The Member says that it is not enough simply to hold our hands out to the Exchequer, and he spoke about people saying one thing in the Chamber and voting for another in the Lobbies. Does he recall that when an attempt was made to raise additional capital by raising the regional rate he and his Colleagues walked through the "Noes" Lobby?

It is not enough to dip our hands into the pockets of people who struggle from day to day to pay their bills and to keep their businesses going. It is not enough to pick money out of the wallets of people who are living just above the threshold of benefit support and say that we expect them to pay the bill for our folly. I have already outlined in the Assembly ways in which we could change the spending priorities that would not require us to put small businesses and vulnerable people on low or medium incomes in greater difficulty. The Member should not say that I simply walked through the "Noes" Lobby and left the problem to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

We have suggested ways. Of course, the easy way out is to simply go along with the present pattern of expenditure and say, "Let the poor ratepayer pay for it". However, that is not an answer, and, at the end of the day, that will cause great difficulty.

Does my hon Friend agree that it would be more honourable to tell people that they are being taxed? The SDLP suggested another form of taxation, but that was to be introduced through the back door and not in an honourable way. It is far better to be honourable and tell people that you are taxing them - then at least they will know whether to support you.

Thank you for that useful intervention.

I now turn to some of the points that Dr Birnie made. We must look for innovative ways of obtaining the additional resources needed to deliver public services. Perhaps the Assembly should be a little more innovative and should examine how current ways of delivering services could be changed to bring in additional finance.

There has been recent discussion about raising money through bonds to bring in additional revenue to deal with some of the capital and service requirements in Northern Ireland. That also requires a radical examination of how those services are delivered and whether they are delivered solely through the public sector. I have no problem with that. I believe that many people in Northern Ireland do not care whether their services are directed solely by a public body or whether they are delivered by a body at arm's length from the public sector, which is run on a non-profit-making basis and which can draw down extra resources, provided - and this is the important thing - that they get a decent service. People are interested in the outcome; not where the input comes from. There is a range of services that we could deal with in that way.

I have heard opposition in the Assembly to PFI because it puts money in the hands of private contractors. I have no great difficulty with PFI schemes and, indeed, if more capital projects can be delivered in that way, I am quite happy to consider it.

The Assembly must look beyond dipping its hands into the pockets of the taxpayers, many of whom cannot afford it, and holding out a begging bowl to Westminster. If it can be proved through needs assessment that we are entitled to more money then we should be arguing the case. However, we cannot always rely on saying "We deserve this", whether justified or not.

The fundamental issues of the Assembly have been addressed in the debate: whether the Assembly has a mechanism which holds the Executive accountable; whether Members are so constrained by their party Whips that they do not vote in the way that they speak, and whether we are prepared to address the radical issue of how we obtain additional resources beyond the two main ways that we addressed the issue in the past, in order to deliver some of the services that are much needed.

Before I call the Minister to respond, I would like to make an observation that I have made at other times in the House - that it is unfortunate that Members who have asked questions of the Minister do not have the courtesy to remain when he responds.

I have listened with great interest to the points that have been raised by Members, and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

The debate has been used to make general and particular points relevant to the Budget. Many Members have used it for wider purposes, rehearsing well-worn arguments on the nature of our political institutions and their origin - but that is the nature of such debates. In my response, I shall attempt to focus on those matters that directly pertain to issues raised in my introductory remarks.

TOP

Today's debate provides a further valuable opportunity to hear and consider Members' concerns about our spending plans. This is only the second occasion on which we have presented Supplementary Estimates to the Assembly. In many areas, our budgetary process is in the early stages of development and is still evolving. Undoubtedly, it will evolve taking note of the recommendations and points made by Members in their contributions. I am no guardian of the kind of status quo that some allege we have, and I share with Members the desire and the conviction that ran through many of the contributions - ensuring that the Government are efficient and effective in meeting the needs of all our people.

The spring Supplementary Estimates draw together the spending decisions made by the Executive during the year. Some Members seem to be approaching these Supply resolutions as if they were being presented for their consideration for the very first time. Of course, that is not the case. We have been through these issues in statements on the monitoring rounds and in the considerable period allocated to the consideration of the Budget before it was adopted before Christmas. That period allowed all Members, both in Plenary and in Committee, considerable scrutiny and consideration of the priorities in today's Supply resolutions. I remind Members that these same issues have been before them for consideration in much the same terms as they are being presented today. Members should not speak as if this were the first time.

