Northern Ireland Assembly, 29 January 2008

335 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment, Mrs Arlene Foster, that she wishes to make a statement on the decision that she has taken on a major planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd for a visitor and study centre on land that is adjacent to the Giant’s Causeway world heritage site.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am making this statement on the outcome of my consideration of the planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd to construct a new visitor and study centre at the Giant’s Causeway world heritage site.

To say that there has been considerable interest in, and comment on, the application in recent months is an understatement. Much of that interest has been wholly irrelevant to my consideration of the planning merits of the application. For that reason, it is important to set out the materially relevant facts of that period, which led me to the conclusion that I am announcing today.

In a public statement on 10 September 2007, I said:

“I have recently received a report from the Planning Service on a planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd for a new Visitor and Study Centre at the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site. I have given this report my fullest consideration and have also taken the opportunity to visit the site.

Having done so, I have concluded that there is considerable merit in what is proposed and I am of a mind to approve it.”

I said that I was “of a mind” to approve the application, not “minded” to do so.

Although Seaport Investments Ltd submitted an outline rather than a full proposal, given the speculation and comment in the media — and elsewhere —during the summer about visitor facilities at the Giant’s Causeway, I felt that it was important to make my view public. The proposal attempted to minimise the visual intrusiveness of what was planned; it had an imaginative design; it provided extensive facilities; and it attempted to resolve access issues by devising new road arrangements.

However, I also stated clearly that I had concerns about some aspects of the proposal. I quote again from my statement of 10 September:

“I have asked my officials to engage with the developer and key local stakeholders on some aspects of the proposal so that I can make a formal decision on it at the earliest opportunity.”

The three key local stakeholders were the developer, the National Trust and Moyle District Council. I, therefore, made it equally clear that no decision had been made on the application and, indeed, that a decision would not be made until I had received a further report from my officials. Regrettably, that point was missed by a lot of commentators and, indeed, by Members of the House.

The aspects of the proposal to be further considered were its impact on the world heritage site; its ability to integrate into the landscape; its relationship to other developments in the area; and its relationship to the existing visitors’ centre.

My officials’ engagement with the key stakeholders has been completed, and I have received their report on the outcome and their reassessment of the application in light of that.

Discussions with the stakeholders revealed a significant amount of common ground. All three valued the world heritage site status; all three agreed on the value of the landscape and the need to minimise development; and all three considered that there should be only one visitor facility at the Giant’s Causeway, that it should be world class and that it should be provided as soon as possible.

However, there was no consensus on the way in which those agreed goals might be achieved. Indeed, the possible solutions suggested in relation to the proposal were mutually exclusive and there was no evidence from my officials’ discussions with the stakeholders that any of them would be acceptable or that agreement was a realistic possibility.

Against that background, I have reconsidered the Planning Service’s report and recommendation on the proposal, which I received in June last year, together with the further report on engagement with the applicant, the National Trust and Moyle District Council, and the Planning Service’s subsequent reassessment.

Although I still see considerable merit in the proposal, I consider that that does not outweigh the planning concerns that I continue to have about it and which clearly are not capable of being addressed to my satisfaction. I am convinced that the proposal, as it stands, would have an adverse impact on the world heritage site, as I believe that it could adversely affect the character of the area. There are serious doubts that the proposed development would adequately integrate into the landscape, and it would add to the spread of development at this sensitive location. I have, therefore, concluded on balance and on further reflection that the application should be refused.

In reaching that conclusion, I have also considered the need for a local public inquiry. However, I am satisfied that all representations on the proposal have been properly considered and that all other materially relevant planning considerations have been taken into account. I, therefore, feel that there are no other issues that would merit or require further examination or inquiry.

In light of that, I have decided that a notice of opinion to refuse the application should be issued to the applicant, and I have instructed my officials to proceed on that basis.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing the matter before the House today. As Members will be aware, the Committee for the Environment has been seeking extensive detail on the planning application for a considerable time. That work has culminated in the Committee’s recent decision to apply for full openness and disclosure under section 44 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I am glad that that course of action may have acted as a catalyst for bringing the matter to the House today.

Will the Minister state what opinions and views were given both in her Department and to her Department that to proceed with the planning application could put the Giant’s Causeway’s status as a world heritage site in jeopardy? I note that she referred to a lot of commentators and Members of the House missing the point that no decision had been made. Did that apply equally to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who clearly was interpreting her as saying that she was minded to approve the planning application?

In relation to the application for outline planning permission at the site, will the Minister clarify whether her officials have engaged in any discussions with a developer or developers about a further proposal or amended proposal on the site at the Giant’s Causeway?

Finally, is the culmination of events today a case of saying, “Junior, this is another fine mess you’ve got me into”? Go raibh maith agat.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am disappointed that the Committee Chairperson should make such a statement when he knows full well that the decision has been made on planning grounds alone. On 10 September 2007, I said that my initial decision was that I was “of a mind to approve” the application. I stated clearly that it was not a formal decision but an opinion and that my Department would enter into a process to seek the views of the other stakeholders about the difficulties. The Chairperson knows that when I attended the Environment Committee meeting on 20 September 2007 to discuss the matter, I set out the four issues that I referred to in my statement today. It should come as no surprise to him that the world heritage site is one of those issues.

During the time that the process was continuing between Planning Service and the stakeholders, I took the opportunity to visit the Jurassic Coast in the south of England, another world heritage site of natural distinction, to see what was being done there to protect the world heritage status. I found that visit very helpful to me in coming to the decision that I announced today.

The Chairperson asked about the existence of an alternative proposal on the horizon and whether there have been any discussions about that. I have had no discussions about an alternative proposal. I considered the existing application on its own merits, as I am legally bound to do. I reached my decision based on a careful assessment of the views of the Planning Service, of the consultees and the representations received from right across Northern Ireland. It should come as no surprise to the Chairperson that my decision was based solely on the planning application that was in front of me. I have always been very careful and very straight about the issue.

With regard to the responsibilities of other Ministers, I am sure that the Committee Chairperson will have an opportunity to ask them about their position on visitor centre facilities. My concern is the planning issue. It has always been a planning issue, and that will continue to be the case.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Although I have allowed the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment some latitude in his questions to the Minister, I have to say to other Members that I expect them to ask specific question on the statement and not to go all around the world. I warn the House about that matter.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Mr Speaker, I shall try to keep my question rooted in the north coast.

I commend the Minister on her statement. She has expressed a considered opinion and not a knee-jerk reaction, as has sometimes been the case in the House, and taken a decision based firmly and clearly on planning grounds. In light of today’s decision and a commitment to release papers once that decision had been taken, will the Minister say whether she regards the decision of the Environment Committee, taken a mere week and a half ago, against clear-cut legal advice, to seek a section 44 application, to be — and to put it at its most generous — premature?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his comments. I have always made it clear that everything would be released once the decision had been taken. That decision has been taken as of today. Therefore, all documents will be made available to the Environment Committee and to anybody else who wishes to view them. I expect a long queue outside Millennium House over the next few days.

With regard to the proposed action of the Environment Committee, I understand that its legal advice was that such action was premature. My legal advice said that it was premature. I was disappointed, to say the least, that the Committee decided to go down a political route to try to get those papers, when I knew fine well that that was not going to be the case.

It was premature, because a decision is necessary to get papers of that kind, and no decision had been made — until today. I reiterate: that decision has been made and those papers will be made available.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I echo other Members who have spoken in welcoming the Minister’s statement. It goes without saying that much of what has happened in the past four months has damaged public confidence in the Planning Service. Today’s decision will help to ensure protection of the Giant’s Causeway’s world heritage status. It is a good decision for the Causeway, and in the eyes of the local community, and sends a clear message that relationships between Assembly Members and developers cannot be used to override the Planning Service’s integrity, independence and transparency. I, therefore, welcome the Minister’s decision, and move on to my question.

The Minister said that she will make available all the documents requested by the Committee for the Environment. Will she make those available to the Assembly today? Can she confirm that the manage­ment board of the Planning Service, early in 2007, recommended that the application be refused?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have already said that the papers will be made available; however, administrative issues must be sorted out. The Member knows well that the file was brought to the Committee for the Environment to allow members to inspect it. I am happy to offer that facility again; I am sure that my officials will bring the file again, should the Committee want it.

I do not accept that people have no confidence in the Planning Service. Today’s decision is an indication of the Planning Service working well with key local stakeholders, and the Member had comments to make when that process was ongoing. That process, however, has borne fruit, in the elements that I mentioned — for example, recognition of the value of the world heritage status is very important to those who live in that area, and I am sure that the Member will acknowledge that.

The Member commented on the advice given to me by Planning Service officials on receiving the report in June 2007. As he well knows, I made no decision until today; therefore, I did not go against advice from Planning Service officials. I considered the advice then, and again, having reflected on the process that I began, and I came to my decision today. When the Member sees the report from the Planning Service, he will know what was said to me, and he may well see the direction that the process was taking.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is good that common sense has, eventually, prevailed. The issue began in 2002 and, since then, Ian Paisley Jnr has lobbied extensively — Prime Ministers, Presidents, or whatever — but we know, because both Ministers —

[Interruption.]

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Mr Speaker, I need to sort of lead into it —

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have always allowed Members some latitude in getting to their questions. However, we do not want statements further to the Minister’s statement. We expect questions on that statement.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Mr Speaker, I agree. However, there must be a context to a question, otherwise no one can understand why it is asked.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Right, I shall ask my question. What was the unseen factor that allowed the Minister to make her decision in September 2007, against the advice of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) and the expectation of her Department, as indicated in a memo? What factor has no one else seen that allowed her to be minded to give that decision in September?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There is a couple of issues there, and I am sorry that the Member did not hear the statement. Perhaps he has difficulty with hearing: I am not sure.

I said that a decision was not taken in September — and I repeat, was not taken in September. Moreover, I said that I was “of a mind”; I did not say that I was “minded”. Frankly, one gets rather fed up of being wrongly quoted by other Assembly Members. Really, they must see —

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Deliberately: that is absolutely correct.

In September, I said that the proposal had considerable merit, and I still believe that. I want to outline that considerable merit, although I have said it in the statement. Clearly, again, Members were not listening to the statement, although they have it in front of them.

Although the proposal was at outline stage, it was clear to me that attempts had been made to minimise the visual intrusiveness of the proposed centre by grassing over roofs and exposed surfaces and by locating part of the car park underground. It had a very imaginative design, as I am sure those who have looked at it will agree. It provided extensive facilities for visitors to the Giant’s Causeway, with an auditorium, cafe and library, and attempted to resolve access issues with new road arrangements that were to be put in place as a result of the development.

There are no hidden factors in this statement today. I said what I said in September because I thought that the proposal had merit. I asked people to go away and look at it and to engage with local stakeholders to see whether the four other issues that I outlined to the Environment Committee could be dealt with. Unfortunately, they could not be dealt with, and, therefore, we are in the position where we have had this decision today.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that I, too, welcome her statement today, even if it is somewhat belated.

However, is it not the case that her announcement of 10 September totally failed to take account of the concerns of UNESCO, the seven serious grounds for refusal that were laid out by the Environment and Heritage Service and the draft northern area plan — a material consideration at that time? What has changed between then and now that has meant that she has finally announced the right decision, having said that she was of a mind to take the wrong decision? In particular, does this not illustrate that there is a serious environmental protection issue in the way in which the Planning Service deals with key issues such as the Giant’s Causeway? This was not simply a planning application; it was a matter of environmental protection policy that needed to be fully discussed.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that this has been the most discussed planning application in the history of time, so that last point is completely out of order.

In relation to my decision’s being “belated”, I announced on 10 September that I was “of a mind”. A process then took place. That process was completed at the end of November. The Planning Service then reflected and sent me a report in, I think, the middle of January. I then came to the decision that I have announced today. I do not think that I could have done it any more quickly and, frankly, I would not have wanted to, because this is a very important application.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I did not ask about speed.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

He did ask about speed; I think that the Hansard report will show that he said “belated”.

Obviously UNESCO, EHS and the draft northern area plan are all issues that I have considered, both in June, when I received the initial report, and since receiving the final report from Planning Service today. I have taken them all on board, and they are reflected in my decision.

As for Mr Ford’s comments about the need for more independence, he is very creative in his arguments for an environmental protection agency (EPA), but even Members of this House will think that it is a bit tenuous to be arguing for an EPA on a decision —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I did not mention it.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You did mention independence. Again, Mr Speaker, the Hansard report will show that. I listen to people who make comments, unlike some Members of this House who do not.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Nobody is saying that.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am saying that the EHS has made points to me. Those will be made available so that people can see what they are. The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, which is my statutory advisory body, made two reports to me on those issues. That independent statutory advisory committee has also advised me on this matter.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Although some Members will attempt to make cheap political points, I am particularly disappointed that the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, speaking in that capacity, has tried to do so. It is important to note that since the Minister’s statement in September, there has been much discussion about the Giant’s Causeway site, which has been slightly rich —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. Minister?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I have not actually asked the question yet.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Again, there would be less trouble if Members would just come to their questions.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

As I was saying, there has been lots of discussion about the site, despite the fact that there had not been for many years before. That is a positive development. We have heard many proposals, even if there is no substance there.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

With that in mind, Mr Speaker, have the proposals that have been mooted in the past weeks and months had any bearing on the decision that the Minister has announced today?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sorry to say that I did not hear the question. [Laughter.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

We have engaged in a great deal of discussion about the matter over the past weeks and months, which did not happen previously, and we have heard that other people have submitted proposals, even if there is little substance to them. Given that, have those proposals affected in any way the decision that the Minister has announced today?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Absolutely not. Since the beginning of the process, I have stated that the decision on this application must be made on its own merits. After 10 September, there were some rumblings about other proposals being submitted, but I have received no other formal applications. Had I received any such applications from other developers, they would not have had a bearing on this application. That is because each must be judged on its own merits.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I was “of a mind” to thank the Minister for her statement, but now I have decided that I will thank her.[Laughter.]

Unlike other Members, I will ask my question quickly. The planning aspect of the issue is important for tourism. Given that we need a resolution to this for the benefit of tourists who will come to the North, will the Minister work closely on the matter with her colleague the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment? We must ensure that we proceed carefully and work closely with the other stakeholders, including Moyle District Council and the National Trust.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am only too happy to work on this matter with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who I see has just arrived in the Chamber. In the near future, a planning policy statement (PPS) on tourism will be published. I know that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is looking forward to the publication of that PPS so that we can discuss how the relevant tourism issues pertain to planning.

A great deal was made of the fact that before I made my “of a mind” decision on 10 September, I had actually had the temerity to speak to my Executive colleague about the planning application that we are discussing. That is called joined-up Government; I will continue to be involved in that process, and I will continue to talk to my colleagues about the issues that are relevant to them. On matters that are solely within the remit of my Department, such as planning matters, I will seek my own guidance and that of the Planning Service.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Again, unlike other Members, I will not attempt to make any cheap political points.[Interruption.]

