Regarding the additional costs of the new departmental structures, a commitment was given that we would try to neutralize those costs over the lifetime of the first Assembly. That commitment was not just given by the First Minister to his party; it is one that we gave to the Assembly. We cannot do that with next year's Budget as we intend to go ahead with the plans that we inherited, which divide the money among the new Departments.

In accommodating the costs of the new structures - the new Departments, the North/South institutions, and so on - the Assembly has ensured that those costs will not affect the budgeted programmes for next year under the comprehensive spending review. That should be understood and appreciated. How we achieve neutralisation and, indeed, greater efficiency and effectiveness in our administrative structures or programme systems will have to be worked out in the programme of government. We will be undertaking that work in the context of the next Treasury review, which will be informed by the whole shift to resource budgeting.

We will be approaching many things from a different angle, and I hope we will be able to achieve savings that will go further than the target of neutralising the extra costs. It would be wrong for me to go any further at this stage, as I am only one Minister in an Executive which will be carrying out the wider review.

Sammy Wilson referred to my remarks about the Budget for the remainder of this year. Is the Minister of Education aware of that? Yes, he is. Our approach to the rest of this year's Budget and next year's was agreed by all the Ministers in the Executive Committee. It will be very difficult for Ministers to manage this, and I hope that all Committee members - even Rottweilers or any other kind of beast - as they deal with Ministers and contribute in their Committees, will appreciate that. It should also be appreciated that the amount allocated to the Department of Education for next year, which Mr Wilson referred to when he talked about the Education Minister's running around making promises that extra money would be put into schools, includes an extra £22 million for the schools capital programme. That is provided for in the Budget.

A Chathaoirligh, I welcome the Minister's speech. It is rather unsatisfactory that I received a copy of the public expenditure plans just this morning and have had very little time to look at them.

My question concerns the flexibility of this year's Budget and how much movement is possible within it. Probably very little. How much room for manoeuvre is there in an economic plan for the North, and to what extent is the west being considered in comparison with everywhere else? Any action that is taken will be within the terms of the present plan, which has not been finalised - there is still some room for consultation over the 'Shaping our Future' document. However, I am concerned that the west may not be looked after. That document points to major development along the main transport corridors, and much of the housing is directed towards Craigavon and areas around Belfast. It seems that people are shifting from rural areas to the larger towns, and this will not help us to get small businesses in rural areas.

I am worried that we will be bound in with this plan for the next 25 years, that we will not be able to move away from it and that it will in some way be able to limit any plans developed by the Assembly. Is there flexibility in the present Budget to do something about these matters in the rural areas? Does the Minister look forward to having something in place so that the area west of the Bann will be looked after?

I welcome the cross-border institutions, the all-Ireland institutions and those issues in 'Shaping Our Future' that dovetail with the national development plan for the South, whose economic plan will not be available for another two years.

Order. Perhaps the Member would ask his question. He should not be making a speech.

I want to know what flexibility there is within the Budget constraints and what the Minister sees in the plan for the west of the Bann next year?

I thank the Member for his many points and questions.

Flexibility in the Budget will come about only if there is very strict discipline in its management. If we run the Budget tightly we may get easements which will give us some flexibility.

The Member said that the Budget and the statement were available only this morning. That is not unusual with exercises of this type. The Budget was finally agreed in the Executive Committee only yesterday, and work still had to be done on some of the figures. Information has been provided in as timely a fashion as possible, but I appreciate the Member's concern.

I will be meeting with the Finance and Personnel Committee this afternoon to discuss many of these issues. All the Committees will be able to look at their respective programmes and allocations, and we will provide more detailed figures for them. This is not a hit-and-run Budget that everybody is stuck with. There will be consultation, input and scrutiny, but we will have to make final decisions early in the New Year, as Departments need to be able to deal with their secondary and end budgets, so that they can plan for next year.

