How were they selected, and how much did it cost the Government? Did the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have to foot the entire bill?

The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission selected the management consultants by a process of tendering.

What was the cost?

I will check with the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. I do not have those details, but I will provide the Member with that information.

That brings to an end questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Railway Safety Bill: First Stage

The Minister for Regional Development (Mr P Robinson):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA Bill 3/01] to make provision with respect to the safety of railways.

The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

TOP

Budget Bill: Second Stage

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Dr Farren):

I beg to move

In moving the motion, I will draw attention briefly to a few points. The debate follows the Bill's First Stage on Tuesday 12 February, and the Supply resolutions for the 2001-02 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2002-03 Vote on Account, which were also considered and approved last week. The Bill can be given accelerated passage because the Committee for Finance and Personnel has confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 40, the Committee is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill. This condition has been met, and the confirmation was given in a letter dated 5 February from the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel to the Speaker. I welcome the Committee's assistance in the matter, especially in view of the concerns that the Committee has expressed about the process and its role within it. For the record, I understand those concerns and recognise the need to address them over the coming months.

The purpose of the Budget Bill is to give legislative effect to the resource Estimates approved through the Supply resolutions passed last Monday. Given the wide-ranging and valuable debate that we had then, I do not intend to delay the start of today's debate with unnecessary repetition of the detail that I covered last week when I introduced the Supply resolutions. Members have received copies of the detailed spring Supplementary Estimates booklet and the Vote on Account statement. Copies of the Budget Bill and associated explanatory and financial memorandum should also be available. However, for the benefit of the Assembly, I wish to summarise briefly the main features of the Bill in accordance with the nature of the Second Stage debate envisaged under Standing Order 30.

The Bill authorises the issue of £198 million from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in respect of the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02 and appropriates this sum to specific services as set out in schedule 1. Schedule 2 authorises the use of additional resources for 2001-02 amounting to £574 million and details the revised limits for accruing resources.

The Vote on Account provided for in the Bill for 2002-03 is to allow funds to continue to flow to public services for the early months of the incoming financial year until the Main Estimates can be presented to, and considered by, the Assembly. For the Vote on Account, the Budget Bill seeks the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sum of £3,936 million and its appropriation to services as set out in schedule 3. In addition, it seeks the Assembly's authorisation for the use of resources amounting to £4,486 million as set out in schedule 4.

I was most interested to hear the many views expressed by Members during last week's useful debate. I endeavoured to answer most of the questions at the time or to provide responses later, either personally or from my ministerial Colleagues as appropriate.

There is little more that I can usefully add on the substance of the Budget Bill, but I shall respond to any points raised by Members on the principle of the Bill.

The Assembly offers Members a great opportunity to influence public expenditure allocations, to hold Departments accountable for those allocations and to ensure that the outcomes promised as part of the spending programmes are delivered. As I said earlier, our budgetary processes are still evolving, and each budgetary exercise is important in helping us to understand problems or difficulties that we can improve on or address. I accept that we may need to refine our processes, where that is possible, within the limitations of the existing system. However, it is fair to say that the Assembly has undertaken its responsibilities for public expenditure, authorisation and control with considerable care and diligence.

I wish to draw attention to the fact that, in the coming months, the Executive will be engaged in intensive preparations for, and negotiations on, the spending review 2002. That review will set parameters for expenditure for the following three years.

The challenges posed by the need to meet the significant investment requirements of many of our services are probably already apparent to all Members. In the past two years, we have seen the expenditure limits imposed by the available resources, and the difficult choices that are necessary in order to ensure that fair and equitable allocations were made. The Executive are examining, in a fundamental way, the basis of current resource allocations by the Treasury. In that respect, the Barnett formula is being subjected to detailed and rigorous analysis to determine the extent to which it should, or should not, continue to be the basis for determining those resources. Alongside that examination, the Executive, as Members may be aware, are also conducting detailed needs assessments across all the Departments. Those assessments are intended to provide information on the precise scale of need in each Department with respect to the services for which it has responsibility.