Having said that, I will ask my question directly. We know that concerns have been expressed about this application, so will the Minister tell the House whether she will take that into account when considering similar applications that relate to the location in question?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I have said already, each application that is submitted for a development in any location, including the Giant’s Causeway area, is treated on its own merits. The Giant’s Causeway is a sensitive location in that it is our only world heritage site — although I hope that that will change and that we will have more. I know that certain areas in Northern Ireland are seeking world heritage site designation.

Therefore, any other application that I receive for proposed developments at the Giant’s Causeway must fit the criteria that I have talked about today. Those include, as Mr Ford said, the draft northern area plan, UNESCO’s check list for world heritage site designation, and, obviously, any concerns that EHS has about that environmentally sensitive area will be related to me.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Despite Ian Paisley Jnr’s having lobbied everyone else in the universe on the application for a development at the Giant’s Causeway, will the Minister confirm that not a word passed between her and Mr Paisley Jnr on the matter before September? Does the Minister agree that, had she made a decision on the matter four months ago, she would have spared her party a great deal of embarrassment?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thought that I had made it clear that this issue was not about party-political point-scoring, nor was it about anything other than the planning application that was submitted to me — the only application that was submitted to me in connection with the world heritage site.

As I said on 10 September 2007, I was concerned that since 2000, there have been no visitors’ centre facilities of a world-class standard at the Giant’s Causeway. I attempted to deal with the issues connected to the planning application that had been submitted to me. On reflection, and having received the Planning Service’s report, I have had to turn down that proposal. That means that, at present, no applications have been submitted in relation to the world heritage site at the Giant’s Causeway. I hope that that will change soon.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Like others, I welcome this decision and the Minister’s statement. Three DUP Ministers have dug deep holes for themselves at the Giant’s Causeway; Mrs Foster has, very wisely, stopped digging; the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment can certainly get out of the hole that he created; however, I am less confident about the position of the third Minister.

Will Mrs Foster now agree that her “minded” decision of 10 September 2007 was fundamentally wrong for two reasons: first, it depended on getting the agreement of Moyle District Council and the National Trust, which had not even been tested, never mind obtained; secondly, she says herself in her reasons for refusal that the proposal:

“could adversely affect the character of the area”

and that

“There are serious doubts that the proposed development would adequately integrate into the landscape and it would add to the spread of development at this sensitive location.”

Will the Minister agree with me that all that infor­mation was available before 10 September 2007 and was provided to her by her departmental officials?

Bearing in mind that there is an offer from the National Trust, with the full co-operation of Moyle District Council, to adopt the public-sector proposal —

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

It is a very welcome development. Will the Minister give her full support to that project, and will she facilitate, fully and rapidly, a planning application for it? Will she give full support in the Executive to the development of that proposal to ensure that a visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway is built and opened in the lifetime of this Assembly?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I hope that the Member is not suggesting that I consider an application other than on strict planning grounds. That is not what I am going to do. [Interruption.]

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If a formal application is submitted, I will consider it in the same way and on the same grounds as I would any other. There will be no favouritism for any application.

The Member said that I should not have embarked on the process that the Planning Service embarked on in September 2007 because it had not been tested. However, the point was to test the grounds for agreement. As I said in my statement, agreement was reached on matters relating to the world heritage status of the site and on other issues. The Member claims that the information was available to me at that time, and he is right. A great deal of information was available to me at that time, but I wanted to establish whether there was any leeway on the part of the landowners — the National Trust and Moyle District Council — and whether there was a willingness to develop what the Member so rightly wants to see at the Giant’s Causeway: a world-class visitors’ centre for everyone who visits it.

The Giant’s Causeway is our top tourist attraction, yet it does not have a world-class visitors’ centre. That should concern all of us. It was incumbent on me to find a way through the problem. No other applications have been received to date.

I hope that an application will very soon be lodged that is of a quality that can have the support of the Planning Service and everyone in the House so that we can move forward with this matter.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to score some political points this morning. I commend the work of my colleague Daithí McKay. He was referred to in a Committee meeting as a one-trick pony, but he has romped home on this matter; if I were a betting man, I would be in pocket.

I welcome the statement from the Minister. After months of speculation, a decision has finally been made that is based on planning policy, rather than on any outside influence. In the Programme for Government, the Minister —

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am coming to the question now. Mr Speaker, you showed some latitude to other Members.

It appears from the Programme for Government that there will be an overhaul of the Planning Service. Can the Minister assure the House that proper measures will be put in place to ensure that, in the interests of the public, applications will be processed and assessed in an open and transparent manner? Go raibh maith agat.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There is a little thing called freedom of information. It will come as no surprise to hear that my Department receives more freedom of information requests than any other, the reason being that it has responsibility for the planning system and the Planning Service. People have the right to ask questions about planning applications — and rightly so — and the public and Members have readily availed themselves of that process. I do not see how much more transparent the Planning Service can be.

It is interesting that the Member should mention racehorses, because I placed a notional bet with myself this morning that questions from Daithí McKay — [Interruption.]

It was a notional bet — one is allowed to place notional bets. [Laughter.]

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Obviously some Members have not yet woken up and did not hear what I said this morning. One can take a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

What about mules?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have no clue whether one can take a mule to water —

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will not go there. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. Order.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee knows fine well that this application was made on planning grounds, and on planning grounds alone. He will have his chance in Committee, if he so wishes, to look at the file. The Member may wish me to appear before the Committee, and he knows only too well that any time the Committee asks me to appear before it, I am there.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Like other Members, I thank the Minister for her statement. I assure her that, unlike another Minister in the Executive, she will not be abandoned after she has made a decision and left to flounder on her own. She will not be left on her own at the Giant’s Causeway, for she will have the support of her colleagues, and we will not behave like the disgraceful party sitting opposite us has behaved.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I also thank the Minister —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Can the Member come to his question?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I must also point out that this morning’s statement was made by a DUP Minister and that it was not made at the behest of a Sinn Feín Member, as was suggested earlier.

In light of the Minister’s remarks about stake­holders and others who have been involved in the process to date, can she tell us what discussions there have been with the National Trust and Moyle District Council on any other proposals for the Causeway area?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I understand it, there have been some discussions with planning officials. I have not had any direct discussions with either the National Trust or Moyle District Council. My officials had some preliminary discussions about the alternative proposal before Christmas, and they still await further contact from the National Trust in taking this issue forward.

However, the Member will know that those discussions are completely separate from what has been discussed today, and he will appreciate why I say that. The private-sector application that I decided on today stood alone on its own merits. As I say, my decision today has nothing to do with any other applications that may be forthcoming — and I hope that other applications will be forthcoming.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

In her statement, the Minister said that she asked her officials to initiate a process of engagement between the major stakeholders, with a view to arriving at an agreed solution that would allow her to approve an application. Given that only one application was made, why did it not succeed?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member is aware that I believed that the application before me had considerable merit, and I have set out those reasons in my statement today. However, on 10 September 2007, I said that there were some difficulties, and I described them in more detail when I appeared before the Committee for the Environment on 20 September 2007.

Those difficulties related to world heritage site status, the requirement to minimise development in a sensitive landscape, and the provision of a new visitors’ centre. Given that a visitors’ centre already exists, the question of whether a new one was needed was at the forefront of my mind at the time. Any new application to build a visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway must address those issues as well as any others that it may encounter.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s state­ment, and I note the refusal contained therein. However, the Northern Ireland public must be wondering what is next for its only world heritage site. Does the Minister agree that the entire saga is another sorry reflection of the state of the Planning Service? To help Members to gain a greater understanding of what has happened, will the Minister share the nature of her discussions with the Minister for Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism, Margaret Hodge, on the Giant’s Causeway, which took place in Downing Street in mid-December?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, I am happy to make the detail of those discussions available. As the Member correctly said, my discussions with Margaret Hodge were principally about UNESCO issues and the world heritage site status of the Giant’s Causeway.

The Member criticised the Planning Service, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that is the planning system. Much more goes on outside the Planning Service, but it is often the whipping boy for any delays for which it may not be responsible. Delays may be due to difficulties with funding or the applicant, ongoing consultations, environmental impact assessments, and so forth.

The Planning Service does its job as well as it can with its resources. The Member knows that I am considering a fundamental reform of the planning system. That is no reflection of what has gone before, but it is time for an overhaul, and I look to the House for its support when I bring forward reform proposals later in the year.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I, too, welcome the Minister’s state­ment, which extricates her from the complete misadventure that was created when she made her “of a mind” decision. Even today, the Minister referred to her statement on 10 September 2007 as a decision, and as an “of a mind” decision. However, in the same statement she says that she had not made a decision — and she wonders why there is concern and confusion.

The Minister referred to the fact that —

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Minister referred to the fact that no other planning application was made. Will she confirm that that was not because of any failure or decision of the National Trust or Moyle District Council, which was what the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment was told? Rather, it was because the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s position was that only an application for full planning permission could be made, and that there was also a precondition relating to car parking at the site.

Does the Minister accept that her decision had implications for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s signature tourism project — given that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment previously made a statement within 51 minutes of the Environment Minister’s? We are, therefore, due to hear a statement from him very soon. It damaged the working partnership that had existed between the Departments on that proposal. Given that the issue is a matter of controversy, as the Minister admits, and affects more than one Department, will she tell the House whether she discussed it with her Executive colleagues? I know that the party opposite are precious about adherence to the ministerial code.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I found it difficult to hear the last part of the Member’s contribution, but I think that he asked whether I have discussed the issue with Executive colleagues. I made them aware that I would be making a statement this morning.

This is a planning issue — a planning issue alone. I am not going to ask my colleagues to get involved in issues that do not affect their Departments. This is not a cross-cutting issue. [Interruption.]

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I made what?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

You made a political —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

May I also say — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

One Member is asking me whether I will co-operate with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment to help to promote tourism and to propose planning policy statements on tourism, yet the Chairperson of that Committee is telling me that I should not be speaking to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. That is a rather strange way for joined-up Government to work. However, it is not strange for the SDLP, given what it has been doing over the past two days.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

They are not even a joined-up party.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Durkan made comments regarding the application that never was and that never formally made it in to the Planning Service. There were discussions with Planning Service officials, but it never became a formal application.

It is now eight years since the fire at the Giant’s Causeway, and we are no further on. I hope that, as Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Mr Durkan will force the issue on. That is the issue that he should be considering, instead of interfering in the Department of the Environment.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

As the Minister is probably aware, in the summer of 2002, in my then role as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I chaired an extensive series of meetings between the National Trust and Seymour Sweeney. It is outrageous that, in January 2008, the issue still has not been resolved.

I am pleased that Minister Dodds is present in the Chamber. I consider him as much a part of this sorry mess as anyone else.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Will the Member come to his question?

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Minister assure me and the House that when a new application is submitted — and one will be submitted sooner rather than later — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will she sit down with Minister Dodds to ensure that this issue is resolved as soon as possible?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Any application will obviously have tourism implications. I am happy to speak to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about that. Those are the issues that I spoke to him about before, and those are the issues that I will continue to speak to him about.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

It appears that the DUP has left Mr Sweeney on his tod. [Laughter.]

Thank you. I have been saving that one up. Can I ask — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will the Minister outline the precise grounds for the refusal of the planning application that will be listed when it is referred back — presumably to Moyle District Council? Will she also confirm that the applicant will have the right of appeal?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The applicant will have the right of appeal. Any such appeal would be dealt with by the Planning Appeals Commission. I have approved a draft notice of opinion, which includes six grounds of refusal. I am happy to let the Member have a copy of that. It would not be constructive for me simply to read through the six grounds, which are related to UNESCO, integration and the other issues that I mentioned in my statement.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Given the underground features of the outline planning application, does the Minister agree that it will be yet another bunker in north Antrim? In future, will she ensure that there is the fullest consultation — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Will she ensure that there is the fullest consultation before she is of an opinion to approve any future application?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I did not catch the last part of what was asked.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Perhaps if Dr McCrea would give me an opportunity to put my question, the Minister would be able to hear it.

Will the Minister agree that, given that there were underground features in the planning application for the Giant’s Causeway that she proposes to refuse, it would have turned out to be yet another bunker in north Antrim? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have given Members some latitude. I have asked the Member to put his question to the Minister, and I will now ask him to repeat it.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister accept that because of the international aspect of the Giant’s Causeway, she will undertake the fullest consultation before she is “of a mind” to approve any planning application there?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not know whether the Member was present when we talked about the bunker last Monday, but I said then that it did not have planning permission either, so I will not go there.

I am very much aware of the international aspect of the Giant’s Causeway, and I took the opportunity to go to the south coast to see how another of the United Kingdom’s natural world heritage sites is being dealt with. There is a panoply of ways being adopted, such as community, private, and publicly owned visitors’ centres. The Member knows that I met Margaret Hodge, and I took on board what was said in the management plan that was approved by UNESCO in 2005.

We are rightly very proud of our world heritage site status at the Giant’s Causeway, and, obviously, that consideration was one many that were at the forefront of my mind when I took that decision.

Executive Committee Business

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move:

“That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Education and Skills Bill dealing with the functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which are contained in clauses 137 and 139 of that Bill as introduced in the House of Commons”.

The provisions in the Education and Skills Bill that relate to Northern Ireland concern changes to the remit of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). Clause 137 of the Bill amends section 24 of the Education Act 1997 in order to provide the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority with a new function to develop and publish criteria for the recognition of bodies wishing to award or authenticate qualifications.

Clause 139 extends the powers of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in Northern Ireland to cover the regulation of vocational qualifications currently excluded from its scope. In Northern Ireland, most qualifications are regulated by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). Those are general and vocational qualifications and are provided for school pupils or persons in full-time attendance at an institution of further education. The only exception is national vocational qualifications (NVQs), which are regulated by the Qualification and Curriculum Authority. Clause 139 adds other vocational qualifications to the regulatory remit of the authority.

Under the review of public administration, and as part of the streamlining of education administration in Northern Ireland, CCEA should be abolished and its functions transferred to the new education and skills authority. The proposed date for the transfer of functions is April 2009, and although most of the functions will transfer to the education and skills authority, it would not be appropriate to transfer CCEA’s regulatory function for vocationally related qualifications (VRQs)to the education and skills authority. As that regulatory function will not be transferred, it is imperative that steps are taken to ensure that continued regulation of vocationally related qualifications is maintained when CCEA is subsumed by the education and skills authority.

As the issue falls within the area of transferred matters under the provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, consent for the proposed Northern Ireland inclusions in the Bill must be sought from the Committee for Employ­ment and Learning, the Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Committee for Employment and Learning and the Executive have considered the matter, and both have given their consent to proceed with the proposed amendments to the Education and Skills Bill.

