Supply Resolution (2007-08 Budget)

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 11June 2007 on Tue 12th Jun 2007

Mr Ford: The Assembly is in an interesting position. All parties in the Chamber have highlighted that. Everyone says that change is needed but that it is impossible in 2007. The Minister has been given the most extraordinarily easy ride. I suspect that during debates on the comprehensive spending review (CSR) and future Budgets he will have a more difficult task to deal with. Even DUP Back-Benchers may not be so well behaved.

That surprising unanimity is inevitable in the peculiar circumstances in which the Assembly finds itself - with no choice but to accept the direct rule Budget for 2007. However, all parties are looking towards the CSR in the autumn and future needs. There has been a lovely mixture of thoughts such as, "Will we need to be careful and not increase taxation?" alongside, "Here is the pet scheme for my constituency that will get me a good headline in my local paper this week". The Assembly must ensure that it identifies potential savings as well as future expenditure. Although the debate is on the Supply Resolution for 2007-08, the issue being discussed is actually the CSR. The Assembly is already looking ahead.

In that context, I want to clarify for certain Members of the DUP that when the Alliance Party referred to free personal care in a recent debate, it specified that the topic should be dealt with in the CSR and not immediately. Indeed, when my party proposed an amendment to the Health and Personal Social Services Bill in 2002, it made clear that that was an enabling proposal intended for when the money became available. The Assembly needs to be realistic and acknowledge that the £50 million cost of personal care, compared to £750 million on the regional rate, is somewhat less than 25%. If the money were taken in that way, the cost would amount to just 6% or 7%.

It is critical that the Assembly begins to invest to save and to invest for the future. The Minister highlighted that he seeks to make efficiency savings of 3%. That is crucial. However, if progress is to be made, those efficiency savings cannot be made in the traditional way - by making changes of 3% to the way that every Department operates. That is why the enormous cost of segregation must be dealt with. It is the elephant in the room that many Members are reluctant to acknowledge and that the Ulster Unionist Party seems to believe does not exist at all.

The direct costs of segregation must be dealt with. Policing is not part of the Assembly's budget at present. However, there are other direct costs.

The Assembly must examine the serious issue of duplication of services: for example, despite more money being spent per capita on education, less is getting though to classrooms than in any other region of the UK. If such issues are not dealt with, there is no point in tinkering around with efficiency savings of 2% or 3%. Changes must be made to the way that services are delivered that will ensure that there is value for money throughout Departments and that that 30% overspend on education will be eliminated.

The huge costs of lost opportunities that arise from segregation must also be recognised; for example, the loss of tourism, foreign direct investment and other major problems that have occurred because of the difficulties in our society. If there is to be serious engagement with efficiency, those costs must be eradicated. The issue is not about where efficiency savings of 3% can be made but of the vast amount of money that is wasted on the cost of segregation.

Members are aware that there is to be yet another round of regional rate increases that are above the rate of inflation. If the Minister can ensure that those increases can achieve value for money, he must also ensure that the excessive costs that must be treated as a priority in 2007 are not left for the future. So far, there has been relatively limited value for money from the Chancellor's economic package. If progress is to be made, more must be done to reduce the waste and excessive spending of our own resources. Perhaps then the Assembly can go to the Chancellor and ask for the additional money that is needed to invest in and build the shared future that will benefit society and the economy.