Northern Ireland Assembly, 16 June 2009

249 contributions from 49 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During yesterday afternoon’s debate on the Supply resolution, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment said on two occasions that, if matters were raised that she could not answer during the debate, she would endeavour to investigate them overnight and provide answers during today’s debate on the Budget (No. 2) Bill. I believe that to be good practice. However, on 19 May 2009, the responding Minister in one debate said about issues that had not been addressed:

“I will ensure that those issues are addressed and that Members get the proper response from the Ministers concerned.” — [Official Report, Vol 41, No 2, p90, col 2].

That was four weeks ago. I and perhaps other Members have received no correspondence from the Ministers concerned about matters that were raised during that debate, which was about flooding in Andersonstown. Indeed, that matter is relevant at the moment, given our uncertain weather.

My point of order is twofold. First, what requirement is on Ministers to respond after a debate has concluded? Secondly, are you prepared to give a ruling on the authority of the House when Ministers have failed to respond after four weeks to relevant matters that were raised in the Chamber?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member knows that I was not in the House yesterday because I was engaged on Assembly business elsewhere. However, I must say that I believe that Ministers who give an undertaking to the House to respond to Members should do so. It is clear that they should do that. Furthermore, I have no doubt that the Member’s comments have been noted by the Minister concerned.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I ask, Mr Speaker, that you consider the general point in order to determine whether conventions might be established whereby Ministers have an obligation to reply in good time, especially given that some matters may be of acute concern to people whom we represent. Rather than leaving it to the whim of Ministers, is it not time for the House to lay down requirements about when and how quickly Ministers must reply on matters that involve undertakings that they have given?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I repeat that I would expect Ministers to honour any undertakings that they have given to the House, and that is clear from what I have said as the Speaker. Nevertheless, let me consider the matter and see what more I can do about Ministers who fail to respond to promises that they have given to the House.

Before moving on to the business of the day, I want to deal with one further matter. On 19 May 2009, I indicated that I would consider remarks that Mr McNarry made about Mr McCartney during Question Time on 18 May 2009, and I have now done so. On many occasions, I have warned Members to take care about what they say in the Chamber about other Members, and that includes — I underline this point — making direct allegations of criminal behaviour when there have been no convictions. I have reflected on what Mr McNarry said, and I believe that direct and unsubstantiated allegations of criminal behaviour were made against another Member. I regard those remarks as unparlia­mentary, so I ask Mr McNarry to withdraw them.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, I have no statement to make.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Given that the Member has not withdrawn his remarks, under Standing Order 65, I order him to withdraw immediately from the Chamber and its precincts for the remainder of today’s sitting.

The Member withdrew from the Chamber.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I continually say to all sides of the House that, as the Speaker, I address all such matters in a measured way, in the hope that issues might be resolved. However, some Members take that to be a weakness on the part of the Speaker. Let me make it absolutely clear: taking such an approach is not a sign of weakness. When I have to step up to the mark to deal with issues, no matter how difficult they might be, I will do so, but I always try, especially behind the scenes, to resolve those issues. However, if Members are not prepared to at least try to resolve them, I have no choice but to come to the House to deal with them. My job is to protect the integrity of the House and the business that is conducted in it, and I have continually said that it gives me no pleasure to come here to deal with such matters. If an issue can be resolved beforehand, it should be resolved. I remind the House: do not take it as read that there is a weakness in the Speaker. That is not the case.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on major economic development proposals and the development plan scheme.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

On 11 May 2009, I made a statement to the Assembly on the weight to be accorded to economic aspects of development proposals. I underlined then the importance that I attach to ensuring that the planning system makes its contribution to the growth of a dynamic, innovative and sustainable economy, especially in these difficult times of global recession.

The primary purpose of my earlier statement was to instil confidence in decision-makers to make judgements that give greater weight to economic considerations where it is appropriate to do so while continuing to protect and enhance the environment. I wanted to ensure that the planning system would play a full and positive role in encouraging investment.

In making this statement today, I will clarify how proposals for significant economic development can be taken forward in the context of the delays experienced in producing a full coverage of up-to-date development plans for Northern Ireland. As we have already witnessed, changes in the economy can take place on a timescale that is significantly shorter than that experienced in the production of new development plans. Indeed, as Members will be aware, delays in the progress of a number of new development plans have been compounded by complex legal challenges. As a consequence, I am concerned that some significant development opportunities may be lost.

I recognise that development plans in Northern Ireland take too long to prepare. In addition, they can be overly detailed, and the strategic vision and direction can become obscured. As a result, in some cases, they are no longer able to provide the basis for an effective planning framework for today’s fast-changing society. The system must therefore be improved in order to enable planning as a whole to become more effective in managing the development process. That is why I intend, as part of the overall package of planning reform, to bring forward proposals for a new local development plan system, with the key aim of speeding up the whole process through plans that are more streamlined, quicker to prepare, more strategic in nature and, importantly, more responsive to change. However, that will inevitably take time to achieve. In the interim, I want to ensure, as far as possible that, when significant economic development proposals come forward that are clearly in the public interest, they are not unnecessarily stalled.