Several points and questions were raised during the debate, and I shall cover as many as I can now. Other, more detailed, questions, such as those posed by Ms Morrice, will require a more considered response later. Mr Molloy, Mr Close and others again raised concerns that people have not had enough time to consider the Supplementary Estimates; I have already dealt with that. I want to reaffirm what Mr Close said: we continue to look for improvements in scrutinising the spending allocations and the Estimates. I want to address the point fairly and frankly. There will never be much more time for Committee and Assembly scrutiny at this stage of the cycle, which falls tightly between decisions on December monitoring and the need for completing the approved process before the end of the year.

However, I reiterate that there is much more time to examine the issues, at several stages. First, the most important stage in each cycle is the autumn, when the Assembly can consider the issues that arise between the draft Budget and the revised Budget. Secondly, there is a considerable period between now and the debate on the Main Estimates in June. The motion covers an amount on account for 2002-03; the Main Estimates will simply complete that process in more detail.

Committees can, and should, take up issues relating to the Estimates for 2002-03 between now and the debates about them in June. There is a considerable amount of time left, therefore I do not accept the complaint of some Members that there is not always sufficient time to scrutinise the matters fully. I recognise that the timescale in this part of the cycle is tight, but we are revisiting issues in respect of which there has been much opportunity for debate and scrutiny.

Finally, and most importantly, we are about to begin an important spending review. In looking to the future, Committees and the Assembly can now begin to scrutinise and analyse spending plans for 2003-04. Seamus Close pointed out that the Estimates were prepared on a resource basis, as were the Main Estimates last June, and cover allocations previously announced after the June, September and December monitoring rounds, all of which were the subject of detailed statements to the Assembly. The Estimates also cover the second round of allocations from the Executive programme funds, which were the subject of a statement to the House on 3 December.

Information on all the significant issues that were addressed today has been available to the Committees. The Committees could have pursued any matter with their Departments through the available channels on the basis of information that was provided in the context of earlier monitoring decisions and Budget proposals.

I was impressed by the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment's point that that Committee had set about prioritising and, in consultation with the Department, addressing the priorities that had been set by the Department and itself. He said that there should be no reason why other Committees might not adopt a similar approach and that it should not be difficult to obtain the level of access to departmental officials that the Environment Committee had to its Department. I believe that it is. Therefore, we should examine carefully how Committees contribute to the prioritisation and scrutiny process, both in retrospect and in prospect.

I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the views that were expressed, particularly the need to allow more time for consideration of the issues and to provide more user-friendly documentation. We will re-examine the issue and consider what improvements we could make. I will continue to take on board the Finance and Personnel Committee's views in that regard. I trust that the Committee will acknowledge that in my short period in office I have lost no time in making myself available to it when my presence was requested. I have also made myself available to the Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson.

I again emphasise that Committees are free to ask questions at any stage of the processes that are now being concluded in these Estimates. That applies equally to discussions about the annual Budget and each monitoring round. Committee members do not need a signal from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that they may begin their scrutiny.

Several members have reasonably pointed out the sheer complexity and comparison of the material in front of us. I share the sense that there are more questions than answers, and that answers are sometimes hard to find. The details in the Estimates are necessary to fulfil the legislative obligations on Departments and on the Department of Finance and Personnel, which mirrors practice elsewhere. I wonder what Members' reactions would be if we were to provide less information. I imagine that the point would rightly be made that we were concealing details that Members were entitled to have access to as regards how we spend the finances available to us. So, regrettably there is a degree of detail and complexity in the documentation before us. That follows a requirement that I - and I would like to think that many, if not all, Members of the Assembly - would want to see upheld. We should be fully accountable; and we should provide all of the detail necessary to be accountable to the House for all of the expenditure that is undertaken in its name.

There is still a case of a fundamental review of our processes, but we must confirm this in terms of resources and capital - as now required under resource budgeting - and deal with the varied responsibilities of different organisations in Departments, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), North/South bodies, et cetera, all of which affect the complexity of the material in front of us. I have no difficulty with the proposition that we should continually review and update our processes in all of these regards.

Francie Molloy and Seamus Close expressed concerns about the amounts of funding that have regularly become available for in-year allocation. It is clearly an important principle that money not required for the purpose for which it was originally allocated should be made available for reallocation by the Executive and the Assembly. The nature of the in-year monitoring process also means that it is important that Departments identify easements as early as possible in the year, so that the funding can be deployed elsewhere. Monitoring rounds are therefore designed to deal with short-term, emerging spending pressures and easements. They are not a proper means of addressing longer-term, strategic spending priorities, and successful in-year bids do not imply that the additional resources will be available in subsequent years.