The Assembly must now consider the principle of amending the Bill in order to extend the regulatory functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in Northern Ireland. The proposed change to the legislation would close the regulation gap that would be left once CCEA had been dissolved and would ensure the continued and necessary regulation of vocationally related qualifications in Northern Ireland. The change would also guarantee that those students who are studying for vocationally related qualifications when the council ceases to exist can be confident that regulation will continue.

I hope that Members will agree with me and support the motion, which has been designed to ensure that there will be no period during which students can doubt the currency of the qualifications that they attain. I request that the Assembly endorses the principle of extending to Northern Ireland the provisions in the Education and Skills Bill that deal with the functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Those provisions are contained in clauses 137 and 139 of the Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 29 November 2007.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I support the motion. The Minister has already explained the need for and purpose behind the legislative consent motion, so I will not repeat what he said. However, I will make a couple of points on behalf of the Committee.

I thank the Minister for the extensive consultation that he undertook with the Committee. I am conscious that he did not wish to bring the matter to the Assembly without the Committee’s support. The Committee was fully briefed on the matter on 26 September 2007 and on 9 January, which was its first meeting after the Christmas recess. Those briefings were important for members because, first, for the first time, they were asked to deal with the concept of a legislative consent motion, and secondly, the matter in question is complex in its own right.

The Committee’s primary concern is that people who are studying for vocational qualifications that are regulated by the Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment are in no way disadvantaged by any reform of that regulatory body, should that occur as planned in April 2009. There is, therefore, a need to ensure that cover is in place to protect those important qualifications.

The Committee was satisfied that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is an appropriate body to provide regulation, if required. It was also satisfied that QCA’s current role in the regulation of qualifications places it in an ideal position to extend those regulations. That experience is strengthened by the fact that QCA maintains a local office, which it has been operating successfully for 10 years.

Although I support the motion, I have written to the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Education to ask that they keep the situation under review during what will be a period of difficult administrative reform. During the departmental briefings, officials stated that the Minister had been assessing the most appropriate regulation process for our local needs. I have written to the Ministers to urge them to continue to work together and to keep the process under review as the review of public administration rolls out.

The Committee considers that any regulation of critical vocational qualifications should be sensitive and aligned to local requirements and circumstances. In further ensuring that local needs are fully recognised, the Minister has also assured me that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in England cannot enact any part of the legislation that relates to, or has an impact on, local issues without first seeking the approval of the local Minister. Go raibh maith agat.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I support the motion. It makes sense to extend the remit of QCA to cover VRQs as well as NVQs.

Does the Minister envisage there being any scope for the QCA to examine ways of combining the NVQ and VRQ as one qualification? Students are often confused about the differences between them.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There is confusion, as Anna Lo said. A review of qualifications is under way. It is a terribly complicated system. Members will have heard the debate yesterday on other matters, which we will not go into today. However, I assure the Member that the Department is examining the matter closely. We do not want people to spend time and energy to get certificates that have no currency with employers. If people work for a qualification, they must be assured that employers around the country will recognise it as a thing of substance, that the qualification means something and that it has a quality-assured standard.

There is a temptation for further education colleges, employers or others to create their own qualifications, and that is a risk. That may not be wrong in itself, but I am concerned about people working, and spending their time and energy, to gain certificates that have no value. That is no use to them or to us, and it is a waste of the student’s time. Therefore, I assure the Member that the matter is important to the Department, and we will not embark on anything that will reduce standards. That is why we do not want to leave a vacuum when the CCEA is absorbed into the education and skills authority.

I assure the Chairman of the Employment and Learning Committee, as I have already assured the Minister of Education, that we are not doing anything today that will in any way inhibit the Assembly from passing further legislation in the future, should it decide to do so. The Assembly is free to create new regulations and arrangements. This legislation will merely prevent a vacuum from developing when the CCEA is absorbed into the education and skills authority. As I told the Committee for Education, the Assembly can take whatever action it wishes and will not be inhibited in any way by this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Education and Skills Bill dealing with the functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which are contained in clauses 137 and 139 of that Bill as introduced in the House of Commons.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to six hours for this debate. The proposer will have up to 90 minutes in which to propose the motion and make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have 10 minutes.

Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the programme of expenditure proposals for 2008-09 to 2010-11 as set out in the Budget laid before the Assembly on 22 January 2008.

Last Tuesday, I presented the Executive’s revised Budget proposals for the three years to March 2011, following a period of consultation on the draft proposals, which were originally published in October 2007. Today, I seek the Assembly’s approval for those plans, which were unanimously agreed by the Executive. When I launched the revised Budget last week, I provided comprehensive details of the consultation process and the Executive’s response to it. I do not wish to take up an undue amount of the limited time available today by going over all of those issues or going through the Departments’ allocations again.

However, I will emphasise a few key points regarding the Executive’s proposals for Members to consider as we commence the debate and before we vote on the motion. I will also announce how the Executive plan to create and maintain a strong focus on monitoring delivery of their commitments as they use the financial allocations proposed in the Budget.

I turn first to the consultation exercise conducted on the draft Budget proposals published last October. In my statement last Tuesday, I acknowledged the key role played by the statutory Committees of the Assembly in reviewing and reporting on the departmental and cross-cutting implications of the draft Budget proposals. I believe that the Committees must also have an ongoing key role in monitoring and reporting on the delivery of the objectives and targets for which Departments will be responsible and accountable over the next three years, and beyond, as they use the resources proposed for them in the Budget. I will say more on that later.

In addition to consideration of the draft Budget in the Assembly, there was also a public consultation exercise. Over 9,500 written submissions were made during the 10-week consultation period. That number vastly exceeds the level of engagement on any previous Budget consultation.

Let no one say that the Executive have not taken seriously the views of the Assembly or the wider community. We have listened to what has been said, and we have responded to it, with additional funding for the arts, children and youth services, mental health and social housing — all of which were key issues of concern during the consultation process. Those additional allocations build on the position set out in the draft Budget, which included: a freeze on domestic regional rates in cash terms, meaning a real-terms reduction for households; non-domestic rates frozen in real terms; clear prioritisation of economic growth, with associated benefits for all in the community; the largest-ever budget allocation for the Health Service; and the largest-ever programme of investment in public-service infrastructure. The proposals allow for increased support for businesses and funding for schools, as well as improved access to hospital services and additional resources for key public-health matters, such as suicide prevention. In addition, there is funding to enhance the rural economy. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will receive extra funding to deliver a comprehensive approach to victims, as well as resources to embed the rights of older people.

As I have indicated, the final Budget proposals were agreed unanimously by the Executive, providing a clear recognition by all parties that the approach adopted represents the best overall package of measures — within our affordability limits — for all the people of Northern Ireland. There will always be scope to develop further the Budget allocations, and we will revise our spending plans if that becomes necessary.

However, I have been more than saddened, though not unduly surprised, by the approach taken by some who appear to be disappointed that issues raised by Ministers have been resolved. Unfortunately, that has been reflected in the Chamber and outside, where criticisms have been put forward by some who appear to be more interested in opposition for its own sake, to boost their presence in the media, than offering realistic alternatives to improve the Programme for Government or the Executive’s spending plans.

Worse, there are those who place a greater priority on engaging in party-political positioning than on addressing the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. The finalisation of a Budget by the Executive is about making difficult choices. The choices made are in the best interests of Northern Ireland, but, of course, in a democracy, others will differ, and it is right that they should be allowed to say so.

For the Alliance Party and the SDLP, the choices are very different. The Alliance Party is not an Executive party, so it is proper that it should take every platform that our democracy provides to state its case and to challenge ours. I would not inhibit that right. However, the SDLP is in an entirely different position. It is an Executive party. It is in the Executive; it is responsible for making its case in the Executive and contributing to the formulation of the Programme for Government, the investment strategy, and the Budget.

If the SDLP wanted changes made to any of those documents, it should have put forward amendments in the Executive.

I regard it as a considerable achievement for the Executive that we managed to reach unanimous agreement around the table, with Ministers from all four Executive parties signing up to the Programme for Government, the investment strategy for Northern Ireland and the Budget. It is a sign of the political maturity of the Administration, and the parties involved in it, that we managed to balance Departments’ various needs in a way that satisfied everyone. Although no Department achieved all that it would have liked, everyone was prepared to sign up to the sum of the agreed parts.

Let me make it clear: Ministers did not merely agree to their portion of the family of key documents — they agreed to them all as a whole. The Programme for Government and the investment strategy for Northern Ireland are not the property of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister; the Budget is not just mine. All three documents are owned by the Executive. I hope that the Assembly will also identify itself with them.

In order to reach agreement on the Budget, many hours of discussion and negotiation took place with Ministers and officials. That was the opportunity for Ministers to influence the process, and they did so. By the time that the Budget came to the Executive, all Ministers were content to approve it. I must say, therefore, that I find it bizarre that at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute, one party, whose Minister signed up to all of those documents, now seeks to make amendments. That is cynical political opportunism at its worst; politics that is devoid of principle. The public will, however, see through it as a low political stunt. It is made worse by the fact that no amendment was ever made by the Minister for Social Development in the Executive, yet it has been bounced at all of us in the Assembly. That approach is not designed to get the right outcome; it is merely intended to grab a headline and position that party for the future. It is opposition for opposition’s sake. It is an absurd approach from a party that is in Government. It is bereft of any principle and exposes the SDLP as a party that is more interested in short-term political expediency than in good government.

People will want to know whether the SDLP Minister signed up to the Programme for Government, the investment strategy and the Budget in the clear knowledge that her party intended all along to vote against it. Such an approach would pose the most fundamental questions about the good faith of the Minister for Social Development. On the other hand, has the SDLP cut the legs from under its own Minister at the last moment? In that case, how can she remain in office when she lacks the confidence of her own party?

What kind of party has its Minister sign up to the Executive’s key policy instruments and spending plans without ever once proposing any kind of amendment in the Executive, to then vote against the Executive in the Assembly? The SDLP leader said that his party’s approach was no different from that taken by the DUP during the last Assembly. What nonsense! During the last Assembly, the DUP’s goal — [Interruption.]

I have the transcript if the Member wants to read it.

During the last Assembly, the DUP’s goal was to bring down the Executive and to create new political institutions. Is that currently the SDLP’s goal? Moreover, the DUP did not sit on that Executive or endorse its Programme for Government and Budget. The SDLP has had the opportunity to seek amendments to any of those documents at the Executive. It was cynically determined to stay silent in the Executive and to ambush us at the Assembly. The SDLP has embarked on a strategy that deserves nothing more or less than the contempt of the Assembly and the disdain and derision of the public.

It is important that people understand that there are no easy options and that alternative choices have clear implications. Spending cannot be increased in one area without a commensurate reduction somewhere else or an increase in local taxation.

I now turn to the position of the Alliance Party.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Oh yes, it is.

The Member for North Down Dr Farry is quite open about the Alliance Party’s agenda, which I have costed. I applaud him for his honesty. Although his proposals are fiscal folly and fundamentally flawed, I pay tribute to him for telling the people of Northern Ireland that the Alliance Party wants to impose more taxes on them. I thank him for that insight, although his constituents, probably, will not. Sir Humphrey would have called it “courageous”.

Last week, on the BBC programme ‘Hearts and Minds’, Dr Farry agreed with Noel Thompson’s description of the freeze on regional rating as “capitalist populism.” Dr Farry also called for an increase in industrial rating. To meet the cost of the additional funding sought by the Alliance Party, it would be necessary to triple the amount of money that people are paying in domestic rates — that would be the outcome of the Alliance Party’s proposals. I fundamentally disagree with that approach. The Northern Ireland householder deserves a break, given that there have been regional rate increases of 60% over the past five years.

In a difficult international environment, it is important that we give local manufacturing base whatever support that we can — especially when one of the Executive’s priorities is to encourage economic growth. Rather than place a greater burden on householders, we should accept that Government must deliver more.

We should also be careful not to exaggerate the significance of the Deloitte report ‘Research into the financial cost of the Northern Ireland divide’. It is not a panacea. Although it may offer some long-term opportunities, it is not a short-term solution. It will certainly not have the impact suggested by the Alliance Party during the course of the Budget period. The Alliance Party talks about the matter as if there is a pot of money that we can dip into at any time. That, of course, is not so.

As a citizen of Northern Ireland, I sincerely want an end to the wasteful division in our society. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I welcome any opportunity to reallocate resources to a more productive use. However, the reality is not that simple. The £1·5 billion cost of a divided society quoted in the Deloitte report is an upper limit — and an unrealistic one at that, as there is an implied assumption that the higher level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland is entirely due to division. We all know that that is not the case.

Such an assumption is patent nonsense and ignores the impact of factors such as demographic structure, rurality and deprivation, which also explain why there is a greater need for expenditure in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I share the view that savings could be made from that source, and I have asked my officials to examine the findings of the report, with a view to identifying those elements that can be addressed in the short term.

Perhaps, rather than hissing from the sidelines, the Alliance Party will engage with me in that exercise.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes. I said “hissing.”

I invited Alliance Party Members to meet me and discuss the issue — I am still waiting for a response to that invitation. I encourage all Executive Ministers to make as many savings as possible from the cost of division, because they have made it clear to me that the efficiency savings expected over the next three years are equivalent to almost one tenth of current budgets and will represent a significant challenge for them. Thus, all scope for savings needs to be vigorously pursued.

Many Members have commented that the Executive’s agreement of the Budget, the Programme for Government and the investment strategy represents a significant achievement in itself. That is true. However, agreeing proposed departmental budget allocations will not, by itself, deliver the Executive’s objectives which they have set for themselves. They have set those objectives clearly in their Programme for Government and their investment strategy. The mere fact of agreeing the Budget, the Programme for Government and the investment strategy will not, in itself, make the difference. They are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions to create the type of society and economy that we all wish to see.

To make a real difference for all the people of Northern Ireland, we must ensure that we deliver on the commitments that we have made, using the resources that have been allocated in the Budget. That is the challenge that now faces Executive Ministers, their Departments, public bodies and public servants across the length and breadth of the country. I repeat that in three years’ time people will not ask Ministers about the allocations that they received; they will ask them what they delivered.

The Executive have set targets such as: the extension of free public transport to everyone who is aged 60 and over; improvements in mental-health and learning-disability services; the movement of 70,000 working-age benefit clients into employment by March 2011; a 25% reduction in the amount of red tape in the agrifood sector by 2013; the growth of the tourism industry by over 40% by 2011; the alleviation of fuel poverty in 9,000 households each year; the completion of an additional 10,000 social and affordable houses by 2013, representing a 60% increase on the annual figure for 2006-07; and a reduction to nine weeks of the maximum wait for treatment for outpatients and to 17 weeks for inpatients.

