Public Petition

Railway Accident at Downhill

Planning (Amendment) Bill: First Stage

Local Air Quality Management Bill: First Stage

Insolvency Bill: First Stage

Company Directors Disqualification Bill: First Stage

Supply Resolution for the 2002-03 Main Estimates

Oral Answers to Questions

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Department for Regional Development

Department of Environment

Supply Resolution for the 2002-03 Main Estimates
 

Public Petition

TOP

Mr Ken Robinson has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

The petition was signed by more than 600 residents of Monkstown and the adjoining areas, who oppose the reduction of funding to Hollybank Primary School, Newtownabbey. It cites the serious impact that the reduction will have on the school as regards staff redundancies, larger classes and the quality of education provision, in an area that already suffers from a high level of social deprivation. I express my concern about the situation and support for the campaign.

I shall forward the petition to the Minister of Education and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Education.

Railway Accident at Downhill

TOP

I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on the recent accident on the Londonderry to Belfast railway line.

I am grateful to be able to make a statement on the accident involving the 12.50 pm Londonderry to Belfast train at Downhill on Tuesday 4 June 2002. I am sure that all Members share my relief that this serious incident did not lead to more casualties or to fatalities. I express my best wishes to the 22 passengers and two crew members who were on the train at the time of the accident, which was a terrifying experience for them. Eight people were admitted to the Causeway Hospital for treatment, and all but one were discharged that evening. The train driver was discharged last Thursday on the understanding that he will report to Altnagelvin Hospital tomorrow for a further examination of a suspected broken leg.

I have received initial briefings and visited the derailment site. I was accompanied on my site visit by the managing director of Translink, who briefed me on the circumstances of the accident. At approximately 1.21 pm on Tuesday 4 June, at Downhill, the 12.50 pm Londonderry to Belfast train struck a large boulder that had fallen from the nearby cliff face onto the track. The train was travelling at approximately 60 mph - Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) states that that is the normal speed of travel on that section of the track. The impact caused the derailment of all three coaches of the class-80 rolling stock.

I have been advised that the sequence of events immediately before the derailment was as follows: a motorist who witnessed the rockfall contacted the police; the police registered that call at 1.16 pm and contacted the NIR control office at 1.19 pm; the two clocks may not have been synchronised, because NIR registered the call at 1.17 pm. The duty controller tried to communicate with the train by contacting the Castlerock signaller, but the train had already passed the last stop signal at Magilligan. He also made several attempts to contact the train driver using a VHF radio, but was unsuccessful. NIR times the derailment at approximately 1.21 pm.

Within one minute of the derailment, the guard on the train contacted the NIR control office by mobile phone and requested emergency services, which arrived quickly at the scene. The Causeway Hospital in Coleraine then initiated its emergency procedures.

The weather at the time of the accident was overcast, with heavy rain. Initial views are that the heavy rain caused a small landslide from the cliff near the railway line. Several boulders were dislodged, one of which fell down the cliff face and across two public roads, coming to rest on the railway line. Translink advises that the driver of the train was able to begin to stop the train only after seeing the boulder on the line.

NIR does not own the cliff face near the track at Downhill. The landowner has been in contact with Translink and the Roads Service. He has expressed concern about the possibility of further slides from the cliffs, and he informed the Department for Regional Development that he has engaged an engineer to report on the state of the cliffs.

At the site of the rockfall, the railway runs on an embankment beside Downhill beach. The A2 Seacoast Road from Castlerock to Limavady runs parallel to it on the landward side. Beside and above the road, the cliff face is some 40 to 50 metres high. At the site of the rockfall, the unclassified Bishop's Road leaves the A2 and travels inland, climbing the escarpment steeply.

Traffic on both routes travels reasonably slowly because of the road width and alignment. Both roads have remained closed since the incident, as a precautionary measure. However, the A2 Seacoast Road will reopen soon, and the Roads Service will inspect it regularly to detect any further fallen stones and to remove any obstructions. This monitoring regime will be kept under review. Bishop's Road will remain closed in the meantime.