However, I imagine that, just as in the spending plans of almost any institution, if we were not in a position to address immediate pressures - emergencies - which cannot by their nature be anticipated when the detailed budgeting exercise is carried out, there would be significant complaints and concerns raised. If we were not to have the kind of flexibility that in-year monitoring provides us with, we would have to resort to an exercise such as reducing expenditure on programmes that were already in train. Members would find themselves faced with unenviable choices in that situation.

While we endeavour to ensure that our budgetary planning is as precise and as focused as possible - I made this point to the Committee, and I did not hear any resiling from it - it is almost impossible to imagine a situation in which expenditure planned considerably in advance is going to be carried out in precisely the manner and to the last pound that it was planned for at that initial point.

TOP

As I explained in my opening remarks, the financial planning and budgetary cycle is lengthy. We are also in a time of transition, with new Departments undertaking new areas of work, and that can make it difficult to forecast accurately in advance. The Executive have agreed that we should look at our financial monitoring systems to see if we can understand the reasons for those underspends, with the aim of improving our forecasting.

The Executive programme funds referred to by Patricia Lewsley are a means by which the Executive are determined to break away from inherited spending patterns and to ensure that resources are targeted in line with the Executive's strategic priorities. They are a clear response to the demand, frequently heard in this Chamber, that we should be innovative and break away from the old patterns of expenditure. I do not believe that we can break away completely. Many Members, upon scrutiny of current expenditure, would agree that much of it is well justified and necessary in order to ensure that the services that it is there to provide can continue to be delivered.

Notwithstanding that, the Executive have clearly stated that they want, within those constraints, to be innovative. We welcome views from Committees, and from the Floor of the House, with respect to how we might more effectively target Executive programme funds in future. Those funds represent a significant financial investment, and we need to be sure that they are achieving their objectives. We also wish to ensure that the processes for managing and allocating the funds are as efficient and effective as possible.

That is why the Executive are carrying out a review of the operation of the Executive programme funds. That review has been informed by the report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. While the Executive have still to consider the review, there are some issues that will need to be addressed, such as the promotion of cross-cutting work by Departments and greater administrative simplicity.

Many Members, including Seamus Close, John Kelly and Jane Morrice, referred to the problems in health and personal social services. I should not forget to add to that list Robert McCartney, who made one of his infrequent appearances among us this afternoon. Those problems are of great concern to the Executive, and we recognise that there are very real problems that need to be addressed. Next year, health spending will be some £224 million higher than the provision for the current year. That is almost 10% - 9·7%, for those who are keen on mathematical accuracy. That represents a very significant addition and clearly demonstrates the importance that we attach to that area. I recognise that some Members may not consider that level of funding to be anywhere near adequate.

As an Executive, we have to live within our overall budget, and additional funding for health and social care means less funding for some other area. The scale of the challenge facing the Executive has been made very clear today by the number of calls for increased spending on a variety of different programmes.

I also remind Members of the positive steps which the Executive have taken to control deficits and to try to ensure proper financial management and control in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. In response to a point raised by Jane Morrice, I confirm that the need for resources of £10 million for trust deficits was drawn to the Assembly's attention in Mark Durkan's statement on June monitoring. It is not something new that has been sprung upon us today. The Executive's decision was made public during the summer recess.

We also need to recognise that additional resources represent only part of the solution. We must ensure that the expenditure that we are allocating is used to the greatest possible effect. To that end, we are carrying out a needs and effectiveness evaluation into health and social care so that we can better understand what we achieve with what we spend.

Members will appreciate that there are no easy answers. We will be paying careful attention to the question of health expenditure in our analysis of next year's spending review. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel questioned the proposed local strategic partnership formula. This issue has caused concern, and I attempted to address it earlier during Question Time. I can confirm that the proposed allocations are consistent with the overall objectives of the Peace II programme, and that the use of population weighted by deprivation is a specific European Commission requirement in the operational programme.

Francie Molloy also called for greater investment west of the Bann, invoking new targeting social need as the basis for his call. The policy aims to tackle social need and social exclusion throughout Northern Ireland. This will mean using more of our existing resources to benefit people and areas in greatest objective social need. It also means delivering our policies in ways that are more helpful to those in need. New targeting social need is implemented through a range of policies and programmes, and I am confident that it will have a positive impact on tackling unemployment and addressing inequality wherever those problems exist.

Eddie McGrady raised the question of additional funding announcements for English programmes such as health, education and transport. I can confirm that my officials closely monitor those areas as part of their regular liaison with the Treasury. Of course, any resultant resources are referred to the Executive for decisions on allocation, usually in the next available monitoring round, rather than simply going to the comparable programme here. However, I caution Members to read the small print when they hear announcements made in Whitehall or elsewhere before making points about an immediate consequential allocation here, proportionate to what may or may not have been announced across the water.