It is widely recognised that there is a major backlog in investment and that that backlog exists across almost all our services and infrastructure. We have to ensure, therefore, that our case is as strong, robust and well founded as we can make it.

Our needs are considerable. Given the signals from London, there is little doubt that we have a major task ahead in ensuring that the outcome of the forthcoming spending review is as favourable to us as it is possible to make it.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and for his recognition of the Committee's concerns. The Committee for Finance and Personnel confirmed to the Assembly that it was satisfied that the requirements of Standing Order 40(2) regarding consultation had been met, so that the Bill could proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

The Committee did not do that lightly, and there was quite a debate on the issue, because it places a premium on the involvement of the Assembly and its Committees in the Budget process. The Committee for Finance and Personnel will wish to ensure that the arrangements for consulting Committees during the impending review year are comprehensive, timely and effective, and meet with the approval of all Committees. The Minister should be alert to the concerns regularly expressed by the Assembly Committees that they are not consulted effectively by Departments and that the timely provision of budgetary information by Departments is not always as good as it should be to allow Committees to perform their statutory role.

It is essential, therefore, that when the Minister announces the timetable for the spending review in March, Committees be built into the consultation process from the beginning. Before signing off on accelerated passage for the next Budget Bill in June, the Committee for Finance and Personnel will need to be assured by other Committees that appropriate consultation has taken place and is planned before the draft Budget is introduced in September. That process of consultation is important in the spending review year. Committees will wish to see a positive benefit from the resources obtained from the Treasury, based on the needs and evaluation work of the Committees concerned.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel recognises and supports the Executive's priority focus on the need for substantial additional resources for the Health Service, education and the infrastructure. There are depressing daily accounts of how hospitals are failing to meet the needs of the sick. Pictures of frail and elderly people on hospital trolleys do not do any of us any credit. It is important that we recognise that those who elect us expect and demand more. We must make a difference where it matters most. Innovative ways to raise revenue without targeting the most needy must be used. The effectiveness and efficiency of public services must be examined rigorously to ensure best value.

Assembly Committees play a key role in scrutinising the work of Departments and in holding Ministers to account to the Assembly for the services for which they are responsible. Committees should be encouraged to target areas of poor performance and encourage value for money so that resources are freed up to meet those high priority needs. Departments still have a silo mentality.

Spending patterns must be challenged, evaluated and reset strategically. Appropriation of resources must be targeted to encourage greater co-operation between Departments. Short-term resources must be targeted on the immediate needs of the sick and must be matched by long-term strategic investments in health and education services. Better access to health services, and improvements in the social and physical environment of the population are needed. Long-term investments will lead to long-term savings through a more integrated approach in the public services.

The Minister's recent decision to review the effectiveness of the in-year monitoring procedure is welcomed, and indicates his concern that Departments are not entirely effective in quantifying their budget needs.

The Assembly is being asked to consider a Bill that appropriates a considerable amount of resources. Members will wish to be assured that those precious resources are deployed with maximum impact. The Committee for Finance and Personnel accepts that the Budget Bill is the end of a process of consultation with Departments. It also acknowledges that the process must focus on effective engagement with the Assembly and its Committees at an early stage if the Executive are to be truly accountable to the Assembly.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel looks forward to playing its part in the spending review process and encourages other Committees to play their part. They must be consulted and form part of the bidding process to ensure the effective use of resources. Go raibh maith agat.

TOP

When we debated the Second Stage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, I was the only person who expressed the view that, rather than making the accounts clearer, resource accounting would make them more complicated. Now that we have had a first look at the new-style Estimates and the Budget Bill, I feel vindicated in having expressed that view.

The suggestion put forward by the Committee for Finance and Personnel to have some form of training and elucidation on the new accounting style provided for Members is valid. I hope that that training will proceed shortly. I have no reason to believe that the Department is resistant to that suggestion and look forward to implementing it.