Translink has initiated its own formal investigation into the circumstances of the accident. The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland visited the scene of the derailment on Wednesday 5 June. This was a serious accident, which, under slightly different circumstances, could have had horrendous consequences. The relative lack of serious injury does not diminish my concern about the incident.

On the basis of the information available to me, the cause of the accident appears to be reasonably clear. However, I have a duty to discover the extent to which, if at all, the derailment was preventable, and I am anxious to ensure that all possible lessons that may be learnt from this event will be taken on board. The House will want to identify all practical steps that may help to prevent the recurrence of accidents such as this. I have, therefore, asked Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate to investigate all the circumstances of the accident, to report its findings and to make recommendations. The investigation, to be conducted by Mr Gerard Kerr, will begin immediately. Until recently, Mr Kerr was the Principal Railway Inspector for Scotland.

I am finalising the terms of reference for the investigation. They should be: to investigate all the circumstances pertaining to the derailment at Downhill on 4 June 2002, with particular reference to the extent to which, if at all, the circumstances were foreseeable; the extent to which, if at all, the derailment was preventable; the extent to which, if at all, communications problems contributed to the accident, and whether the condition of the rolling stock or the track was a factor. The inspector, where appropriate, should invite people who appear to him to be able to assist his investigation to submit further evidence. I place on him no limitation as to who he takes evidence from, how he conducts his inquiries or the issues that he deems it appropriate to investigate. On the basis of the investigation and the consideration of any further evidence, the inspector should report his findings and recommend steps to address any safety deficiencies that he identifies.

I undertake to disclose to the Assembly the outcomes of Translink's formal investigation and the separate investigation by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. It is in the public interest that those matters be conducted in an open and transparent manner, and I am determined that that will happen. Likewise, the investigations must be thorough and comprehensive. On receiving the reports, I will want to reflect carefully on whether the need arises for a further inquiry, and if so, the nature of any further investigation. I want to keep my options open, but, before I take a decision, I will consult the Committee for Regional Development.

Rail services have been substituted by a bus service between Londonderry and Coleraine. Translink has advised that the damaged section of the track at Downhill will be reinstated by 17 June.

The operational decision to reinstate rail services on the line will be made by Translink's managing director, who will want to satisfy himself fully on all safety matters before the service recommences. He may impose a speed limit on that section of the track, pending the outcome of the investigations.

Railway safety is paramount. There can no question of compromising the safety of the travelling public, railway employees or people near the railway network. This accident demonstrates the need for constant vigilance on safety issues. Tomorrow, the Assembly will debate the Consideration Stage of the Railway Safety Bill, which is a key aspect of the Department for Regional Development's ongoing strategy to assist Translink to improve constantly the safe operation of the railway network in Northern Ireland.

I pay tribute to the public-spiritedness of the motorist who contacted the police, to the members of the emergency services for their professionalism in responding to the incident and to the local people who provided care and comfort. I will inform the Assembly further on this matter in due course.

I welcome the Minister's statement on this unfortunate accident. I associate myself with the Minister - as I am sure do other Committee members - in extending best wishes to everyone who was involved in this terrifying accident, in particular, the two members of staff involved.

As Chairperson of the Committee I am greatly disturbed by one matter: the apparent failure - and I emphasise the word "apparent" - by NIR's duty controller to make radio contact with the train driver.

That must be investigated thoroughly. That aspect of communication must be central to any recommendations that result from the investigation of the accident. It was disturbing to hear that the driver was unable to be contacted through the VHF radio system.

Finally, I welcome the investigation by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. The investigation must be truly independent, thorough and transparent in getting to the root cause of the accident, and the inspector should report in a forthright manner to the Minister, and, through him, to the House.

I am grateful to the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development for the position that he has adopted. He asked specifically about the inability to contact the driver of the train. He will have noted that I have asked the Railway Inspectorate to examine the extent to which, if at all, communications problems contributed to the accident.

I referred to three elements of communication, each of which the Railway Inspectorate will want to consider. It will also look at how difficult it is to obtain a signal in a train in such a remote area and whether that problem applies to mobile phones as well as to VHF radio. By the time contact was made with the last signalling post the train had already passed by. Those are all matters to be considered in Translink's inquiry and in the independent inquiry by the Railway Inspectorate.