The latter target highlights the scale of the Executive’s ambition. We have set a target of 17 weeks as the minimum wait for inpatient treatment. That compares to the target of 78 weeks that the previous Executive set; even that deplorably low ambition was not achieved.

Those are just some examples of the testing targets that the Executive have set. Our focus must now be on delivering those targets, which must be acted on in partnership with local business, the trade unions, and the community and voluntary sectors. Government should not, and cannot, have sole responsibility for delivering improvements to the quality of life. As I pointed out in my Budget statement on January 22 2008, in a global environment, a local Administration can have only a limited impact on economic growth, even in Northern Ireland.

However, listeners to BBC Radio’s ‘Evening Extra’ programme last Tuesday might have thought that the impact of the Budget was being felt far beyond Northern Ireland. The presenter who read the news headlines announced, in one breath, that Peter Robinson delivered his first Budget to the Assembly and that the US Federal Reserve cut its key interest rate by 0·75%. I am concerned at what the global implications might be when I return to the Chamber to discuss the outcome of the February monitoring round.

The key objective in delivering against the Executive’s targets is to develop a culture of robust performance management and delivery that underpins the highest standards of financial management. With more money than ever allocated for the next three years, we must recognise that local people demand and expect public services to have a meaningful impact on, and bring tangible benefits to, their lives. Those benefits will be realised only if the emphasis is on getting the most from the money that is invested in those services. Financial management in the public sector is about the cost-effective delivery of Government priorities, with due regard being paid to risk and opportunity. It is also about safeguarding money that has been entrusted to us by the taxpayer. An effective financial and governance framework that facilitates the delivery of the plans that are set out in the Budget is an essential component in the process.

My Department has an important role to play in and responsibility for providing advice on — and ensuring the delivery of — improvements in the overall standard of financial management, building on the examples of good practice that are already in place. My officials are actively working with Departments in helping to improve financial management and accountability. New systems and processes, such as account Northern Ireland, are being implemented. Along with the Centre for Applied Learning, better training and development opportunities are being made available to staff. New international accounting standards and more timely production of accounts will assist all parts of the public sector to actively improve financial management standards.

Of course, spending the money is only one aspect of delivery. It is equally important that the resources be used efficiently and effectively. The public service agreements to be published shortly will set out in detail how Departments will work together to achieve the targets and outcomes identified in the Programme for Government. The delivery agreements will set out roles and responsibilities, lines of accountability, performance measurement methods and risk management strategies.

The Executive will also put in place monitoring arrangements at a strategic level to ensure that the key outcomes from the Programme for Government are delivered. The model here is a risk-based approach where the degree of scrutiny varies depending on the extent to which progress is being made. Ministers will play a more interventionist role where the delivery of outcomes and targets falls short of expectations. For example, if a Department is not delivering on its key objectives and commitments with the resources that it has been allocated by the Executive, the Executive will have to question whether those resources should remain with that Department or be reallocated elsewhere.

Statutory Committees will have a key role to play in monitoring the performance of their Departments in delivering on the targets and commitments in the Programme for Government and investment strategy. That is one of the conclusions and recommendations in the report on the draft Budget from the Committee for Finance and Personnel. The Committee has also noted that, as we move into a period of more constrained public expenditure growth, there is an even greater onus on Departments to manage public finances in a way that achieves the highest possible level of spend within authorised limits and maximises the impact from available resources. The Committee has recommended that all Statutory Committees should include budgetary and financial scrutiny as an integral part of their work programmes. I strongly support that recommendation.

The performance and efficiency delivery unit will have a vital role in supporting the Executive and Departments in achieving improved outcomes from investment in public services. If the Executive are to achieve the challenging objectives that we have set for ourselves, we must create a new focus on performance, efficiency and delivery across all areas of public-sector activity.

One of the main responsibilities of the Department of Finance and Personnel is to monitor how efficiently Departments spend their money. Therefore, the new unit in my Department will identify and work with specific areas of public-sector activity where there is scope for improved delivery or efficiency, and will seek to secure better levels of performance. It will also identify options for further efficiency savings in specific areas, over and above the targets already set out for the next three years. There will be a small number of core staff in the unit. That will provide plenty of scope to involve others in specific pieces of work that the unit will carry out — individuals from other Departments and public bodies, staff working in front-line public-service delivery, audit staff and staff from private-sector organisations can lend specific expertise and experience in particular areas.

I also wish to have access to advice on how best to achieve significant and sustainable improvements in the performance and delivery of large and complex organisations. Therefore, I will establish an advisory panel consisting of individuals who have a strong track record of managing and leading successful and strategic organisational change, involving the delivery of better-quality services and greater efficiency.

Many people will be involved in ensuring that the improved outcomes identified in the Programme for Government and the investment strategy are delivered for the people of Northern Ireland. The starting point is the financial allocation made to each Department in the Executive’s final Budget proposals. Those allocations will provide a solid basis on which all the Executive Ministers can now begin the task of ensuring delivery on our commitments to everyone in our community.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert:

“calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to lay a revised programme of expenditure proposals for 2008-09 to 2010-11 before the Assembly, as the Budget currently before the Assembly does not properly address the deep divisions in this society and the need to build a shared future; does not make meaningful changes to balance the regional economy; and fails to provide for sustainable and integrated public services.”

I oppose the Budget. However, the Alliance Party does not oppose the Budget for the sake of it. There will be times when the Alliance Party backs actions from the Executive. We support elements of the Budget.

The Alliance Party opposes the Budget because it is flawed, and there is an alternative way forward. Although we congratulate the Finance Minister on getting the Budget to the Assembly and recognise that it is a major piece of work, the Minister must respect the Alliance Party’s entitlement to put forward its alternative views — but, I think, we have that respect.

Last week, the Minister said that everyone should put their shoulder to the wheel in this new Northern Ireland. However, some people have doubts about the direction in which we are going.

There are flaws in the substance of the Budget. First, there is a lack of reference to a shared future, and not enough effort has been made to address the savings that have been made from no longer tackling the costs of a violent society. The Minister has made some rhetorical references to that in his Budget statements, but it is not a central theme in the Budget. Efforts to identify efficiency savings from tackling division are referred to PEDU for longer-term consideration, but we want to make a start.

The Minister referred to the report from Deloitte, which is a well-established consultancy firm that is respected around the world. That report must be given serious consideration, and the Alliance Party is concerned that it has been shelved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

The Alliance Party went into the election stating that the costs of a divided society amounted to £1 billion — not £1·5 billion. We have tabled a motion for future discussion, so that Members can air their views on the contents of the Deloitte report. The report is strong in its tackling of the direct costs and opportunity costs of a divided society, but its addressing of the embedded costs of duplicate goods, facilities and services — particularly in education, which I will talk about later — is weak.

There is no new investment into shared services, such as better public services for the entire community. Change will take time, but we must make a start. The Executive’s emphasis on economic development is welcome, but there is little appreciation that meaningful and sustainable growth is not possible without the tackling of divisions in society and the promotion of a shared future alongside it. Divisions have an impact on labour mobility, and they deter inward investment.

There are clear international lessons that the most successful societies in the world tend to be those that are most open to new ideas and those that are most tolerant.

Secondly, the Budget is a recipe for a low-tax society rather than for genuine investment in economic growth. The Finance Minister has taken an already tight comprehensive spending review settlement from London and made it even tighter. Contrary to the impression that was given last week, there is not universal support for the taxation and spending framework. The approach taken to taxation has been questioned by such organisations as the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI), the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) — diverse organisations.

A low taxation approach, at the expense of investment in public services, is regressive. The benefits will disproportionately benefit the more affluent elements of society and hurt those who are less well off — particularly those who depend on public services and, perhaps, do not pay as high rates as others. The approach is populist and not based on evidence. Furthermore, the claimed benefits of £1,000 per household have been questioned by Oxford Economics.

Much of the Budget depends upon the 3% efficiency savings being achieved. The Alliance Party has no doubt that efficiency savings of 3% are possible, and such annual savings in the private sector are routine. However, we are concerned about the narrow ground over which those savings are being sought. There are big questions about how public services are being delivered, and they are not targeted in the Budget. The most obvious area in that regard is education, particularly through the policy on sustainable schools.

There are huge inefficiencies in the school estate, and, so far, a policy for area planning and collaboration between schools has not been produced never mind incorporated into the documents that the Assembly is discussing this week. The wisdom of attempting a considerable amount of capital-assets sales at a time when the property market has slowed down is not entirely obvious either.

Much of the control of the economy lies outside the control of the Assembly. That is reflected in the fact that many of the targets before the House are ambitious — something we welcome — but aspirational, without clear evidence of the means to deliver them.

We also have to reflect on the British Government’s regional policy — if that is what it can be called — in which the interests of London and the south-east of England are prioritised at the expense of the rest of the regions, thus leaving us in a dependency situation.

It is unfortunate that targets for measuring economic conversions have been changed.

Rather than comparing our performance with the UK average, we are now to be compared to the UK average minus the south-east of England. Although I understand the desire to remove distortions that arise as a result of real growth in the south-east, rather than simply considering the overall balance of the national economy, we are now reduced to a regional dependency culture and to fighting over the scraps from the table.

Having said that, there are other factors that are in our control, and the investment in the four identified economic drivers is welcome. However, an obvious point that has been made by the Confederation of British Industry and others is that, rather than adopting populist taxation measures, more resources could have been poured into those drivers.

In addition, rather than truly embracing globalisation, we are still focused on an old-fashioned approach to economic support. For example, money is to be poured into modernising agriculture — and I will probably lose the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on this point. However, agri­culture is a shrinking element of the overall economy. From such investment, other sectors could have benefited more and achieved a greater leap forward in productivity.

Much of our inward-investment strategy still depends on the grant-making approach of selective-financial assistance. A properly informed debate —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am sorry, but I have a lot to get through.

There must be a properly informed debate on the relative merits of investing in selective financial assistance compared with greater investments in the economic drivers.

The one fiscal tool that the Minister has at his disposal — industrial derating — is, effectively, anachronistic, and was first introduced in Northern Ireland in 1929 — the year of the great depression. By contrast, England banned industrial derating as far back as the 1960s. The Minister has ignored the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland’s evidence-based approach, which states that, rather than keeping industrial derating at 30%, it would be safe to increase it to 50% and, as a consequence, raise some lost revenue. Hence, rather than being governed by evidence, our overall approach has been governed more by populism.

It is not necessary to match funding allocations in the rest of the United Kingdom. Devolution is about setting different priorities. However, we should make informed choices, and the Alliance Party has already highlighted the imbalance between roads and public-transport expenditure. The arts sector, which was the most vocal sector during the consultation period, has received an additional £2 million per annum, and that is useful. However, clearly, that does not bring arts funding into line with at least the UK average. Given that Northern Ireland is comparatively advantaged by its artistic talents, that should be an area in which we should invest.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Finally, I will concentrate on health. The Minister has acted like the grand old Duke of York — marching us to the top of the hill and back down again — in his campaign for proper National Health Service funding in Northern Ireland. For the sake of a facade of unity in the Executive, he seems to have settled for much less than what is required to maintain a level of healthcare that is on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom. In order to keep pace with funding in the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland requires a health budget of at least £4·4 billion, and, to maintain the same level of service, the revised Budget leaves a health funding shortfall of £200 million. The DUP can talk all it wants about record Health Service funding, but the simple fact is that we are not keeping pace with the rest of the UK.

In the revised Budget, there is little genuine new money for health. The efficiency savings are simply reprocessed existing money, and the moneys that come from monetary rounds will have no effect on the underlying baselines. The £10 million per annum for mental health is the only genuinely new money, and that is barely sufficient to address the serious under­funding in that critical area of healthcare. We spend a measly 8% of the health budget on mental health, compared to the UK average of 12%.

All around the world, health costs are rising — people are living longer and the price of drugs and new technologies are rising. Sadly, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland continues to have a much higher per capita needs base. It would be good if the Executive were to suggest that we tackle and reduce that needs gap, but that is not the case.

Clearly, efficiency savings in the Health Service are necessary.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

However, they must not come as a result of cost cutting and denying funds. Such savings are necessary in order that money can be reinvested into new services. Rather than addressing the population’s evolving needs, the new money — insofar as we have any — is barely enough to keep up with inescapable pressures.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Your time is up.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert:

“calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to lay before the Assembly a revised programme of expenditure proposals for 2008-09 to 2010-11, as the Budget proposals currently before the Assembly do not provide clear budgetary lines for key policy developments, including the anti-poverty strategy; fail to set out funding commit­ments in respect of proposed reforms in post-primary education; abandon cross-cutting funds, including a fund for children and young people; and are unclear in their implications for householders in terms of future charging for water.”

Mussolini made the trains in Italy run on time, and the responsibility of the Finance Minister — through the Budget — is to have the same effect on the literal and metaphorical trains in our society. As Members know, the literal trains in our society often do not run on time — sometimes not at all. There are many trains in our society that do not provide the service that they should. The SDLP’s approach to the Budget is influenced by its principles; the SDLP is a social democratic party and is committed to an inclusive society that tackles disadvantage — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

A society that provides equality, is socially just, and sustains the environment. The SDLP believes in a balance of economic and social investment — we are committed to economic development but regard economic and social development as inter­dependent. That is not adequately reflected in the programme or the Budget, which are too short term. Social spending now will produce economic benefit in the future.

The Budget cannot be considered without looking at the overall context: Northern Ireland is in long-term relative economic decline, which — one could argue — began at the time of partition. However, that is a debate for another day. Our infrastructure is obsolete, and we have a deeply divided society that was created, and exacerbated, by more than 30 years of conflict. Some Members have a lot to answer for in relation to that conflict. Therefore, the Budget has a major job to do.

There is, of course, some substance and value in the Budget, as we stated in the debate on the Programme for Government yesterday. However, we have concerns about the Budget. One concern is about our divided society; I am holding a Northern Ireland Community Relations Council journal, which has a picture of a beautiful park in Belfast with trees, grass, paths and everything else that one would expect. However, running through that park is a corrugated iron fence between eight and 10 feet high, which separates the Catholic side from the Protestant side. Sometimes a picture says more than a thousand words.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

It is a shame, but there is nothing in the Programme for Government or Budget that directly addresses that issue. There is a danger in creating, or attempting to create, a separate but equal society. That would be doomed to failure but might suit the two largest parties in the Assembly. The Alliance Party must not claim sole ownership of the issue, because it is built into the founding principles of the SDLP. The Alliance Party should not claim to be the sole party of opposition. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

We claim our ministerial position as a right, but also assert our right to oppose what we think needs opposition in any area of Executive policy. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, the Member has the Floor.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

It is clear that our tactics and strategy have caused discomfort for some Members. Our party is totally united on its tactics and strategy. [Laughter.]

