Spring Supplementary Estimates 
(2001-02) and Vote on Account (2002-03)

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has recommended over and over again that there should be an increase in Budget funds for animal disease compensation. I am glad that that problem has been mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates, and that there has been a call for extra funding. Neither I nor anyone else wants to be involved in the enormous subsidisation of a disease. We want the disease to be eradicated. However, the situation in the Province as regards brucellosis and TB is serious, and incidences of those diseases are on the rise.

The Public Accounts Committee has highlighted the cost of brucellosis. However, TB is also an expensive disease. At a recent meeting of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, it was revealed that £9·3 million had been paid in compensation for brucellosis, and £9 million for TB. An additional sum of £8·24 million was spent on testing and compensation administration costs. The Committee asked the question: if that is the expenditure, and the diseases are spreading, does the Department have the finances to continue to compensate farmers if their herds have those diseases? The reply was that the money would run out.

I want to know whether the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, having taken a reading of what will happen with regard to those diseases, and if they continue to spread, has asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if the money will be there? I am sure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel, coming from a rural district, knows what farmers would think if they had those diseases on their farms and animals had to be slaughtered. What will a farmer think if his neighbour receives compensation, and the Department turns round and tells him that the kitty has run out? Has the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development made the Minister officially aware of this problem? Is the request for increased finance likely to be enough to deal with the situation?

Does the Member appreciate that there are several farmers in Northern Ireland whose herds have been scrutinised by departmental officials, and that those officials, having evaluated the herds, have indicated in writing their value and, after the herd has been slaughtered, have withdrawn those offers of compensation? Does the Member accept that that causes severe problems for the image of the Department in the farming community, and severe problems for farmers in their relations with the banks?

TOP

I am aware of such situations, because they have happened in my constituency, which my son also represents in the House. We are all aware of such situations, and they constitute a serious matter. An even worse case was presented to me today. There was a foot-and-mouth disease scare, and the sale of certain cattle had been agreed.

The animals were not paid for, but they were moved to the purchaser's farm. However, the Department slaughtered all of them before he could pay for them. The man said that he had not paid for the animals, that they belonged to so-and-so and that therefore, technically, he was the owner. The owner then wrote to the Department and said that his herd had been slaughtered without his being informed. He said that he expected compensation, but the Department said that it could not pay him.

Those are the constituency matters that we deal with, and that is why it is so important that we know exactly what is happening. We take these matters up with the Minister and the Department because that is the first place we can go. We cannot expect the Finance Minister, with all his talents, brains and flatteries, to wave a magic wand. However, it is a matter of grave concern for farmers, and we should be concerned about the spread of brucellosis and TB. There was a time when the incidence of brucellosis and TB in the Province was very low. We have lost out badly. We need to eradicate diseases rather than compensate farmers with those diseases on their farms, and provision must be made for that.

My Committee has questioned if money will be available should the Minister decide that the vision report is to be acted upon and that the recommendations from the report are to move from the page and become reality. We have been told that there is no money available. The Minister set up a body to introduce important proposals on difficult situations in agriculture, yet no provision has been made to make money available to introduce the report's recommendations. That too is very important.

There is a matter I wish to raise without wearing my Chairperson's hat, although all members of the Committee are concerned about it. There is a need for a retirement scheme and a new entrants scheme for farmers. On the opposite Bench another man with great talents also raised the issue - and how could he not be with great talents, for we both sit in another place together? He made a very strong plea on the matter, and I want to back that up. There are men who have spent their days, and hoped to end their days quite comfortably, in farming, but that hope has been smashed. We all know about the state of agriculture. Can these men, in the last days of their lives, not retire with dignity and honour and have enough to live comfortably for whatever years are left to them? Is it unreasonable for us to say that they should?

We also need new entrants, but many of the regulations that govern agriculture put a barricade in their way. We must oil the hinges, take off the locks, open the door and let new entrants in with a helping hand so that they can get to a place where they can earn a living from the soil.

This is an important issue, and I trust that the Minister will soon announce that it has been considered and that money will be available so that we can have a proper retirement scheme. It will cost a great deal of money, but new entrants to farming will ensure that the industry has a future.

I hope that the next time we discuss this matter we will have good news about brucellosis and tuberculosis. People are working hard and are spending time carrying out tests and investigations. This is an important matter - £8·24 million has been spent. This will be a thorough review of the situation, and I hope that they are successful. It is to be hoped that we will have the pleasant knowledge that brucellosis and tuberculosis have been conquered.