In terms of the geographic balance, the Member referred to 'Shaping Our Future', which appeared to dovetail with the national development plan in the South. That is probably so on a variety of levels.

The Member appeared to criticise some of the measures covered in the Budget in terms of their locations. Measures to deal with locations across Northern Ireland are also compatible with 'Shaping Our Future', so we cannot say that we like the document at one level but that we should not abide by it at another.

I am sympathetic to the Member's point about the west. This is a natural reaction - I come from there. I have taken a Pledge of Office which obliges me to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, and I am determined to uphold that pledge. With regard to future Budgets, we need to make sure that public-spending plans, the development of public policy and the management of public services are informed by the twin ethics of quality and equality. In the programme of government we must find more ways of enabling us to ensure that people can see quality and equality at the forefront of all plans, including those for public expenditure, and in their outcomes.

As an Assembly we will have to address the concept of resource budgeting and its focus on outcomes. As I said last week to the Finance and Personnel Committee, resource budgeting should be tailored to our needs rather than dealt with on a hand-me-down basis from the Assembly. So when we are focusing on the outcome requirements of resource accounting and budgeting we must factor in equality considerations as well and give appropriate weightings to them. We must work on this issue in the longer term, not just in the context of the programme of government but throughout the working of the Assembly itself.

I congratulate the Finance Minister on his first Budget. It was commendably concise - not of Gladstonian proportions. Indeed, Members will not have to tear it up, unlike Mr McCreevy's recent productions in Dublin.

At the end of page 5 of the report the Minister speaks of ongoing consultation with regard to the European Union funds. As a party we agree about the value of that, and almost all Members would stress its importance.

Can the Minister outline what lessons have been learned from the experience of the European structural fund rounds of 1989-93 and 1994-99 which will be taken forward to inform the new round of funding between next year and the year 2006?

Secondly, the Minister refers - again at the end of page 5 - to the peace programme as a unique scheme. I assume that that is partly a reference to the additionality aspect of funding, so I would like to know what lessons have been learned from the previous special programme for peace and reconciliation and, in particular, about the sustainability of funded projects, which will be taken forward to the new round of funding next year.

First, in relation to the structural funds, we must continue consultation on the proposals for making the best use of them. Because of time and process requirements the Secretary of State had already submitted a plan to Brussels prior to devolution.

I am quite clear, as is my Department, that the plan is necessarily flexible and is structured in such a way as to allow the new institutions sufficient latitude to ensure that the precise balance of the programme is well informed by our particular priorities and by the needs we are trying to serve.

Of course, we will have to ensure that we take account of the EU's requirements. It will have its own particular requirements with regard to the balance of that programme. The money is not ours to use as we wish; we will have to use it in accordance with the programme priorities of the European Union.

With regard to building on the lessons learned from previous programmes, that has, to a degree, already been taken account of in the submitted plan. Some people argue that one plan is too much like the other. That is one of the reasons why we are being so protective of the whole concept of flexibility.

Dr Birnie was correct about the peace programme. The finance is additional, and that very fact makes it unique. That does not mean that it is money to be frittered away, and we do not treat it as a feel-good fund. We are concerned about the concept of sustainability. With regard to the peace programme, we are trying to ensure that we balance the regeneration and reconciliation needs in ways that are sustainable and effective. We want regeneration and reconciliation to move together, almost like a piston driving an engine forward. This is the approach we intend to take. It is not a matter of economic development versus social inclusion; rather it is a matter of economic development and social inclusion working together to bring reconciliation and regeneration to those areas that can best capitalise on such benefits. We understand that social inclusion does not happen on its own and that it is a feature of economic inclusion.

Therefore, to ensure sustainable social inclusion we must have programmes which help to sustain ongoing economic inclusion. We will have to try to achieve that balance. It will not be an easy task. The social partners have different pressures and priorities, and there is also the very important perspective of local government and its role.

We shall have to try to manage the existing flexibility in the structural fund plan and the peace programme in ways that meet the competing preferences and priorities of different interests, and we will have to do that over the coming months.