The Planning Service is already giving consideration to available procedural options where such strategic issues arise. For example, district officials in Omagh and Strabane have engaged with Invest Northern Ireland and the local councils to identify shortages of land for economic development and, where that occurs, to actively participate in bringing forward suitable solutions. The article 31 planning application process provides a mechanism through which suitable proposals can then be considered by the development management system rather than delaying matters pending preparation of a new local plan. I highlighted the success of that approach, which is linked to the excellent work of the strategic projects team in Planning Service headquarters, in my earlier statement in May. That method helped to deliver development proposals such as the Coca-Cola all-Ireland headquarters at Lisburn.

I also have concerns about prospective significant economic development proposals being frustrated through the inappropriate application of prematurity considerations in places where new draft plans have been issued but not yet adopted. I appreciate that prematurity is clearly an important consideration in areas in which considerable work has been undertaken to produce new draft plans. However, it is only one of a number of factors to be weighed by the Department in reaching its decision on individual proposals. Other matters, including the planning history of a site, distinguishing factors and administrative fairness must also be considered.

It is clear that, immediately following the publication of the joint ministerial statement in January 2005, officials made extensive use of prematurity considerations in determining proposals, which often resulted in a refusal of planning permission. Since that time, however, more thought has been given to the approach that is adopted. As a result, it has been considerably refined.

To reinforce that position further, I am instructing officials today that prematurity should be employed as a reason of refusal only in cases in which the Department can demonstrate clearly that an approval of planning permission would prejudice or undermine the development plan process or key elements of the plan itself. I am also pleased to advise that such cases have diminished, as, thankfully, most draft area plans are now progressing well towards their ultimate adoption.

I am confident that the clarification that I am providing today, together with my statement of 11 May, will ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the planning system to deal effectively with significant economic development opportunities that may arise. Alongside the determination of the Planning Service to process all proposals in a speedy and efficient manner, that should ensure a positive contribution to our economic recovery.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In reading the Minister’s statement, I note that a number of points could be described as a wish list, much of which was already contained in the document on modernising planning. Therefore, I am bound to ask on behalf of the Committee whether a lot of those points are now coming forward by way of a wish list from the Minister because of lack of progress on modernising planning.

Prematurity seems to be a significant matter in the Minister’s statement. My question about it is inevitably quite a serious one, and, therefore, the response should be appropriate to that. Has the Department given any consideration to the implications that the Minister’s statement will have for those cases and applications that have already been refused?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

To take the first point, I have expressed my disappointment with progress on the planning reform proposals many times in the Assembly. When the proposals were put forward in the issues paper, they gained widespread support among Members and did not attract any adverse comment from Ministers. The proposals also gained wide support not only in the development industry but from a lot of other groups with an interest in planning. Therefore, I am disappointed that I have not been able to progress the planning reform proposals; I anticipated that they would not only have been put out for consultation by now but that the consultation responses would have been received.

As I have also said in the Assembly on a number of occasions — this is not a veiled threat — we are in real danger of losing many of the key elements of the planning reform proposals, including the transfer of planning powers to local councils, if we do not get some movement fairly quickly. I have endeavoured to do what I can to move the proposals on, but they are still stuck with the Executive and the deputy First Minister. I have said that I would seek to determine the changes that can be made without having to secure full Executive assent.

The particular issue under discussion is not linked exclusively to the planning reform proposals, but it was identified as an issue by a number of councils and developers. Indeed, when I looked at some of the reasons given for refusal of some the major development proposals, a likely impediment was that draft area plans had not being progressed to a stage where they could be used fully.

The Member asked about major proposals that have been turned down already. If a decision has not been made on a proposal or has been deferred or if a decision is in the pipeline and it has been indicated that the decision would be against it on the grounds of prematurity, then, of course, my statement will be used by those who make planning decisions as a material consideration in dealing with those applications.

The statement can also be used, for instance, when considering future applications or those that are at pre-application discussion level. Therefore the statement will be used when determining new applications and the outcome of those on which a decision has not been made. The Committee Chairperson will know that decisions to refuse that have been issued cannot be looked at, but individuals may see my statement as a signal to review their proposals and make new applications.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Major economic development proposals and planning are significant in Northern Ireland. How will the statement speed up the process of dealing with the economic development proposals? I apologise to some of the Members from rural areas, but will the Minister comment on the progress of the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP), which is, perhaps, the most significant area plan that Northern Ireland faces?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

My statement is not designed to speed up the process; it is designed to allow applications that are being refused or are going to be refused by the planning system to be reconsidered, with less weight being given to prematurity. As I said in my statement, often, when an area plan has been drawn up, it has gone through part of the process; views have been expressed on it; and land has been designated for certain purposes. If somebody makes a different proposal, then the prematurity considerations have to be looked at when making a decision on the planning application, even though a final decision has not been made on the area plan.