I have kept my options open, and the next steps, if any, will depend on the outcome of the two inquiries.

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the speed with which he has brought the matter to the Assembly. I, too, have concerns about the lack of communication. Also, how regularly does the Roads Service inspect the road and how often does Translink inspect the lines? A major human tragedy has been averted only by the grace of God.

I agree that there could have been a much more serious tragedy. Several people were injured, but the number could have been much greater.

The Roads Service would say that its regime operates slightly differently. There is a legal duty on drivers to travel with sufficient due care and attention to enable them to stop to avoid any obstacle on the road. Nonetheless, now that we have clear evidence that there is a problem in the area, the Roads Service must satisfy itself on those matters. The term "regularly" means as regularly as is necessary. That will depend, among other things, on the report that the landowner gets from the engineers, as well as our own assessment of the situation. Translink has had network-wide investigations in the past. I do not want go into the details, as the inspector will examine their extent and the reports. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the inspector's conclusion.

We all have sympathy for those who were hurt in the incident. I congratulate the emergency services, who got to the scene very quickly. I also welcome the fact that there will be two investigations. Does the Minister have a timescale for their reporting to the Assembly and the Committee for Regional Development?

My priority is for thoroughness rather than speed. We want to learn any lessons that are to be learnt as quickly as possible, but I do not want to place any time constraints on the inspector or the investigators. It is important that they move with all due haste, taking into the account the need to look thoroughly at the matter in a way that instils public confidence.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I dtús báire, ba mhaith liom gach dea-mhéin a ghuí leis na paisinéirí agus na hoibrithe uilig a bhí ar an traein nuair a tharla an timpiste seo. I welcome the Minister's statement.

I send every good wish to the passengers and staff who were on the train when the accident occurred. From the Minister's statement, it appears that less than 10 minutes elapsed between the blockage of the track by a boulder and the accident. Given the shortness of that time, we must be thankful that there was not a much more tragic outcome.

The Minister referred to the condition of the rolling stock and the contribution that it might have made to the accident. If we had more modern rolling stock and better track, the train could have been travelling at more than 60 miles an hour, which would have had major consequences. I ask the Minister, during the inspectorate's investigations, to examine several issues. The Minister and other Members mentioned communication. The early warning system for contacting drivers must be examined to see whether it can be improved.

The Minister said that the landowner involved has expressed concern about the condition of the rock face and the potential for further landslides. During the investigation, will the Minister ascertain whether concern was expressed about the condition of the rock face before, and whether there has been any monitoring of the risk of a landslide on that stretch of road and track? Does Translink consider spells of heavy rainfall when determining the frequency of general track inspections? Go raibh maith agat.

We may wish to examine communications when considering new rolling stock. My early enquiries indicate that any new rolling stock would have a much improved communication system. However, its suitability will be judged in the light of the conclusions of the inspector's report.

I do not think that Translink had any indication of problems with the condition of the rock face, but the inspector will consider and report on that. I intend to make available to the Assembly copies of the report arising from Translink's internal inquiry and that by the Railway Inspectorate. Therefore, Members will see an unabridged copy and be able to reach their own conclusions.

I am glad that the Railway Inspectorate's report will be made available to the Assembly, because in recent years NIR has been secretive about other incidents - particularly on the Lisburn line. What damage was done to the train, and what impact will that have on the rolling stock, which is already obsolete and insufficient? What other sections of railway track in Northern Ireland have speed limits due to the state of the track?

The Member mentioned the railway line at Lisburn. I am thinking of the Antrim to Knockmore line in particular, because the Assembly is being asked to keep that line open, even though the Department for Regional Development and Translink have said that it is coming to the end of its life - unless a great deal of money is spent on it. Safety must be the top priority, and if money is not going to be made available for that track, it is clear what sort of decisions will have to be made.