In his response to an earlier question, the Minister referred to the £8 million cost of the North/South Ministerial Council's implementation bodies. The impression given was that that was the complete cost. Is the Minister referring to the cost to the Assembly, which is only a portion of the total cost since the Dáil has to provide a similar amount?

Why should the urgent infrastructure connections, which have been neglected by Governments for many years, be linked to the sale of the port of Belfast? If those finances are not available and realised, will the Member, as the Minister of Finance and Personnel, attempt to direct savings from the Assembly's block funding to fill the gap? The people west of the Bann cannot be put at any further disadvantage.

Will the Minister press the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom for agreement that road tax should be directed towards roads instead of into the coffers of the Exchequer?

First, with regard to the North/South bodies, the figure before the Assembly is the cost of our programme. It might be helpful to make the point that our cost for these bodies is £8.2 million. The cost for the Republic of Ireland is £25 million. That is a ratio of about 3:1. I indicated that we were not paying more than our fair share. Let us remember that there are also economic and service benefits to be derived from these bodies. I hope that there will also be savings as a result of co-operation in wider areas.

Secondly, we have inherited plans that provide for some key infrastructural projects to be undertaken based on the receipts from the sale of the port of Belfast. For the time being we are dealing with those inherited plans.

For the programme of government we will have to plan on a different basis. This planning will be a lot easier, and we will have more leeway and more scope for creativity if we already have the receipts for Belfast harbour and can proceed with that work.

Will the Minister bring his remarks to a close, as the time is up.

The Member has a preference for certain infrastructural projects. Given where I come from, I sympathise with his preference with regard to where money should be spent. Perhaps he could address the Minister for Regional Development in that respect.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In what circumstances do you propose to take supplementary questions?

Supplementary questions are normally allowed after questions to Ministers. These are not questions to Ministers. This is a statement to the House, which may be responded to with questions. No supplementaries are permitted. The Executive has agreed with Standing Orders which insist that there shall be questions to Ministers between 2.30 pm and 4.00 pm on Mondays.

The Executive Committee has agreed with us a rota of Ministers who will be available for those questions. The first set of questions will be on Monday 17 January 2000. During Question Time three Ministers will be available to answer questions for approximately 30 minutes each.

That is the context for questions to Ministers, and an element of supplementary questioning will be possible when oral questions are set down in advance. Members must send their questions to the relevant Departments in advance. There is a timetable for Members on the Assembly's Internet site.

There is a reading error which I need to correct. I gave a figure of £360,000 for the Civic Forum. That should be £300,000.

TOP

Points of Order

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you aware that the Sinn Féin/IRA Members are using the Irish version of "MLA", which is "TD"? Is this proper? If not, will you please ask them to desist. If it is in order, will you please inform the House what the Ulster-Scots version of "MLA" is.

The only authorised designation is "MLA" - "Member of the Legislative Assembly". That, of course, does not mean that Members may not describe themselves in another way. Members often describe themselves - and even more frequently other Members - in all sorts of ways. [Laughter] These may be authoritative and even accurate, but they are not authorised by the Standing Orders.

I am, I regret to say, neither a student of nor in any way familiar with the Irish language or even Ulster-Scots. However, seeing that these matters were being raised in the press, I looked into them a little. I cannot offer an authorised version, as it were. However, my understanding is that were this a Parliament duly recognised and described as such, the term "Teachta Dála", abbreviated to "TD", would be appropriate.

However - and the Minister referred earlier to the negotiations and what went on there - all Members are aware that such matters were part of the negotiations. The decision was made that this would be described as an Assembly, not as a Parliament. Therefore, as I understand it, the term "Teachta Dála" would not be appropriate. This is a legislative assembly, and its Members are described as MLAs, as, in many cases, are the Members of the provincial Assemblies in Canada and the state Assemblies in Australia.

