Oral Answers to Questions |
|
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is so serious in all five boards, particularly the North Eastern, that the Minister and the permanent secretary should accept an invitation to present themselves to the board? Already, many schools have indicated to the board that they cannot present a viable budget for the years ahead. Perhaps this is a means of forcing the closure of many schools in our area by the back door. David Burnside: I agree with my hon. Friend and I extend an invitation on behalf of North Eastern board to the Minister to bring his civil servants and visit the board as soon as possible. We shall run through the examples of the problems facing us. There is increasing concern that the overall funding for primary schools is entirely insufficient. One school principal I spoke to recently said that they feel undervalued. There has always been a conflict between the percentage spent on secondary and primary education in Northern Ireland; it has been raised with the NIO before. We are trying not to take money from the secondary sector and put it into the primary, but to strike an equal balance. We have made some progress, but we must recognise the fact that funding in the primary sector does not match the standards that apply in Great Britain—England, Wales and Scotland. There are a number of pressures on primary schools arising from financial shortfalls and constraints. For example, this year’s enriched curriculum—the programme piloted a few years ago by several schools in the Belfast education and library board area that plays an integral part in informing curriculum review proposals—recommends that teachers should be supported by at least one classroom assistant in primary 1 and primary 2. The “Making a Good Start” initiative provides for one classroom assistant in primary 1 classes in many schools in Northern Ireland, but most struggle to afford a second assistant for primary 2. Classroom assistants are essential to help in classes where there is a child, or children, with special educational needs. Classroom assistants are not necessarily provided for statemented children. Additional funding is also required for classroom assistants to help to support children with behavioural needs. The South Eastern education and library board is experiencing such financial difficulties that it has told schools that there are insufficient funds for substitute teachers. That puts pressure on existing teachers, who feel that they cannot take time off—even a couple of days—for illness or personal reasons or to attend training courses that may benefit pupils. All that makes for a less efficient teaching environment. Training is another aspect of education that requires increased funding. If schools cannot afford to train their staff, the pupils will be the ones to lose out. Belvoir Park primary school recently had to engage the services of a charity to help some special needs children in its classes. That had to be paid for separately; schools have to struggle to stay within their budget. Another example of how the primary sector is constrained by immense difficulties is the take-up of the reading recovery scheme. The scheme is generally
The Department of Education announced the new common funding formula to assist primary schools by offering more funding for the sector, but the increased money is being siphoned off from the already tight secondary sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann said during a recent debate that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is not the right way to go about it. I have covered the primary and secondary sectors, but I could have covered the whole education sector in Northern Ireland. The pressures on our schools are dreadful, which raises the question of how the Department of Education managed to underspend by £51.9 million in the financial year 2003–04. Let us reflect for a moment on what we could have bought with that £51.9 million for our boards, schools and pupils: more teacher training, more provision for special needs and more classroom assistants. Why was that money unspent? I do not want to miss out the further education sector, which is the most important area that needs increased spending in Northern Ireland, certainly over the next year. There is need for funding for both capital improvements and better student financial support. The sector is underfunded, particularly for the post-16 age group. That imperative reflects the fact that the sector plays a key role as a driver for Northern Ireland’s competitiveness in the industrial sector. The financial pressures that we are dealing with in Northern Ireland represent an essential aspect of keeping our education system up to the highest possible standard. I made the point last week in Westminster Hall to the hon. Member for Brent, North—the rather embattled education Minister, who was battered from all sides that day in a debate on transfer selection procedure between primary and secondary—that unless we can promote the excellence of our education system to potential inward investors, the business community and local companies that want to increase their trading and expand in Northern Ireland, we have nothing to offer. Education in Northern Ireland is in crisis. I conclude by quoting the Prime Minister, who said, “education, education, education.” I do not believe that the budget provisions will solve the problem, so I ask the Minister and his colleagues to consider every sector of education and to give education a priority in Northern Ireland. Our party and fellow parties right across the political spectrum realise that education is in crisis because of the management of the Department of Education. We need a greater allocation of funds or we will damage