the assembly

Friday 7 July 2006

The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Madam Speaker in the Chair).

Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Madam Speaker: In accordance with the Northern Ireland Act 2006, the Secretary of State has directed that the Assembly should sit on Friday 7 July 2006 at 10.30 am to consider business as it appears on the Order Paper. The Secretary of State has also directed that the Assembly should rise for the summer recess at the close of business today and should return on Monday 4 September.

Secretary of State Motion

Spending Review and Priorities

Madam Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that a maximum of four hours be set aside for the debate. The Committee also agreed that the first round of speeches should be limited to 15 minutes, with subsequent Members being allowed 10 minutes. I intend to send a copy of the Official Report of the debate to the Secretary of State.

I remind Members that a two-minute silence will be observed across the United Kingdom at 12.00 pm today to mark the first anniversary of the London bombings. It was agreed at this week’s Business Committee meeting that I should, therefore, interrupt proceedings at an appropriate moment to announce the period of silence and to allow Members and staff in Parliament Buildings to observe it. If a Member is speaking at the time, he or she will be allowed to continue after the silence with no reduction in speaking time.

If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Mr P Robinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the first meeting of the Assembly I raised a point of order about the standing of what has become known as the Ulster Unionist Parliamentary Assembly Group, which purported, at one stage at least, to be a political party. When might the Assembly expect a ruling on that issue?

Madam Speaker: As Members will be aware, the Clerk to the Assembly has been gathering information on this subject. This has now been provided to counsel and I shall rule on the matter once I have received counsel’s further advice. I, like you, regret the delay, but I want it to be an absolutely clear decision. Members will appreciate that the issue must be examined thoroughly.

Motion made:

That this Assembly notes the results of the Spending Review 2004 and the current Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 and their implications for the spending priorities for a Programme for Government to be agreed by a Northern Ireland Executive following its restoration on or before 24 November 2006.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Madam Speaker, we are surrounded in the Assembly by mystery. We do not know what is going to happen. We are here because the Secretary of State, in his benevolence, has permitted the Assembly to meet today to discuss the comprehensive spending review.

As a Member of the Assembly representing the people of Northern Ireland, I feel that the way the business of the Assembly is conducted from the office of the Secretary of State is absolutely outrageous. All the parties in the Assembly should have had the right to be consulted about what would be debated today. No individual party should be able to dictate the business of the Assembly. We have had dictations right, left and centre — especially from the party that is conspicuous by its absence from this House today.

The time has come when this House needs to consider its own sovereignty in regard to the matters in the Act that set it up. This Assembly has responsibilities and a certain sovereignty. Listen to the Secretary of State and look at the papers we eventually receive from him about the conduct of business in this House — it is absolutely ridiculous. The rules can change within hours rather than days. This Assembly must signal to the Secretary of State that if this is the way that he wants to conduct his business, he can conduct it on his own.

There is no use pretending that this Assembly has at least some democracy when it has very little, and indeed would have none at all if the Secretary of State had his way. I protest and put on record that Members and parties in this House should be consulted in some way about the business to come before it, especially when that business is not in keeping with the rules of the House in regard to the Business Committee or any other Committee that wants to bring forward business.

The time has come for us to tell the Secretary of State that he cannot simply call a meeting of the Assembly, and, a day or two before it, say, “Here is a bit of paper; get on with it” and then tell us that on a certain day we will be out anyway. That must be brought to an end. The tragedy is that this Assembly meets and seeks to conduct its business while one party that is much involved with the setting of that business refuses to come to the Chamber. Yet the Secretary of State insists that other parties attend the meetings of a Committee that has the authority to bring matters before the Assembly.

Madam Speaker, I do not want to weary the House or to get on your wrong side. I do not worry when you make your own decisions, but I worry when the Clerk whispers in your ear. I was told by an old Member of the first Stormont Parliament that when one sees the Clerk whispering in the Speaker’s ear one should beware. I see that the Clerk is now getting impatient and speaking in your ear.

Madam Speaker: I have listened intently to the Member, but I would now like to hear him address the motion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: In another place we would call this a “Dan to Beersheba” motion: one can walk over the whole land — whether it be holy land or not. The motion is wide enough for that because it includes everything.

The most important issue at the present time is the security of the citizens of this land. Not only are we living in the shadow of terrorism as terrorists carry out many atrocious crimes, but individuals in the Province are being attacked, especially womenfolk. That is absolutely deplorable, and any right-thinking citizen should be alarmed by the lack of security for the individual. Every day, other matters arise that cause us to wonder whether there is any real security for the people of this Province.

Tied in with that is the agitation surrounding the marching season. Some of us think that the great persuaders in this matter are those who are out to make trouble at various marches. They seem to have so much strength that if they threaten enough, their threats are listened to.

A serous matter has arisen in the village of Dunloy in my constituency. I resent the fact that, at this time, certain Protestants cannot lay a wreath in their graveyard without being told where they should stand so that they will be concealed behind a wall. When a country cannot honour its dead in reverence, it is on the road to anarchy. I feel strongly about that, and about the fact that at that particular incident, which could have become serious, when there was opposition —

10.45 am

Mr McCarthy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. What has this got to do with the motion on budgetary constraints?

Madam Speaker: I imagine that Dr Paisley will come to the financial implications in due course.

[Laughter.]

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The hon Member must have forgotten that policing the Province is expensive. Vast amounts of money are laid out on that. Mr McCarthy should recognise that that must interest those who want to represent their constituencies.

Last year, as this particular parade was taking place, there was lawlessness and illegal parking of vehicles to deny the Protestant people peace to remember their gallant dead. Not one person was taken to court or made to pay the price for that lawlessness — not one. Now, those who have been negotiating with the police and the authorities have told me that the ante is up. Those who got away with illegal acts and lawlessness last year think that they can go one better this year, and the threat is now greater.

Those matters may not interest the Member from the Alliance Party, but they interest me and all right-thinking citizens in the community. There is great expenditure on security. If there were lawfulness in the country, less money would need to be spent.

I do not know whether the civil servant who wrote this motion for the Secretary of State realised that Members could say anything here today and tie it in to the spending of Government money. Although the Clerk may whisper in your ear, Madam Speaker, that does not alter the fact that expenditure on policing must be faced.

We can go to France, stand at the Somme and see the liberty that is given to people of all creeds to pay honour to their gallant dead. Yet, in our own country, those who carry out acts of lawlessness resist that. They get away with it and nothing is done. That is a sad comment on our land today.

Mr Gallagher: Does the Member agree that the best way to address many of the serious issues that he has raised is for elected representatives to assume responsibility for them; in other words, to have devolved government?

Does Dr Paisley recognise that the DUP is one of the parties blocking progress towards devolution, without which there will be endless hot-air debates here? The DUP, as it did at yesterday’s meeting of the South Eastern Education and Library Board, will take part in hot-air debates in which it criticises everybody and everything, and yet will not accept any responsibility.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The hon Member is himself engaging in hot-air debate. Does he not know that members of his own party were in that debate yesterday, and voted with the other elected representatives? Or does he think that children in need of special payments for their education should not be treated as they would in any civilised country? [Interruption.]

If the Member wants to make a speech, he should make it in the time given to him. There is no place for the people that the Member wants in a future Government of Northern Ireland. The gunman will not be there, and neither will the people who carry out criminal activities. Those who are associated with terrorism, from whatever side of the country, will not be there with my vote, or the vote of my party.

The Member may vote for them, and work with them, as he did in the past. We will not be working with those people. The way to peace is an utter rejection of terrorist violence and all that goes with it. I regret that the hon Member has expressed those views in this debate, because I thought that he, at least, had sympathy for those who do not want terrorism in Government.

This is an important debate, because it deals with people’s lives, their well-being and the well-being of this country. I trust that today, in spite of all the peculiar circumstances surrounding this debate, and the strong eloquence of Benches not sat on, the people of Northern Ireland will know again exactly where the truth lies, and will back that truth with all their might as the party I lead intends to do in this House.

Dr Birnie: I am very pleased that we have been granted this debate. The decree, as it were, has come down from the royal court, and the peasants have been allowed to have a discussion about what crops to plant for the next couple of years.

Mr McNarry: The croppies are not here.

Mr Kennedy: Croppies lie down. [Laughter.]

Dr Birnie: Now, now.

To cut through the convoluted wording of this lengthy motion, it seems to be saying that Northern Ireland is facing something of a squeeze on the growth of public spending. That is undoubtedly the case. We had warning of this in the Budget last December, and no doubt the forthcoming comprehensive spending review will reinforce the point.

Dr Paisley said that this was a Dan-to-Beersheba motion, and I suppose that — to continue the Biblical analogies — our situation is similar to the seven lean years following the seven fat years. Beginning in 1999, we have had five or more years of rapid growth of public expenditure; between 4% and 5% on average annually in real terms. For the foreseeable future, that rate of growth is going to drop to about 2%. If, as has happened previously, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety continues to get a rapid increase, the implication is that many other Departments will face either zero growth or, indeed, reductions in their spending levels.

The crucial implication is that if one thought that the previous Executive of 1999-2002 faced hard spending decisions, any returning Executive this year or at any point in the immediate future will inevitably face a greater host of spending dilemmas.

That is the context. In a tough expenditure environ­ment we have the logic of the comprehensive spending review. To use the jargon, the review is zero-based: no programme can be taken for granted, and everything must be justified against alternative uses of funds.

I wish to turn to some themes that relate to public spending. Aneurin Bevin, Welsh politician and founder of the National Health Service (NHS), said that socialism is the language of priorities. Indeed, given competing demands and scarce resources, all proper politics is about identifying priorities.

There is every indication that the public regards health as a key priority, perhaps even as the top priority. We must continue to respect that. From our experiences either as constituency representatives or from our own families, we know about the human tragedies that result from the avoidable suffering caused by prolonged waiting for operations, or, indeed, the unavailability of certain treatments in the NHS. Those drugs or treatments are often available to people who live elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is the sharp end of so-called healthcare rationing. Yet we also know that since 1999 the cash available to the Department of Health has enjoyed very rapid growth; in some years there have been increases of 10%. Money has gone in at one end, but there have not always been obvious signs of output at the other.