So far as any abbreviations are concerned, I understand that for "Member of the Legislative Assembly" the term "Teachta" would be quite appropriate. This has come to be the term used, I understand, for a political representative - a Member of an Assembly. The word that is used to describe this Assembly in the Irish version of the agreement is "Tionól", not "Dáil". Since this is a legislative Assembly, I understand, the word "Reachtach" would be appropriate to describe "legislative". It would be "Teachta den Tionól Reachtach" or "TTR". There is little doubt that there are other variations. I do not claim to speak with great authority. I understand, for example, that the word "Comhalta" rather than "Teachta" would be an appropriate translation of "Member".

With regard to Ulster-Scots, I understand that a reasonable translation of "Member of the Legislative Assembly " would be "Laa-makin Forgaitherer" - "LMF". If one regards "laa-makin" as a hyphenated term, "LF" would be appropriate.

These are my best endeavours. I trust that they will provide some guidance to Members. Having said that, perhaps I may proceed to the appointment of the Heid-yins and Deputy Heid-yins of the Committees. [Laughter]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked whether this was right or wrong.

As the Minister of Finance and Personnel advised earlier, one must be very careful what one asks for. One sometimes gets it. [Laughter]

Mr Speaker, it may have escaped your notice that, in the course of your eloquence, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure left the Chamber.

As a member of his party, you can say that. I could not possibly comment. We will proceed to the running of the d'Hondt procedure for the -

Reference has been made to the issue of having an independent Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, the Minister of Finance and Personnel agreed with that point. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that if the nominating officers of the four larger parties so wished they could decline to nominate, even if that were the only post remaining? Are they obliged to make a nomination if they wish that post to be independent?

They are not obliged to make a nomination. If they do make a nomination, it has to be a member of their own party. In the case of the Public Accounts Committee, unlike some of the others, that person cannot be a member of the party to which the Minister of Finance and Personnel belongs.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If each nominating officer declined to nominate for a position, would it eventually come to the nominating officer of one of the totally oppositional parties? My party would be prepared to leave that position free if the other nominating officers were prepared to give an undertaking to do likewise.

I can respond only on the point of procedure. If nominations had not been made when the 15-minute allowance expired, the eventuality that the Member describes would come to pass. However, it is not for me nor for Members to engage in debate on this matter. Procedurally, what the Member says is correct.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What is a totally oppositional party?

That is a very good question. There all sorts of ways in which the words "totally oppositional" might be applied in this context. I took it that the Member was referring to parties that were not in the Executive, though I may have been mistaken.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could add "and not in receipt of any patronage from the Government or any of the four Government parties".

Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you agree that the DUP's relationship is not so much totally oppositional as semi-detached?

I am not sure how to address either of those two points of order. It would not be wise for me to comment on either of them, for they are not points of procedural order. They may be points of political order, but that is another matter.

TOP

Assembly: Standing Committees

I am now required to supervise the appointment of a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to each Standing Committee. I remind Members of the requirements that are set out in Standing Orders. I shall ask the nominating officer of each political party, in the order required by the formula contained in Standing Orders, to select an available Standing Committee and nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be its Chairman or deputy Chairman.

I have already referred to the requirement that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee shall not be members of the same party as the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Nominating Officers shall not prefer, for chairmanship or deputy chairmanship, a Committee in which they have an interest, which is defined as their party having a Minister in charge of the topic to which it relates.

The phrase "shall not prefer" does not mean that this cannot happen; it just means that they shall not prefer it at the early stage of d'Hondt. One could find - for example, at a late stage of d'Hondt - that such choices were not available. As there was some uncertainty among Members in a previous running of d'Hondt, I should tell the House that it is possible that a party might have to prefer a deputy chairmanship to a chairmanship. The d'Hondt procedure combines chairmanships and deputy chairmanships simply to remain within the "shall not prefer" rule. It does not mean that parties will miss out on anything.