one of the great qualities of our life in Northern Ireland: the excellence of our education system. Column Number: 32 4.45 pmMrs. Iris Robinson (Strangford) (DUP): I intend to be brief, as right hon. and hon. Members have touched on some of the issues that I would otherwise have flagged up. As health spokesperson, I shall concentrate on health services. The provision of health services remains a major concern for the public in Northern Ireland. Individuals are generally very appreciative of the quality of care that they receive. The problem is in accessing that treatment. The latest quarterly waiting list statistics for the Province were published last Thursday. There have been slight improvements on in-patient lists, which were deemed a departmental priority, but the number of people requiring an initial hospital out-patient appointment continues to rise, and since 1998 that has almost doubled to 164,672. In England, 1.8 per cent. of the population are on waiting lists for treatment. The comparative figure in Northern Ireland is 3 per cent. Although a proposed increase of 9 per cent. in Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety expenditure for 2005–06 to £3.3 billion may, on the surface, appear generous, health service inflation continues to grow at a much steeper rate. By 2007–08, the percentage rise will be less than 6 per cent. The positive public messages from Ministers do not equate with the demands and restrictions that they place on senior managers out of the media spotlight. Technology is always developing, and much of our hospital equipment needs to be updated. The extra money does not allow for any new service development. Proposed allocations will not even allow trusts to stand still. In fact they are being forced to withdraw services as I speak. A substantial proportion of the extra money available over the past couple of years was needed merely to maintain existing services in the face of rising costs. The majority of recent extra spending has been swallowed up by meeting inflationary demands on wages, goods and services. Those include making changes that improve the quality of the patient’s experience, such as reducing junior doctors’ hours and fulfilling wage agreements negotiated nationally, including the new consultant contracts and “Agenda for Change”. Greater costs are exacerbated by efficiency savings pressures and additional revenue commitments from earlier reinvestment and reform initiative capital investment decisions. The real-terms increase in funding available for service expansion and development has been significantly less. For example, a Secta report for the Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Services estimated that the increase in 2003–04 was 5.4 per cent. An earlier Secta report suggested that an extra £100 million annually for 10 years would be required for health in the Province to counter decades of underinvestment and to bring our services into line with the rest of the country. This budget could mean that that estimated extra total needed annually may reach closer to £200 million. The cost of treating the victims of 35 years of murder and destruction soaked up hundreds of millions of pounds from the local health budgets. I have sought to
I also want to touch on children’s services. Despite the ongoing Assembly suspension, an all-party group on children and young people’s issues was resurrected at Stormont last Friday. There was widespread outrage at the perceived failure of the Government to fund that sector adequately. The abandonment of the children’s fund has been a major blow to voluntary and community organisations, with its implications already directly felt by those in the greatest need. Core-funded statutory services are at risk, with many posts under threat. Many of the organisations have operated on the basis of carrying risk through the financial year. That will no longer be possible as boards will not be delivering at the end of the year. While Ministers claim that the children’s fund will be mainstreamed and maintained within core departmental budgets, everyone to whom I have spoken expects children’s money to be sacrificed for other issues. What is the annual per capita spending on family and children’s services in Northern Ireland and how does that figure compare with England and Wales? How many projects were provided through the children’s fund in the last year, and how many of those will be funded next year? Interestingly, the children’s fund in England has had £410 million ring-fenced for 2005–08. Northern Ireland’s children’s fund has been removed. Many of the leading children’s organisations say openly that they are unconvinced of the Government’s commitment to children and families as a priority in Northern Ireland. I look forward to seeing whether the Minister can prove otherwise. The long history of underinvestment in Northern Ireland is reflected in some of the issues affecting my constituency. I have met the Minister on numerous occasions to flag up my concerns at the loss of manufacturing jobs in Strangford. The demise of Crepe Weavers will cost the local economy in the region of £800,000 per year. Humax Electronics, also in Newtownards, is relocating to Poland with the loss of 81 highly skilled jobs. Last year the Japanese-owned Takata group moved its operations from TK-ECC in Dundonald to Poland with the loss of 900 jobs and approximately £9 million to the local economy. Invest Northern Ireland proceeds relentlessly with its policy of targeting inward investment to West Belfast and Foyle with the lure of generous Government grants. Meanwhile, thousands of jobs are lost on the east side of the Lagan. Everything is done in the name of targeting social need yet deprivation in Unionist areas is perceived to be ignored when it comes to encouraging companies to set up locally. The Northern Ireland fishing industry continues to face pressures from EU fisheries scientists, the common fisheries policy and a Government unwilling to offer our fishermen the same support as that enjoyed in France, Spain and the Republic of Ireland. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the plight of fishermen who own boats that are less than 10 m in