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am pleased to hear Mr O’Loan talk about the necessity of building a shared future, which the north Belfast park he mentioned clearly demonstrates. Why does the SDLP amendment not mention a shared future?

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

We made our stance clear in the debate on, and our proposed amendment to, the Programme for Government — the two are closely linked.

Our Government is not joined up enough; a perennial problem in government is trying to get Departments working together. Important issues requiring two or more Departments to work together often fall by the wayside because neither Department takes the lead. One clear example of that can be seen in the children’s fund. There must be more strategic focus on that key issue, which is a vital one if we are to tackle child poverty. Children in poverty are handicapped in life’s race, and they inevitably fall behind. Creating a separate fund for children would give the issue more focus and would provide the option for bids to be made for more funds in-year. The SDLP believes that that is the better way forward.

Members have been told that the reform of secondary schools will be the biggest change in sixty years, yet, remarkably, it is not referred to in the Programme for Government and it is therefore not budgeted for. The reform has been referred to as being cost neutral. However, the Minister of Finance and Personnel has indicated that he would be uncomfor­table about such an assertion. The SDLP sees that as a major weakness in the Budget.

There is also lack of clarity in the Budget. The public service agreements have no clear budget lines attached to them, therefore one cannot know how much will be spent on each one. There is also the uncertainty about water charging. The Executive have taken no decisions on how water will be paid for. The strand-two report has just been published, and all proposals will, in due course, be issued for consultation. SDLP Members will not be hung out to dry on water proposals that we have not seen and approved.

There are other areas in which the SDLP feels that the Budget’s success is being predicated on uncertain propositions. For example, are the efficiency savings going to be real? The Minister of Finance and Personnel knows the answer to that — or if he does not know, I am sure that he will soon receive a piece of paper from his officials telling him that close to one half of the efficiency savings posited for his own Department come from a mere accountancy adjustment whereby an already-received receipt is transferred from one column to another. There is an element of smoke and mirrors about the Budget.

We can be sure that accounting officers throughout the public service, taking their lead from the Department of Finance and Personnel, will be exerting themselves to find manoeuvres in which efficiency savings such as these can be found. However, in some places real changes will be made in order to meet efficiency demands, and those may damage front-line services, particularly in Departments and agencies, such as the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Social Security Agency, in which such services form their core business.

The area of asset sales is very problematic. Workplace 2010 is designed to deliver an upfront payment in the order of £170 million. That sum, given the present state of the property market becomes very questionable. The general issue, having identified assets for sale, is when to sell those assets and how much might be realised from selling them — that is a very problematic area.

The SDLP recognises the gain of £205 million for social housing that has been made between the draft Budget and the final Budget. I commend the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie for the effort that she had to make to obtain that money. It was money that should have been in the draft Budget in the first place. However, she has also made it clear that the revised figure will still not be enough for her to meet the Executive’s targets.

In his statement, the Minister of Finance and Personnel referred to £1,000 in savings per household. I say to people: do not book your holidays on the strength of that. I would not even book a weekend in Castlereagh. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

People should not suppose that it will be an annual saving. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The sum is not even being calculated over the three years covered by the Budget. If the figure is to be meaningful then it is to be calculated over a four-year period, which was what the Minister said in his statement on the draft Budget. The fact is that people will never see that money in their hands. If water charging is introduced, either through rates bills or household bills, people will not see any reductions or money being returned when those bills land on their mats.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member’s time is almost up.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

They will see instead an increase of the order of 25%.

I hope that the Minister, when he sums up, will confirm —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member’s time is up.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

— that there is funding for the Giant’s Causeway visitors’ centre in his Budget proposals.

As a party, we have presented sound reasons for our amendment.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to take his seat.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I take this opportunity to commend the Minister and his officials for accomplishing the very challenging task of co-ordinating and compiling the Budget on behalf of the Assembly.

The Budget that we are debating today aims to support and deliver the strategic priorities set out in the Programme for Government, including: growing our economy; investing in infrastructure; modernising public services; environmental protection; and promoting tolerance, inclusion, health and well-being.

I thank the Minister also for his acknowledgement of the role that the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the other Assembly Committees played in the process. That culminated in the Committee publishing a co-ordinated report on the draft Budget on 8 January 2008 on behalf of all the Assembly departmental scrutiny Committees. The report set out 21 overarching conclusions and recommendations that aim to influence the Executive in its future work.

With regard to the Executive’s strategic priorities, the Committee recognises the pressing need to raise productivity and living standards in the North and therefore welcomes the increased focus on economic growth. The Committee considers that the new emphasis on the economy necessitates the early publication of a new and revised regional economic strategy that sets out how the Executive’s high-level goals will be realised. That should include a cross-cutting implementation plan for the four productivity drivers — skills, enterprise, innovation and infra­structure. I believe that a new regional economic strategy takes on even greater significance and urgency in the context of the very disappointing Varney report and the global economic challenges ahead.

The Committee is also mindful of the importance of the Executive’s other priorities regarding infrastructure, health, equality, public services and the environment. We all recognise that there are only finite resources available to meet many of the demands in terms of maintaining and improving public services. The focus is therefore on ensuring that the resources available to the Executive are deployed strategically and fairly, with the emphasis being on activities and programmes that support the delivery of key priorities.

In its report on the draft Budget, my Committee acknowledged the constraints within which the Executive have to operate. The outcome of the comprehensive spending review means that real-terms growth in public expenditure here over the next three years will average only 1·2% a year. The Committee also recognises that the Executive have had to address a range of legacy issues inherited from the direct rule period, including water and domestic rating reform, which were the cause of mounting public concern.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Durkan tax.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

My colleague reminds us of the legacy of the disastrous deal that Mark Durkan and David Trimble struck with the British Treasury.

As a consequence, the revised Budget places a strong emphasis on efficiency and value for money. The Committee responded to that positively in its report by examining a range of strategic and cross-cutting budgetary issues with a view to identifying ways of maximising the impact from limited resources. In particular, it recommended a range of specific measures aimed at supporting the efficiency drive, eradicating the culture of underspend and raising the performance of Departments in managing public money for the delivery of front-line services.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when you called Mr McLaughlin to speak it was as the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. He has expressed political views, making reference to Mark Durkan, that are certainly not the determined views of the Committee. They are clearly party-political views. Mr Speaker, I ask for a ruling on that matter.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Mr McLaughlin had already indicated that he would make remarks as Chairperson of the Committee and as a Member of this Assembly.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. We saw an example this morning of a Chairperson of a Committee who dwelt on political issues.

Order, Members. Order. I normally give the Chair­persons of Committees some latitude. Unfortunately, some exceed their position. However, Mr McLaughlin came to the Table and indicated clearly that he wished to speak as Chairperson of the Committee, but that he would make some personal remarks. That was absolutely clear.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, if the honourable Member asks for a point of order — although that is consistent with SDLP inconsistency — will you also make a ruling on the issues to which you referred, regarding Patsy McGlone’s disgraceful comments when he spoke as Chairperson of his Committee? Those were political comments; therefore, the SDLP cannot pick and choose.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will take no further points of order on the issues. We shall move on.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Even as Chairperson, I believe I have the right to speak on matters of record, and this matter has, on many occasions, been addressed, not only by members of my Committee, but by Members of this Assembly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Speaker, the Member —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I said that I would take no further points of order on this particular issue. I ask the Member to continue.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Committee considered a range of key financial management issues, including the planned reduction in overcommitment; the new requirement of the Executive to negotiate with the Treasury each year for access to end-of-year flexibility; and the level of annual underspend by Departments, which is unacceptably high in comparison with other regions.

The Committee concluded that those issues combined to place a heavy onus on Departments to manage public finances in a way that achieves the highest possible level of spend within authorised limits, and maximises the impact from available resources.

A further cross-cutting theme in the Budget is the reform agenda, in which the Department of Finance and Personnel will have a key role. The Civil Service reform programmes are expected to realise a range of benefits and value-for-money savings across the 11 Departments. Those benefits will be measured by a series of key performance indicators that will be integrated into departmental business planning. Again, the Committee will continue to review and monitor the work of the Department against targets set for each of the relevant programmes.

I have addressed only some of the issued covered in the Committee’s co-ordinated approach, particularly the importance of the financial management agenda, together with the drive to reform the public sector and to deliver value for money and efficiencies, all of which will enable the improvement to front-line services that our people deserve.

Those areas will require ongoing monitoring and scrutiny by the Committee for Finance and Personnel, together with the other statutory Committees and the wider Assembly, over the next three financial years of the Budget period.

The period 2008-2011 will present the Executive, and all of us in the Assembly, with both a challenge and an opportunity to prove that devolution can make a real difference to people’s lives, and that locally accountable, elected representatives and Ministers can take a much more sensitive approach to the nuances and the realities of social and economic life in the North.

I conclude with some remarks in respect of my party role as spokesperson on economic — [Laughter.]

My remarks concern the use of public finance initiatives (PFI). A considerable weight of evidence confirms Sinn Féin’s belief that PFI and PPP represent poor value for the public purse. Local examples include the car park project at the Royal Victoria Hospital and at Balmoral High School. Public Service provision under PFI will create problems for the Executive in future years. The net result of setting PFI contracts will be —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I am sorry.

The net result of setting PFI contracts will be that the Executive will progressively take on more and more long-term debt, and, in future, a greater proportion of the total Budget available to Ministers.

Sinn Féin will argue, as will its Ministers, that PFI contracts are not the preferred option of the Executive. Civil servants, and others responsible for designing projects, should be instructed to put equal, or greater, effort into alternative funding models, instead of PPP or PFI projects.

On investment, Sinn Féin welcomes many of the commitments in the Programme for Government, the Budget and ISNI II. However, it will be important that those commitments be turned into reality and that they deliver for the most disadvantaged in society. Sinn Féin welcomes the £18 billion that is to be invested in the next 10 years. In particular, we welcome the explicit commitments to the promotion of social inclusion and equality in the procurement of infrastructure programmes.

Furthermore, the reviews of water reform, domestic and industrial rates and Civil Service reform — as well as the systemic efficiency programmes across all Departments — will, Sinn Féin expects, demonstrate again the benefits of having a locally accountable Assembly.

On regional disparities, Sinn Féin is concerned that the commitment in this Budget and in ISNI II to promote regional balance does not go far enough and may not effectively address the legacy of the past, which has led to institutionalised disadvantage west of the Bann and in deprived areas such as north and west Belfast. Sinn Féin will continue to address that issue as we go forward.

Sinn Féin will continue to press the Executive and the Assembly to ensure that a commitment to the eradication of structural regional inequalities over a timetabled period is accomplished. Furthermore, we want to see the maximum decentralisation of public-sector jobs to redress historical disparity and imbalance and to support balanced regional development.

Finally, there is obvious confusion within the SDLP. I presume that I have some time, as a result of the interruptions?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

No, you have 10 minutes.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

OK.

The Minister for Social Development should consider — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. The Member has the Floor.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Minister for Social Develop­ment should consider making a statement to this Assembly and to a bemused public. Did she seek and receive support from her party leader and colleagues? Is endorsing the Programme for Government, ISNI II and the Budget compatible with the party’s policies? Last week she and he were proclaiming that their hard-line negotiating skills were a rationale for voting for and supporting the final documents at the Executive’s meeting. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether she proposed any amendments — the Minister of Finance and Personnel has challenged that. Did she propose any amendments during those discussions? Did she change her mind and betray her commitment to her ministerial colleagues, or did her party wobble when hardy came to hardy and, effectively, abandon her?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.32 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) —

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I should say in the first instance that I will make my opening remarks in my capacity as an Assembly Member, and I will make my final comments in my capacity as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

It is right and proper that we place on record that we are debating a Budget at a time when one party in our four-party mandatory coalition does not seem to know what being part of that coalition means.

Declan O’Loan, who is one of my North Antrim constituency colleagues, said earlier that he would not allow a situation to develop in which the SDLP would be hung out to dry. It is obvious that he was not referring to one of his colleagues, Margaret Ritchie, the Minister for Social Development. The SDLP has done exactly what it said it would not allow: it has hung the Minister out to dry.

No press conference in this Building today and no attempt at unity by the SDLP will be able to mask the problems that now exist in that party. It has a Minister who it has abandoned and does not support. We will probably see its Members again this afternoon in the political theatre of voting against the Budget. That is an issue for their electorate and on which that electorate will undoubtedly pass comment.

Therefore, having made those points, which reflect my personal perspective on the political charade that is going on with the SDLP, I will move the debate on to discuss the issues that have been of interest to the Committee of which I am the Deputy Chairperson. At the outset, I thank the Minister for his remarks.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We are currently seeing the spectacle of the Minister for Social Development being present in the Chamber alongside her party leader.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I ask the Minister to please address his remarks to the Chair. When Members turn towards others, as the Minister is doing, the volume disappears somewhat.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That might be a blessing for some, Mr Deputy Speaker. It will certainly be a blessing for the SDLP. Since both the Minister for Social Development and her party leader are present, I wonder whether they would answer the question that was asked earlier: if there were something inherently wrong with the Programme for Government, the investment strategy or the Budget, why did their Minister table no amendment to those in Executive meetings? Alternatively, did they shaft their Minister at a later stage?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his intervention. I remind him that earlier, the leader of the SDLP commented in the House that his Minister had expressed reservations. There is a vast difference between expressing reservations and coming up with ideas, proposals and amendments to a Budget and a draft strategy. Obviously, the SDLP does not really know where it is going on this issue.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

No, I have already given up some of my time, and I want to get to the substance of the issues that concern the Committee of which I am the Deputy Chairperson.

I thank the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his remarks and for his opening comments on the revised Budget. His comments explain the key challenges, pressures and priorities that lie ahead for the Executive.

The work that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has done on strategic budgetary issues has already been mentioned. I will focus my comments on DFP’s own Budget allocation and its importance in helping the Department to achieve the targets that have been set for it in the Programme for Government and the investment strategy, for which it takes lead responsibility.

In its response to the draft Budget, the Committee noted that DFP allocation for current expenditure between 2008 and 2011 represents a significant reduction in the Department’s share of departmental expenditure limit funds. That reflects a pattern of reduced funding for DFP; even the current year allocation is 17·1% lower than that of 2006-07. Although the Committee has concerns about the impact that that reduction could have, it is particularly uneasy about the Department’s capital allocations.

The Department of Finance and Personnel submitted a bid for approximately £94·2 million over the three financial years from 2008 to 2011 but was allocated £68·7 million.

The Committee has particular concerns over whether the capital allocations to Land and Property Services will be sufficient to allow the agency to alleviate the difficulties associated with its IT systems, especially those that deal with rate relief. Moreover, Land Registers of Northern Ireland and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland will merge with Land and Property Services on 1 April 2008. Those changes will present a real challenge to an agency that is responsible for the delivery of important front-line services. The Committee will continue to pursue the matter, and it has scheduled a scrutiny of that area of concern into its work programme over the coming weeks.