It has been said that a year is a long time in politics, and that time passes very quickly when one is enjoying oneself. It does not feel like a year since the last time we were discussing spring Supplementary Estimates, which was on 19 February 2001. I stress that date, and I ask Members to bear it in mind.

I remember the date vividly. At that time I drew attention to the need for change in how the Assembly went about its budgets and Supplementary Estimates. I remember drawing attention to the need for Members to have more time to analyse, scrutinise and deal with the topic in front of them. I also drew attention to the need for proper consultation, openness and transparency. I referred to the cold, harsh fact that we see the results of monitoring rounds retrospectively - as a fait accompli.

At that time, the then Minister acknowledged these shortcomings, and he pointed out that resource accounting was coming on board and that it would enhance the accountability of Departments and help to address many concerns raised by Members. Today is 11 February 2002 - less than a year has passed. We have had less time to give the matter full scrutiny and less time for consultation. As I stressed, the equivalent debate last year took place on 19 February.

We have a full set of resource accounts for this year's spring Supplementary Estimates. We have masses of figures in front of us - and I concede that point most willingly. However, I also openly admit to being more than a little blinded by the science of these figures. Again, I stress that more time should have been afforded to Members to properly get their heads around the new system of resource accounting.

It has been said that it is an improved system, and I acknowledge that. However, the system is improved only if it enlightens Members and helps them understand - on behalf of the taxpayer - the intricacies and accountability that is necessary if we are to perform a proper service on behalf of those who send us here.

It is a complex system; a fact that has been recognised by the Minister, and I thank him for that recognition. However, we must continue to press, at Committee level and on the Floor of the House, for more transparency rather than allow transparency to appear to be an illusion.

The spring Supplementary Estimates are effectively the consolidation of a done deal that, through the associated Budget Act, will provide the legislative authority to the Executive to spend taxpayers' money.

I stress again that we need to keep the pressure on, on the Floor of the House and at Committee level, in an attempt to prise open the vice-like grip on information that is held by someone or other.

Last year, I highlighted other similarities, and I must question them again this year. The total figure in the Supplementary Estimate last year was £196 million - approximately 2% to 2·5% of the Main Estimate. I drew attention to that figure, as it was similar in percentage terms to that of the previous year. The figure this year is £198 million of cash required. Are these figures an amazing coincidence - is it lightning striking, not once or twice, but three times? Or are these figures, as I suspect, a planned calculation?

I was advised last year that different factors that could not be predicted led to Supplementary Estimates of 2% to 2·5% of Main Estimate provisions. That may well be so, but I am not convinced that the current system leads to the best use of taxpayers' money. I will expand on that point.

Members may recall that last year I called on each Department to consider releasing £10 million of its budget to assist in the crisis in the Health Service. That would have produced an additional £100 million to ease that crisis. The Ministers responded with shock and horror. I was told that it could not be done; it could not be afforded. The Executive acknowledged that health was recognised as a priority, and we all endorsed it, yet the other Departments needed every single penny they could get their hands on and knew how they were going to spend it on important issues. Yet, today, in the consolidation of the monitoring rounds, £198 million of easements are available in the system for reallocation.

The Minister said that monitoring rounds are effectively short-term money. I accept that.

Does the Member agree that when a financial crisis or issue arises in one of the Departments, miraculously, as I once described it, millions of pounds can be found down the side of the sofa and behind the clock? Is that what the Member is referring to?

That is my point. I will go further than that. We have such a crisis in our number one priority that greater effort needs to be made in the lead-up to the beginning of the year to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to that priority to deal with the pressures. We all know that those pressures are going to build up throughout the year.

As I said before, each Department can put up a good argument as to why it should receive more money. That is not disputed - Northern Ireland has been underfunded for years. However, if we believe in a number one priority, then the Assembly must back up those words with resources. That has not been done, and continues to be neglected.

Lead-in for financial resources requires time and planning to enable money to be spent. That is nowhere more obvious than in the Health Service. Over the past two years the funding has not been made available, and the crisis is getting worse.

Recently, I received a letter from the chairperson of the Northern Ireland office of the British Medical Association (BMA) which stated that

The letter makes several recommendations. I hope that all Members will concur with the recommendation that there should be an immediate review of the system of allocating funding in Northern Ireland, with the aim of replacing it with a more effective and accountable system. We should all say, "Hear, hear" to that. We have an opportunity to try to ensure that money is given according to our aspirations.

If we continue to follow what the previous Minister of Finance called "the silo mentality", we will continue to push the problem down the pipe, rather than resolving it. We continue to fail to give proper prioritisation to the need for spending where it is needed. It hurts me that the Executive are still reticent to examine, recognise and grasp the necessity to implement the necessary changes. I hear words, but, after several years, I must question their sincerity.