Several years ago, the Wanless Report considered the future of the NHS across the UK. Wanless reported to the Chancellor that the NHS should continue to provide free treatment at the point of use and be funded out of general taxation. However, the report also issued a warning that sudden increases in public spending on health — above about 7% annually in real terms — were likely to be associated with bottlenecks. Hence, not all the money would be absorbed in a way that would raise standards of patient care. Our experience supports that sorry conclusion: spending grows, but waiting lists remain stubbornly high. Part of the problem is that, notwithstanding the increase in financial resources, the number of staff who deal with patient care — doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals — has often grown little, if at all.

The recent Appleby Report casts further doubt on the efficiency and effectiveness of the many structures of healthcare provision that we have in what is, after all, a small Province of only 1·7 million people. Many will feel that the current Review of Public Administration (RPA) proposals are an opportunity that has been missed to streamline administration in the local NHS.

In education, there is obviously —

Mr Burnside: Will the Member give way?

Dr Birnie: Certainly.

Mr Burnside: Before the Member continues discussing education as the second priority, will he agree that an allocation of money to the victims of terrorism has been left out of the overall funding spend? That runs across different Departments. Does he agree with other Members and with me that priority should be given to the victims of violence? They are often forgotten and pushed from one Department to another.

Dr Birnie: I thank my colleague for that point. I agree that there is a need for a cross-cutting approach to victims, who are so often neglected.

There is a multi- million pound demand for investment in the school estate. I note that the Government seem to have backed off from the public-private partnership (PPP) route. That is surely not an accident. Public-private partnerships are similar to a 20-year or 25-year mortgage, and it may be that the early PPPs, with respect to school redevelopment, did not represent a particularly good deal for the taxpayer. Many, and not just in my South Belfast constituency, would like to get to the bottom of the why, how and who of the PPP decision on Balmoral High School, which was a particularly extreme case of an unsuccessful PPP.

About five years ago, the Department of Education entered into a 25-year arrangement to rebuild that school, which was to have a 500-pupil capacity. The school now has only 200 pupils and is about to close.

11.00 am

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Wells] in the Chair)

Any consideration of allocations of public spending should not only be about how to divide the cake, but about how we can spend wisely in order to expand that cake in future. Wealth creation must be a priority. In our comments on the current Budget, my party pointed out its concern at the way in which the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) budget was being cut. An earlier so-called concordat arrangement to adjust DETI and Invest Northern Ireland spending in line with levels of inward investment seems to have resulted in year-on-year reductions. Indeed, some decisions that have been taken on tourist promotion, or, in practice, the lack of it, similarly show a “penny wise, pound foolish” mentality.

Levels of R&D spending in Northern Ireland continue to place us at the bottom of the league. Therefore, we support anything intelligent that can be done with spending or through tax incentives to boost science and technology in the region. We remain concerned by the lengthy slippage in the writing and publication of the regional economic strategy. It will shortly be a year behind schedule. We are also still waiting, after several years, for the electricity cost reduction package that then Minister Ian Pearson announced some years ago.

When MLAs speak about public spending, the criticism is often levelled that we are swift to present the begging bowl but slow to suggest ways in which to save money. I have some suggestions as to how the output of public money could be trimmed.

Mr Kennedy: Does the Member agree that, on the anniversary of the London bombings, and given that the Prime Minister has refused a public inquiry into that outrage on grounds of cost, it is a matter of grave concern to learn of the escalating costs of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which a member of the Cabinet now estimates at approaching £400 million? Does he agree that that clearly represents a considerable drain on the resources potentially available to both the Exchequer and the Northern Ireland block grant?

Dr Birnie: I thank my colleague for that point. It is an interesting comparison.

Mr Durkan: I can inform the hon Member that the figure of £400 million that Tessa Jowell quoted was a complete aberration. She does not know where she got that figure from, nor does anyone else in the Government. The figure is £163 million.

Dr Birnie: I submit, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, even if it is £150 million or £160 million, or £250 million as other sources have quoted, that seems a very large outlay of money for an inquiry that has satisfied very few people.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Dr Birnie: I want to ask some questions about the so-called national stadium. Is its business case robust? The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Strategic Investment Board have so far refused to publish the business case and the economic appraisal. Will the necessary infrastructure be provided to make the stadium accessible, wherever it happens to be built? What will be done to avoid any ongoing subsidisation charges on the public purse? Surely one way ahead would be to maximise the private sector’s role in the project. That would reduce the drain on public resources and ensure that the stadium would be there to boost tourism and maximise the benefits for Northern Ireland as we approach the 2012 Olympics.

The RPA is a missed opportunity.

Mr Donaldson: I agree entirely with the Member. It is essential that the development of the Maze site be a public-private partnership. Is he aware that the two improvements to the major roads infrastructure in the Lisburn area in the past five years have both been privately financed? Is he also aware that the proposed new Knockmore link into the Maze site will also be privately financed, saving the taxpayer millions of pounds?

Dr Birnie: I am aware that at the moment the so-called national stadium has a budget of more than £100 million. We should bear in mind the examples of stadia in London and Dublin, and indeed of Olympic stadia around the world. We could be looking at substantial cost overruns. We need to consider the detail of any PPP arrangements to ensure that such overruns are borne by the private rather than the public sector.

The RPA is a missed opportunity. The commission appointed by the Government targeted the 26 district councils, which was arguably a soft option, rather than deal with the vast expanses of quango-land and the billions of pounds that are spent there. Sir John Banham recently noted, based on his experience of reform of county and city councils in England in the 1990s, that the merging of councils there did not necessarily save much money.

The architecture of Government Departments chosen in the previous Assembly in 1999 might have been right at that stage, but it may not necessarily be so after 2007. If, for example, Northern Ireland follows the other United Kingdom nations in establishing an environmental protection agency — a subject that I know is of some interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker — we will have to look again at the relationship between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development. I am sorry for making that little point.

Mr Kennedy: No, you are not.

Dr Birnie: No, I am not.

We have argued since October 2002 that the North/South bodies should remain on a care-and-maintenance basis. We are concerned that the current Budget envisages a large growth in the capital spend of Waterways Ireland, for example. The North/South bodies should not be shielded from the general financial stringency facing all the other Departments.

This debate will largely focus on spending, but it is appropriate to mention the associated revenue-raising side. We repeat that Northern Ireland’s tax revenue would be boosted in the long term if the Government showed much more imagination in relation to corporation tax, the derating of industry, VAT on tourism and the fuel excise differential with the Republic. The wealth-creating sector can be given incentives to grow. This debate will probably force us all to face the uncomfortable reality that any return to devolution will not enjoy the best economic circumstances.

Mr Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In an earlier ruling, Madam Speaker indicated that a Member giving way to interventions would have time added to his or her speaking time. Is that convention to apply today?

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member is correct, but of course it applies only to those who have 10 minutes to speak. The Members making the first round of speeches have 15 minutes, and they are restricted to that.

Mr Durkan: We all need to recognise the phoniness of the exercise that we are engaged in this morning. We are supposed to be pleased to have been granted a debate. The Secretary of State is weaving between two vetoes on whether to grant debates and the terms on which such debates are to take place. He feels compelled to humour the DUP by making sure that there is a debate before the recess, but at the same time he has to convenience Sinn Féin by making sure that the topic of the debate is one from which they can be comfortably absent.

Mr Burnside: Surely the Member has forgotten the third veto. Does he not agree that his party exercises a veto by refusing to create a cross-community coalition to get Stormont up and running?

Mr Durkan: The SDLP is not the party standing in the way of the successful working of the Preparation for Government Committee. We are committed to taking forward the work of that Committee; we have indicated how we would take things forward. All sorts of people are canvassing all sorts of plan Bs for what may or may not happen after 24 November. We pointed out, more than two years ago, a way of restoring this Assembly that would have made sure that both it and the North/South Ministerial Council could be fully functional, even if the parties in this Assembly would not form the Executive.

Other parties have not responded to our proposals and ideas. The SDLP is not standing in the way of the restoration of institutions.

I mentioned the phoniness of this debate — although I do not intend to be drawn into the difficulties and shenanigans of the Preparation for Government Committee. The Secretary of State’s motion asks us to address the comprehensive spending review 2007 and asks questions about the spending priorities for a Programme for Government.

The main significance for Northern Ireland of the comprehensive spending review 2007 will be its determination of the overall increase in public expenditure for the UK and, in particular, how that expenditure will be allocated across Departments in Great Britain. The main implication for Northern Ireland is in the Barnett consequentials that it produces rather than the implications for the budget lines of individual Departments. Our main interest is the increase in Northern Ireland public expenditure as a result of the Barnett formula. Northern Ireland Depart­ments are not direct participants in the comprehensive spending review in the way that Whitehall Departments are. That is an added phoniness to this debate.

We should work through the Preparation for Government Committee to see how far we can agree in advance the broad policy colours of a Programme for Government. There may be merit in agreeing some of those priorities before restoration so that parties will have discussed strategic priorities and recognised the social and economic implications for the shape and structure of public services. Having agreed those issues before Ministers are appointed and captured and become fascinated cheerleaders for their Departments, we will have broadly agreed some priorities.

In drawing up a Programme for Government we must learn lessons from the shortcomings of earlier Budgets with their problem of short-termism, because we were only able to produce budgets year on year; we produced annual Programmes for Government. We must produce a multi-annual Programme for Government with real strategic priorities. To do that we need a Programme for Government that is not negotiated just between civil servants in various Departments or between Ministers of various parties in an Executive as a glossy text that can be stuck beside the Budget.

Instead, with the social partners — trades unions, business, the community and the voluntary sector — we must negotiate a multi-annual programme that deals with the necessary long-term public service commitments and which sets out the real patterns of public expenditure that must be pursued if we are to deliver better public services and economic growth and allow the private sector and a strong public sector to grow alongside each other.

That is the lesson of the economic performance change in the South, where social partnership has been at the heart of strategic progress. Social partnership must be based on multi-annual programmes that create clear frameworks so that everyone knows where they stand and where their priorities lie. That way, we will not be ambushed with all sorts of implementation difficulties caused by one sectoral pressure after another.