The Committee has already produced a report on Workplace 2010, and it continues to scrutinise the future progress and direction of that project. That major accommodation project will affect all Departments and is expected to generate approximately £175 million in capital receipts during the Budget period.

The Committee has also expressed concerns to DFP about the apparent delay in the implementation of Workplace 2010. That delay came to light when the Committee considered the Department’s input into the revised Programme for Government. The Committee will investigate that matter further tomorrow, when it will also examine the findings of the evaluation of the Workplace 2010 pilot project at Clare House. The potential consequences for the Budget of any significant delay in implementing Workplace 2010 will be of particular concern.

The Department of Finance and Personnel has lead responsibility for other key reform programmes, such as NI Direct, which will ultimately provide a single telephone point of contact for public services and the various shared-service centres, including HR Connect, Account NI and Records NI. The Committee recognises that those reform programmes underpin the Budget, in that they will contribute to achieving wider efficiency targets and will allow accrued savings to be redirected into the delivery of key front-line services. However, the Committee has recently been informed that the reform programme, including NI Direct, is to be funded out of future monitoring rounds. Consequently, the Committee is concerned that that approach attaches some uncertainty to funding for those important projects, and that, in turn, could result in delays and affect the wider efficiency drive. Such important, high-profile programmes, particularly in the case of NI Direct, will require priority.

The Committee was also concerned about the Department’s allocation for improvements in the energy performance of Government buildings and for measures linked to the sustainable development strategy, because those allocations run contrary to the prominence that the Executive afforded sustainability in the Programme for Government. I have pointed to the relative decline in the resource available to DFP, and it is intended that that will be supplemented through efficiency savings.

The Department has a target to deliver cash-releasing efficiencies of £5·7 million, £10·3 million and £14·8 million respectively over the next three financial years. Such efficiency targets will present DFP, and other Departments, with a considerable challenge. The Committee will continue to scrutinise regularly DFP’s progress in achieving its efficiency delivery plan, and it has recommended that the other Statutory Committees do likewise.

As was mentioned earlier, one of the major strategic issues that has arisen from the Committee’s investigation is the unacceptable level of underspend across Depart­ments. Such moneys could be used to tackle a range of ongoing needs rather than be left to accumulate at year-end. The Department of Finance and Personnel has a key role to play in leading the drive to minimise underspending, and the Committee will monitor the progress that the Department makes in driving the financial-management agenda and the way in which it leads by example, by ensuring the efficiency forecasting and monitoring of its own expenditure, and thereby minimising its underspend.

To conclude, the Committee will also continue to monitor the impact that the resource and capital allocations proposed for the Department of Finance and Personnel in the revised Budget will have on delivery, and how the Department plans to manage with allocations that are significantly below the amount sought. I support the motion.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I wish to make it clear from the outset that I welcome the Minister’s assurance that there will be scope to revise spending plans if necessary. That is an important commitment to record, particularly given the restrictions within which his Department has had to work in preparing the Budget.

Buzzwords have bounced around the Chamber lately. Expressions such as “we are where we are” and “it is time to move on” are, no doubt, meant to encourage a feel-good factor and demonstrate that devolution is working. However, last week, the Minister of Finance and Personnel sounded a cautionary note in his foreword to the Budget document:

“Recent years have seen above average rates of growth in public spending which will sharply decelerate in the coming three years. This will undoubtedly cause difficulties and challenges in terms of the need to prioritise resources on where they will result in most benefit.”

Ulster Unionists recognised that warning. Indeed, we first sounded it some time ago.

The Minister may recall grimacing as he said hello to me last week after his Budget statement. I recall that because I am more used to the grimace than the hello these days. He will remember that when I passed him, I said: “That was all right.” That is true; his statement was simply that — it was not brilliant or great, it was just as I told him: it was all right.

This Budget represents a weak cocktail mix — it has no fizz. Why is that? The Minister knows what we all know: that this Budget lacks the sparkle of the promised financial package from Gordon Brown, on which there was no delivery. So tight is the Budget that it is close to imploding. It squeezes spending out of the efficiencies to such an extent that no one knows for certain whether the 3% efficiency targets can be met.

However, we know that if only half the savings are made, a shortfall of £435 million will mean a large hole in the Budget. This is a high-wire Budget, and if it has a safety net, perhaps the Minister will tell us how far he can fall before he ejects himself from office, or runs for help. I am rather caught between two stools on that matter. On one hand, the very thought of the Minister ejecting himself from office is most appealing. On the other hand — perhaps I will leave that for another day.

I shall outline the Ulster Unionist Party’s position from this secure premise: its Members are in Government as of right, and they are there to assert the mandate that has been given to our party. That mandate has led to our taking on more financial responsibility than any other party in the Executive. Those responsibilities see two Ulster Unionist Ministers controlling over 56% of the revenue allocations. Contrast that with the percentages for the parties that control the votes in this House: the DUP, with its four Ministers, is responsible for only 8% of the revenue allocations; and Sinn Féin, with its three Ministers, musters 30%. Not even the combined score of those two parties’ seven Ministers gets close to our 56%. Therefore, we will not vote against the Budget, which was agreed by our Ministers.

I am proud of the stand that was taken by our party’s MLAs and Ministers when first declaring our resistance to the draft Budget. Today’s final Budget agreement justifies our stance. If our Ministers had rolled over and bowed the knee to the spurious accusations that were levelled at them — which, in one instance, led to the suspension of the Chairperson of the Health Committee — the Budget would not have been agreed, nor would it have been inclusive of the entire Executive.

The fact that Ulster Unionists hold responsibility for over 56% of the revenue allocation signifies our commitment to real responsibility, none of which we will walk away from. However, the party’s concerns and reservations also illustrate responsible thinking. We will monitor every decision that is taken. We will not tell the electorate that it is acceptable to wait 40, 50 or even 100 years before a road can be repaired; or that child poverty will be eradicated by 2010, when it will not; or that the poorest of our families will have to pay for water when they cannot afford to; or that there is a “live now, pay after death” system for fixed-income pensioners in respect of water charges.

How can we drum up support for a capital spend on sport of £111 million when £70 million of that is to be set aside for a stadium for which there is, as yet, no business case? Who knows when or where it will be built, or, indeed, whether it will be built at all? Remove that £70 million, and the remaining balance of £41 million leaves little to go around for sport in the next three years.

Education is in a total mess, with parents, pupils and teachers up in arms about the policy efficiencies of a rudderless Department that badly needs a new Minister and a change in policy direction. Who can guarantee that any money that is given to that Minister will be properly spent for the benefit of children in Northern Ireland?

In essence, the Budget is reliant on efficiency savings of 3% being made. Any slippage could cause serious chaos or freefall. Independent economic analysis suggests that it will be virtually impossible to achieve 3% savings. However, in a rather bullish statement that was reprinted in last Saturday’s ‘News Letter’, the Minister boasted that as a first step, domestic regional rates will be frozen for three years. He went on to say:

“the average household…will be £1,000 better off.”

Last week, Graeme Harrison, a leading economist with Oxford Economics was quoted in ‘The Irish News’ as saying:

“Northern Ireland is likely to face pressure to balance its books as domestic rates bills are much lower than in Britain. If this time comes, rates may rise quite significantly which will be a bitter pill to swallow.”

It would be a bitter pill indeed for average householders should water charges tap into their household income and leave them £1,000 worse off.

Is the Assembly being somewhat reckless in overstating a Budget, the delivery of which is built on speculation? What will happen if crucial efficiency targets are not met? What contingency plans are in place should efficiency savings fail to materialise? How will the Departments distinguish between cuts and savings? What happens if the efficiencies unravel and the Executive are forced to increase rates bills substantially to balance the books?

My party’s contribution to today’s debate will be constructive and penetrating. Our participation in the House is the same as in the Executive: we act in good faith, with the aim of reaching as broad a consensus as possible. However, make no mistake: we will retain our serious reservations about the Budget until we are satisfied that they are no longer valid.

Those who attempt to browbeat the UUP Ministers, or any of my colleagues, and who once chided members of my party as being pushovers, should take a good look at themselves. Perceived dominance is a kidding machine. Those people should take some friendly advice from me: they, not the UUP, are responsible for making the daily headlines that do not cover them in glory. Commentators, columnists and the letters pages are pulling their parties — not mine — to bits.

The Ulster Unionists have moved on: we are reinvigorated, and we relish the challenges that lie ahead in the Executive, the Committees, and in building our relationships with the public. Ulster Unionists will step up to the mark on the Budget: where it succeeds, and we hope that it does, we will applaud it. Where it fails, and our reservations point to the probability of some serious failures, we will denounce it. For now, the Ulster Unionist Party joins its Ministers in approving the Budget.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I congratulate the Minister and all his Executive colleagues on agreeing the Budget, which is a significant document for any legislature. In today’s Northern Ireland Assembly, it represents a major milestone on the road away from direct rule. The four parties that are in power represent 90% of the population. For those four parties — the DUP, Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP — to agree unanimously to a three-year Budget would have been unimaginable a year ago. It is a positive Budget for Northern Ireland, and it marks a distinct departure from direct rule.

I particularly welcome the continuing focus on growing a vibrant and dynamic economy for Northern Ireland — our number one priority. However, having that as our number one priority does not mean that investment in public services is not required. In the Budget, there will be more than £4 billion worth of spending a year on health, an additional £400 million a year for education, and ambitious public capital investment in infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, public transport and other public services, to the tune of some £2 billion a year. That is significant, and it is needed to help achieve the goal of growing Northern Ireland’s economy.

Freezing the domestic regional rate, capping the industrial rate, and the clear focus in the Budget on much-needed efficiencies and on performance are recognition that the people of Northern Ireland have paid enough and have not received the outputs that their inputs have deserved.

However, in spite of all of those positives, and I could mention many more, there are doom merchants, naysayers and nit-pickers who have pored over the document and have suddenly — compared to others who have been consistently opposed to it — become eleventh-hour converts to opposing the Budget. I am referring, of course, to the SDLP.

It is worth remembering that as far as the current Budget process is concerned, all Ministers must agree to every aspect of the Budget. It is not sufficient for Ministers to agree only to their individual departmental allocations — obviously, they will have a particular interest in those. Ministers must agree to every single piece of the Budget, every line, every pound and every penny.

Serious questions have to be posed about what has been written in the press and what has been said in the Chamber today. First, is the SDLP riven with division? Did Margaret Ritchie defy her party’s directions? Did she fail to deliver on what her party asked her to achieve in the Executive? Those questions need to be asked, especially given that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has said that Minister Ritchie proposed no amendments to the draft Budget.

The only other possibility, which is much more serious, is that Margaret Ritchie’s approval of the Budget in the Executive — and her likely endorsement of it this evening, if she wants to remain in office — was deliberately dishonourable. That is the serious issue that she has to address.

I look forward to seeing her in the Lobby later — I am sure that I will. However, her party colleagues who will trot through the other Lobby at the same time will be holding what is tantamount to a vote of no confidence in her ability. That is an issue that she needs to seriously reflect on, and she should watch her back. Perhaps she needs to get her retaliation in first. I am not sure what the SDLP’s role is — its Minister will be voting for a Budget that her Assembly colleagues will be voting against. Perhaps its role will evolve over the course of the day.

I do know what the Alliance Party’s role is. However, they are not effective in fulfilling it.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Is that the best you can manage, Simon?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am just starting, David. In all seriousness, I find it curious that a party, which for decades piously pronounced that it was time for people to get together and work together for the betterment of Northern Ireland, is now taking such a position. In many ways, it is opposing its raison d’etre; it is opposing what it has been proposing for years.

Alliance Party Members may think that they are the tough guys and that they are talking tough; however, I honestly do not think that their supporters will appreciate what the party is doing, especially given what it has been selling them through the years. [Interruption.]

I hope that it is not because of anything that I said.

The cost-of-division argument has been wheeled out as the main fiscal argument once again. However, the Alliance Party has another argument, which I will address later. It knows that its alternative is unrealistic. The Alliance Party’s arguments on the cost of division have been derided by UNISON — which has been no friend of the Minister of Finance during the consultation on the draft Budget — and in its submission on the draft Budget those arguments have been called “delusions”.

It is important to examine the matters that are included in ‘The Cost of Division — A Shared Future Strategy’, and I would love to be able to click my fingers and make the actual cost of division disappear overnight. The maximum potential figure of £1·5 billion that is cited in the report includes various costs, such as responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Office and aspects of security, which would not automatically come back to the Assembly in any case. I heard your contribution to the Programme for Government debate yesterday, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you excoriated the Alliance Party quite effectively on that point.

The report also included the funding of the Historical Enquiries Team, and the Alliance Party must be asked whether it would like to see that body disappear.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for a Member to refer to comments that were made by the Deputy Speaker when he was speaking from the Benches as a private Member, and then refer to him as the Deputy Speaker during a subsequent debate?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

That is not relevant to today’s business, Dr Farry.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

You are very wise, Mr Deputy Speaker: two good comments in two days — you are on a roll.

The report also suggests that if bonfires were eliminated, we could save thousands of pounds every year. Perhaps the authors of the report do not attend many bonfires, because even if division in society ended, I suspect that bonfires would not disappear for ever. Perhaps we will have guys.

There are potentially quite significant savings to be made in education, but the Alliance Party, when presented with an opportunity in the House to vote against the Irish-medium club bank to stop the inappropriate further disintegration of education, voted for it. That will further entrench division in our education system.

The Alliance Party is not a one-trick pony any more — it now has two tricks on fiscal matters. The Alliance Party is telling the people, the households and the businesses of Northern Ireland that it wants to see their taxes rise, and, if it has its way, they will rise significantly. Under the last five years of direct rule, the people of Northern Ireland faced a 60% domestic regional rate rise, including a 19% rise in one year.

The Alliance Party characterised this as a low-tax Budget. That is a label that the DUP and I would be very happy to pick up and wear with immense pride. After enduring years of double-digit rate rises, the people have made a large enough contribution, and it is time for them to receive the performance that they deserve. A Budget that will freeze the domestic regional rate, effect an 8% cut over the three-year period and cap the industrial rate is to be welcomed, not criticised. A Budget that means that the average household in Northern Ireland will be around £1,000 better off over the three-year period, compared to direct rule, is best for Northern Ireland.

The Alliance Party has bashed householders and manufacturers, and has now turned its attention to bashing farmers. I wonder when they are going to bash little old ladies, because it seems that no one is immune when it comes to from whom the Alliance Party will take taxes. The Alliance Party is in opposition, the job of which is to propose attractive policies so that people will vote for them. If that is the type of policy that the Alliance Party believes people are going to vote for, it may as well get used to its role, because it will be in it for a very long time.