There will be no secrecy as regards the report. It will be made available to the Assembly and scrutinised by Members. It is essential that that happen. The inspector will look at Translink's previous position on the inspection of lines. It would not be helpful for me to make statements in the House on issues that will be subject to investigation. Members should await the results of the inquiry. Mr Kerr arrived in the Province today, so there will be no delay in getting the investigation started.

On the day of the incident I visited the Causeway Hospital to thank the medical staff and to speak to some of the injured, and I wish them continued recovery. I agree with the Minister that, but for the grace of God, people on the train or in the vicinity would have been killed. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be ample opportunity for all questions to be asked during the investigation? Why were trains permitted to travel at speeds of up to 70 miles an hour past the spot where the Road Service has erected signs to warn motorists of falling rocks?

The public and elected representatives will be able to provide information to the railway inspector, and he will determine the extent to which he takes evidence from individuals. The Department for Regional Development will be happy to provide Mr Dallat, or anyone else, with the contact details of the railway inspector.

I join Mr Dallat in thanking the medical staff and the emergency services. They responded excellently in the circumstances.

It is not uncommon for the Roads Service to alert motorists to any likelihood of a rockfall. It is proper that it should do so. A risk assessment must be made on every part of the railway track. The managing director of Translink considers the risks involved, and the inspector will look at that. It is appropriate that Translink and the inspector do that, and not Members.

I join with other Members in thanking the Minister for his comprehensive statement and the speed with which he has brought the matter to the Assembly. I also commend his comments on the emergency services. I visited them at the accident site and at the Causeway Hospital on the day of the event.

During his comments the Minister mentioned that the line may be reopened next week, and, presumably, rail services recommenced between Londonderry and Coleraine. Will he pursue vigorously the possibility of the speed restriction he mentioned in his statement being imposed on that section of the line for the duration of the inspectorate's investigation?

The managing director of NIR and Translink will decide when rail services will recommence. As he is responsible for the risk assessment, he will be responsible for making decisions on any speed restrictions. Having spoken to him, I am convinced that if or when he decides it is appropriate to start the services again, there will be some speed restriction until the two reports are available - the internal Translink report and the report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Railways.

I will always support the managing director of Translink if he makes decisions to curtail railway services on safety grounds, even if that inconveniences customers; railway safety must come first. Therefore, whatever decision he makes must be based on safety grounds, and safety grounds alone.

I welcome the Minister's statement, and I wish all the passengers a speedy recovery, particularly the train driver.

Will the Minister accept that, in the terms of reference of the investigations, it is crucial that the circumstances are foreseeable? On that stretch of track there is a high cliff adjacent to the railway. Can Translink erect a permanent barrier at the track side, which may prevent any unforeseen incidents?

I do not want to rule in, or rule out, such a possibility. In this incident the boulder managed to get across two roads and onto the track. Therefore, whether there is a barrier at the track or the road is an issue that we will have to consider when we have the inspectorate's report. I would not rule out something like that; however, I will wait until I have the reports from Translink and the inspectorate.

There are other stretches of the Translink system that run along coastal areas, in particular in my constituency of East Antrim between Carrickfergus and Whitehead. Can the Minister assure me that the safety of those sections of track are being investigated? If not, will they be investigated in the future?

I add my comments to those made around the Chamber regarding the safety and well-being of the passengers and drivers involved in the incident. Due to the geography on the north coast, it was fortunate that there was something of a soft landing. However, I am concerned that in other areas a soft landing may not be available.

I am grateful for the hon Member's final comments. From time to time, Translink carries out surveys of the entire network to determine its safety, or it employs consultants to do it on Translink's behalf.

Having spoken to the managing director, I have no doubt that all those matters are constantly under review. As Members might expect, given the circumstances of 4 June 2002, they will be at the top of his priorities over the coming weeks.

The Member has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the topography around many parts of the railway track would lend itself to that kind of incident. Therefore, vigilance is required. I am sure that Translink will take that on board.

I too welcome the Minister's comprehensive statement and his assurance that no stone will be left unturned to ascertain the cause of the accident.

