10.

asked the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on his Department's interventions in the case of the house on Ashley Avenue, Belfast, that was once occupied by Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney.

(AQO 1539/01)

11.

asked the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on the demolition of Seamus Heaney's former home at 16 Ashley Avenue, Belfast.

(AQO 1538/01)

17.

asked the Minister of the Environment what steps his Department took to designate the one-time home of Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney as a building of historic and cultural heritage.

(AQO 1549/01)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 10, 11 and 17 together, as they are all similar.

Under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, my Department may list a building on the basis of its having special architectural or historic interest.

The Lisburn Road area of Belfast was surveyed during the late 1970s as part of the first survey of all buildings in Northern Ireland. The former home of Seamus Heaney at 16 Ashley Avenue did not meet the listing criteria at that time. In October 1999 the Belfast Civic Trust requested that the building be spot listed. My Department does not have spot-listing powers but seeks them through the Planning (Amendment) Bill introduced earlier today. Notwithstanding that, the Environment and Heritage Service carried out an external appraisal. It concluded that, although it was a fine Victorian house, a full appraisal under the second survey of all buildings, then under way, was not appropriate as the building was not of sufficient special interest to meet the listing criteria.

Time is up.

Supply Resolution for the 2002-03 Main Estimates

TOP

Debate resumed on motion:

I note from the totals of each Department's Estimate that the Department of the Environment is allocated 1·2% of the total resources available. During the debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates on 11 February 2002, I outlined to the House how the Committee for the Environment scrutinised the Department of the Environment's budget for 2002-03. The Minister of Finance and Personnel said then that he was impressed by that process. Unfortunately, the scrutiny concluded that there was little scope or flexibility in the Department's budget to make savings or to switch resources.

I recognise the case for increasing expenditure in some Departments; however, when will proper funding be allocated to secure and sustain Northern Ireland's environment, its primary asset, before it is too late? A sizeable increase in the Department of the Environment's budget of £115 million would be marginal overall but would have a significant and lasting impact on the protection of the environment. On the estimated figures a fraction of 1% would be meaningful, and I ask the Minister to examine the matter seriously.

Members will recall that the proposal to cut £2 million from the 2002-03 budget grant for local government resources was successfully fought by my Committee. That cut, which would have applied only to the 16 poorest councils, would have been a major injustice. The Committee was therefore horrified to learn in April 2002 that the restoration of the £2 million grant was not rolled forward into future years. I trust that that was an oversight and that the Minister will correct it by recommending that the Department of the Environment's budget meet the restoration of that £2 million. Furthermore, district council resource grant levels have been cut as a result of the impact of the current indicative minima, and it is imperative that a bid for £4·4 million to restore those levels is met. Such cuts are in direct contradiction of the Executive's policy of targeting social need.

In conclusion, and speaking as a Member, I join others who spoke about the wastage of public funds by those who wreck and destroy our country. Every Member should remember that many of those who hold Executive positions have not only a great influence on that but carry a large part of responsibility for it, so I trust that we will call on the thugs and gangsters who are wrecking the Province and costing millions of pounds to stop and that our security forces will be allowed to take the necessary measures to bring those who have carried out such actions to immediate justice.

Having listened to Robert McCartney, Sammy Wilson, William McCrea and my Colleague Séamus Close, I suspect that most of what needs to be said has been said. They dealt very adequately with many of the issues that exercise the minds of people who are not Assembly Members. If nothing else is learnt from the debate, I hope that Members will realise that what we have is not acceptable for good government here.

We are told constantly that the Assembly is good news for Northern Ireland and that the ordinary man in the street - although I do not like that term because I do not understand who the ordinary man is - feels that he is better off today than he was three or four years ago. I suspect that if Members told people in the street that today, they would look at them in dismay and think that they were being spoken to in a foreign language, because they do not see the good results that were supposed to flow from the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Northern Ireland has 11 extravagant and expensive Departments, and most people do not understand why, but then the Belfast Agreement had more to do with political expediency than with good government. It behoves everyone in this country, and especially the major parties, to learn the lesson quickly that we must get back to democracy. We must demonstrate to everyone, whether dissenter or supporter, that good government will benefit everyone.