Parties could do a great deal now, although, unfortunately, they have not got their act together in the Preparation for Government Committee. Too often, business is left to the Secretary of State to determine. I heard Dr Paisley —

11.15 am

Mr Kennedy: Given that the Member thinks that we are engaged in a sham fight, I can confirm that King William’s army appears to be in place; King James’s army appears to be seriously depleted, particularly those Members with any military experience. [Laughter.] Does the Member not welcome the participation of the political parties in the Preparation for Government Committee and see that as a limited form of progress?

Mr Durkan: I do not know of anybody on these Benches who has ever had a particularly good word to say about King James. [Laughter.] Mr Kennedy might still be fighting that fight, but some of us do not regard ourselves as ever having been part of that fight, and we do not identify with it.

Dr Paisley complained earlier that things are being determined by the Secretary of State. Well, that is the way that the parties are playing it. They are leaving it to the Secretary of State to take decisions. Some people are happy to hop between vacuum and veto, and then complain when the Secretary of State takes a decision. The next minute, those same people try to bend the Secretary of State’s ear about the next decision they want him to take. Let us get real about our responsibilities. The Preparation for Government Committee should be doing more work and better work. We want to see that work continue over the summer.

We must create a sense of confidence among the parties and the broader public that restoration is a real prospect. However, the signal that is being sent out is that the 24 November deadline is not real and that restoration is not a real prospect. If we can create a sense of confidence among ourselves, we can then create a sense of confidence with the public. As we scope the main policy pillars of the Programme for Government, we could engage purposefully with the trade unions, the business sector and the community and voluntary sector and reach consensus about the possibilities for progress.

We need to examine a number of issues in relation to the Programme for Government and the comprehensive spending review. In the past, all parties in this Assembly have recognised that there has been a capital expend­iture deficit with a cumulative effect on our poor infrastructure and poor public services. In the devolved Assembly, we placed a greater priority on a stronger capital expenditure performance. That is an absolute imperative. We must increase the scale of our capital expenditure and improve our performance.

The Strategic Investment Board has a role to play in delivering that. Direct rule Ministers have not mandated and structured the board in the best way. We had other plans, including ensuring that the board would be a social partnership body, not simply made up of people who supposedly had expertise in private finance. It would have included people from all the social partners who had real knowledge and under­standing of public sector needs, and of the needs of people who rely on public services. It would have taken on board the insights of people who are skilled in delivery, as well as the ideas of people who can come up with good financing solutions, to ensure that we had a strong investment portfolio across our infrastructure and public services. More must be done about the strength of our capital expenditure.

We need to map out in greater detail the equality impact of our public expenditure and public-sector activity. It is interesting that Government are responding so alertly to the case for special funding measures for loyalist areas.

Some of those measures are worthwhile and are welcome. However, the Government, and direct rule Ministers in particular, have failed to respond to the fact that counties in the west and south of this region show up on maps produced by the Equality Commission as having the worst figures for long-term unemployment and as losing out with regard to employment, the distribution of new jobs over the last five years, and the location of Government jobs and public-sector activity.

If the Secretary of State is serious about the scale of our dependence, in GDP terms, on public-sector activity and public expenditure, and having accepted that those maps are pretty stark pictures of inequality, then he must recognise that Government decisions have a lot to do with that. That is why Government reform programmes currently under way, including Workplace 2010, need to be tested for the creation of opportunities for decentralisation and for a greater equality yield and a greater equality outcome across the region.

Mr Hussey: Does the Member agree that in the areas he refers to in the west, the issues apply equally to the Protestant community as they do to nationalists?

Mr Durkan: I referred to counties as a whole in the west and the south. I did not make any other distinctions. The maps in the Equality Commission’s booklet are very stark and clear. Decentralisation is in everybody’s interest, and that was reflected in this House during the period of devolution. All parties were concerned to see decentralisation. Workplace 2010, however, is going ahead with very little regard for decentralisation opportunities — opportunities for relocation and redistribution of Government-derived employment.

Other spending issues that we need to address in the context of the Programme for Government are the implications of the continued drop-off in EU funding. There will be Peace III funding, but it will not be as much as previously, and other EU funding will be dropping off. That is why funds such as the Executive programme funds, abolished by direct rule in the comprehensive spending review of 2004, must be restored.

The Executive programme funds were to be our home-grown version of European funds. We also need to ensure that Departments do not just assume that the money is theirs to do with as they wish, and to scrutinise again the need for each Department to have its own separate establishment or separate support. There should be far more shared services and shared support across Departments. That will reduce the costs of individual Departments and do more to reduce the cost of Government than a reduction in the number of Departments.

We remind other parties that at the time of the review of the agreement in 2004, and at Leeds Castle, we proposed a number of changes to the workings of this Assembly. We proposed new Committees in the style of the Public Accounts Committee, with one focusing on the cost of government, that could interrogate any Department on its administrative costs and on its budgeting. Similarly, we proposed that there should be a Committee to deal with the effectiveness and performance of different policies.

All of those Committees would have been supported by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, but this Assembly would have provided a strong role in respect of accountability and scrutiny, a role that the Department of Finance and Personnel cannot provide. People think that that Department polices the spending of other Departments — it does not.

Mr Ford: As other Members have said, today’s debate is clearly a complete farce. However seriously matters are taken in this Chamber, we know that this debate was set up for one reason only and that the person who instructed that it should happen will take no notice of what we say.

Had the Secretary of State been serious, he would have taken notice of the Business Committee. Four times the Business Committee has asked for a debate on the Review of Public Administration (RPA). I understand that four out of five parties agreed that, yet the Secretary of State did not give us a debate on the RPA, which is clearly the wish of the majority of the Members of this House. Nor did he ask us to debate the work, so far, of the Committee on the Preparation for Government.

Instead he set up this debate, as has been mentioned already, to try to get round the Sinn Féin version of the veto by giving it a motion that was not what unionists wanted and to try to get round the DUP veto on the setting-up of subcommittees. It does not suggest that it is a good recipe for engagement on serious issues.

Work was done in the Committee on Preparation for Government that would have merited teasing out further in the Chamber. Séan Farren and Alan McFarland — who currently hold the joint gold medal, possibly the world championship, for hours attended at that Committee — could have contributed significantly. However, without all parties present in the Chamber, it is not likely that we will get much from that. The very absence of Sinn Féin in its entirety from the debate calls into question whether it is truly interested in working for the restoration of Government.

Let us look, on the other hand, at an issue on which we indeed had all-party agreement, and not just four-party agreement, but five-party agreement: industrial derating. There was clear consensus in the business community that, in light of the competition presented by the Republic and our inability to vary corporation tax, industrial derating needed to continue. When that opinion was put to the Secretary of State, he took absolutely no notice. It is clear that what we say inside or outside the Chamber, even when there is five-party agreement, is having no effect on the policies of the Secretary of State.

That may explain the low attendance today: it is not only one party that is absent. Many Members have constituency business on a Friday, and others will have thought the holiday period had begun. For the Secretary of State to propose a serious debate on a critical issue on the last available day does not suggest that he is taking the Assembly seriously.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Ford: If he continues with that level of “ad-hocery”, the quality of debate will be affected, because no one can prepare properly without notice. The level of engagement on the bread-and-butter issues, which the Secretary of State says are important, will be so low as to be non-existent. The value of plenary meetings is being devalued, not by those of us who are here engaging, but by the Secretary of State in the way he is setting things up.

Not only does he not want to hear our opinions on economic and social matters; he is playing party power games. That is what the debate is about today. It is a massive missed opportunity. The comprehensive spending review merits discussion in a much more meaningful way than this opportunity affords. It should not have been in a cobbled-together debate, at short notice, and purely for image; not the image of the Assembly but of the Secretary of State, showing his machismo and power in telling us to get on with work.

There is much that needs to be said about investment in hospitals, community health and social services, and schools and colleges; about environmental protection and building sustainability in supporting industry and agriculture; about improving the infrastructure and social capital of people in Northern Ireland; about reducing crime. However, I will confine my remarks to one area that is sadly lacking from the comprehensive spending reviews of both 2004 and 2007, and which was almost ignored in all recent Programmes for Government. It is nevertheless supposed to be a key policy of this Government: building a shared future.

Much of our discussion about the spending review is inevitably on where the money should be spent. A shared future, alongside proper investment in community relations, would release significant sums of money that are currently wasted on segregation. A couple of years ago, the Alliance Party got some low-level research done, as a result of which we estimated that £1 billion per annum — roughly 10% of the Northern Ireland budget — is wasted on the cost of segregation. Last September I heard Mitchell Reiss, speaking on behalf of President Bush, give the same figure. I presume that the US Government have had some additional research done — I cannot imagine that they depend entirely upon our view. The Northern Ireland Office is also commissioning detailed research on the question.

If we are wasting that amount of money, the way in which we recover it and put it to good use is a huge issue for the public purse. We cannot continue to run services in that way, and we cannot continue to fund such segregation with all its human and financial costs. The £1 billion does not include the loss of inward investment, nor does it include the tourism that is lost due to ongoing instability.

11.30 am

I have heard Orange Order spokesmen give estimates about how much revenue is generated by tourists coming to Northern Ireland to see the 12 July celebrations. However, I would love to know how much money is lost every year during July and August due to those celebrations, because when I go to the airport far more people are leaving than arriving —

Mr Burnside: The Member obviously does not understand that people in the Province have always gone on holiday during the traditional Twelfth fortnight. He should attend some orange parades; then he would realise how they can be turned into a great tourist attraction for this country. The Member should stop playing down the tourism industry, which has done extremely well in recent years.

Mr Ford: I was not playing down the tourism industry: it has done extremely well against the background of street violence that has driven people away. If we seriously addressed the costs of a shared future and considered what that £1 billion could do, we could completely negate the effects of the proposed “tap tax”. We could make huge differences to our overall public expenditure by redirecting money more efficiently, by providing more quality services and by preventing, in many cases, two sets of second-rate services rather than one set of decent services.