This Budget marks a significant change for Northern Ireland, and it represents a move in the right direction. The agreement of a unanimous Budget is to be whole­heartedly welcomed by everyone in the House. I give it my support, and I look forward to seeing the now-departed Minister for Social Development supporting it too.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Thankfully, she has departed only temporarily.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the debate on the Budget and the opportunity to take part in it. One of the most positive elements of the Budget is that local, accountable political representatives are setting the priorities and Budget allocations, rather than direct rule Ministers.

The Budget is by no means perfect, but it is a first step in delivering real change to the people living in the North of Ireland.

The fact that there is such a high level of public interest in the draft Budget, which was shown by the number of people who responded to the consultation process, indicates that people have high expectations of local political representatives to deliver the changes necessary to make our quality of life better.

It is important to build a dynamic, innovative economy, but it is equally important to ensure that poverty, disadvantage and inequality are addressed. The economy in the North of Ireland is characterised by unacceptable and unsustainable levels of poverty that expose the extent of discrimination and disadvantage in our society. Some 31% of 16- to 60-year-olds lack paid work; 22% of the workforce is low paid; and nearly 25% of households are unable to afford adequate home heating. Nearly 100,000 children and 50,000 pensioners are living in income poverty, and 3,000 people die prematurely each year as a result of disadvantage and poverty.

In the past, we have had no control over our resources, which has resulted in an economy with patterns that have, year after year, produced alarming evidence of intensifying inequality and disadvantage.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No.

We must correct the huge infrastructure deficit resulting from successive failures to invest in essential services, such as water, the sewerage system, transport, hospitals and education. It is our commitment to address discrimination and disadvantage that is at the very source of our opportunity to overcome what is morally and economically unsustainable. For example, by looking at how all public procurement expenditure can integrate economic and social requirements, along with ring-fencing projects that directly impact on discrimination and poverty, ways can be found that can begin to challenge those patterns of disadvantage.

There is a huge budget for procurement, and we need to agree measures, such as local labour, clauses that will ensure that procurement meets equality conditions. For example, companies that receive contracts should meet base conditions, which would include good wages and employment of apprenticeships, and thus they would contribute to local economic welfare and growth.

Unfortunately, the British Government have ignored repeated cross-party representations to make special provision for the North of Ireland as a society emerging from conflict, with all the social and economic disadvantages that that brings. Instead, we are faced with an unfair Barnett settlement — the outworking of which can be seen in the draft Budget — and a drive to privatise public services.

The block grant from the British Government is inadequate and does not allow the Executive to challenge fully the years of underinvestment by successive British Governments. Notwithstanding the context of that financial shortfall, as well as the absence of a developed all-Ireland economy, until we have control over our own fiscal powers, we will continue to carry the burden of trying to match limited resources with increasing needs.

There are, of course, several areas where it will be necessary to examine and to continue to lobby for resources in different Departments.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No.

Public service provision under PFI is an area that needs to be examined and its shortfalls challenged. PFI and PPP contracts require public bodies to enter into long-term contracts that involve them borrowing money at a higher rate of interest than normal. Government can borrow at a lower interest rate than the private sector. Therefore, PFI and PPP contracts —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Members, please allow the Member to continue.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Therefore, PFI and PPP contracts can cost the taxpayer more in the longer term.

The social economy is another area that deserves special recognition. We must recognise the important and significant contribution of such local economic activity, which promotes social objectives and sustainable community development. That industry has already created sustainable jobs. The development of the social economy should be actively promoted by the Assembly and the Executive.

The community and voluntary sector has been starved of core funding. An ongoing lobbying process must take place to ensure specific Departments allocate the resources necessary to core fund those front-line services delivered through the community and voluntary sector.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No.

Moneys could be ring-fenced, particularly in the Department for Social Development. Many services, including the Youth Service, are due to finish in March and June of this year. Many are losing Peace II funding, with no alternative measures in place to sustain their projects, even though they have been central to delivering opportunities for community training and development, education, promotion of good relations, and initiatives for children and young people.

The Department for Social Development must be creative and imaginative in finding ways to retain the skills and expertise that have been acquired in that sector and that have helped to promote and sustain citizenship and peace. Many communities in west Belfast, other parts of the city and across the North of Ireland have serious concerns about the future of the community sector. Therefore, it is unacceptable that a report on the future of that sector, which argued for mainstream long-term funding for community organi­sations, has still not been acted upon, despite being presented to the Department for Social Development several years ago.

The revised Budget, alongside the Programme for Government and the investment strategy, should be a vehicle to empower communities through economic initiatives. Departments should commit to building social capital through funded, participative community-level initiatives that lead to sustainable economic projects, which would be beneficial to all in the community.

I am disappointed that the Budget does not mention women as a specific group that faces inequality and discrimination. I expected the Budget to reflect the commitment, which the Executive made in the Programme for Government, to tackling the remaining gender inequalities in society. That commitment was written into the Programme for Government at Sinn Féin’s insistence, and I intend to ensure that all Depart­ments honour it.

In the Programme for Government, the Executive make a commitment to implementing the cross-departmental gender-equality strategy and to work towards the total elimination of the gender pay gap. The Executive are also committed to developing effective programmes and strategies aimed at eradicating all forms of violence against women and to ensuring a significant increase in women’s participation in political and public life, which will be helped by ensuring that women have access to affordable, quality childcare.

Although all those gains in the Programme for Government are welcome, it is important that financial support and resources are made available to deliver on those commitments. Sinn Féin intends to use the agreed mechanisms for delivering equality, including the equality impact assessment process.

In conclusion, as I said at the outset, the fact that local political representatives, rather than direct rule Ministers, have set the priorities and Budget allocations that will affect local people’s lives for the next few years must be seen as a positive step forward. It is a positive first step, but much more work must be done to ensure that inequality, discrimination and disadvantage are rigorously challenged and tackled. All people in the North of Ireland are entitled to a much better quality of life. It is the responsibility of local representatives, along with others, to ensure that that is delivered. We must take the process forward, because people are expecting their local politicians to deliver. There is much goodwill out there, but people expect a lot from us. Go raibh maith agat.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I commend the Member for Upper Bann Mrs Kelly for taking rejection very well.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Like Ms McCann, I support the Budget. However, unlike her, I might manage to make some positive comments about it to justify my going through the Lobbies. I look forward to seeing Ms McCann, and others, in the Lobbies tonight in support of the four-party Budget that the Executive approved unanimously.

The Budget marks an important departure for Northern Ireland in three crucial respects. It stands in sharp contrast to the direct rule Budgets that were imposed upon us in the past. First, the draft Budget went out to consultation, and today we see the finished product. As local politicians, we are used to seeing the Government consulting on various proposals. Responses and strenuous arguments for changes might be made, but they always seemed to fall on deaf ears. As the revised Budget shows, the Executive have been listening, and they have considered genuine concerns and met genuine pressures without diverting the Budget from its central purpose. The Executive have shown flexibility, while retaining the Budget’s strength.

Many words of praise have been heaped upon the Minister of Finance and Personnel for organising the Budget and the consultation process. However, praise must also go to the hard-working special adviser and officials in the Department who successfully aided the Minister in producing that excellent work.

I highlighted three areas where a departure from the past was merited. The second of those is the opportunity to be responsive and listen.

The economy is at the heart of the Budget, in both the draft and the final versions. Here is a challenge to all of us to shift away from our mindset. In the past, the tendency has been to concentrate on how the cake has been carved up. When we were faced with problems, we asked for more cake. Ultimately, however, the long-term economic success of Northern Ireland will be based on a strong economy. The Budget shows the way. In achieving that strong economy, it is not a question of redressing the balance between the public and private sectors by reducing the size of the public sector. Examination of the Budget shows record levels of commitment to the public sector. For example, the vast growth of the allocation to the Health Service and the additional money for social housing that has been found in the final Budget will make a major contribution to society. It is not so much reducing the public sector that is vital, but creating economic conditions that make for growth in the private sector. The Alliance Party has thrown at us the accusation that we have been trying to create a low-tax economy that will allow the private sector to flourish. That is a badge of honour that I am happy to wear.

Consider the regional rate. We have seen massive increases, driven, in part, by the agreement on the reinvestment and reform initiative. That meant that taxpayers and ratepayers in Northern Ireland have, in recent years, been bled dry. Now, however, the domestic regional rate has been frozen for the next three years; and the business rate will be kept in line with inflation. The Executive have responded to requests from the manufacturing sector to hold down the level of derating, which will give a much-needed boost to our economy.

The third area in which there has been a departure from past practice, is one on which the focus will fall in the future. The Budget concentrates, not simply on the levels of allocation given to various Departments, but — as was shown in the Minister’s statement last week — on delivery. Northern Ireland’s citizens will expect that. That is what matters to people: not that we have a more expensive system, or that we have one that is better-funded, but that delivery makes a difference to their day-to-day lives.

Consequently —

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, in future, local government will have an important part to play in service delivery? Since local government and central Government have co-operated in preparing the modernisation agenda, does the Member agree that it is disappointing that no money has been identified in the Budget for the next three years for taking that forward?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Money will be made available for modernisation. It is hoped that, in the near future, the Executive will make decisions on the review of public administration. Matters will flow from that. The Budget has been put in place for the next three years; there needs to be modernisation of local government, and that requires investment. However, the sums required can be dealt with through in-year monitoring, and focused on activities that will be of benefit.

There must be much greater co-operation between local government and central Government to ensure that there is proper delivery. All Members can point to parts of the Province where, in the past, Government buildings, one after another, have been put side-by-side and there has been no efficiency of delivery. However, the Budget concentrates on delivery. Performance and efficiency delivery units (PEDU) will lead to savings.

Indeed, it is hoped that the pressure on Departments to generate efficiency savings of 3% will result in resources being targeted to where they are most needed — the front-line delivery of services. Therefore, there is much to commend in the Budget.

Through its amendment, the Alliance Party has taken a rather predictable path. It maintains that recovering the cost of division is the silver bullet that will cure all social ills — it is as though a wave of that magic wand will produce immediate savings. I am reminded of the idea that the Liberal Democrats had in the 1980s of increasing income tax by 1p. The plan was that, as time went by, that increase would pay for more and more services. It seems that some think that finding an immediate cure to the cost of division is the magic solution to every social ill.

I look forward to the Supplementary Estimates, when the Alliance Party will actually put some meat on the bones of its proposals and make suggestions. If money is to be diverted to other activities, let us hear where that party wants to make changes, what schools it wants to close and what roads it does not want to be built. Let us hear what concrete proposals it is prepared to make.

Although the Alliance Party is wrong in its assertion that recovering the cost of division is the magic solution, at least it deserves credit for its consistency. It might be consistently wrong, but at least it is consistent. Indeed, the party has sounded like a stuck record throughout the lifetime of this Assembly.

However, at least there is a little bit of logic in its position, unlike that of the party opposite, the SDLP, whose Minister agreed with the Budget. Not only did she agree with the elements of the Budget that affect her Department, she agreed with the Budget in its entirety. Like a family pet that is adopted at Christmas and abandoned on Boxing Day once the children are tired playing with it, Margaret Ritchie has been abandoned by the Members opposite. She will cut a lonely figure when she walks through the Aye Lobby.

It is clear that the SDLP is playing games with the Budget. It is trying to have its cake and eat it. It is trying to be part of the Government, trying to claim whatever successes emerge from the Budget, particularly those that emerge from the Department for Social Development, while saying “nothing to do with me, guv”, as though it had nothing to do with the Budget. In fact, the SDLP has demonstrated political immaturity on the issue. It has pretended, Pontius Pilate-like, to wash its hands of the Budget while allowing its own Minister to traipse through the Aye Lobby in its favour. That shows that its stance is fundamentally flawed.

The people of Northern Ireland will welcome the Budget. It is a Budget for business and economic growth, and it will deliver for everyone.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I am amazed at the Alliance Party’s amendment, which calls for a revised programme of expenditure to be developed at this late stage. The amendment does not even mention specific financial amendments that ought to be made to the Budget.

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding about how late the Budget is already. It is normally completed in December, but it has been delayed until January because of the comprehensive spending review. It must be understood that the process involves not just finalising departmental budgets. For example, once the education budget has been finalised, the Department of Education must cascade its allocation to the various boards. When will schools find out how much money they are getting? It takes time for money to be cascaded down through Departments. Therefore, there are dangers in delaying a final judgement on the Budget.

If the Alliance Party is dissatisfied with issues in the Budget, why did it not propose specific amendments that could have been debated? Is it merely copying the DUP of old by tabling token amendments just so that it can vote against the Budget? Some people might call that grandstanding.

The Ulster Unionist Party contributed to the draft Budget by giving constructive criticism and by seeking further information. The Finance Minister and me have been involved in some toing and froing on the lack of evidence of a financial package. The contentious nature of the Budget shows that it is obvious that there is little evidence of a £1 billion financial package. The Assembly was promised that the outcomes of the Varney Review would boost Northern Ireland’s economic prospects. However, Varney I failed to deliver anything of note, and that has spawned Varney II.

Earlier, Mitchel McLaughlin criticised the achieve­ments of David Trimble and Mark Durkan during their engagements with the Treasury. However, they gained access to reinvestment and reform initiative funding, and many valuable former army bases were to be given to Northern Ireland’s Executive to benefit the local economy. By comparison, the “Chuckle Brothers” seem to have gained little from their solo visit to London.

I wish to return to some other remaining areas of concern.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Yes.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Success — it just goes to show that one should try, try and try again. I thank the Member for giving way. Will he agree that it was the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP who set up the Strategic Investment Board — a point that has been forgotten by the DUP and Sinn Féin? They voted against having the board; yet it now forms the core of their economic development and investment strategies.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

It is amazing how some parties can do speedy U-turns when they realise their errors.

There is no agreed method for water charging and for ensuring affordability, and I ask the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Minister for Regional Development to state why it is taking so long to formulate detailed financial proposals on what is facing the people. Budget proposals will impact on water charging, and it is disappointing that, nine months after devolution, no firm proposals are available. Clearly, those who are responsible for finance and water must answer for that.

Although I accept that the Northern Ireland public has been paying for water through the rating system, and will continue to pay for water, I would like to make it clear that the Ulster Unionist Party does not support water payments that will be based solely on the value of houses. Aside from the inequality of such a proposal, it also fails to address the EU water framework directive, which requires water conservation measures to result from the charging mechanism.

Northern Ireland Water and the water regulator have expressed concerns about the achievability of the 40% efficiency target, and I understand that it has been reduced to 35%. Is the target achievable in the short term? What will happen if it is not achieved?

