Speech on Budget Bill

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 12 February 2008 on Tue 12th Feb 2008

I want to add a few comments to those made by my colleague Sean Neeson earlier, and by my colleague Stephen Farry in yesterday's debate. I apologise to the Minister that I was not present to hear his opening speech, but I was called away by a higher authority - higher even than the Finance Minister.

I enjoyed much of Mr Durkan's contribution. I suspect that the debate between the current Finance Minister and the former Finance Minister will run for some time. Who knows, when Stephen Farry gets involved, perhaps the future Finance Minister will be involved as well.

Mr Durkan raised an interesting issue about the Assembly's scrutiny role. Although there is a degree of expertise in the PAC, it tends to scrutinise events only after they have happened, and the departmental Committees do not currently have the expertise to examine the full financial implications of budgets and expenditure plans as they are developed. Expertise tends to be in the areas with which the Department deals, rather than in financial management. The Assembly must consider that issue and become much more adept at scrutinising financial matters. If the Minister welcomes the Assembly's assistance in providing such scrutiny, we may be able to increase efficiencies in Government.

Of course, a key issue goes back to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is chaired by the Minister's colleague Mr Donaldson. We cannot claim any level of efficiency for public service as long as we maintain 11 Government Departments and 108 MLAs for a population of only 1·7 million people.

Speaking as leader of the opposition and in support of my colleague, I must point out that our party does not have the resources to develop a detailed financial model and alternative Budget. However, we do have the right to scrutinise what is being proposed. We will continue to exercise that right and to ask questions about the decisions that are being taken.

One question that has not been satisfactorily resolved at this stage relates to the overall level of the resources available. It is clear that the meetings that took place in 11 Downing Street before the restoration of devolution failed to produce any significant extra funding. The outcome of the Varney Review was also disappointing, as the Assembly is still unable to take greater responsibility for fiscal matters. We will have to wait for the outcome of Varney II, but, in the meantime, we have to consider the available resources and what priorities we have for that expenditure.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel was right to express concerns about the level of rates increases under direct rule. Increases of between 8% and 19% were completely ridiculous, totally above any level of inflation or any justification in terms of public services. However, making a statement that for three years there should be what is effectively a 2% or 2·5% cut in the regional rate is not necessarily the right measure to take, because it is not inflation-linked. I notice that Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) have expressed concerns about what is in effect a real-terms cut in rates. There is an issue as to whether we can afford to take such a cut, especially given that we are looking to invest for the future through building the economy, as has been emphasised.

Significant efficiency savings are clearly required, but have yet to be identified. There is no doubt that much of Government in Northern Ireland is less efficient than in other regions of the UK. We need to deal with that issue, and we need to be realistic about it. There will be implications as to how we can deal with public services in the future if adequate income is not generated.

The Minister would be disappointed if I did not emphasise that part of this involves considering where savings can be made regarding the cost of segregation, allowing funds to be reinvested in more productive services. I know that Sean Neeson has again repeated our offer to engage with the Minister. When a little bit more work has been completed by our limited number of extremely hard-working staff, I hope that we will be able to have a useful discussion with the Minister and contribute constructively to the addressing of that issue.

The Minister has said on many occasions that the real issue for us is not that our public sector is too large, but that our private sector is too small. We have a real challenge as to how we divert current expenditure from where it is not achieving full results to where it can assist in developing economic growth and funding the public services in matters such as education and health - particularly mental health - which have a direct contribution to make to the economy. At this stage, we have doubts that the Budget will redirect resources to enable that to happen.

We need to invest in the drivers that will develop the economy, and we need to invest in the public services that support the entrepreneurs and investors who will make those changes. We, on these Benches, are entitled to remain sceptical at the same time as saying that, in a spirit of goodwill, we accept the points that the Minister made. We will certainly engage with him to seek to improve the quality of public services and the way in which money is expended by him and his Department.

Related Link:

Hansard.