Recently, the Government gave priority to the costs of the criminal justice system — the costs of maintaining the rule of law — yet little priority has been given to recognising the fact that, in many cases, community relations budgets have been cut by district councils and bodies funded by the Community Relations Council when the costs of dealing with violence and maintaining the rule of law, whether in Whiterock or Ardoyne, have to be met.

In my constituency of South Antrim two schools beside each other are to close; one is controlled and the other is maintained. The North Eastern Education and Library Board is proposing a major capital investment for the controlled school. In the other controlled secondary school in the town —

Mrs I Robinson: Why is the Member in favour of integrated schools, which take a large amount of money from the controlled and maintained sectors?

Mr Ford: I am grateful to the Member for helping me to make my point.

In the case of the controlled secondary school, the North Eastern Education and Library Board is not proposing the necessary renovation of the other controlled secondary school but the renovation and expansion of it to cater for the additional pupils. At the same time, the board is faced with significant costs in transferring pupils from the maintained school, which faces closure, to a maintained school in Randalstown, which is five miles away. A local parents’ group is seeking to establish an integrated college with a building that could adequately cater for the needs of an integrated school. That would make more sense than expanding an existing school that would maintain segregation and put children on buses to take them away from their hometown.

There is a clear financial argument in support of integration, which would deal with some of the problems that the North Eastern Education and Library Board faces and which are being exacerbated by the proposal to close two schools. That situation is being replicated in towns and villages across Northern Ireland. A fully integrated school will not necessarily be the entire model, but, in many places, an integrated school or shared facilities will save significant capital sums. We have to accept the reality that we cannot maintain segregation —

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

Mr McGimpsey: With regard to the Member’s point about saving serious capital sums, Balmoral High School in South Belfast is a case in point. It was built at a cost of £15 million under PPP, and substantial amounts of land were given over for development.

That PPP failed because Malone Integrated College was built closer to the catchment area. Pupils who go to that school get free bus travel, whereas children attending Balmoral High School do not. The result is that Malone Integrated College has taken away Balmoral High School’s pupils, and we now have a school that has failed and cost the taxpayer something in the region of £15 million. Those sums do not add up.

Mr Ford: I do not see how failing to recognise the demand for integrated education in south Belfast and proceeding with the extremely expensive PPP scheme for Balmoral High School was necessarily in the interests of either the children of south Belfast or those who pay the costs. That is not an argument against integrated education; it is an argument for those who make the decisions having a rational plan that considers all educational sectors — maintained, controlled and integrated. I have been pressing the last three education Ministers to do that in Antrim, and it has clearly proven to be necessary in south Belfast. However, I thank the Member for adding to my case. [Laughter.]

It is a simple reality that many of the most popular schools in Northern Ireland are integrated. That is certainly the case in my constituency: one of the smaller controlled primary schools is now the second most popular in Antrim town because it is integrated.

Mr McNarry: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ford: Is this another intervention?

Mr McNarry: It is if the Member so wishes.

Does he agree that in talking about capital, one of the advantages of the integrated scheme about which he eulogised this morning is that it invariably brings a brand new school to an area? It brings not only an educational facility but a building that has the latest and most up-to-date equipment that a school could ask for. Therefore does the Member agree that that building is attractive to parents and teachers?

However, is he asking us to opt for integrated education on the basis that the schools that he mentioned would be part of a merger? They would be part of a merger that had not been given a new building — they would have to settle for second or third best. They would also have to settle for the old crumbling building that has no room for new equipment. Is that fair?

Mr Ford: Will the Member give way? I will not have time to respond.

Mr McNarry: Having been obliged to give way, I am asking whether is it fair that integrated schools —

Mr Ford: Given that my time is limited, how long can interventions go on?

Madam Speaker: Unfortunately, Mr Ford, if you have given way, that is up to you.

Mr McNarry: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Is it fair that integrated schools use the capital to build new schools? The Member is asking us to settle for crumbling schools in areas in which he does not want schools to mature.

Mr Ford: Clearly, Mr McNarry was not listening to my point. Specifically in the context of secondary schools in Antrim, I said that there was the potential for a new integrated school in one of the redundant school buildings.

I had the pleasure to be recently nominated to the board of governors of Round Tower Integrated Primary School, having previously been on the management committee of Spring Farm School when that was established. Spring Farm School is approximately 28 years old, has had no major renovations in that time, and is extremely popular because of the quality of education that it provides.

Madam Speaker: The Member’s time is up.

Mr A Maginness: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A very long intervention was made during Mr Ford’s speech. A person cannot simply get up and make a speech and call it an intervention. There must be some rule for interventions.

That is an example of a Member abusing the intervention mechanism in order to make a speech. The Speaker should give some direction on that.

Madam Speaker: We discussed this at the beginning of this session, and a ruling was made — I believe the matter concerned Mr Neeson. The general rule is that Members must try to be careful not to give way if they suspect that the Member to whom they are giving way will make a speech. If an intervening Member begins to make a speech, it is up to the Member who gave way to remind him or her not to do so — as Mr Ford rightly reminded Mr McNarry.

Members give way entirely at their own discretion. However, we did ask Members to show courtesy to those who were speaking. Mr McNarry has not done that, so I now remind Members that if they ask another Member to give way, they should consider that that Member has a limited speaking time.

Mr P Robinson: Further to that point of order, I agree with Mr Maginness. Madam Speaker, I do not expect a ruling straight away; you might like to consider it with your colleagues. However, an intervention is only an intervention if it is very short. If a Member speaks for a longer period of time, then I suggest that the Speaker should intervene and ask the Member to resume their seat.

Madam Speaker: We will take that point on board. I remind Members that we had a full discussion about this at an earlier sitting, and Members were asked to do exactly what Mr Robinson and Mr Maginness suggest. I will discuss this matter with my colleagues and give a ruling, hopefully in September.

Mr McClarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When did the Secretary of State last accede to a recommendation from the Business Committee?

Madam Speaker: This matter can be decided at my discretion. I will examine it again.

Mr McFarland: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding was that when this matter was discussed previously — and my recollection may not be quite correct — you decided that if a speech was under 10 minutes and a Member allowed a intervention, he or she would be allowed an additional minute of speaking time. By the logic of that ruling, an intervention should last for only a minute.

Madam Speaker: I think that I have made myself clear on the issue. The Member is quite correct; that was the ruling. The discussion arose after Mr Neeson gave way to another Member who then turned their intervention into a speech. We will examine the matter again, as Mr Robinson requested.

Mr Ford: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you also perhaps discuss with the Business Committee whether asking a question three times does not go beyond the bounds of normal good manners in this place?

Madam Speaker: I will look at that also. The first round of Members have now spoken, and from now on Members have 10 minutes.

Mr P Robinson: I am pleased to follow the remarks made by the leader of the Alliance Party about the manner in which the Secretary of State is treating this Assembly. One of the key elements of any deliberative Chamber, particularly an elected body, is that it should be master in its own house. It is very clear that in this Assembly that is not the case. There is a puppet-master outside who wants to pull the strings.

The Assembly should attempt to regain control of how it functions, both in the Chamber and within its precincts.

11.45 am

Anyone looking in on today’s debate might consider that it is not well attended. It is outrageous for the Secretary of State to have announced in the middle of the week that the Assembly would sit on a Friday. It is not a normal sitting day, and no Member is likely to have assumed that the Assembly would sit. In spite of what the Secretary of State may think about the role of MLAs, most have other constituency duties today, dealing with Ministers and others. That is one reason for the poor attendance. This is not an excuse for what may follow, but Members have had little opportunity to prepare for the debate. We were given the motion only yesterday. I hope that people will take account of that when listening to today’s speeches.

Sir Reg Empey: Mr Robinson makes a serious point, and I raised a point of order with you on that very issue at the last sitting, Madam Speaker. Does Mr Robinson agree that the implication of what he said is that the Business Committee will probably have to take decisions via a mechanism other than unanimity? The Secretary of State must let go of the reins and give you, Madam Speaker, and the Business Committee some real responsibility for Assembly business.

Mr P Robinson: I agree entirely. At times, all of us will be sore at the Business Committee for going against our wishes, but if we want to make progress, we must put some trust in the Business Committee and the party representatives that sit on it. If Members, who often have conflicting views, are prepared to trust the Business Committee, surely the Secretary of State should be prepared to do so as well.

Due to the wide-ranging nature of the debate, I want to speak about devolution. Before that, however, I want to comment on the Education Minister’s decision yesterday on the South Eastern Education and Library Board (SEELB). I am not quite sure where Mr Gallagher was coming from. Perhaps he was not aware of what took place at that meeting, or of the background to the situation, when he determined to drag the issue up as a matter of division. It was not a matter of division to the political parties on the South Eastern Education and Library Board. All the elected representatives, from the parties that are gathered here and some that are not, agreed on the issue.

The background to the problem is that a previous board ran up an overspend, not because it knowingly spent the money but because officers of that board had not properly reported to it on its financial circumstances. Only after they had considerably overspent was the matter drawn to the attention of the board, and some personnel changes in the board’s officer corps indicate that that was the case.

However, the Minister is now saying that this board is to be punished not only for a previous board’s decision, but also, in effect, for the decision of officers no longer on that board. The Minister needs to be better acquainted of the circumstances. The current board should not be punished. Worse still, vulnerable children, with the most to lose, will be punished by the Minister’s decision.

Mrs Long: Does Mr Robinson agree that there is a conflict in the Minister’s messages on this issue? He has referred to the debacle of previous SEELB over­spends. Board members have all been instructed to scrutinise rigorously all proposals from officers, yet yesterday the instruction was simply to rubber-stamp those proposals. Therefore, there is a complete conflict in the messages from the Department of Education on the responsibility of board members for financial programming.

Mr P Robinson: That is right, and it is regrettable, at a time when we are trying to get greater demo­cratisation, that when there is unanimity on an issue from Northern Ireland’s political parties, the response from Government is to sweep them to the side and bring in people who will do the bidding of the Minister.