Much of the capital investment discussed in the Assembly concerns releasing existing capital and reinvesting it, and more work needs to be done in that area. However, the Assembly is still blind as far as the report that was passed to the Minister of Finance and Personnel in December is concerned. As that report will have major implications for capital funding proposals, when will it be published, and why has it been withheld prior to the debate on the Budget? When will the assets be sold, and will they reach their true value?

Significant sums of money are contained in the Budget to redevelop land formerly used by the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence and to assist in improving sporting infrastructure prior to the 2012 Olympic Games. I hope to see the full business case for the proposed stadium at the Maze soon, and I hope that details have not been withheld deliberately so as to enable funding to be included in the Budget.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

This is a totally new revelation from the Ulster Unionist Party. Did the Member say that he was looking for forward to seeing the business case for a stadium at the Maze? Is this one of the Ulster Unionist Party’s new policies?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Would the Member allow me to finish my point? I urge that full infrastructure costs are included in such a business case because there is potential for much folly in talking solely about a stadium. It is important that the full implications of creating an efficient transport system to, and from, such a stadium are included. I suspect that when that is done, it will put a huge question mark over the proposals.

Significant capital underfunding has resulted from delays in the planning system in Northern Ireland. Will that continue to happen, or will it be possible to ensure a six-month turnaround of capital investment proposals to ensure that we, in turn, will not incur underspending and mismanagement of public funding?

I share the views that Declan O’Loan expressed on domestic rates. The Finance Minister claims that the Budget will make households in Northern Ireland £1,000 better off. On 23 January 2008, in ‘The Irish News’, Graeme Harrison, a leading economist with Oxford Economics, challenged that claim. He said that it was difficult to pin down:

“exactly how civil servants arrived at their figure of £1,000”.

Householders will not feel better off by £1,000 when they experience the full cost of water bills, the charges of which are lined up for significant increases in future years. We would be better off without the spin.

During the run-up to the Budget, I asked a number of written and oral questions to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on departmental funding and North/South bodies. One question has not been answered and remains of concern to me: what is the purpose of the huge increase in funding under the heading of “Support for Government and other services”? In 2001-02, £9·273 million was allocated under that heading, and in 2006-07, that allocation was £13·529 million. In the Budget for 2007-08, the NIO conveniently increased that figure by 40% to £18·93 million, which is more than double the amount that was allocated during the last period of devolution. I continue to seek further information on that matter, and I will continue to monitor that situation and to seek an assurance that money is being well spent — but I have considerable concerns that it is not.

In the past, the DUP has conveniently used paltry sums — for example, its removal of approximately £1 million from funding for North/South bodies — to justify an amendment and to vote against a Budget as a grandstanding, spoiling mechanism. Along with my Ulster Unionist colleagues, I do not wish to adopt a spoiling mechanism, although we could justifiably do so. We do not want to spoil, but we will continue to monitor and question expenditure.

We accept that we have a role to play in giving stability to the critical Budget process, and, therefore, to the stability of Northern Ireland, which will enable economic progress. We would not be thanked if, during the run-up to the economic conference that is planned for May 2008, we were to expose Northern Ireland as fragile. Therefore, it is important that we all take difficult decisions. From that point of view, I support the Budget.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is a pity that Peter Weir and Simon Hamilton are not in the Chamber, but in response to their comments, I point out that the SDLP has made no eleventh-hour conversion on its position on the Budget or Programme for Government. We have been clear about the need for a consistent, constructive and responsible approach in the Chamber, outside the Chamber, and at Committee level. The SDLP amendment highlights the areas of the Budget that we are concerned about. We will not be censored or silenced, and we will certainly not be bullied into submission by any other party. We are a democratic party, and we have the right to raise issues that are of concern to us.

As the SDLP spokesperson on culture, arts and leisure, I will focus on sport and the arts. The SDLP places a high value on sport at individual, community, regional, national and international levels. Sport contributes to the physical and mental health of people and communities; it helps to build community cohesion and esteem; it helps to build regional and national recognition and reputation; and, internationally, it has an ambassadorial role to play through sports people, teams and supporters. When those factors are considered, the benefits of sport represent a strong return on the investment that is made.

The SDLP also recognises the immense contribution that volunteers make to sporting and community bodies across Northern Ireland.

Sport probably attracts more voluntary effort than any other sector, and that effort provides immense added value to Government spending. We are concerned that sport has not been allocated the necessary funding. The investment strategy for Northern Ireland states that the Executive:

“will invest in a range of new, and improved sports facilities to a standard comparable with other similar UK regions, providing world class facilities and places for playing and watching sport that are accessible to all.”

That worthy aim will prove difficult, given the capital allocation to sport over the next three years. The SDLP is concerned that sport will be under-resourced in capital and revenue allocations. That will have a negative impact on our ability to implement the draft strategy for sport and physical recreation, which went out to public consultation in October 2007. The Government will be unable to deliver the stadia safety programme, and the ability to deliver 10 Olympic centres of excellence will also be seriously jeopardised. No money will be made available from central Government to build community sports facilities, and there will be no money for local rugby, soccer or Gaelic football clubs. Although officials from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure tell us that if the Maze project goes ahead, the Department of Finance and Personnel will receive £80 million, some of which may be ploughed back into sport, that is a nonsense.

The draft sports strategy is wide-ranging, covering sport from community to international level. Although many groups are critical of aspects of the strategy, there is no doubt that its scale and potential benefits are ambitious. The capital that is required to deliver the strategy from 2008-2011 is £260 million. Those are not my figures. Only £112 million is allocated in the Budget, leaving a shortfall of more than 50%. The draft sports strategy requires revenue funding of £101 million, but the Budget allocates £34 million, which amounts to a shortfall of almost 70%.

There are serious concerns about the ability to deliver on important areas of the draft sports strategy, such as the sports stadiums safety programme, Olympic centres of excellence and community facilities. Over the past seven years, the stadia safety programme has delivered health and safety improvements at major sports grounds across Northern Ireland. The Budget makes no provision whatsoever for a continued programme of investment in our major sports grounds. Whether those grounds be Windsor Park or Derry City’s Brandywell Stadium, there is no money in the Budget for them.

The Scott Report of 1997 established that investment of £30 million was required in order to bring our sports grounds up to standard. Inflation and increased standards have now overtaken that figure, but, to date, the Govern­ment have only invested £6·3 million, through Sport Northern Ireland.

As a result of historical failures of Government to invest properly in sports grounds and the absence of funding in the Budget, grounds will fail to meet the standards that The Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and the Green Guide imposed. In order to comply with statutory health and safety require­ments, grounds will be forced to reduce greatly their capacity, and, in other instances, they may have to close down. That will have obvious implications for Northern Ireland’s ability to market itself as a region of sporting excellence. It will limit our ability to host international sporting events, including our ability to host football matches during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Under direct rule, £53 million was set aside for centres of excellence in the elite facilities programme. That programme is intended to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from, and contributes to, the legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. A target was set to attract 10 international teams to Northern Ireland for acclimatisation and pre-Games training. That will involve building 10 new, world-class sporting facilities and attracting world-class coaches and other sports-related specialists to Northern Ireland. However, the Budget reduces that commitment from £53 million to £35 million, and, out of that £35 million, £15 million has been committed to the provision of a 50-metre swimming pool in north Down. That leaves only £20 million to build the other 10 centres.

From my discussions with Sport Northern Ireland, I understand that there will be no money available for the construction of community facilities between 2008 and 2011. If new or improved facilities are to be made available locally, they will have to be built by the local authorities, and the increased pressures on ratepayers will be significant.

The Budget’s allocation to sport falls short of the requirements of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s draft sport strategy. That will have a number of negative effects. We will not achieve the target participation levels in sport across the demographic groups and will, therefore, miss opportunities to improve health and well-being and to target social need at individual and community level. The people of Northern Ireland will fail to achieve the potential sports legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games. Furthermore, the international competitiveness of Northern Ireland athletes will be disadvantaged.

The Minister will be aware that, during the consultation process on the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget, almost 50% of those who contributed talked about the lack of money, funding and leadership in the arts and sports fraternities. The allocation of £1·5 million to the arts is a minimal approach.

It is an indictment of historical governance that the arts have fallen so far behind, compared to other regions. The arts are considered important in the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. They contribute to a region’s attractiveness as a place to invest, and they contribute significantly and directly to the economy through many creative industries and product design. That is why Governments in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland spend twice as much per capita on the arts as we do. When will we invest properly in our historical and excellent culture? Why are we not doing so already? We know what investment is required, so why are we not investing in our own people and heritage, as other regions are doing?

The Arts Council of Northern Ireland said that for an extra £10 million pounds a year, it could raise spending to a level similar to that of the Republic of Ireland and Scotland. For that sum, the Arts Council could have levered in additional millions of pounds and put the region on the map. There was an opportunity to deliver that in the Programme for Government. It has not happened in this Budget — we are still the poor relation, and our performance will continue to be substandard and second-class. It is not too late to change that situation, and I hope that in his review — whatever its duration might be — the Minister will decide to make the required and proper investment in all communities.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Although there has been support from most of the parties for the Budget and the departmental increases that the Executive has endorsed, Members must keep their feet firmly on the ground. While the revised Budget appears to have delivered the resources required for most Departments, it once again highlights the serious deficiencies in the infrastructure inherited from direct rule Ministers and shows up the underinvestment that existed for many years.

Serious problems have been stored up for us in the area of housing. In every survey that has been carried out on these islands, housing has featured as one of the top three issues of major concern. The serious problems in the housing sector are not a new phenomenon; they have been with us for many years. The lack of investment or any type of strategy to tackle the housing crisis is an indictment of those direct rule Ministers who held the relevant portfolio over the years.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No, I have not got enough time.

The housing crisis is real, and it affects everyone, from the very young to the very old: those who have been priced out of ever owning a home because the market was speculator-led, which put the price of houses well out of their reach, and those who have been on housing waiting lists for years with no hope of getting a house because not enough social houses were being built. I am glad that the argument about the Budget is coming to an end, because it is hiding a real question about housing: how will we end the housing crisis? What strategy will be brought before the Assembly that will lead us out of the nightmare?

Although the Minister of Finance has said that there will be increases in the Budget for the Department for Social Development to allow the building of 1,500, 1,750 and 2,000 new, welcome, social houses over the lifetime of the Budget, there is still a gap between what is required to deal with the housing crisis and what is detailed in the Budget.

If we are to make a difference to — and an impact on — the ever-growing waiting list, at least £200 million a year will be required for the foreseeable future. However, that does not necessarily mean money from the Department of Finance. In fact, the way is now clear for the Minister for Social Development to tell Members what she will do. For months, she has hidden behind the Budget and accused her Executive colleagues of not giving her the necessary money. She cannot hide behind that excuse any longer, but must explain how she will spend her departmental budget, in addition to providing the House with information about the further measures that she will bring to the table. There can now be no excuse for not producing an effective strategy to provide the required housing. For months, we have listened to the Minister telling us how, given the money, she would deal with the housing crisis.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No. She has been given the money — let us see what she can deliver. Sinn Féin’s, the DUP’s and other parties’ Ministers — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, is there any chance of some order?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

By providing the required finance, Sinn Féin, DUP and other parties’ Ministers have delivered on their promises to prioritise housing, and Margaret Ritchie signed off on that commitment. We await the result of that commitment in the form of her action plan.

Members must remember that 21,000 people a year declare themselves homeless, and that rate has been growing each year. The stark reality of the problem is that the waiting list stands at upwards of 36,000 people.

Housing shortages are cross-cutting and impact on every aspect of people’s lives. Being homeless can affect people’s mental well-being, their employment prospects and their — and their children’s — education attainment. Having a home allows one to grow as a person and gives one the dignity and confidence to build for the future.

Across the state, Members can see the legacy of previous Administrations and the extent of the job that must be done. Department for Social Development housing statistics from 2002-03 to 2006-07 show that 10,832 people have faced actions to repossess their houses because of mortgage arrears.

For the past several years, the social-housing new-build programme has had little impact throughout the North. Between 2004-05 and 2006-07, six new social houses were built in Omagh; three were built in Magherafelt; none in Ballymoney; one in Limavady; none in Moyle; 27 in Strabane; and five in Cookstown. Those are some of the shocking statistics that illustrate the housing mess that we are in.

Members must ask how they can make a difference for the person who is sleeping on the street because he or she has nowhere to go; for people who have been in hostels for years because too few houses are being built; for people in private-rental accommodation that is unsuitable for their needs and who are paying over the odds; for young people who cannot afford to get a mortgage; or for couples whose mortgage payment accounts for two thirds of their monthly income. Those are the realities that the Assembly must face, but what is the solution?

All Members share the responsibility of bringing our people out of that crisis, and that is why it is crucial that the Minister for Social Development brings her strategy to the table. We must know what has been done in the eight months since she took office. What are the results and recommendations from the review group’s deliberations?

We argued that article 40 of The Planning Order 1991 should have been tackled first and should have been a key element in providing a steady flow of social and affordable houses. Is the Co-ownership Housing Association to be the only option in the affordable-housing sector, or will the Minister take on board the necessity of broadening the sector in order to allow different approaches for different situations?

In the provision of social-rented houses, can we expect, as has been suggested, a wider remit for the private-rental sector — an uncontrolled sector with few real restrictions on how business is conducted, and which is paid huge amounts of money by the Govern­ment? Has the Minister approached the construction industry to ascertain how it can deliver, as it did in England? The benefits are twofold — the Assembly invests huge sums of money in various projects, and the bartering of land for houses has been widely used. It will be interesting to see what the Minister has done to encourage that industry to be a partner in the provision of social and affordable housing.

That would also give a much-needed lift to the wider community through the creation of new jobs in a renewed construction sector.

In her press statement yesterday, the Minister said that the Budget is much better than the original; it is better for those on waiting lists, the homeless and those who want to reach the first rung on the ladder. The time for talking is over — let us see what the Minister can deliver. Go raibh maith agat.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

In case anyone interrupts me during my speech, I want to make it clear that I am not speaking as the Chairperson of the Education Committee. I intend to be totally partisan and party political and to address some of the issues that the Alliance Party and SDLP have raised.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

To avoid any unnecessary points of order or interruptions, I want to make that clear from the start. The amendments — [Interruption.]

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order, order.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. How will Members know if Mr Sammy Wilson is being partisan?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will find out in a minute or two. [Laughter.]

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order, order.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the Member minded to give way if an interesting point arises during his remarks?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Provided that time is added on, I am happy to give way. Members will welcome that. I will examine the Alliance Party amendment first. Members are used to regarding the Alliance Party as the eccentric party, which almost invites people to poke fun at it. However, Dr Farry excelled himself today; when it comes to establishing the Alliance Party’s role as a haven for political crackpots or to developing the art of kamikaze politics, he has done his party proud. Let us look at the Alliance Party’s policies for Northern Ireland.