There is no doubt that the large boulder on the track contributed to the accident. However, it has been quite common to see small pieces of debris and stones on the track. That has led people to believe that it was an accident waiting to happen. The landowner was concerned that a landslide might occur because of recent heavy rainfall. It has already been mentioned that no attempt was made to contact the train driver directly. I am glad that the Minister has assured the House that contact will be attempted in future. If contact had been made, the train driver might have managed to slow down.

A photograph in the 'Londonderry Sentinel' graphically illustrates the extent of the crash, how serious it was, and what the circumstances could have been had people been on the beach that day. There could have been many more serious injuries. Accidents cannot always be prevented, but I hope that something like that will never happen again.

Again, the point has been made about communications. The Assembly should not concentrate so much on that issue. Although I have referred directly to four particular areas that I have asked the inspector to look at, he is not restricted to those areas only. I stress again that I have placed no limitations on the inspector regarding how he conducts his inquiry, whom he speaks to, or, indeed, the issues that he thinks it is important to follow up. He will have all the support necessary from the Department for Regional Development, the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company (NITHCo), Translink and NIR.

I add my support to the Minister for the action that he has taken on the matter. I am sure that he has the support of the House. I wish those who were injured a speedy recovery. The Minister made reference to the fact that the landowner has expressed concern about the possibility of further slides, and that he has engaged an engineer to report on the state of the cliffs. Can the Minister assure the House that his Department is as satisfied as is humanly possible that the A2 coast road, and the railway line that runs parallel to it, are safe to travel?

If that question had been put to me on 3 June 2002, I would probably have said that to the best of my knowledge they were because no one can tell what might happen, given the day, the weather or other circumstances.

In relation to the land, there are liability issues. The Department is taking legal advice. So too - as I read in a morning paper - is Translink. However, the Department cannot simply go onto someone's property and work on it. There are legal issues in relation to that. However, given the circumstances that the Department faces, the Roads Service will have to reach its own conclusions about risk on the road. Translink is legally required to reach its own conclusions. It is not, therefore, a matter for my Department, but for those two agencies. It is essential that when they reach their conclusions, they take into account the topography of the land, the likely weather conditions, the speed of traffic - either on road or rail - and all other circumstances. I would not second-guess the decision that they must take, but they will be better informed to take those decisions as a result of the investigations that are being carried out.

Planning (Amendment) Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Nesbitt):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 12/01] to amend the law relating to planning; and for connected purposes.

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

Local Air Quality Management Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Nesbitt):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 13/01] to make provision for implementing Council Directive 96/62 EC and for otherwise preventing and controlling air pollution; and for connected purposes.

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

Insolvency Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 14/01] to amend the law about insolvency; and for connected purposes.

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

Company Directors Disqualification Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 15/01] to amend and consolidate provisions relating to the disqualification of persons from being directors of companies, and from otherwise being concerned with a company's affairs.

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

Supply Resolution for the 2002-03 Main Estimates

TOP

I beg to move

I move the motion in order to seek the Assembly's approval of the spending plans for 2002-03, as set out in the Main Estimates volume, which was laid before the Assembly on 31 May 2002. The resolution is proposed under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to bring proposals to the Assembly that lead to cash appropriations from the Consolidated Fund.

In doing so, I act on behalf of the Executive as a whole, and the spending allocations reflect the Executive's decisions. The main spending plans were approved by the Assembly in the Budget debate on 11 December 2001. That followed a period of scrutiny of the proposals after the presentation of the draft Budget on 25 September 2001. My Department and I have sought to provide all the briefing and analysis requested in relation to those proposals since then to allow the maximum possible opportunity for consultation. I am satisfied that last year's process has been improved, and I want to build on those improvements in the Budget 2002 process with which we are currently engaged.

The main purpose of the motion is to seek the Assembly's approval of the use of resources by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Assembly, the Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints for the year ending 31 March 2003, as summarised in the Estimates booklet that was laid before the Assembly on 31 May. The motion also seeks the Assembly's approval for the issue of a cash sum from the Consolidated Fund for the financial year 2002-03, as detailed too in the Estimates booklet.