After the recent Enron affair, many comments were made concerning creative accounting in the private sector. I expressed the view that a snag in moving to resource-based accounting is that the scope for creative accounting is considerably greater in the Government sector. The problem is not as severe when the Government are not responsible for the Supply side, as is the case here.

Nonetheless, Members must work diligently to understand how resource-based accounting works. I do not fully understand it myself. However, examining the use of assets, and how they are treated in the Government's books, will be helpful in informing our long-term investment decisions, especially those decisions on infrastructure.

The Minister emphasised that the three-year spending review will happen this year. I trust that the needs and effectiveness evaluation will be completed in time for the spending review, but it may be a close call. I am not sure how much input the Assembly and its Committees will have into that review. As I have said in other debates, it is no use trying to influence a Budget once it has been read. We must start to influence next year's Budget now. We have about six months in which to influence the Budget. Once figures are written down and the draft Budget is read in the autumn, the scope for influencing the final Budget becomes extremely limited.

This is the second full cycle in which the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Molloy, and I have made that point. It must be reiterated that Committees must start addressing budgetary issues immediately and in the coming months. There is a slight window in the Assembly's agenda before a heavy legislative programme begins in April. That may be the best chance that we shall have to get to grips with the budgetary issues for next year.

I acknowledge the Minister's comments on the Barnett formula and on proving the need for the resources that we currently receive. On the whole, we receive favourable treatment under the Barnett formula. I urge caution about following a divergent route, which carries the risk of a less favourable outcome. I note that comments were made recently in Westminster to the effect that it was unlikely that Barnett would be reviewed for the time being. I suspect that that will be to our advantage. I welcome the Budget Bill.

The final spring Supplementary Estimates contain an amazing error. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond to the statement that £93 million was allocated in the Department of Employment and Learning for fees and expenses for chairpersons and members of the industrial and fair employment tribunals. I doubt that the fees and expenses of those tribunals amounted to £93 million. The Minister should respond to that before the Bill goes through; he should give us the accurate figure.

I am also concerned about an issue that relates to the announcement that was made last year about free nursing care. That became a huge issue for the Budget. I wrote to the Minister asking him to outline the easements - the surrendered moneys for which Departments can bid - and I discovered that £3·3 million had been surrendered, despite the fact that most of the population in Northern Ireland would have been told that no money had been available for free nursing care. I am concerned that £3·3 million was left sitting in the Department's budget and was then surrendered. No doubt the Department made bids for other moneys.

Later in the year an announcement was made that resources would be found for free nursing care. I am concerned about that. Can the Minister reassure the House that the public are not being led to believe that that was new money, given that it had been there in the first instance?

It may have been the case that we were not in a position to provide free nursing care because the legislation had not gone through. Perhaps that is the message that should have gone out at the time, rather than a message of insufficient funds being available. I know that £3·3 million might not have met all of the costs of introducing free nursing care at that time. However, before the Budget Bill goes through, we have an opportunity to clear the matter up. There was a surrender of £3·3 million. I have written to the Department and have received some explanation of it, but it is important that the matter be brought before the House.

I thank the Members who have spoken during the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. The House has discussed many of the issues previously. It is not surprising, therefore, that a full-scale debate, as has occurred on previous occasions, has not developed this afternoon. I assure the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel that full consultation has, to the best of the Department's ability and within the time constraints applying, been taking place in the past two years. That consultation has been with the Committee for Finance and Personnel and all the other Committees, through contacts with officials and Ministers in the various Departments.

The point that I made, which was made on several occasions by my predecessor, is that Committees are able to take the initiative by probing likely developments with respect to the relevant departmental budgets. Committees could perhaps do that more vigorously in anticipation, rather than simply awaiting the outcome of proposals relating to departmental bids. As was reflected in Mr Leslie's comments, Members do not have to await the end of the preparatory stages of the Budget for that kind of probing to take place. Committees can begin to make their investigations now. Indeed, I believe that there was an example of that last week from the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, which I commended. Prioritisation was taking place in a way that I felt was helpful to the deliberations of that Committee and to its engagement with the Department. Let us see Committees being more willing to take the initiative in relation to the budgetary planning process.