My Colleague Sammy Wilson touched on that when he said that approximately 75 police officers had been forced out of their homes as a result of the IRA break-in at Castlereagh. That is but the tip of the iceberg - security has been breached, and we do not know where it will end. The cycle has begun again: an attempt was made on the life of a young Catholic police constable when his car was booby-trapped. There are those in the House who tell us that they will cherry-pick the agreement and take all the things that benefit them. However, those same Members will make their presence felt in another way, in respect of issues that they feel that they cannot support.

Does Mr Morrow agree that, in the light of the incident in Ballymena, it is a shame that Sinn Féin/IRA Members of the Executive told people to treat the Police Service in the same way as they treated the RUC? If that is the advice from a party that sits on the Executive, how can we expect anything other than what happened in Ballymena?

I thank the Member for that point - I could not agree with him more. In Dungannon at the weekend those who wanted to take the law into their own hands engaged in more brutal activities. Of course, this is not the first time that that has happened; Barney McDonald was recently murdered there. When you ask the police who they think was involved, they say that they are confused and do not know. The dogs in the street know who carries out such atrocities, but the forces of law and order do not, despite the fact that it is patently obvious to anybody with half a head on his shoulders.

I am grateful to the hon Member for giving way. I am sure that he and his party would similarly condemn those involved in the attack on St Columbanus's College in Bangor, where tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage was done to a school that has been at the forefront of community education - almost 50% of each of the communities are represented on its roll.

I thank the Member for that point and for the useful information that is relevant to the debate.

The infrastructure of our water, sewerage, roads, housing, and so forth is in dire need of capital expenditure. However, every time we have a Budget report and discussion on these issues, the Minister of Finance and Personnel puts his hands up and says that we do not have the money, although I do not blame him for that. When will a concerted programme be put in place to tackle our lack of infrastucture? Can anybody say that we have a better infrastructural base or guidelines that could put a better infrastructure in place than we had under direct rule? The answer is that we do not.

In his earlier address, Mr McCartney gave some of the reasons for that. He highlighted the inadequacies of the Barnett formula, and his points were realistic. Until we get down to tackling that formula, the Minister will continue to speak to the House in the same vein, and he will be continually embarrassed that his hands are tied and that he cannot make the necessary improvements to the infrastucture. I hope that when he makes his winding-up speech he will tell the House clearly that he is not about to introduce a new taxation system. That is not what the people of Northern Ireland want or deserve, and they should not have to carry that burden.

It is true that the Minister tells us that he does not have money, and the chaos with waiting lists means that people's lives are in danger. However, does my hon Friend understand why the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety recently returned more than £30 million because it was unspent? Something is surely wrong with that.

I thank the Member for that point, and I have no doubt that the Minister will want to deal with it in detail. I am sure that he listened intently to my Colleague.

This debate is one of the most important to come before the Assembly. Is it not significant that the Benches of the Ulster Unionist Party, for instance, which signed the Belfast Agreement, are empty and its Members are unconcerned about the matter?

Members of the SDLP, which has been able to muster only one representative for the debate, are not concerned. Sinn Féin/IRA claims that it likes parts of the agreement; it will take the bits that it wants and will leave the rest - but it will still be in government. It has one Member in attendance, part-time, this afternoon.

It behoves everyone to take stock. What is going on among those who claim that they want the agreement? Where are all the bodies? We have empty pews right round the Chamber. That is a downright disgrace. Perhaps the situation reflects an honesty and reality that is creeping in: these parties have no stomach for this; they do not want to be identified with the Minister or to give him moral support. It looks as if they are deserting the ship and leaving the Minister to shore up the unshoreable.