There have been two changes of nominating officer owing to the absence of previous nominating officers. Mrs Gerry Cosgrove has advised me that Mr McGrady is the nominating officer for the SDLP in this procedure. Dr Paisley has advised me that Mr Peter Robinson is the nominating officer for the DUP at this time.

The timing for nominations is now 15 minutes. In the Initial Standing Orders it was five minutes, but nominating officers could ask for a break of 15 minutes. I assume that when the Standing Orders Committee considered the matter it put in the 15 minutes to ensure that there would be no need to have repeated requests for suspensions of 15 minutes and that Members might be able to consult. Under the new Standing Orders, that is the position in any case. If the 15 minutes were to elapse, whether in the circumstance referred to by Mr Ford or in any other, I would be required to address the nominating officer next in line.

There are three matters that nominating officers must bear in mind. A Minister or junior Minister may not be the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a Standing Committee. No Member may be nominated to serve as a Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a Standing Committee if he is the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of another Committee, including a Statutory Departmental Committee. In making nominations, nominating officers shall prefer Committees in which they do not have a party interest, as I have explained.

I call Mr Trimble, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the highest figure, to select a Standing Committee from the five available and to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Chairman or Deputy Chairman of it.

I select the Public Accounts Committee and nominate as its Chairman Mr Billy Bell.

Is the Member who has been nominated willing to take up the office for which he has been nominated?

I am.

I therefore announce the appointment of Mr Billy Bell as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

I call Mr McGrady, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next highest figure, to select an available Standing Committee and to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Chairman or Deputy Chairman of it.

I nominate Mr Donovan McClelland for the Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Is the Member who has been nominated willing to take up the office for which he has been nominated?

I am.

I therefore announce the appointment of Mr Donovan McClelland as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

I call Mr Peter Robinson, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next highest figure, to select an available Standing Committee and to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Chairman or Deputy Chairman of it.

As you might expect, Mr Speaker, I select the Committee of the Centre and nominate as its Chairman Mr Gregory Campbell.

Is the Member who has been nominated willing to take up the office for which he has been nominated?

I am definitely willing.

I therefore announce the appointment of Mr Gregory Campbell as Chairman of the Committee of the Centre.

I call Mr McLaughlin, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next highest figure, to select an available Standing Committee and to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Chairman or Deputy Chairman of it.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I select the Procedures Committee and nominate Mr Conor Murphy as its Chairperson. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Is the Member who has been nominated willing to take up the office for which he has been nominated?

Glacaim leis an oifig sin, a Chathaoirligh. I am.

I therefore announce the appointment of Mr Conor Murphy as Chairman of the Procedures Committee.

I call Mr Trimble, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next highest figure, to select an available Standing Committee and to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Chairman or Deputy Chairman of it.

I select the Procedures Committee and nominate Mr Dalton as its Deputy Chairman.

Is the Member who has been nominated willing to take up the office for which he has been nominated?

I am.

I therefore announce the appointment of Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton as Deputy Chairman of the Procedures Committee.

I call Mr McGrady, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next highest figure, to select an available Standing Committee and to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Chairman or Deputy Chairman of it.

I select the Audit Committee and nominate Mr John Dallat to be its Chairperson.

Is the Member who has been nominated willing to take up the office for which he has been nominated?

I am.

I therefore announce the appointment of Mr John Dallat as Chairman of the Audit Committee.

I call Mr Peter Robinson, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next highest figure, to select an available Standing Committee and to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Deputy Chairman of it.

I ask for a suspension of 15 minutes.

There is no need for a suspension. You have 15 minutes in which to make your nomination.

I select the Committee of the Centre and nominate Mr Oliver Gibson as the Deputy Chairman.

Is the Member who has been nominated willing to take up the office for which he has been nominated?

I am.

I therefore announce the appointment of Mr Oliver Gibson as the Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Centre.

I call Mr Trimble, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next highest figure, to select an available Standing Committee and to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Deputy Chairman of it.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>