On the comments made by the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and by Prof McWilliams, I wish to emphasise that in-year monitoring takes place to determine what might be available to be allocated to help meet pressing needs identified by Departments. When Departments make bids with respect to what might be available from in-year monitoring, the Department of Finance and Personnel responds to how Departments have prioritised their particular needs.

The Executive agreed in principle to the introduction of free universal nursing care for the elderly in nursing homes from April 2002. The Budget for 2001 contained £4·5 million to enable the introduction of free nursing care from October 2002. I emphasise that those who are unable to meet the costs of their care already have access to free nursing care, and that will continue.

Legislation must be introduced, and procedures for the assessment of free nursing care developed and implemented. The figure of £4·5 million represents a part-year cost - it is not a reduction in the number of eligible people. The full-year cost is likely to be some £9 million. Additional funds will have to be found to support that in future years.

The process to ensure the delivery of what the Assembly sought is under way. The timetable for that is constrained by the need to have the necessary legislation in place, and not only by finance issues.

Ms McWilliams mentioned the allocation of £93 million to the Department of Employment and Learning. That appears to be a typing error, and should read as £93,000. That figure will be checked precisely, and the information will be provided to the Member in writing.

Mr Leslie mentioned the needs assessment exercise. It is hoped that some initial findings will be available at the end of March or early April to inform our approach to the spending review and the budgetary planning in which we shall be engaged in the next few months.

I acknowledge Mr Leslie's point about the Barnett formula. However, the Member should acknowledge that there is a need and an obligation on the Executive, and especially on the Department of Finance and Personnel, to examine in considerable detail the extent to which the Barnett formula is robust enough to deliver our needs. We should be able to clearly identify any shortcomings in the formula and act upon them. We are currently examining the formula and its application to ensure that the bids are fairly and equitably met. That will also ensure that resources are available to meet the considerable challenges that I referred to in the concluding part of my opening address.

I have covered all the main points that were raised by the three Members who have spoken. I will correspond with Members on any point that I have overlooked.

As this is a finance Bill, Members will be aware that the vote requires cross- community support.

TOP

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill: 
First Stage

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA Bill 4/01] to make provision in relation to persons in residential accommodation with preserved rights under the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987; and for connected purposes.

Molaim go dtugtar a Chéad Chéim don Bhille Seirbhísí Sóisialta Pearsanta (Cearta Forchoimeádta).

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill:
Accelerated Passage

I beg to move

Molaim go dtugann an Tionól seo rith luathaithe don Bhille Seirbhísí Sóisialta Pearsanta (Cearta Forchoimeádta), de réir Bhuanordú 40 fo-mhír 3.

Nuair a tugadh isteach na socruithe cúraim phobail atá ann faoi láthair i 1993, bhí díolúine ag thart ar 9,000 duine i gcúram cónaitheach san earnáil neamhspleách ó na socruithe úra maoinithe agus bainistíochta sna seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta. Ina áit sin, fuair siad ceart forchoimeádta ar ráta ardaithe tacaíochta ioncaim as a ndíolfadh siad as a gcóiríocht chónaitheach.

Le gairid, rinne úinéirí tí agus a n-eagraíochtaí ionadaíocha uiríll faoina easpaí atá ráta na gceart forchoimeádta maidir lena gcostas feidhmithe. Lena chois sin, luadh go bhféadfadh an córas maoinithe a bheith ag clis ar dhaoine a b'fhearr a bhfóireadh cóiríocht thacaithe nó socruithe eile dóibh de bharr a easpa solúbthachta.