Our concerns about education have been mentioned, but they bear repeating. Essential services could suffer on account of budget restrictions on local education and library boards. The management of certain budgets has undoubtedly been a cause for concern in recent years, and new spending restrictions will lead to cuts in catering, transport and special education resources. School crossing patrols, school meals, music services and school library provision are all at risk. The Department reports a 9 per cent. funding increase for schools for 2005–06, but that is not a like-for-like comparison and may instead represent a real term increase of less than 2 per cent. The increased costs of teachers’ salaries are not included, and next year’s budget also has to cover unavoidable pension fund increases and local government superannuation costs, as well as mushrooming special education costs. The Government have claimed that education and health are their priorities. However, given the expanding costs of providing services, so much more needs to be done in those sectors in Northern Ireland. Regrettably, that will not be achieved in this budget. 4.55 pmMr. Pound: May I congratulate you on your voice, Mr. Amess? Not since Demosthenes out-shouted the sea has a voice such as yours been heard. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) is not present, but if he were here, he would doubtless ask about budget head A3/3 of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, inasmuch as it refers to the Armagh observatory and planetarium. This is a very poor attempt to stand in for the hon. Gentleman, who was, after all, brought up with his father working at the Armagh observatory. I understand his youthful experience studying the limitless mysteries of infinite space led him inevitably to his fascination with Liberal Democrat policy on proportional representation and local income tax. The Minister has generously listened to some of the statements that we have made over the years, and I see that there is a budget increase for the Armagh observatory and planetarium of either £355,000 or £381,000, depending on exactly where one reads it in the budget head. Although I welcome that, and I am absolutely and positively sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire would welcome it even more effusively, I remind the Minister that the money is principally marked for essential and long-overdue refurbishment. Although I entirely support and appreciate his additional investment in that priceless Northern Ireland asset, is he not aware that staff costs are rising dramatically because of the difficulty in recruiting? We welcome the money, but will he allow the absent hon. Gentleman, myself and the fictional Oliver Twist to say as one, “Thank you, but could we have some more?” Column Number: 35 4.57 pmRev. Martin Smyth: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and to join those who stargaze, but we had hoped that the stargazing would bring us some reality in the debate. The reality is, however, that some of us have never found our way through the financial machinations of the Northern Ireland Office, and we cannot understand, for example, why some years back, when we had cries for money in health, the then Northern Ireland Executive managed to find millions of pounds unused in the health budget for use elsewhere. Without repeating the arguments that have been made, I want to touch on what the Minister said about money for children’s services being reallocated to front-line services. The hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) referred to the reality of the situation. I understand why the Minister said that he did not know about Barnardo’s, but it is not only Barnardo’s that recognises the underfunding. None of the boards or trusts think that under the new arrangements they can fulfil the services that they have been using to care for children. I ask that the Minister re-examine the decision, because it raises specific issues. I understand that the Department in question will experience a net reduction in the amount of money available for children’s services in 2005 to 2008, and that that will result in further cuts to services. There is no budget available to implement and resource the Northern Ireland children’s strategy. If some of us have missed it, perhaps somebody from on high will guide the Minister to provide us with the answers, if they are to be found, although those who work in the sector cannot find them. Sometimes when we raise health issues, others immediately rush in to say that we are criticising the professionals. I do not believe that every MP is perfect; this one is not. I do not believe that every professional in his field is perfect, nor that that we have reached perfection even in the health service. I remember a debate in the House with the then Health Minister, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), who then represented Peterborough. I asked whether he believed that we were in heaven yet, and there was a burst of laughter from the Government Benches. He did not understand what it was all about, but he did his best to answer. Only later did I discover that the hon. Member who represented Ayr had said, “The health service exists to prevent you from getting there.” There is not perfection in the health service. None the less, I pay tribute to the