I will move on rapidly from that issue, as I am sure that others will want to make their comments known during the course of the debate. I want to talk about devolution. Via several interventions, it has become clear that the SDLP has a somewhat jaundiced view of what might be described as the “blame game”.  Apparently, anyone who does not agree with them is to blame. I had always understood that to have agreement it was necessary to have all parties, or at least a sufficient consensus of parties, agreeing on an issue. It is not simply a case of the SDLP saying, “We brought out a document, and there is no progress because you did not agree with it.” We could all say that; but it is not the way to make progress.

There has been a lot of talk about the Preparation for Government Committee. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set out what seemed to me at the beginning, at least, to be a logical course —

Dr Farren: Will the Member give way?

Mr P Robinson: Just one minute, please. I am in the middle of developing an issue. The Secretary of State set out what was to be a logical progression. There would be a Programme for Government Committee, which in their terms, would “scope the issues”. That, apparently, is the trendy term for attempting to identify what the obstacles were to the return of devolution. The Programme for Government Committee would attempt to categorise those obstacles, define them in some way, and bring them forward to the Assembly.

The next stage would take place here, where each of the parties would not so much debate the issue, but say where they stood on those issues and the difficulties surrounding them, and would learn from others who would do likewise from their party position. By the time the Prime Minister commenced the negotiating process, we would have scoped the issues, understood other people’s positions and, hopefully, been able to outline that for other Members. We would be in a better position to look for a way to overcome those problems.

That is what I understood the process to be. Regrettably, because of the way the Assembly is being set tasks by the Secretary of State, I do not believe that the issues are getting a proper airing. That would help us to move to the next stage of this process. It does no good for the Secretary of State to issue threats, either about the financial losses that we will bear if the Assembly dies on 25 November, or about rigid timetables.

The parties will not take their decisions based on those factors. Their decisions will relate to principle, and to mandated positions; to issues that have been put before the electorate that has endorsed them. As far as my party is concerned, the issues that block the process are widely known. They relate to the requirement for accountability, stability, effectiveness and the operational efficiency of institutions and structures. That goes to the problems that we have had with the institutions and structures of the Belfast Agreement.

We addressed some of those in detail in December 2004. Let me make something clear: my party did not endorse the comprehensive agreement, as it contained many proposals that were not the first choice of the Democratic Unionist Party.

Mr Nesbitt: On a point of information, Madam Speaker.

Mr P Robinson: I will run out of time if I take an intervention.

Unless those issues are properly corrected by legislation, there cannot be progress. We are happy to outline them in any future debate. The critical issues are those of completion — the need for an end to paramilitary and criminal activity. Those issues cannot be washed away, timetabled away, or bought away. They are matters that stand before the electorate. The people outside know what the issues are. If we want to have stable political structures in Northern Ireland, it is absolutely essential that we do so on a basis that can last. Those structures must be robust, stable and workable. That will occur only if we have dealt with outstanding issues.

We have been going through groundhog day for long enough in Northern Ireland. Agreements are reached, but the underlying essential issues are left unresolved.

We get into some form of Administration that collapses because of the unresolved issues. It would be better by far if we took our time to resolve all those issues and ensure that we build from a firm foundation. We can then go forward and not have the collapse after collapse that damage the prospects of devolution in the future.

I trust that the Assembly will be allowed to debate those critical issues so that it can examine the problems and the nuances of the matters that each party identifies as being important for them. I hope also that the Secretary of State will trust the Business Committee so that it can programme debates to allow those kinds of important issues to be determined and real progress to be made.

I make it very clear that this party wants to see progress: we want devolution and we want an Executive to run in Northern Ireland. However, that progress must occur on a basis that the community can support and one that will ensure that the Executive will be workable and lasting.

Madam Speaker: We have about four minutes left, and rather than ask Mr Jim Wilson, the next speaker, to start his speech only to have to stop, I ask Members to agree to suspend for a moment. After the two minutes’ silence, Mr Wilson will begin his speech. Are Members happy with that?

I will be turning on the tannoy so that my statement about the silence will be heard all over the Building so that people can observe it as they wish.

The debate stood suspended.

First Anniversary of
London Bombings

12.00 noon

Madam Speaker: The debate will resume in a moment. I invite Members and all others in Parliament Buildings, to whom this message is being conveyed, to stand, if they are able to do so, and join me in observing two minutes’ silence to mark the first anniversary of the London bombings.

Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Secretary of State Motion

Spending Review and Priorities

Debate resumed on motion:

That this Assembly notes the results of the Spending Review 2004 and the current Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 and their implications for the spending priorities for a Programme for Government to be agreed by a Northern Ireland Executive following its restoration on or before 24 November 2006.

Mr J Wilson: I associate myself with remarks that have been made right around the Chamber on the fact that the Secretary of State continues to call the tune when it comes to the subject matter for debate. It would be better, of course, if we elected Members were calling that tune. We might not agree the same tune, particularly at this time of the year, but at least it would be democratic.

I wish to say a little more about that. The motion is one that was probably totally unexpected. I question its usefulness. Given the wide gulf that exists between republicans and unionists, only the most optimistic will believe that a Northern Ireland Executive will be restored on or before 24 November, although we will try to achieve restoration by that date. We will try very hard. To link that date to the 2004 spending review makes very little sense.

Why did the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for Wales determine that that motion should be debated today? The Business Committee did not recommend it to him. I have no reason to believe that any party here recommended it to him, but, if so, I am certainly not aware of the fact.

The Business Committee made suggestions to the Secretary of State. It has a long list of motions — 16 or perhaps more. I shall mention only a few, but they include the Department of the Environment’s failure to meet European directives. Talking about spending reviews, funding and finance, the DOE risks incurring heavy fines over our heads as we speak. Post-primary education is on the no-day-named motions list, as is water charges, local property tax and assaults on emergency workers. Those are very important bread-and-butter matters for the people of Northern Ireland.

There was one other motion on the list, tabled by my party, and, in case you call me to order, Madam Speaker, this brings me to spending priorities.

It invites the Secretary of State to note :

“that there is no cross-community support for the current proposals on the Review of Public Administration as it applies to local government.”

Any spending review that will, before 2009, have to determine financial resources for a new local government structure that is fundamentally wrong and which is not supported by the four parties in this Chamber will in itself be fundamentally flawed. There is a problem for the Secretary of State. Following a debate in this Assembly on ‘Draft Planning Policy Statement 14’, the Secretary of State said:

“I will naturally want to reflect carefully on the Assembly debate … I will take account of the views where there is cross community support.”

Had there been cross-community support — and I have reason to believe that there could have been — what would the Secretary of State have said or done?

In November 2005 at the Hilton hotel, the Secretary of State said there would be a quango cull. We know that there was no real cull, just some tinkering at the margins. He said:

“this will cut costs and transfer resources … to the frontline delivery of key public services like health and education.”

Does anyone really expect that his proposals would lead to savings from a cull on quangos?

He went on to say that:

“the RPA has never been a cost-cutting exercise … Nonetheless, I do expect the streamlining of structures to result in significant savings … tentative estimates I have received indicate savings of up to £200 million per annum”.

A colleague of mine remarked that, in a lifetime in politics, he had never seen a review of scale result in savings of any kind.

In another place, Lady Hermon asked the Secretary of State what cost savings were expected from the Government’s plan to reduce the number of local authorities in Northern Ireland. David Cairns replied:

“Savings from the Review of Public Administration (RPA) decisions on local government have been estimated at £54-£73 million.”

They have given themselves some scope to get it right somewhere in the middle, although I do not think that they will even hit the middle target. Here is the line that needs to be read twice:

“The final figures will depend on how the proposals are implemented.”

The proposed structure of local government is wrong. The associated savings are wild guesstimates; they are not based on reality. As I said earlier, today’s debate has been an opportunity missed.

Dr Farren: Like my colleagues in the SDLP, it is with some reluctance — and having participated in the Preparation for Government Committee over the past six weeks or so, considerable disappointment — that I participate in this morning’s debate. It is not the debate with which I hoped we could have concluded this session of our business. I had hoped that some progress might have been recorded in the Preparation for Government Committee. I suppose that having all the parties in the same Committee room is progress, but that is a very low threshold.

Instead, as most colleagues probably know from reading the reports of the business in that Committee, the meetings have been characterised by a considerable degree of vindictiveness and strident allegations — almost personal abuse — on the part of both the DUP and Sinn Féin. If things are not done their way — and their ways are contradictory and exclusive of each other — matters cannot be progressed in the Committee. We are, therefore, left with a situation where the Secretary of State has to decide. It is difficult for a self-respecting Irishman to accept that our business can transpire only as, when and how the Secretary of State determines.

With respect to some of the remarks made by the DUP, since it is present today, Mr Robinson tried to reject the comprehensive agreement a few moments ago —

Mr P Robinson: Will the hon Member give way?

Dr Farren: Well, you may not have agreed them, but the submission by the DUP includes an approving reference to the comprehensive agreement proposals. Among the many conditions heaped by the DUP into their submission, it seems that it is now ready to accept those proposals. It is not surprising, since, in the immediate aftermath of the publication of those proposals, Mr Robinson —

Mr Nesbitt: I see that both Gentlemen are now back in the Chamber. Mr Robinson said that his party disagreed with many aspects of the comprehensive agreement. Does Dr Farren agree that the Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party said that there was only one element that was not agreed, namely the modalities for decommissioning?

Dr Farren: Mr Nesbitt’s memory of what the DUP said is probably clearer than mine. However, it is clear —

Mr P Robinson: Will the Member give way?

Dr Farren: No, you did not give way to me a few moments ago. May I just remind Mr Robinson —

Madam Speaker: Mr Robinson, the comprehensive spending review and the comprehensive agreement are two different things.

Mr P Robinson: Madam Speaker, is it not usual protocol in any debating chamber that if a Member is named he is given the opportunity to respond?

Madam Speaker: You are quite correct.

Mr P Robinson: I am grateful. May I make it clear that the comprehensive agreement was not agreed in any part by any party. It was an agreement between the two Governments, who brought it forward, and was subsequently endorsed by the United States Government. It was not an agreed document. We support many aspects of that document, although not particularly in their present form. We support a range of issues, but the general context is that we have not yet supported the agreement.