Mhol an Coimisiún Ríoga ar Chúram Fadtéarmach do Dhaoine Scothaosta i Sasana go mbreithneodh an Rialtas ar chóir íocaíochtaí cearta forchoimeádta i leas sóisialta a thabhairt faoin chóras cúraim phobail atá ann ó 1993; nó an bhféadfaí teacht ar réiteach éigin eile le haghaidh a thabhairt ar easnamh maoinithe an ghrúpa sin. Chomh maith le comhchomhairle an Choimisiúin Ríoga i mí Bealtaine agus i mí an Mheithimh 2000, rinne mo Roinn tuilleadh comhchomhairle áitiúla ar na roghanna. Bhíothas den tuairim gur chóir go n-aistreofaí freagracht as cásanna ceart forchoimeádta go gnáthshocruithe bainistíochta cúraim na seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta, mar gur measadh go raibh sé míchothrom go gcaithfí go difriúil leo thar na daoine sin a tháinig isteach sa chóras i ndiaidh Aibreán 1993.

Tá an Bille Seirbhísí Sóisialta (Cearta Forchoimeádta) á thabhairt isteach le freagracht as cásanna ceart forchoimeádta a aistriú go gnáthshocruithe bainistíochta cúraim na n-iontaobhas sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta ó Aibreán 2002, áit a gcuirfeadh an loighic í. Tabharfaidh an Roinn Forbartha Sóisialta Rialacháin isteach le deireadh a chur lena dteideal ar thacaíocht ioncaim ag ráta ardaithe.

Is eol do Chomhaltaí go bhfuil sé i gceist go reáchtálfaí an córas leasa shóisialta anseo comhionann leis an chóras sa Bhreatain. Cuirfear deireadh ansin le teideal ar leas sóisialta ceart forchoimeádta le héifeacht ó 8 Aibreán. Muna dtagaimid lena ndáta aistrithe, beidh cónaitheoirí agus a dteaghlaigh anseo faoi an-éiginnteacht, agus b'fhéidir go ndéanfadh sé an earnáil cúraim chónaithigh agus an earnáil tí altranais a éagobhsú. Muna bhfuil an reachtaíocht riachtanach in áit againn, beidh dhá rogha theagmhasacha ann; tá an bheirt acu casta, agus ní beag na deacrachtaí a thógfaidh siad.

When the current community care arrangements were introduced in 1993, approximately 9,000 people in residential care in the independent sector were exempt from the new health and social services funding and care management arrangements. Instead, they acquired a preserved right to an enhanced rate of income support with which to pay for their residential accommodation.

In recent times, there have been many submissions from homeowners and their representative organisations about the inadequacy of the preserved rights rate in relation to their operating costs. Furthermore, it has been suggested that, due to its inflexibility, the funding system may be failing some people, who may be better suited to either supported accommodation or alternative arrangements.

In England, the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly recommended that the Government consider whether preserved rights payments and social security should be brought into the post-1993 system of community care funding or whether another solution could be found to address the shortfall in funding experienced by that group.

Further to the Royal Commission's consultation, in May and June 2000, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety carried out further local consultation on the available options. The overall opinion supported a transfer of responsibility for the preserved rights cases to the normal health and social services care management arrangements, as it was considered inequitable that those people be treated differently to those who entered the care system after April 1993.

The Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill is being introduced to transfer responsibility for the preserved rights cases to the normal care management arrangements of the health and social services trusts, where it more logically belongs, from April 2002. Regulations will also be implemented by the Department for Social Development to remove its entitlement for the enhanced rate of income support.

The intention is that the social security system here should run in parity with that in Great Britain. The entitlement to preserved rights social security in Great Britain will cease, with effect from 8 April. Failure to match that transfer date will result in considerable uncertainty for residents and their families here, and it could have a destabilising effect on the residential care and nursing home sector. If the legislation is not in place, we will be faced with trying to make appropriate contingency arrangements, which would not be a straightforward exercise.

In the absence of the necessary legislation, two contingency options are most apparent. However, both are complex and will create many difficulties. The Social Security Agency might be able to continue to pay the enhanced benefit rates. However, because the legislation for the transfer is already in place in Great Britain, no preserved rights rates of benefit have been set for the period from 8 April onwards.

If the Department for Social Development were to set a preserved rights rate, even for a short period, it would break parity with Great Britain. Furthermore, the functionality of the computer system that enables the social security offices to pay the rates to customers is provided from England and will be removed on 7 April. The Social Security Agency would then have to seek other methods of making payments to approximately 1,700 people.