We have a new Minister of Finance. However, to clarify my point about words, when the Finance Committee was dealing with the Budget Bill, it received a letter on 15 February 2001 from the Department of Finance and Personnel and signed by the then Minister, Mr Durkan. It says that

On 5 February 2002, the Committee received a letter from the new Minister, Mr Farren, which stated

Members will recognise that those paragraphs are identical. I read them out to illustrate my point and to ask where the new thinking is. I want to stress the necessity for new thinking, rather than the repetition of words that are often meaningless. It is time for new thinking and for new ideas to be put to the test, rather than to continue with the patterns and the words of the past. It is time for change.

Mr McGrady called for new funds from outside Northern Ireland. I accept his points. Greater priority must be given to the needs of Northern Ireland, on a UK, a European and a worldwide basis. We are told that money is scarce. However, we have seen billions of pounds spent on war and killing, while the Health Service continues to crumble.

I have just received the 'Service Agreement Monthly Monitoring Report' for December 2001 from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. With regard to fractures, it says that

Turning to operating theatres, it says that

On in-patient and day-case waiting lists by specialty and waiting times, it says that

The situation regarding delayed discharges and community care waiting lists is that

I could go on. All hospitals have reported bed availability problems as a result of delayed discharges. At the end of December 2001, community trusts reported that 136 elderly people were waiting for care packages, or for uplift to existing packages, due to no funding being available. Last year that figure was 126.

Dr Paisley spoke at length about concerns for animal health. That is justifiable. However, I emphasise the need for human health, and the need for the Assembly to deal with its resources in a more appropriate and effective manner that creates transparency and accountability and, more importantly, gives meaningful resolution to the problems that we face.

I referred to the need for external sources of funding. Again, I point to sources of funds within departmental budgets. Two or more years ago, the Executive talked about releasing funding because of the over-administration of Northern Ireland. Is there one less quango in Northern Ireland than there was when the Assembly was elected in 1998? The answer is "No." We still have the skins of the onion - the 26 local authorities, the many trusts, the health boards and the education boards - the layer upon layer of administration that is costing the taxpayer money. Examine the Estimates. Without exception, Departments' administrative costs are increasing. Those are the areas on which the Assembly must concentrate in order to bring about some resolution. Unless that is done, the Assembly is kidding itself - and, more importantly, it is kidding the people that it is supposed to represent.

TOP

Like many other Members, I spent the weekend poring over these figures. They threw up more questions than answers. I want to ask those questions in detail today. However, I would like to begin by pointing out the features of the document that the Women's Coalition regards as positive in relation to the needs of Northern Ireland.

The party welcomes the additional money that is going towards disabled access to, for example, schools and universities. That is a valuable area of expenditure. We welcome new expenditure on issues such as energy efficiency in schools. I hope that that is being extended to hospitals, particularly in the light of the high fuel costs indicated in the Budget. We also welcome additional funds for access to treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Finally, I want to welcome the additional support for youth, community and housing security measures in north Belfast. Those are features of the Supplementary Estimates that I believe are valuable and that underline that the Assembly is working for the people of Northern Ireland.

I am afraid that it goes downhill from there. There are areas of general concern in the document. Mr Close described that well when he spoke of being "blinded by the science". Every Member has mentioned the highly complex procedure that they have been asked to comment on this afternoon - the monitoring, the Supplementary Estimates, the inclusion of Executive programme funds, and the new resource approach. All are highly complex. Every Member will echo my appeal to the Minister to adopt a much more user-friendly approach to reduce the complexity of those issues, and to make the process much more accessible and transparent, not only to ourselves but to members of the public. That is vital if we are to move forward in that area.

Given the figures, certain Departments appear to be getting their sums right, yet others appear to be getting their sums badly wrong. I would appreciate some explanation for that. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of the Environment are two Departments that have not asked for any additional funding. I assume that they are to be congratulated on getting their sums right. If that is incorrect, I would appreciate an explanation. With new resource accounting, the Department for Regional Development must account for roads. I appreciate the Minister of Finance and Personnel's explanation of that in his opening statement. Health is obviously a crisis-led issue that I shall deal with later.

We assume that the Department of Finance and Personnel would surely get its sums right, as opposed to any other, as it is in the lead role in that area. However, that Department has asked for an additional £33 million because it did not get its sums right. I want that explained. That sum includes £19 million for pension payments and lump-sum benefits. The Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety also have sections on pensions and lump-sum benefits, but those Departments are not asking for additional money for those purposes. Am I to assume that civil servants are more in need of that additional money than teachers or nurses? I would appreciate an explanation of that, and of the Department of Finance and Personnel's mathematical skills in particular.