work done by so many in it. One difficulty facing those people is restrictions on finance, which I touched on earlier. Money has been allocated, but it is important to realise that when the sums are done, it is only a question of marking time with the wages and running costs. There is little opportunity to develop services, although we all know that the United Kingdom is at the cutting edge of so much technology in our scientific development, including medical developments, and that is going on in Northern Ireland. Column Number: 36 I was rather amazed at the Minister’s answer that no one in Northern Ireland knew about the EU treatment of cancer project, because I discovered it here at a sitting in which we were considering myeloma and ovarian cancer. The experts pointed out that until recently Northern Ireland was leading the way in Europe in respect of treatment, but it had to cut back because of lack of funds. It might be worth while considering that. Of course, the whole health service in the United Kingdom might be wise to ask NICE to reconsider some of its decisions. We have recently been talking about Alzheimer’s. One thing that we must consider is that we are continuing to use blood transfusions in the treatment of cancer. For a short time, that boosts the patient, but then they go down again and another boost is needed, costing at least £750 each time. Some of the drugs now available may not be an immediate cure, but they could be important in terms of time and a better quality of life. Above all, hospitalisation is not necessarily required, with the attendant costs. So there is a case for re-examining what is happening. The Minister said that Northern Ireland has not been involved in Europe, but we are and have been. There was a link right through Europe, Dublin and the United States at Harvard. Professor Paddy Johnson came back from Harvard and developed one of the best centres for cancer care in Europe on the Belfast City hospital site, although we still await completion of the building. We must consider further what is going on. Why does Northern Ireland, where there has been a good medical school for years, not have the men and women in the senior consultant positions that are required? That is one reason for the waiting lists. Are we not providing the proper salaries, or have we not been looking ahead, training people properly and bringing them up through the ranks? I know of many who have left Northern Ireland to take up appointments elsewhere. Although their careers may have benefited—I do not hold that against them—we should have been preparing others to fill the vacancies. One could raise many other issues relating to health. It is important that we again examine the pressures that we put on general practitioners. If we are demanding that they take on more work at primary care level from hospitals, their general practices must have the facilities that they require. Under health legislation, as we shall discover, there will be many claims against GPs because they have not been able to provide facilities for access. I can only think of the Eastern health and social services board. More than 10 surgeries in Belfast are waiting for development grants. They cannot get them. Outside Belfast, surgeries are in the same position. We are asking those GPs to provide those services, but we are not prepared to give them the grants. I press that issue again because it is important. Sometimes—dare I say it—those of us who live away from reality do not realise what is happening and the pressures involved until we have an accident or there is an illness in the family or at the office. Column Number: 37 My final point is about how we deal with folk with disabilities. I will give one simple illustration. In my surgery last Friday, I had a surgeon who is diabetic and has a degree of blindness. He has been examined and is still working—unpaid—on consultancy and guidance issues. He has been assessed. The hospital for which he was working was prepared to provide the equipment needed to help him continue to do his work more usefully, but the disability advice was that that could not be done until the Royal National Institute of the Blind had completed its assessment. He has been waiting since last October for that to take place. He is a qualified surgeon who is prepared to do his work, but he has already gone into his savings and is living on sickness benefit because somebody in an office is stuck in a chair and is not thinking laterally. 5.7 pmMr. Trimble: Like other Members, I want to focus on a particular issue and I am glad to see that the Minister within whose remit it falls has returned to the Committee. I am sure that he will be familiar with the issue of the closure of Worktrack, but I feel that it is worth while putting it on the record. Worktrack is a subsidised, wage-based employment placement programme for those coming into the labour market—particularly women returners—who are not eligible for jobseeker’s allowance. The cost was about £10 million per annum and there were roughly 1,000 participants annually. The social and economic argument for the retention of Worktrack is that it has been relatively successful in getting participants into long-term, unsubsidised—that is, permanent—employment. According to the Government’s figures, it has been at least as good as the new deal, but more recent and probably more reliable figures from the Worktrack providers themselves suggest that it has been even more successful than the new deal. That is an important point because, even with what appear to be the record low levels of unemployment claimants in Northern Ireland, it still has the lowest level of economic participation of any region in the United Kingdom; a programme of this nature, which encourages people