The other contingency option would be for approval to be given for the trusts to make payments on an extra-statutory basis. That poses considerable difficulties also. Under article 36(a) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, the trusts are barred from taking responsibility for those cases. Therefore, the Department would be seeking the agreement of the Department of Finance and Personnel to not only act in anticipation of impending law, but to act in contravention of the existing law. Even if that agreement were forthcoming, in addition to the administrative auditing and operational difficulties of acting in such a way, cases might slip through the net. That is because the Bill carries a provision for the sharing of information. Without that provision, it is impossible for the Social Security Agency and the boards and trusts to exchange personal details about the preserved rights customers to ensure that everyone is accounted for.

The Bill to enable the transfer is largely technical. It removes the current statutory bar to trusts taking responsibility for preserved rights cases and allows for the disclosure of information between the Social Security Agency and the boards and trusts to the extent that is necessary to ensure that all such cases are correctly identified.

The policy document for the Bill was first submitted to Sir Reg Empey and Mr Seamus Mallon last August. However, various delays and a request for further financial information meant that the Bill did not progress at the normal pace. That resulted in the Bill's reaching the First Stage only today, which is a delay of more than four months from the date originally planned.

The remit of the Bill has been reduced to contain only those provisions that relate to the preserved rights transfer. Other provisions relating to nursing care costs and the professional body for nursing and midwifery will be contained in a separate Bill that will allow the normal Assembly procedures.

My officials met with the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety to explain the background to the changes, the need for legislation and the circumstances that have given rise to the situation with which we are now faced, where accelerated passage procedure is being requested. While Committee members have natural reservations about the use of accelerated passage procedure, in this instance they have accepted that the need is genuine and that the circumstances are exceptional. I am grateful to the Committee members for that. Although I cannot guarantee that the need for accelerated passage will never arise again, I assure Members that the circumstances of this Bill are exceptional, and I do not anticipate encountering them again.

Standing Order 40 permits a Bill to proceed, using accelerated passage, with the leave of the Assembly. Accordingly, I seek the leave of the House to proceed with accelerated passage on the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill.

The Committee has considered the Minister of Health's request for accelerated passage for the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill. The Committee takes its responsibilities seriously and was concerned by the need to grant a public Bill accelerated passage, as that denies members the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail during the Committee Stage. There is always a danger that bad legislation might be enacted if a Committee does not have the chance to consider the detail of a Bill. However, the Committee has questioned the Minister's officials about the reasons for the Bill and about the need for accelerated passage. Today the Minister told Members why new arrangements need to be put in place to manage the care of people with preserved rights and why the Bill needs to be in place by the end of April.

The Bill deals with equity of treatment for residents of independent residential and nursing homes with preserved rights who, since 1993, have continued to receive social security funding towards their accommodation costs. Some 1,740 vulnerable people will be affected by the changes. Because of the need to protect those people, the Committee accepts that the Bill be considered under accelerated passage.

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety supports the motion.

The reasons for the need for accelerated passage have been laid out clearly by the Minister. Although it is regretted that we will not have the opportunity to discuss a public Bill, in view of the reasons given - and in particular those relating to equity of treatment for patients - I have no hesitation in supporting the motion.

TOP

My party and I support the concept of accelerated passage. In her statement the Minister said that it was imperative to keep abreast with legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. We agree with that.

However, there has been a major departure in her party's stance on accelerated passage. About six months ago, accelerated passage was sought in the House for the Social Security Fraud Bill. Of course, her party put up a different argument then. I draw the House's attention to what was said then, and I ask the Minister to comment, now that her party's stance on this procedure has changed.

Speaking in this House on 18 June 2001, Mr Gerry Kelly said:

Is it only when another Minister introduces a Bill, or when the issue of fraud is being discussed, that the Minister's party has problems with accelerated passage?