The amounts of cash and resources covered by today's motion are in addition to the Vote on Account approved by the Assembly in the Supply resolution debate on 11 February 2002, which was followed by the passage of the Budget (No 1) Bill. When the amounts in today's motion are added to the Vote on Account, the total cash and resources contained in the 2002-03 Main Estimates amount to some £8,898 million and £10,197 million respectively.

I remind the Assembly of the significance of the motion for which I seek support. It is the way in which the legislature, in the form of the Assembly, authorises spending by Departments, the Assembly itself, the Audit Office and other bodies to enable them to carry out their various functions. One of our most fundamental responsibilities is to authorise expenditure and hold Departments to account for how it is used. This is one of the main means of ensuring that we deliver on the commitments set out in the Programme for Government.

We recognise the importance of ensuring that the Assembly, its Committees, and especially the Committee for Finance and Personnel, have the best possible opportunity to scrutinise the Estimates. The timescale for the exercise is limited, but every effort is being made to ensure as much time as possible for the Committee's scrutiny. To that end, the Committee was provided with a working proof when it became available four weeks ago.

We have also worked to address concerns about the complexity of the Estimates. At the request of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, officials delivered a presentation to MLAs on 22 May on their structure and content. Some presentational changes have been made to assist readers to navigate through the document, and in the longer term, we will consider changes to improve the presentation further.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel has taken a keen and constructive interest in finance issues and has played a helpful role at several key phases in the financial cycle. I want to acknowledge the confirmation by the Committee that there has been appropriate consultation on the spending plans reflected in the motion.

Before I turn to more detailed issues, I will put in context what we seek to do today. The debate covers expenditure in 2002-03. The Supply resolution is the means by which the Main Estimates can be examined by the Assembly, thereby implementing the Budget that the Executive agreed and the Assembly approved last December. It will pave the way for us to consider the stages of the Budget (No 2) Bill, which, subject to the approval of the Assembly, will provide the legal authority for Departments to incur expenditure this year. These steps, therefore, represent a key stage in the 2002-03 Budget cycle.

It is important that a clear distinction be drawn between these processes and the development work for the Budget 2002. The Supply resolution and Budget Bill provide the legislative authority and funds for the Executive's Budget that the Assembly agreed last December.

The figures in the Main Estimates and the Budget Bill differ from the Budget that was approved in December. However, no new resources have been allocated since December. I want to stress that the spending plans that the Assembly approved are the basis for the Estimates and the Budget Bill.

I will explain briefly the main differences that occur and why. The December Budget concentrates on expenditure within the departmental expenditure limit (DEL), which the Treasury sets. The Budget brings together all the expenditure and revenue that relate to what we can do within the DEL to finance public services. The Estimates set out what that means for the drawing of cash by Departments from the Consolidated Fund and their use of resources in relation to their objectives.

In addition to the DEL, the Estimates include some annually managed expenditure (AME). Two main items fall into that category: social security benefits, some of which are subject to annual appropriation or authorisation and some of which are charged under legislation to the National Insurance fund and, hence, do not feature in the voting process; and expenditure under the common agricultural policy (CAP) because it is fully funded by the European Agriculture Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF).

As well as those AME items, some aspects of expenditure, nominally attached to the DEL, are ring-fenced by the Treasury. These include, for example, expenditure under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.

Some social security expenditure is handled outside the voting system, because there are standing authorisations in the form of specific legislation that allow money to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund, or another fund, to provide a service. A further example of that is when a Department makes a loan under some statutory power. In most cases, the issue of the loan will count towards the DEL. However, where there is a standing authorisation for the making of loans outside the Estimate, the loan would not need specific Assembly approval through the Estimates and Budget Bill system. Some important aspects of the Budget are funded in that way, as distinct from the Supply procedure that we are considering today.

I now turn to the detail of the Estimates, which are produced on a resource basis. In the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the total net resource requirement is £263 million. Resources of some £177 million are sought in request for resources A. That provides for ongoing regional services and support measures, including £76 million for development of agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services.