How much longer must we tolerate a situation where every excuse under the sun is made to explain why things cannot and will not be done? Even the First Minister could not find it in his heart to attend and back his Finance Minister. He too is conspicuous by his absence. If the debate means anything, the signatories to the agreement should be in the Chamber to give the Minister moral support rather than say "Get out there and get on with it; we know that you have a bad job to shore up, but we cannot help you because we have landed you in it." At the next finance debate will the Minister ask his Colleagues in the Executive where they were when he was arguing his best case, as none of them was present to lend him moral support? I see that Mr McFarland is returning to the Benches; in fairness to him, he was present earlier.

If anything is gained from the debate, I hope that it is that the present system is no longer acceptable - it is out of date. We expect much better.

Several Members have regretted the low attendance. I too regret that the attendance is not as good as I had anticipated for such an important motion. However, some of my Executive Colleagues are engaged in important Executive business. The First Minister is attending a meeting with the Minister for Regional Development, from which I have just returned. That meeting is dealing with important issues concerning the First Minister's strategic vision for his responsibilities and the means whereby that vision could be realised through various forms of funding. We should inform ourselves before accusing other Members for their absence. I defend the prior engagement of the First Minister. We could have asked why the Minister for Regional Development was not present. He is discussing matters in the Supply resolution, given the significant funding allocations made for his responsibilities. I recognise that his involvement in those discussions with the First Minister is important. I caution Members before they make wild allegations and draw inferences about the absence of our Assembly Colleagues.

The Supply resolution before the House marks an important stage in the budgetary process. It is the basis upon which the legislature, in the form of the Assembly, authorises the spending of Departments, the Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and other bodies to enable them to carry out their functions. The figures before the House are based upon the Budget that we agreed last December. It is important to recognise the stage that we have reached in the budgetary process - we are nearly at the end. If Members were serious about pursuing their suggestions for what could or should have been included, they would have raised them and put them to the House before we voted on the Budget last December.

The authorisation of the spending proposed in that Budget is one of the Assembly's most fundamental responsibilities. It holds Departments to account as they seek to deliver on their Programme for Government priorities.

Will the Minister give way?

I do not think that it is normal to give way during a winding-up speech, but I will.

I am delighted to inform the Minister that it is perfectly normal to give way, but I thank him. The Minister said that Members could have raised some of these points last December. Is he aware that we tried to table 12 amendments, but each one was ruled out of order, and we were not permitted to bring those before the House?

We agreed on and voted for the Budget last December. Today, we are authorising the expenditure that arises from an agreed Budget.

In many, although not all, respects, this has been a useful and informed debate. Members have made many points, some of which were useful and some of which give cause for reflection and further consideration by my Department, and in discussions, particularly with the Committee for Finance and Personnel. I will try to answer and comment on as many points as possible, and I will follow up in writing any that I am unable to address today.

Several Members expressed concern about the general clarity and the lack of understanding by Members of the format and content of Estimates. I encounter this problem every time such a presentation is made to the House. I accept that this is a fairly complex subject, and for that reason I offered the Committee for Finance and Personnel detailed briefings for Members from my officials. When I reflected on the statement that I made this morning and considered what was alleged to be its jargon, I found that few technical terms were used. Terms that could be described as technical were repeated for the allocations to each Department. My officials provided a seminar on 22 May to help Members to understand the details of the Estimates and to appreciate and understand the technicalities associated with their presentation.

Many Members may feel that they do not need such a session, and I am happy to acknowledge that some comments today indicate that some Members do understand this fairly complex process. However, it is difficult to know how to promote better understanding of the Estimates when initiatives are not supported. I would facilitate a further session were Members to indicate their willingness to attend. I believe that attendance at the seminar was in single figures - and was closer to one than to nine.