coming into the labour market, is therefore particularly useful. Worktrack will end in a few days—on 25 March, I think. By ending Worktrack, the Government are breaking the three-year contract awarded from 1 October 2003, which runs until September 2006. The end of Worktrack is not consistent with the aims and objectives of the Government’s skills strategy paper, which was published in November 2004. One of its objectives was to raise economic activity rates. Mr. Dodds: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The Minister should be familiar with some of the issues because they were raised in an Adjournment debate of my initiation a number of weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the discrepancy between the closure decision and the skills strategy that has just been published. Does he agree that one of the problems that has caused so much anger is the total lack of
Mr. Trimble: Indeed, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it helps to emphasise a point that I had intended to conclude on, but which it will be convenient to mention now. The closure is opposed by a broad range of parties in Northern Ireland. It was particularly unfortunate that, after that bolt came from the blue, the Minister declined to meet an all-party delegation to consider the matter. That is why I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), has returned in time to hear these comments. One suspects that the closure of Worktrack like that of Learndirect and the scrapping of various management graduate placement schemes and postgraduate awards, as well as the scaling down of Enterprise Ulster, all stem from the same problem within the Department for Employment and Learning, namely, that the current tranche of the 2005–06 budget does not make provision for the one-off, up-front £13 million charge on expenditure created by the shift to deferred contribution model of university finance in the Government’s current legislation. That shift and that legislation were voted down in this Committee, as its members will recall. We will bear that in mind in relation to what might happen in the House later this evening. 5.11 pmMr. Dodds: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. I join with the hon. Member for Ealing, North in his remarks about it. We have had a very interesting debate ranging, as our debates usually do, far and wide over very general issues and particular ones, from education, health and jobs to the Armagh planetarium and observatory. The whole thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks in relation to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire could be summed up in the phrase, “The hon. Gentleman lives on another planet.” What was that all intended to convey? I shall briefly make one general point, then raise a particular issue. The general point is that the Minister talked about the major proposals that have been made over a lengthy period massively to upgrade the infrastructure of Northern Ireland: he mentioned a range of projects and said that they should be welcome news in Northern Ireland. Of course announcements are extremely welcome, but, as he knows, as hon. Members know, and as the people of Northern Ireland know, there is no such thing as a free lunch; such things have to be paid for. I should like to consider in detail and ask the Minister to respond on how much of the proposed infrastructure work will be paid for out of the reform and reinvestment initiative. As the Committee knows, the initiative is to be funded by an increase in the rates in Northern Ireland. The rates paid in Northern Ireland are determined by the level of increase in the rest of the country. Therefore, while he is giving us the good news about
The particular issue I wish to raise relates to something that the hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned—that perhaps things could be done better outside the Government regime. In that regard, we must pay tribute to the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland. It does a tremendous amount of work, much of it complementing what the Government are doing. Indeed, if the Government had to undertake much of the work that is done by that sector, some of it grant-aided and some supported, an enormous amount of extra public expenditure in the Province would be required. We are indebted as a community to the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland for a lot of the work that it does in a number of spheres. One sector that faces pressure includes women’s centres and child care providers, particularly in my constituency. We have an excellent women’s centre in the Shankill women’s centre, which I have visited on a number of occasions. It does tremendous work in a deprived, difficult and challenging area. Today, international women’s day, the centre is telling me and others that it faces a crisis in funding. Some of that has to do with the new arrangements under the European Peace 2 funding and its successor. Something has to be done to preserve and maintain the excellent work that groups such as the Shankill women’s centre and others do in constituencies such as Belfast, North. Indeed, the centre does tremendous work covering the part of the Belfast, West, constituency that falls into the Shankill area. Such constituencies badly need that work to continue, and if such organisations and groups on the ground are not properly funded and assisted it will in the end cost the Government far more to step in and take up the necessary work to fill the gap. In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister to consider that issue and to see his way to funding those groups that do such valuable work in the community. 5.17 pm |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 9 March 2005 |