Mr Kelly went on to say:

I suspect that they have no such concerns about the invasion of human rights or privacy in the Chamber. He continued:

I welcome the change of heart now. I do not know when the road to Damascus experience took place. No doubt we will be told today. However, the Minister has made it clear that she wants accelerated passage so that we can maintain parity with the rest of the UK. She has also made it clear that, while it is not her preference to ask the House for accelerated passage, she may have to do so. Methinks that there is a degree of hypocrisy. I will leave the matter there.

Go raibh maith agat. I will not get involved in Maurice Morrow's rant on accelerated passage. Should he request a transcript of the Committee meeting in which the matter was discussed, he would see that our party has not changed its opinion on the need for accelerated passage.

I reluctantly support the motion. I am glad that officials are here today, because we had frank, and sometimes heated, discussions on the matter. As the Chairperson pointed out, we came to our decision reluctantly because, if it is approved accelerated passage, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety would not be able to scrutinise the Bill, clause by clause, during its Committee Stage. However, contrary to the beliefs of some Members - and I am glad that they find it so funny - 1,800 people would be disenfranchised if this Bill did not pass.

The Minister outlined the reasons why she is asking for the Bill to be given accelerated passage. It was submitted six months ago, in August 2001. Through discussions with departmental officials, the Committee found out that there were problems in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee told the officials that while Members were not happy, they did realise why the Department wanted their approval for accelerated passage.

We must be realistic, and we must establish what problems the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had in this matter. Why have we waited six months for this Bill? With that in mind, my Committee Colleagues and I reluctantly support the motion to grant accelerated passage, but you can rest assured that we will examine the Bill - we will not forget about it simply because it will not go through Committee Stage. However, we will not be party to 1,800 people being disadvantaged due to mismanagement by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Go raibh maith agat.

As Sue Ramsey rightly stated, every member of the Committee registered enormous concern when told that the legislation would require accelerated passage. This is the first time that our Committee has been asked to accelerate legislation. We were presented with several options, and it is correct that the 1,740 residents could be disenfranchised. The difficulty is that the Social Security Agency would have to calculate each payment manually, because, as the Minister stated, on 7 April 2002 the computer system will be closed down. When the Executive decide on legislation in the future, I suggest that if they do not meet their deadlines, a Minister be tasked to do 1,740 calculations manually. That would be the impact of failing to process legislation on time. We could have chosen to do that, but parity would have been broken - not in the rates but by requesting extra staff. It would be an extra cost to the Department for Social Development to continue that work after the computer system stops in Northern Ireland, as it will do elsewhere.

If the legislation had gone through the Committee, Members would have asked questions on it, so it is important that the Minister be given the opportunity to respond to those questions on the Floor. If £19 million was requested from the budget for the transfer from the Department for Social Development's budget to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's budget - plus a little over £2 million, making it £21 million in total - the concern is that that money would not necessarily be drawn down from the existing health and social services budget in future. That budget is under extreme pressure; all the budgets in the past year had easements or surrenders, but the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety surrendered only £4·3 million, which is a comparatively minimal amount. The Department is in no position to find this money internally. I hope that because this is a preserved rights issue, that money will be ringfenced and will not come out of current Departmental resources. I want the Minister to assure us of that, since we are giving accelerated passage to the Bill.

In response to Mr Morrow's points, every time that we are asked to give accelerated passage, all Members, particularly those who sit on the relevant Committee, should explain their reasons for supporting acceleration. I would be concerned if the Assembly were to simply give a nod to accelerated passage.

I have listened with interest to the debate thus far. When anyone calls a Sinn Féin Minister to account, it is noticeable that his speech is called a "rant". It has probably been noticed that the Member for West Belfast doth protest too much - she should stop crying. In fact, her bleating is false. Where is the Member who was so concerned about accelerated passage for the Social Security Fraud Bill - where is Gerry Kelly? He has disappeared. Sinn Féin has turned its policy on its head. I am sure that he was speaking with a good deal of authority, as he does when speaking for a breadth of organisations connected with IRA/Sinn Féin, when he said:

That is very clear: "I oppose it."