Mr Close and Mr McCartney also referred to the difficulty in making year-on-year comparisons in allocations. That is difficult, but we are still in the early days of the new structures introduced through the Good Friday Agreement. We have also introduced resource accounting and budgeting, which has seen a change from cash to resource accounting. I am confident that, over time, that will lead to the production of better information and improved accountability. Committees provide a real opportunity for more considered and detailed examination of such aspects of our budgeting system. Indeed, in the general presentation at the beginning of, and during the course of, the budgetary process leading up to the Vote on Account, comparisons are made between what is to be allocated in the coming year and what was previously allocated, so that Members can appreciate such increases and decreases as may be proposed.

Sammy Wilson suggested that we could finance our infrastructure investment from efficiency savings, or by reducing the cost of government. I certainly agree that we need to look hard at our administration costs as a means of addressing the deficiencies of our public services. That must be an important element of the reform dimension of the reinvestment and reform initiative. Several Members said that there was extravagance in having 11 Departments. The services are essentially the same as those delivered by the previous six Departments, and will continue to need to be delivered. I do not regard those services as an extravagance in any sense. Given that Mr Morrow was a Minister responsible for the delivery of some of those services, I hardly imagine that he would wish to describe any of the services for which he was responsible as an extravagance of any kind.

Will the Minister give way?

I have already given way, and I do not intend to give way any further in the course of this winding-up speech.

The scale of savings that might be realised would fall short of meeting our needs, and that is already made clear by the total volume of bids made by departmental Ministers under the first round of the reinvestment and reform initiative. Almost £1·5 billion worth of bids have been lodged against a total fund of £270 million. Indeed, the Department for Regional Development's bids alone total £417 million, and £277 million in 2002-03 and 2003-04.

It is important to point out to Members that the Treasury has laid down clear principles under which the new borrowing power will operate. If expenditure funded by borrowing is to be treated as falling outside our departmental expenditure limit, a clear relationship must exist between the activity concerned and the revenue stream, so that borrowing is wholly self-financing.

Therefore, borrowing under the proposed new powers will have to be paid for from additional income by way of local revenues, and it will be up to the Executive and the Assembly to decide whether to borrow and by how much. That does not rule out the need to root out waste and inefficiency as a means of improving our public services.

Several Members have referred to the unnecessary expenditure incurred under the scheme for the purchase of evacuated buildings (SPED). The House will appreciate that SPED is an area that is not amenable to normal forecasting by the Department for Social Development. Normal practice has been that the needs of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for the operation of SPED are addressed in-year as part of the routine monitoring arrangements by the Executive. As in the past, we will aim to try to avoid disruption to the normal housing programme as a result of SPED, subject to the availability of the necessary resources.

Several Members from all sides of the Assembly have spoken about the serious impact of the current street disorder on our public services. I want to take this opportunity to add my own condemnation of those who are inciting or inflaming the situation. I appeal to those in situations of influence to do all they can to reduce tension and fear. Every pound we must spend on rehousing people, treating the injured or repairing the damage to our buses and houses is a pound less at our disposal for our health, education and other services.

I agree strongly with those who say that we must root out waste and inefficiency. In the Programme for Government we underline the importance of modernising government and of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. With the introduction of resource budgeting, public service agreements and service delivery agreements, we have laid much of the information basis for that change. That should enable us to get better information about the true costs of services and particularly what outputs and outcomes are being achieved.

The review of public administration over the coming months, examining all aspects of administration including the quality of service, should provide a major opportunity for improvement. The Assembly will, of course, have an opportunity to consider the outcome of that review. Likewise, the new strategic investment body should be an important vehicle for helping to deliver public service reform. However, reform must go wider. We must focus more on delivering services and on placing customer service and the needs of front-line staff first.

I do not want to see public sector budgets increase in the future without applying reform as a key condition. The public needs to know that the best management techniques are being used to deliver services, and that the minimum resource necessary is being used in internal administration.