During Question Time, I asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel about the reduction, by many millions of pounds, of funding under Peace I, which the report mentions, and whether European moneys have been returned to Brussels as a result of underspend. In his opening statement, the Minister guaranteed that that money will not go back to Brussels. I would appreciate hearing that again and again.

I shall go into more detail and cover each Department as it appears in the report. First, I turn to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Dr Paisley highlighted the money that is to be spent on animal health, animal disease and compensation. I especially want to look at the £3·5 million compensation paid out for brucellosis cases. The Minister is surely aware that the Public Accounts Committee is looking into that. The Committee has certain serious concerns about the brucellosis compensation and how it works. I underline that concern.

I have not numbered the page to which I am about to refer, so I cannot quote the exact wording. However, I think that I am right in saying that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is looking for an additional £500,000 for what are called legal costs and consultancy fees for work on the introduction of the euro. That obviously fascinated me. Has that money already been spent? If so, how was it spent in advising the public about the introduction of the euro? Has the money yet to be spent? I would certainly welcome it if that were the case, but I want to know what will happen to that money when it becomes available.

Moving to page 82 of the document, there are some concerns about the Department for Employment and Learning. In particular - and I imagine that having come from that Department the Minister well knows the subject - point (xii) states that New Deal provision is being reduced by some £5 million. I would appreciate an explanation of that. Long-term unemployment is a serious issue here, so should the Department's strategic planning for tackling it not be better, with staff in place who could understand and deal with the backlog of some 7,000 applicants?

With regard to Health, Social Services and Public Safety on page 94, my concern relates to a £10 million additional provision towards reducing the deficits of health and social services trusts. I understand that this is the first time such provision has been seen, and we voice our alarm at it. What is it? Does it involve GP fundholders or practices? An explanation would be appreciated.

Another concern is the £4·87 million increased provision

Why is that needed? I would appreciate further detail.

Page 142 deals with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. What struck me there was the decrease in provision by £105,000

Why is money being moved from the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? Does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister no longer have a budget for victims? Has its responsibility for victims been removed? What exactly happens to that money? Why is £105,000 being transferred, when the Budget provision is £150,000? An explanation would be appreciated.

Finally, the Assembly itself is dealt with on page 152. In respect of increased provision, I should appreciate a breakdown of the request for £1·4 million in additional funding for

Some £90,000 of the £1·39 million is needed in cash, and I would appreciate a breakdown of Assembly expenditure in that area.

That completes my list of concerns. We went through the document with a fine toothcomb, and it was important to make those points.

To conclude, I agree with Mr Close that the knee-jerk, crisis-in-management approach to Budgets is inappropriate. Such adjustments and shifting about undoubtedly point to a greater need for a strategic approach to budgetary provision.

I repeat some figures that I used in the debate on the regional transport strategy last week. The 12,000 road traffic accidents, casualties and deaths per year in Northern Ireland cost the economy £450 million per year. Those figures must be mentioned on the Floor of the Assembly. I do not agree with Mr Close that money is scarce, but the lack of strategic provision is. Why do we spend time on crisis management, picking people out of the river, when it would be better to put someone upstream to stop them jumping in in the first place?

I rise entirely mindful that nothing that I might say, or indeed anything that anyone who appears to be vaguely critical of the proposals might say, will have the slightest effect. Come the vote, the marshalled ranks of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP will ensure that the motions are carried.

We heard two interesting speeches from the previous two contributors. However, they were interesting in entirely different ways. Mr Close addressed some of the fundamental issues that relate to the governance of Northern Ireland; Ms Morrice gave a virtuoso performance in the art of financial and political nit-picking. Of course, one can go through their accounts and pick up this, that and the other thing, but the major issues must be addressed.

In financial and governance terms, Northern Ireland is a total mess. As a member of the electorate said to me recently, the Assembly appears to be a sort of theme park. It is a Disneyland, in which the political classes of Northern Ireland can play.

As far as the financial background of the governance of Northern Ireland is concerned, the fundamental mistake was made when those major parties involved in negotiating the Belfast Agreement failed to extract from the British Government a substantial contribution, amounting to billions of pounds, to address the shortfall in infrastructure that had occurred in the previous 10, 20 or, as has been suggested by some, 30 years. That shortfall was believed to be in the region of £9 billion.

One lot was so interested in getting a devolved Assembly in order to get its hands on the levers of power that it entirely ignored that shortfall. The other lot was so interested in getting what it believed to be the extracting of transitional institutions for a united Ireland that it did not address the problem either.