He added:

That was a clear statement of opposition.

However, when accelerated passage is requested for a Bill that is supported by Sinn Féin and the Health Minister, that opposition goes away. My hon Friend Mr Morrow pointed out that there may be opposition only to the accelerated passage of the Social Security Fraud Bill - or does it go wider than that? We will find that out if Gerry Kelly appears before the end of the debate, or if he wants to oppose accelerated passage vigorously, or if Sinn Féin intends to vote against it. Once again there has been hypocrisy. Principle means absolutely nothing and is stood on its head when it suits the occasion.

It was pointed out before that it was not my hon Friend's wish to use accelerated passage as normal procedure for a Bill but that the Social Security Fraud Bill had to be tackled in that way because it dealt with the serious matter of fraudulent activity throughout the Province.

Parity with the rest of the United Kingdom was established then, and I am glad that Sinn Féin is today stating that it wants parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Sinn Féin can try to express that idea in another form of words, because it does not like to admit that it represents parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. It will be interesting to see whether Sinn Féin will admit that, even though those words seem to scorch the mouths of its members who utter them.

There is another serious matter. We have been told that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is sitting on Bills. That is a serious matter that must be tackled head-on. We have been told that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Blair, has many problems at home that must be addressed, and yet he tours the world. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have toured Brussels, toured America, toured everywhere, but they have not dealt with matters that are relevant at home. Therefore, it is not acceptable that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is impeding the progress of numerous Bills. I have heard that several other Bills have been stopped, because they are sitting on the desks of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The reason for their impediment cannot be money, because many millions of pounds have been allocated. Its budget is almost as high as that for the entire Assembly, so the delay is not due to a lack of money. However, there seems to be a lack of will, and it is unacceptable that accelerated passage is being requested because of inaction by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That issue must be scrutinised and the reasons must be smoked out. It must be brought out into the open.

I support the purpose of accelerated passage. It is important that there be parity with the rest of the United Kingdom and that our people should not be disadvantaged. However, Bills should not sit on the desks of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They should be processed in a proper and urgent manner.

I thank Members for their interest. I will try to deal with all the issues raised.

First, the resource transfer has been confirmed for 2002-03 and 2003-04, and will be subject to the spending review process. I assure Members that I have no wish to ask the House to give a Bill accelerated passage. The circumstances of this Bill are exceptional, and I do not anticipate encountering them again.

During the debate, several Members referred to the circumstances of the delay. I want to give a fuller picture. On 9 August 2001, in the absence of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I submitted the policy document for this Bill to Sir Reg Empey and Mr Séamus Mallon for approval to submit it to the Executive. A reply giving me approval to proceed was issued on 17 September, conditional to further work being completed on the financial implications. It is important to note that that work had to be done and was one element of the cause of the delay. The additional work was not straightforward and involved liaison and agreement with the Department for Social Development on the transfer.

In view of the delays that had occurred since the policy document was first submitted, an additional paper was included with the revised policy document. That was resubmitted on 7 November, requesting approval to seek accelerated passage on the transfer of preserved rights cases to health and personal social services. Approval to prepare two Bills and to seek accelerated passage was received on 8 January. Approval to introduce the Bills to the House was sought from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Executive on 10 January. Approval from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy Minister was received on 30 January, and Executive approval was received on 7 February.

Due to the various delays and the need for further financial information, that is being brought to the Assembly much later than we anticipated. Therefore, to avoid the difficulties that I outlined, we are asking for accelerated passage today.

I hope that I have covered all the points that Members raised. I apologise if I have missed any question. My officials will scrutinise the record of the debate, and I will write to any Member whose question has not been answered or fully covered. I thank Members again for their interest in the issue and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety for its help and support in the matter.

Members will be aware that accelerated passage can be granted only by leave of the Assembly.

The Bill will receive its Second Stage tomorrow, Tuesday 19 February.

Assembly: Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee

Resolved:

By leave, the Assembly shall suspend until 2.30 pm, when we shall resume with questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>