Éamonn ONeill spoke of the need for the Executive to learn from their experience and analyse how we might do things better and improve the quality of our public services. Others have spoken of the need to advance the reform agenda and deliver real improvements in efficiency. We are tackling the challenge actively through our programme of needs and effectiveness evaluations. Those six studies cover around 75% of all our expenditure programmes, and the reports, which will be presented to the Executive and the Assembly over the coming weeks, will give a clear indication of the effectiveness of our current spending patterns. We will use the outcome of those studies to inform our decisions when we come to construct the Budget for 2003-04 and beyond in September.

Mr McCartney asked about the rates. I thank him for his long, erudite contribution on this issue, and I look forward to seeing his submission to the rating policy review.

I am glad to hear that some Members find this rather amusing.

It is easier to laugh -

Order.

I repeat that what happens to the rates here will depend on what the Executive and the Assembly decide over the next number of years. Consultation on the review of rating policy has begun, and that will affect the development of the policy.

Further work is needed to finalise the details of the arrangements for the Executive's access to borrowing in a way that is demonstrably fair to ratepayers here and across the water. The details will be made known when the position is clearer.

There will be no major increases in local revenue until after full consultation and until a fairer system for revenue-raising has been developed to replace the present system. The pace of change will be subject to approval by the Assembly.

The impression has been given that the consultation is closed to forms of revenue-raising other than the rating system. Mr Close is a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and he will have read the consultation document. He will know that it contains a very clear invitation to those who believe that alternatives should be considered to develop those alternatives and put them forward as part of the submissions to the review of the rating system. I look forward to hearing his party's views on that. The same invitation is extended to all other Members and to the public at large. I trust that consultations that are open to all in our society are seen as a necessary part of the democratic process.

I do not subscribe to the view put forward by Mr Close that we should target our consultations only at those whom we believe might have most to offer or be most affected. All consultation needs to be open and transparent, and we need to involve all those who wish to contribute. We must ensure that they can make their contributions. That is part of what the democratic process is about. Any attempt to limit that consultation is a denial of every citizen's right to participate as much as possible in the decision-making process in this society.

The key political concession won by the Executive is the ability to borrow. To what extent and within what time frame we use that power is up to the people of Northern Ireland and will be subject to full democratic debate in the Executive, the Assembly and the wider community.

Mr McCartney spent a long time explaining that we did not require extra resources to pay for services and then went on to recommend an increase in income tax.

I did not recommend an increase.

Mr McCartney certainly made a very strong suggestion in that direction.

Mr Close sought clarification about the funding for road safety and the Environment and Heritage Service. The reduction in road safety funding reflects the transfer of certain enforcement functions to the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency and some licensing functions to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The basic road safety functions have not been reduced.

The Environment and Heritage Service has received additional funds to meet the increasing cost of transposing numerous EC Directives into Northern Ireland legislation. The most notable of those cover air and water pollution prevention and control, and waste management.

We must consider our priorities carefully in the forthcoming spending review. That is what the Programme for Government and the Budget processes are all about. We have the right, if we choose, to spend more on some areas than is spent in England. However, the corollary is that we would have to spend less in other areas than would otherwise be possible. However, we shall not be able simply to ask for more.

I thank Members for their valuable contributions not only in this debate but through the Committees, correspondence and questions posed here on other occasions. If I have not responded to any substantive point I shall be glad to reply in writing or ask the relevant Minister to do so.

The Estimates bring together the effects of the decisions that we have already made. In this case, the basis for the Estimates is the Budget that we agreed in December 2001. Within the time constraints in which we must work, we have made considerable efforts to ensure that the Estimates have been available in time for proper and considered scrutiny. I hope that that has been helpful. We shall continue to improve on our procedures so that Members can feel at ease with the process and familiar with its language, and, by so doing, make the most- informed decisions that can possibly be made.

I remind Members that the Supply resolution motion is subject to section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which means that the vote will take place on a cross-community basis.