Mr Durkan: The comprehensive agreement appeared as proposals put to Sinn Féin and the DUP by the two Governments; proposals which both parties had to accept before 8 December 2004. That acceptance was indicated. Consequently, Peter Robinson described the comprehensive agreement as a remarkable achievement by the DUP. Now he says that the DUP never agreed or accepted it.

Dr Farren: May I continue, Madam Speaker?

While the shenanigans continue in the Preparation for Government Committee, we are faced with a situation where, despite the best intentions — as we might describe them — of the 2004 spending review, we still live in an economy which is considerably unbalanced and seriously in need of substantial regeneration.

12.15 pm

Indeed, over the past two and a half years, all the parties participating in the Preparation for Government Committee have been meeting representatives from the Northern Ireland Business Alliance. They have been preparing a basic framework document on which to base plans for economic regeneration; all those parties have agreed the contents of the document. That frame­work document would have been a more appropriate basis for today’s debate. At the behest of the Secretary of State, subcommittees are to be established; that framework document could be further developed in one of those subcommittees.

The Northern Ireland Business Alliance, and the entire business and social partnership community, must be looking on, with despair and disappointment, at our failure to progress those issues. At the outset of this Assembly, just seven weeks ago, the Northern Ireland Business Alliance gave us a detailed presentation, in the Senate Chamber, which was widely and enthusiastically acclaimed. The alliance expected further work to progress quickly.

The establishment of priorities to underpin economic regeneration will require us to take greater advantage of the social and economic levers at our disposal and to seek other levers where necessary. Those levers are in education, training, and research and development. There are also fiscal levers, such as business taxes, that we already control and others that we may be able to acquire. No modern economy achieves success without a strong investment in education and training, especially in vocational and technical training, and in third- and fourth-level education. The people who will lead the research and development of new products and new processes, and those who will manage and develop new enterprises, are educated and trained at those educational institutions.

Northern Ireland still lags far behind other economies in research and development. An overwhelming proportion of local research is conducted in our universities. That research has resulted in considerable successes in business applications. However, we need to address the fact that much of that research does not emanate from the business sector.

The establishment of an all-Ireland research alliance, through a restored North/South Ministerial Council, would be a key initiative to achieving a more effective role for research and development. Such an alliance would mobilise the research facilities and expertise available in all the universities and colleges of technology on the island and link them with businesses, wherever they are located and wherever it is appropriate. That initiative, supported by public funds, philanthropic and research bodies, and the business sector, should be a strategic priority for restoration.

A newly established economic development subcommittee should progress that initiative in order to make our commitment more urgent. We all made that commitment to the Northern Ireland Business Alliance to show that we are determined to contribute significantly to economic regeneration.

Mrs I Robinson: I cannot let Dr Farren get away with some of his comments. I remind him that the Protestant community in Northern Ireland feels that it has not had a fair deal since the 1970s. In 1985, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was foisted on us, the unionist population of Northern Ireland — one million Protestants and their elected representatives — were totally ignored. When asked why the unionist people were ignored, Dr Farren’s former leader Mr Hume said that it was because they would not have gone along with that deal. That comes from a party that is supposedly moderate and democratic. We do not take lessons on democracy from the SDLP.

With regard to the spending priorities, I want to add my voice to the condemnation of the Minister of Education’s actions in forcing the members of the South Eastern Education and Library Board to endorse the swingeing cuts that will hit the most vulnerable section of the community — children with special needs. I am delighted that those elected representatives stuck to their principles and refused to rubber-stamp the disastrous ineptness of the former board members, who failed to identify the looming deficit of approximately £21 million. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the chief accounting officer to draw that to the board’s attention. Sadly, children with special needs will be the main losers in this scenario if the Government have their way. Unfortunately, the Government picked independents who are neither accountable nor elected to represent anyone in our community and who failed to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the democratically elected board members. They are a disgrace, and I hope that parents make their views known to them.

At a time when the ongoing Review of Public Administration looms, the general view is that there should be more democracy in Northern Ireland rather than less. Those Government appointees, who outnumber elected representatives, should be done away with, and the voices of elected members should be heard. The elected representatives undoubtedly took the right decision. They took that decision on principle, and I salute the stand that those members took, including, of course, the SDLP representative.

How can we deny those vulnerable children every aid and assistance that will encourage them to reach their full potential? Our party will raise the issue in the House of Commons, and I have sought an urgent meeting with the Minister to include Peter Robinson and Jeffrey Donaldson, whose constituencies are in the board area. I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Minister, following my request and having expelled the elected members, will not be rushing to accommodate those representatives as enthusiastically as she introduced the unelected personnel who will deal with the board’s finances from now on.

With regard to the comprehensive spending review, Health Service expenditure in the Province will have risen from around £1·7 billion in 1997 to £3·8 billion by 2008. It now accounts for more than 40% of the Northern Ireland budget. How the Health Service deals with those neuro conditions for which numbers of diagnoses are rapidly increasing will have significant resource implications. Those conditions include autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit disorder, as well as those that result from the impact of childhood abuse. We are part of an ever-ageing population: dementia, strokes and diabetes will use up more and more resources. Trusts are under greater pressure than ever before with the Minister’s tightening of the purse strings.

New service development was suspended, and it is proving a struggle for some trusts to even maintain existing front-line services. The escalating costs that are associated with providing services will result in even greater pressures in future.

Government continues to ignore differential need. There is a greater level of healthcare need in the Province than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The health and social care needs and effectiveness study that was published three years ago showed that more than 20% extra spending per capita is required to achieve the same standard of care that exists in England.

Several factors in Northern Ireland can only add to the disparity between standards in the Province and those across the water. Significant extra health costs result from the continuing legacy of terrorism and community tension in the Province. It costs more to provide services to a sparsely populated region, and low levels of subscription to private health insurance results in a substantially greater burden on public finances.

The Northern Ireland population is growing faster than that of anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The most expensive patients to care for are those at either end of the age spectrum. At the same time, 30% of the Province’s population is aged under 20 years, compared with 25% in England, and there are 40% more adults who are severely disabled in Northern Ireland.

The respected health economist Professor John Appleby has recognised the disparity in need. In a recent study, he stated that in an attempt to calculate future spending for health, a way would have to be found to bypass the Barnett formula. Appleby also claimed that, compared to that in England, our Health Service was under-performing and inefficient. For instance, he identified that the drug-prescribing practice in the Province has led to an unacceptable waste of tens of millions of pounds. That must be examined, because doctors are writing prescriptions ad nauseam even though other means might be used.

Progress on waiting list totals has been made in recent months, but health trusts are under great pressure to meet Government targets. Sometimes that leads to a conflict between continuing with elective procedures and dealing with unexpected emergencies that come in overnight.

The Review of Public Administration has the potential to make improvements to health structures. Health Service reform that speeds up and streamlines decision-making will be welcomed. A reduction in the number of trusts will undoubtedly mean savings on the basis of economies of scale. The one thing of which we can be sure when considering the comprehensive spending review is that the cost of providing good-quality healthcare will only escalate further over the next few years. That is why we must take every opportunity to ensure that the system within which services operate is as rigorous and efficient as we can possibly make it.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Speaker: If Members are content, I shall now suspend the Assembly for lunch between 12.30 pm and 1.30 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.29 pm.

On resuming (Madam Speaker in the Chair) —

1.30 pm

Mr Cree: I hope that the small turnout is not due to the fact that it is my turn to speak, but I will take advantage of that.

I wish to address three issues that feed into the themes of the comprehensive spending review. The first issue that I wish to address is water charging, which has been with us for some time. The people of Northern Ireland have been paying for water and sewerage services through their regional rates and, as no reduction has ever occurred in the regional rates, one can safely assume that we will continue to pay in that manner. Water is essential for life and is a fundamental require­ment of public health. We all acknowledge that our water and sewerage system has suffered from several decades of underinvestment by successive British Governments.

The Government’s current proposals remain unfair for a variety of reasons: The proposed capital value does not take account of the ability to pay; the proposals do not take account of the amount of water used; and they do not provide incentives to save water as required by European law. Focus must be placed on needs in Northern Ireland, rather than comparisons with the rest of the United Kingdom. We are continually reminded that Northern Ireland pays less for rates and water, but that is a crude and unfair comparison as Northern Ireland’s income and expenditure profile is different. Developers should pay for the provision of services to new housing developments. The Government have conceded that point, but there is still no sign of that saving being passed on to the consumer. Road drainage costs should be paid by road users and not by water consumers.

In Great Britain, the Water Service received a green dowry of £1.6 billion to upgrade its water and sewerage services. At the same time, it was agreed that £50 million would be paid annually to Northern Ireland for water and sewerage improvements. That cash was not ring-fenced and appears to have been absorbed into the pot. We are still waiting to see some sign of the Govern­ment’s peace dividend.

There are other issues arising from the Government’s intentions. Water charging will commence next year, and by 2010 the full charges will be applied. Water and sewerage services will then transfer from the Government to the regulator who will decide the charges to be levied by the Government-owned company (GoCo). Some would speculate that the sole purpose of separate charging is to prepare the Water Service for a quick sale.

The experience across the water does not provide much comfort. The water companies wrote-off £960 million in bad debts last year, and it is estimated that up to 15% of householders consistently refused to pay their bills. Leakage targets set by the regulator have not been achieved. Thames Water has applied for an emergency drought order. Those are the benefits of 17 years of privatisation.

While I have no difficulty in supporting private industry as a principle, the Government have left too many imponderables in their plans for water charges for the project to be a success. The Government must cease their “suck-it-and-see” approach to this important matter and return to the drawing board.

The second issue that I wish to address is the reform of the domestic rating system.

The current system of rating has its roots established in the nineteenth century. Very few Members would have been around at the time — although most would have by 1976 when the last revaluation of domestic property occurred. That assessment was based on evidence emanating from the late 1960s, and few would disagree that the system needs updating.

However, the Government’s proposal for a new system based on capital values is again unfair. Basing domestic rates on the capital value of homes is not a fairer system of assessment as it fails to properly reflect an ability to pay. Many householders in Northern Ireland are asset rich but income poor.