Approximately £56 million, including £2·4 million that is allocated under the Executive programme funds, is sought for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, animal disease compensation and processing and marketing grants that are totally funded by the European Union. Central administration is allocated £13 million, including information technology and specialist accommodation services, and £9 million is for the rural development programme.

Approximately £11 million is for structural funds and the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, and £12 million is for non-cash items such as capital charges, depreciation costs and notional interdepartmental charges. Various market support measures administered under the common agricultural policy, totalling approximately £158 million, are also accounted for under request for resources A. Those are fully funded by the European Union receipt and, therefore, cancel within the Estimate.

Resources of some £86 million are sought in request for resources B. That includes £24 million for the Rivers Agency, the Forest Service and fisheries services. Another £3 million is for central administration, the European Union Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The remaining £59 million is for non-cash items such as capital charges, depreciation costs and notional interdepartmental charges. Various market support measures administered under the common agricultural policy, totalling approximately £1 million, are also accounted for under request for resources B. Again, those are fully funded by the European Union receipt and, therefore, cancel within the Estimate.

When the resources requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is seeking cash of some £211 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure seeks resources of £85 million. That includes £26·7 million for expenditure by education and library boards on public libraries; £11·4 million on the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland; £8·8 million for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and other miscellaneous support for the arts; and £3·4 million for sports. The Estimate also provides £1·1 million for the Northern Ireland Events Company; £3·6 million as Northern Ireland's contribution to the North/South language body; and £3 million for Waterways Ireland. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department requires £81·8 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

Turning to the Department of Education, resources of some £1,383 million are sought in request for resources A, which covers schools. That includes £1,040 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards and £39 million for boards' capital projects. It also provides £155 million for recurrent expenditure in voluntary grammar schools; £36 million for recurrent expenditure in grant-maintained integrated schools; and £67 million for capital projects in voluntary and grant- maintained integrated schools. Approximately £12 million is being made available under Executive programme funds, and £2 million will be made available under the European Union Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.

In request for resources B, which covers youth services and community relations for young people, resources of £29 million are sought. That includes approximately £17 million for recurrent and capital expenditure by education and library boards; £2 million under Executive programme funds; and £3 million under the European Union Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.

When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking cash of £1,425 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate. Resources of £92 million are being sought for teachers' superannuation, with a corresponding cash requirement for the same amount.

In the Department for Employment and Learning a net resource of £390 million is sought for resources A and £197 million for resources B. Capital provision of £106 million is sought for resources A and £0·2 million for resources B. Request for resources A includes over £150 million for colleges of further education; £171 million for local universities and colleges of education; net resources of £60 million for student support, including £12 million from Executive programme funds for the Higher Education Bursaries Scheme; and capital provision of £106 million for student support.

Request for resources B includes £34 million for New Deal measures, mainly in New Deal for 18- to- 24-year-olds and New Deal for 25 plus. Just over £60 million is to guarantee training places for 16- and 17-year-olds under the Jobskills programme. A further £16 million is for other training and temporary employment programmes to get 3,000 places for long-term unemployed adults who are not eligible for New Deal.

When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department requires £689 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

In the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment £287 million is sought for resources A to cover economic support and regeneration measures. That includes £188 million for Invest Northern Ireland to support business growth and inward investment, promote innovation, research and development and company training. Also included in that request for resources is £16 million to support the tourist industry and £13 million for economic infrastructure to develop world-class telecommunications and support the development of the Northern Ireland Science Park.

The request for resources B, which covers the Department's regulatory services, is for £14 million. When the resources requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department requires £269 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department of Finance and Personnel is seeking £33·7 million for resources and £0·1 million for capital for resources A to cover its administration of the public expenditure system and its responsibilities for European structural funds programmes. The sums of £94·6 million for resources B and £20·7 million for capital are sought to cover the services that the Department provides to other Departments such as central personnel, statistics accommodation, construction, purchasing, telecommunications and business consultancy.

In its request for resources C, the Department is seeking £19 million for resources and £1·5 million for capital to support the administration of services to the public, including rateable valuations, the registration of births, marriages and deaths and land registration.

TOP

Next >>