Mr McGrady asked whether funding was available for the implementation of the Hayes review. The Executive will shortly be considering how to take that review forward and will be carefully examining the potential expenditure implications over the coming months. Mr McGrady also asked about residential care for the elderly. Last year, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety established an interdepartmental working group to examine the costs and implications of introducing free personal care. Once this group reports its findings, the Executive will need to consider the implications of this policy in light of their other priorities.

The same Member also raised the identification of additional sources of funding for public services. This is a key area for further consideration, and its importance to the Executive is evidenced by its inclusion as a priority in the Programme for Government, with actions on such issues as public-private partnerships and a review of rating policy.

Eddie McGrady, Rev Dr Ian Paisley and Rev Dr William McCrea raised the issue of funding for agricultural development in 2002-03. The position on the vision group has been advised to the Assembly on several occasions. The consultation period has ended, and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has begun to draw up a strategic plan of action to take the process forward. Early retirement and new entrants schemes will be considered as part of the action plan. As yet, no funds have been allocated to implement the vision group's recommendations in 2002-03. As Members will appreciate from what I have just said, a great deal of the hard work is being undertaken to formulate the precise proposals that arise out of the vision group's report.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley raised the issue of a definition of rural proofing. Executive approval to a formal definition of rural proofing has not yet been given. However, the concept of rural proofing is a process that ensures that all relevant Executive policies are examined carefully and objectively to determine whether they have a different impact in rural areas. It examines the characteristics of rural areas and, where necessary, what policy adjustments may be made to reflect rural needs and to ensure that, as far as possible, public services are accessible on a fair basis to the rural community.

Ian Paisley Jnr and Jane Morrice asked why payments in respect of animal disease compensation have risen sharply in recent years, and George Savage also raised the issue of variations. It has been normal practice to allocate additional resources to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in-year to meet pressures in that area. However, steps were taken in the 2000 spending review to enable the baseline to reflect the needs more accurately. Reviews of all aspects of control measures for brucellosis and tuberculosis are currently under way, and consideration will be given to the introduction of further, or different, measures to lower their incidences. The reviews will be completed in two to three months.

Jane Morrice sought confirmation that no moneys would be returned to Brussels from the Peace I programme. Our latest estimates show that we expect to achieve a full spend under the programme, although it will be some time before we receive formal confirmation of that. With respect to pensions and their allocation in the Department of Finance and Personnel budget, the costs are borne in annually managed expenditure and, therefore, do not restrict or affect the pressures available for allocation by the Executive.

With regard to the detail, the main reason for the £19 million rise is increased transfer costs - in other words, scheme members who transfer to other schemes. The second reason for the increase is the early retirement of members who have reached 60 years of age. They fall within the scope of the scheme for the first time. The age profile of the Civil Service and a consequent higher number of staff reaching retirement age also contribute to the increase.

Rev Dr William McCrea raised a point about nurses. Some years ago there was a reduction in the numbers entering training for nursing, which has led to a decline in the numbers entering the profession. The Department recently increased the numbers to be admitted to training, but it will take some time to increase the numbers working in the profession. Sammy Wilson suggested that better use of resources allocated to North/South bodies could be achieved by channelling those resources elsewhere, especially to health.

I remind Members of the Assembly that - as I have attempted to underline several times - health is a priority of the Executive. However, that is not to say that we should spend all of our money on health and none on anything else.

As Members will be aware through reports brought to the Floor of the House by Ministers attending meetings of the Council, the North/South Ministerial Council is developing programmes of considerable benefit in a wide range of areas, from trade, to education, to cultural matters of benefit to communities North and South. As the projects associated with the plans of the North/South Ministerial Council and its various implementation bodies roll out, the establishment of the Council will be vindicated by the benefits which will be felt, particularly in border areas, and throughout the North and South.

I have attempted to cover almost all of the main points made by Members in their contributions. However, I am aware that I have been unable to cover all of the points that they have raised. Those that have not been touched upon in my concluding remarks will receive a written response, either from myself or from the Minister directly responsible.

Once again, I want to acknowledge that I regard this debate as having been significant, certainly for myself, as I am still in my infant days with regard to the responsibilities in the Department of Finance and Personnel. The learning curve is steep, but it has been a helpful contribution to progressing up that curve, whether from Members whose remarks were highly critical of what I, as spokesperson for the Executive today, am attempting to do or from the smaller number whose remarks were complimentary. Nonetheless, I acknowledge Members' contributions in both respects.

 << Prev