In 1995 the average house price stood at £43,826. It now stands at around £140,000; indeed last evening’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’ reported that the figure has now risen to £146,000. This system is not about fairness: it is about Government tapping into a lucrative housing market and squeezing as much as possible out of hard-working families. That is a recipe for disaster for society here, particularly for low-wage earners and the elderly. I acknowledge that the Government has made some gestures in their direction, but much more must be done to affect people on low incomes.

The ratepayer here is already paying far more than previously. In 1998, £166·5 million was collected from the domestic sector. Last year £346·8 million was levied, and this year the figure will rise by a further £20 million. Government seems to be exploiting the political vacuum in Northern Ireland to impose a draconian system for local government finances.

On 3 July the Minister of State assured us — in fact he emphasised — that the reforms were not about raising more revenue. Rather, he said they should make the system fairer — by sharing the rating burden among householders — and easier for ratepayers to understand. I beg to differ on that.

My third point relates to Belfast Harbour. Many Members were alarmed to learn recently that the Government is considering the possible sale of Belfast Harbour. The Government’s document, out to consultation until 22 September, could pave the way for selling off key parts of the Port of Belfast. The Strategic Investment Board (SIB) has denied any sinister intent, but it would appear that the Government might be attempting to asset-strip the Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ property portfolio by selling key parts for the benefit of speculators.

The Port of Belfast has contributed massively to the economic infrastructure of Belfast and Northern Ireland for many years. This untimely speculation could undermine the port’s current £140 million capital investment programme. The port currently handles two thirds of Northern Ireland’s sea-borne trade and 25% of that of the entire island of Ireland.

I understand that the previous Assembly rejected any suggestion of a change in status for the Port of Belfast. That was the correct decision, and any idea of a sell-off is sheer foolishness and shows a total disregard for the future of our infrastructure.

Mr Storey: As well as seeking to make savings in health and education services, amongst others, Government must ensure that their own house is in order in relation to financial management and savings. The hon Member the Deputy Leader of my party referred earlier to the “puppet” Secretary of State, who would like to pull strings to operate this House. It is time that he pulled the strings of those who are in charge of the finances of Northern Ireland.

As an illustration of that, and of the necessity to focus not only on money but on the reform and quality of delivery, let us consider Northern Ireland’s waste management strategy and the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland. I refer to two specific areas. Earlier in the debate Dr Farren, the Member for North Antrim, told us about the virtues of cross-border initiatives and all-Ireland institutions that could be of great benefit to us all.

Let us look at one initiative that should have been dumped — the fridges fiasco of a couple of years ago. The Department of the Environment (DOE) negotiated an all-Ireland contract for the disposal of domestic waste, fridges and freezers, but when the bid collapsed before the contract was due to be signed, some councils stockpiled fridges, while others waited for prices from other places. The Comptroller and Auditor General estimates that the delay in putting the contract in place cost the public purse at least £750,000. That money could have been better spent on public services, and on front-line services in particular.

The Comptroller and Auditor General’s report makes even more damning comment about the Government’s good intentions in promoting recycling, which were undercut because recycling facilities were too often simply unavailable. The Comptroller and Auditor General notes that the Government resorted to the hiring of a consultant — often their first port in a storm. He says:

“A fundamental cultural shift in attitude and behaviour is essential to achieving the Waste Management Strategy’s…objectives. In order to encourage this shift, EHS employed media consultants, in December 2001, to drive a £1·5 million public awareness campaign: ‘Wake up to waste’ ”.

He goes on to note that because sufficient recycling facilities and other opportunities for avoiding waste disposal were not available:

“these improvements have progressed only to a limited degree, the success of ‘Wake up to Waste’ may have been limited, in the short term, and will be more difficult to maintain, or expand, in the longer term.”

Therefore, whether one is talking about health, education, the environment or waste management, we must take an interest, not only in the money, but in the skill or otherwise with which Government can organise themselves to deliver a high-quality service to the public who pay for it.

The Department of the Environment did wake up to waste; it woke up to the reality that it was time to dump the issue with local authorities, and to have them incur the costs, so that members of local councils — some of whom are Assembly Members — would have to raise the revenue and the finance to do what central government should have done.

When the Northern Ireland estimates for the current financial year were published, they were accompanied by a statement of excess. This related to expenditure in excess of the net estimate provision for the Department of Education in the previous financial year. The excess expenditure was not an insignificant sum; it was some­where in the region of £123 million. The Department was rightly criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for lacking adequate control mechanisms to prevent the situation from arising. I trust that, to prevent any such recurrence, the appropriate rules are now in place, not only in the Department of Education, but in other Northern Ireland Departments.

Mr Dallat: Would Mr Storey agree that if this Assembly was up and running we would have our own Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise all the issues that he has raised?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Storey: The Hon Member should recall that the failure and the faults of the previous Assembly created some of the financial crises that we have experienced, so we should not be begging, cap in hand, for the restoration of the failed structures of the Belfast Agreement.

The hon Member earlier referred to the regional rate. It was the old Assembly — the failed Belfast Agreement version of this Assembly — that brought in a 7% year-on-year increase on the regional rate, and the pro-Agreement parties supported it in this House. Therefore, the hon Member for East Londonderry should not be giving any lectures about the restoration of a devolved administration for the financial good of Northern Ireland.

1.45 pm

Mr Beggs: Mr Storey criticised the 7% increase to the regional rate incurred during the previous Assembly. Is he more satisfied with the 19% increase that was recently delivered?

[Laughter.]

Mr Storey: The hon Member from the Ulster Unionist Party should also bear responsibility, because his party negotiated the Belfast Agreement and brought about the situation in which the 7% increase was introduced.

The published Department-by-Department figures for the net administrative cost are interesting and bear some scrutiny. Adding up the net administrative costs for Northern Ireland Departments for 2005-06 and comparing those with the costs for 2004-05 and the actual expenditure for 2003-04, there is a consistent pattern: actual administration costs for 2003-04 were almost £803 million, rising to £854 million for 2004-05 and £954 million for 2005-06. Time and time again we hear that Government are committed to cutting out waste, getting resources to front-line services and doing away with superfluous administration. However, there seems to be a contrast between their words and their actions.

The House needs to pay particular attention to the House of Commons Select Committee report that confirmed that the level of fuel smuggling is so great as to warrant a reduction in the tax levy placed on the people of Northern Ireland. That is significant because a Westminster Committee, weighed down with Labour Party representatives, has concluded that such is the extent of the criminal conspiracy in Northern Ireland that it ought to affect the level of taxation.

One of the groups most responsible and associated with those who have threatened and attacked our economy, jobs and investment is the party that is missing from the Assembly today. Today, Sinn Féin stands officially condemned by that report as the public face of pirates, smugglers, counterfeiters and gangsters. It stands exposed as hypocritically demanding places in government to help to run the economy by day and seek to destabilise the economy by night — to such a degree that the Select Committee recommends a change in Northern Ireland’s taxation.

However, one should not be surprised by that. This week, the true face of the abstentionists in the republican movement has been seen. A Sinn Féin Member of the House publicly admitted that he stole flags and bunting in Lurgan, and it was reported in the local papers. He then prides himself that that was an act of valour. A more sinister comment from a councillor in Cookstown shows the true face of republicans. The councillor determined that the Continuity IRA and dissidents are not hardliners because they have not killed any Brits yet.

That says something about the character and the credentials of the party with which so many in this House are keen for the DUP to sign a deal. Sinn Féin does not have the credentials to be in government. It has a long way to go. With regard to the finances of Northern Ireland, I would not trust Sinn Féin with the finances of my piggy bank, let alone the finances of Northern Ireland.

Ms Ritchie: The alleged purpose of today’s debate is to define:

“spending priorities for a Programme for Government to be agreed by a Northern Ireland Executive following its restoration on or before 24 November 2006.”

That is an act of political contrivance to mask and conceal the real political and economic problems that confront all Members and the wider community.

Those problems cannot be ignored, and they must be tackled if we are to achieve a political resolution that reflects the requirements of all the people.

This morning, the hon Member for North Antrim Dr Paisley informed us that this House was surrounded by mystery. Then, the hon Member for East Belfast Mr Robinson told us that we were not masters of our own house. How can we be, when the DUP and Sinn Féin refuse to allow restoration to take place? It is clear what the DUP must do. It must sign up to a commitment to power sharing and to partnership government. Sinn Féin must sign up to the principles of policing and an end to criminality, as defined by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report that was published this week.

Rev Dr William McCrea: Does the hon Member really believe that the Democratic Unionist Party can sign up to putting into government those who are wedded to a continuation of terrorism, criminality, paramilitarism and extortion? Does the Member really expect us to put those people into government?

Ms Ritchie: The SDLP firmly believes in inclusion. If we want to move forward, and if we want, for example, to correct the funding problems presented by the South Eastern Education and Library Board and counter its unacceptable introduction of commissioners, the political institutions must be restored. Both parties must stop protecting their own territory and get down to the business that the people of Northern Ireland elected us to do. That is the challenge.

Mr Storey: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ritchie: I will not give way. We have already been served a diet of that terrible behaviour in the Preparation for Government Committee. We have been served a diet of insinuation and cruel insult. The people of Northern Ireland are saying that they have had enough. They want us to get down to business and deal with the real priorities. If this was a real debate, we could do that, and be able to define our priorities. We only have to look at our roads infrastructure. For example, one of the key objectives of the Department for Regional Development’s corporate and business plan is to: “ maintain the road infrastructure to keep it safe, effective and reliable and to preserve the value of the asset”.

We have work to do then. There is extreme concern in the construction and quarry-products industry, as the SDLP and other parties have pointed out, that the financial allocation of £58 million for roads maintenance this year is totally inadequate. To protect an asset, resources should not be reduced. We must continue to invest in those resources. Recent statistics have highlighted a £9·8 million reduction in the budget allocation across the four Roads Service divisions for asphalt and bitmac resurfacing in Northern Ireland.

Mr Storey: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ritchie: I will not give way; I have limited time. If the DUP would get down to the business of government, we would not be dealing with this petty squabbling, to which many of us have subjected in the Preparation for Government Committee.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Storey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The issue that I wished to raise was not an example of petty squabbling. I wanted to raise a matter of fact with the Member. That was why I asked her to give way.