The result, and the major financial problem with which the Assembly must cope, is how, on a limited budget, it can maintain the day-to-day financial demands and requirements without ever having the capital to address the huge deficit in infrastructure that it will never be able to address by saving money out of the annual operational costs in the block grant.

Take, for example, some of the problems in the Health Service to which Mr Close referred. Members know about the dreadful state of the orthopaedic services, paediatric services and cardiac units in Northern Ireland. It is not simply a question of pumping money for additional running cost into those institutions. Many of them do not have the appropriate capital investment in their infrastructure to deliver. I know of the recent case of a patient - not a National Health Service patient, but a BUPA patient. He was a senior figure in the accountancy world who had advised Governments; he was once the chairperson of a health trust. According to his cardiologist, he required cardiac surgery within seven days.

The earliest that the surgery could be performed in Northern Ireland, even if he were to pay for it, was in two and a half months' time. The surgery was supposed to be performed within seven days. The cardiac surgeon advised him that he might have had to wait two years if he were a National Health Service patient. The problem was the total absence of the infrastructure that would have enabled cardiac surgeons, if they were available, to carry out the operation.

Mr Close gave a litany of defaults in the orthopaedic service. Many of our major orthopaedic units have suspended all elective operations for hip replacements for the elderly and other remedial surgery. There is no money for those.

The motion gives an estimated figure of £574,419,000, which is based, presumably, on 45% of what will be required for the full year. The cost of administering Government through the Assembly and the 10 Departments over the coming year will probably be in the region of £1·2 billion. Upwards of 10% of the entire block grant will be spent on administration - on the additional cost of 10 Departments, which are not designated as such on the basis of any economic approach or on grounds of efficiency or effectiveness. There are 10 Departments because a cobbled-together political arrangement required 10 Departments. The money will be spent not only on the additional cost of those Departments but on the additional costs of the Departments' liaising with each other, and on the organisation of a traumatised and wrecked Civil Service, whose staff have oscillated from old Departments to new Departments. There is a whole range of additional costs. It costs approximately £1·2 billion to run this place.

Mr Close mentioned bureaucracy and increased government. None of the quangos, which we were promised would go when the tier of Government represented by the Assembly was established, have gone. All we have done is multiply the bureaucracy, the furnishings, the deep-pile plush carpets and reserved spaces, and create a bureaucracy that is stifling the governance of the Province.

In addition to the 26 councils and umpteen quangos, we have the biggest quango of all - here - a quango that is going to absorb in the region of £45 million in the coming year. Not only is this Assembly a quango by its very existence, the number of Members it contains cannot conceivably be justified on the basis of any rational comparison with any of the other devolved institutions in the United Kingdom. It certainly cannot be justified when compared with Scotland, which has far greater powers and a wider range of tax-raising abilities than we have. The Scottish Parliament has 129 Members for 5·5 million people. In addition to our 26 local councils, we have 108 Members for 1·6 million people. Wales has 60 Members for 3 million people. So much of the misgovernment of Northern Ireland has emanated from basing decisions, not on what was best for the governance of Northern Ireland, but on what was the most suitable political playpen for the political classes and on how the greatest possible number could participate in it.

However, we must not just look to the Health Service - there is also Mr Empey's Department. Mr Empey is presiding over a financial empire that is in total decline. One need only read the brief for tomorrow's debate on job losses in East Antrim to see what that Department is doing. It is estimated that there will be 4,000 job losses in that area.

Did the Department of Agriculture, for example, do a great deal to rescue the pork industry? It certainly minimised the effects of foot-and-mouth disease, aided by the fact that we are separated from the mainland by 21 miles of water. However, as Dr Paisley pointed out, what has it done to help the agriculture industry?

This Province has perhaps the best grammar school system in the UK, with an enormous number of children from both communities in Northern Ireland going to our own distinguished universities and to some of the most distinguished universities on the mainland and abroad. That system is about to be butchered on the shrine of some form of misguided political correctness, some sort of equality issue that states that the world is equal. It will be butchered, not on the basis of equality of opportunity, which we would all endorse, but on the basis of reducing every opportunity to some form of equality pap that everyone can ingest.

When we examine the Assembly's function and what it was designed to do - namely, to provide good governance for all the people in Northern Ireland - and consider the money that has been provided and that is being used, not in relation to some aspiration to maintain the Union or any equal aspiration to create Irish unity, we find that it is failing miserably because the very basis of governance is directed to fulfilling the ambitions of the political class in this Disney theme park that passes for Government.

<< Prev / Next >>