Madam Speaker: That was not a point of order, Mr Storey.

Ms Ritchie: I have already dealt with the roads infrastructure and the roads maintenance budget. However, my party believes that, generally speaking, there is also short-term thinking in the comprehensive spending review. We believe that the British Government are passing the buck to the public, who must pay for the renewal of our infrastructure through additional taxation in the form of water charges. That is not just short-sighted but morally bankrupt.

The direct rule Administration has been responsible for neglecting our infrastructure for decades. They diverted investment towards other purposes, such as security, although we would readily concede that both sides’ paramilitaries carried out terrible acts during those years.

It is right that there should be a complete end to all forms of criminality and terrorism. The sectarianism that breeds discontent and terrorism should also end. The correct course of action for the Government would be for them to make good their neglect and make up for past deficits.

If we had restored institutions, we could define spending priorities for infrastructure. There are other issues to consider, including the crucial North/South dimension. If we are to tackle the impediments that partition has caused, we need to deal with the all-island spatial planning strategy, which has come about as a result of the regional development strategy in the North and the national spatial planning strategy in the South. Now that that document has been published, work needs to start immediately.

Other all-island regional development measures must be factored into a comprehensive spending review, and we could do that if there was restoration. Such measures include the creation of an all-island transportation and infrastructural body and the all-island free-travel scheme, which, thankfully, will be implemented next April. For the life of us, we do not understand why that is subject to a consultation here and not in the South. We need a strengthened all-island approach to road safety, given that this week we have seen terrible tragedies, some of which resulted in death.

We also need an integrated approach to road signage, marking, speed measurements and penalties. The benefits of an all-island approach to spending on our infrastructure are already visible as a result of the Dublin Government’s investment in the City of Derry Airport and the joint management of the Newry/Dundalk road construction project, which, coincidentally, Roads Service manages.

Fundamental to the debate is a need for the DUP and Sinn Féin to change their political attitudes and mindsets. We witnessed the semblance of a love-in of the Preparation for Government Committee. That attitude needs to be restored, and I hope we will see some of its benefit.

The obstacles to political progress must be removed so that all our political institutions can be restored. That will ensure that together we can define the spending priorities for a new Programme for Government that will facilitate the renewal and rebuilding of a sustainable economy and infrastructure on an all-island basis.

That includes our social and recreational spheres of life. From a comprehensive spending point of view, we should also look forward to the 2012 Olympics and to what we in the North of Ireland can do to contribute to a greater investment in sport and recreation and to the Olympics — perhaps that contribution can be made on all-island basis.

Our communities demand the restoration of political institutions, and they demand that we all grow up and politically equip ourselves properly. They want a reinvigorated approach to developing our infrastructure. That can be achieved through making infrastructure a major priority in the Programme for Government and for a new Executive.

The SDLP cannot wait for the day on which the DUP and Sinn Féin wise up to their responsibilities and join with the rest of us in forming that new Executive and in making decisions for people here, so that we do not encounter the problems such as those that the South Eastern Education and Library Board encountered yesterday. We should be able to put financial programmes in place for that board so that it can cater for children who have special educational needs. Concessionary travel passes were removed from children who attend schools in the South Eastern Education and Library Board area, thus marginalising those who live in rural communities. Those passes should be reinstated.

We look forward to defining those spending priorities for a new Executive.

Mr McNarry: It appears that the price that we will pay for this debate will be the formation of sub­committees under the charge of the Preparation for Government Committee. If it is to be believed, Sinn Féin will grace the Chamber to debate the reports of the supposed subcommittees.

However, not one of the subcommittees that the Secretary of State has conceded to Sinn Féin will cover a Programme for Government. Instead, the issue has been shunted here for us to take note of today. Surely the work of a priority subcommittee — directed by a Committee that is charged with preparing for government — would be expected to include a report on the essence of a Programme for Government.

2.00 pm

Perhaps it is deliberate that the instinct of a natural agitator, with form and history of rubbing people up the wrong way, is all too obvious in the choice of motion that he has sent to us to debate today. Perhaps it is his warped, cynical arrogance that, in an effort to find favour with Tony or Gordon, leads Peter to report back and say, “Look at clever me. I have contrived to have the democrats in the Assembly reach consensus.” In truth, the consensus is not to prepare for or restore devolution, but one based on disdain for the Secretary of State having the audacity and temerity to insult this House with this motion.

The motion draws attention to a Programme for Government. When was it agreed that a proper Northern Ireland Assembly, if restored, would inherit and adopt all aspects of governance and management that have been introduced and practised under direct rule? If this Hain Assembly threw out its sponsor’s own motion, what effect would that have on Government thinking?

What purpose is there in noting the action of the direct-rule decision process on spending, when the outcome would, more than likely, be entirely different if those spending actions were brought to a proper Assembly by its own Minister? Surely Peter Hain should consider asking this House whether his regime is fit for purpose and fit to govern in the manner that any other part of the United Kingdom would expect, because he is failing to govern in that way in Northern Ireland. I suspect that he knows the answer to that question, and I would be concerned if he did not.

What mark out of 10 would we give him on education, health, infrastructure, fishing, agriculture, closing down crime and protecting the vulnerable from thuggery? We on this side of the House would be hard pressed to give him four out of 10.

Let us set aside spending and look first at the costs involved in education. The Minister with responsibility for education cannot account for the costs of running education in Northern Ireland, because, like her predecessors, she does not know the costs. There is no bottom line, no starting point on expenditure and no monetary or fiscal strategy. The Government are working without a sustainable schools policy. How can someone run a business, a charity, or even a social club, let alone a Government Department, without having a sustainable policy in place? When our community groups put together a funding plan, the first question that they are asked, and the big question that they must answer, is whether their plan is sustainable, yet this Government runs our Department of Education without a sustainable schools policy.

I cannot take note of the motion, Madam Speaker, because that would give the impression that I am content with a spending review that relies on savage spending cuts. The spending review introduces education budgets for the purpose of whipping in punitive measures that act ultimately against children.

However, the Secretary of State refuses to grant us an education debate or an RPA debate that includes education. His arrogance hides his lack of bottle. He knows that in playing the consensus card he sends an open invitation to certain people to use their veto — as they did today and will continue to do until the situation changes. That is what has happened.

Not only does Sinn Féin refuse to come into this Chamber to debate with us, but the Secretary of State now enables it to dictate what will be debated. As a result, he bottles out of approving a debate that was requested by those who show respect to the House, who will attend and who will take part in debates. Instead, we are landed with a Hain motion for the Hain Assembly on the Hain regime spending review allied to the Hain Programme for Government.

It has been said — correctly — that we are all at fault. Although I passionately believe that the objective of devolution is to make elected Members masters of this House, it would be foolish to let that aspiration transpire without first ensuring that there would be a transition period for devolving Departments into the hands of an agreed Executive. What would we take over? We would be ultimately accepting the blame for, and the consequences of, direct rule. The legacy of direct rule will be an inherited shambles, based not on what is best for Northern Ireland and its people but on what the Exchequer sees fit for Northern Ireland and its people in costs only.

It is therefore nonsense to think that I would take note of spending reviews and spending priorities for a Programme for Government unless I had a practical input into agreeing a Programme for Government to be recommended to the people of Northern Ireland. Government cannot be approached without the comprehensive agreement of the vision enshrined in a Programme for Government.

Coming out of terrorist activity and compounded by lamentable direct-rule governance, we need to restore confidence not only through offering a vision for the future but by being capable in this House of delivering the costs of such an agreed vision. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise, and it would be downright stupid to negotiate the restoration of a devolved Assembly on the basis of becoming accountable by default and of inheriting and therefore administering for the foreseeable future not our vision but the policies of the outgoing Government.

Madam Speaker, there was talk earlier about the Preparation for Government Committee. Despite the reference in the Hansard report of a “love-in”, the prospects of consensus in that Committee were not served by remarks identifying some of its members as “the Taliban”. I take exception to that, even though those remarks were not made in my direction. I sat through some 20-odd — and some of them were very odd — hours of intensive discussion and grilling and for one party it was a case of “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil”.

We are assembled here. Rather than take note of the Secretary of State’s motion, I ask through you, Madam Speaker, when is he going to take note of the democrats elected to this House, willing — and showing their willingness — to be in their place of work? When will he do so in a manner that denies the abstentionists any more oxygen to their veto?

Will it be better come September? That remains to be seen, and the onus between now and then is on the Preparation for Government Committee. Does that mean that debates will now be regulated continuously by the Secretary of State? Or does it mean that this Assembly will take control of its business and begin to be master in its own house?

Perhaps, Madam Speaker, over the recess, a decision could be reached and relayed to us corporately. If not, look around you. Is the action of the absentees deliberate, to bring disgrace to this House? If you were a member of the public, what would you think of what you see here today?

It is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to deny the veto process adopted by one party. Otherwise, he is creating a shambles around his own neck.

Mr Shannon: Some specific issues show that the spending review falls down in its delivery to the people of the Province. It is a challenge to outline where it will not meet its mark and where it will not deliver.

One issue, alive in the minds of those of us who represent the east of the Province, is that of children with special needs, particularly in the area covered by the South Eastern Education and Library Board. The boards are under pressure to cut spending, and those cuts will impact specifically on children with special needs. The spending review disadvantages the children of Northern Ireland, especially since the Government are keen to make what they term “efficiency reviews” and savings.

The DUP is, with other parties, committed to helping those who most need it — the children. Unions, parents, teachers and elected representatives vigorously oppose the imposition of a commissioner to the South Eastern Education and Library Board. That matter has already been raised in this Chamber, but the point must be made.

Government are enforcing budgets and threatening education and library boards with court action if those budgets are not adhered to, never mind that the needs of the children increase each year. How can parents be expected to cope when two new taxes are imposed, yet their much-needed services are removed because the Government want to save money? It is unrealistic for the spending review to talk of delivering services while, at the same time, taking them away.

The Government seems desperate to shave off money here, there and everywhere, while imposing taxes on the populace at alarming rates. Labour is the party of taxation; some 80-o