There is one way in which my statement might speed up the process. Rather than planners not making decisions on applications until an area plan is approved, they may make decisions without waiting for an area plan to go through the full process.

BMAP is a good example, because the process has taken about seven or eight years. Also, land that was designated for certain purposes at the start of the BMAP process has, perhaps, been challenged at the public inquiry, and we are waiting for the Planning Appeals Commission to provide its final report. Where planning applications have been submitted for that type of land, it would have been deemed premature to make a decision on them. Therefore, decisions may have been set aside, which slows down the process, or they may have been refused.

My statement will help to unlock some of that logjam. It is hoped that we will have a response from the Planning Appeals Commission by autumn 2010. Following that, we will adopt the BMAP proposals. It has been a long process, and I suspect that many of the designations and proposals in BMAP are out of date, given the changes in the economic situation.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Minister is not the only person who is disappointed that the reform of planning has not moved forward.

Will the Minister provide a time frame for the approval of the draft area plans? If not, what will he do about the people who have made submissions for development in the interim? They are sitting and waiting. A couple of months ago, the Minister talked about economically appraising proposals. In the absence of approval for the draft area plans, can the Minister do anything to provide opportunities for people to proceed with developments? There are opportunities that we should be taking in the current economic crisis. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I wish to correct a point that I made in my previous answer. I said that the BMAP report was expected in the autumn of 2010; I meant to say summer 2010, so it will be available a little earlier.

The Member raised an important point: this statement is about those area plans. Certain area plans have been held up primarily because legal challenges have resulted in our being unable to progress the plans or because we have had to stop work on them until pending legal challenges have been heard. Where we have been able to negotiate our way out of those legal challenges, such as in the case of the Banbridge, Newry and Mourne area plan or the Craigavon town centre plan, we have done so. Where that has not been possible, plans have been subject to inevitable delays caused by court proceedings.

As I said in my statement, one way in which we might free up some decisions is by giving less weight to prematurity considerations where land designations have been made; where there, perhaps, has been some challenge; and where we would have awaited the outcome of the development plan process. Planners can now make a decision and will be able to give greater weight to economic considerations, except in the situations that I described. If such decisions would undermine the area plan totally, obviously the weight will lie in not progressing with the planning application. However, where planners deem that a decision will not undermine or have a significant impact on the plan, less weight can be given to prematurity than has been the case since the joint ministerial statement of 2005.

As I said, the other way around that issue is for an application to be made under article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, whereby a case can be made for a particular planning application. All the arguments can be looked at, and the Minister, in response to a report from the Planning Service, can make a decision on the application in question.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s proposals; I have long felt that planners have held back a significant economic development. How does the Minister envisage monitoring the progress of his will, so to speak, or his wishes and proposals? Proposals sometimes fall down because there is no follow-up. How will the proposals be monitored in coming months and years?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We have a professional planning service in Northern Ireland. Where clear policy guidance or ministerial direction is given to the planners, they take it on board. I am glad that the Member asked that question because I have always wondered what happens when I, as a Minister, say things. Does it change people’s behaviour? Do I actually have influence?

To draw a parallel, I made a statement on 11 May 2009 about giving greater weight to economic considerations, and I have seen that proposal reflected already in some of the planning decisions that have been made. Indeed, if the Member cares to look at the Planning Service’s website to see some of the recent planning applications that have been dealt with, he will see references to my statement. I am very pleased to see that I have such influence. That is one way of doing things. Once the divisional planning officers and decision-makers are given clear direction, they take it, and it will begin to filter through.

I also want to consider the number of applications that are being turned down because of prematurity. I hope that the number will fall, but I must add the caveat that that depends on the nature of an application. If an application were seen to undermine a development plan, even as a result of this statement, it may be turned down on the grounds of prematurity. However, where there is an argument that applications try to anticipate what the Planning Appeals Commission might say about an area plan, and even if they were granted and did not have a significant impact on the shape of an area plan, I am confident that, from previous experience, planners would follow the instructions that are being given today.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. In response to a question from Patsy McGlone, the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, the Minister referred to delays in the new planning reform proposals and laid the blame squarely with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I will not intervene in that problem, but I presume that the Minister’s proposals for a new local development planning system are contributing to the delay.

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

There are also significant delays in matters that remain solely the responsibility of the DOE. Half my constituency was highlighted by Mr Weir when he referred to the BMAP system. However, Antrim is living with a 1984-2001 plan, and we have not even seen the draft Antrim/Ballymena/Larne plan. Will the Minister assure the House that, notwithstanding the legal challenges, his staff are doing all the necessary background work to ensure that a robust planning system will be in place as quickly as possible? His announcement today can deal only with the interim situation until a proper planning system is in place.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member’s comments about the delay in the planning reform proposals are correct, since part of the proposals entail not only the movement of development control but councils’ ability to deal with local development plans. If the proposals do not reach the public domain for consultation, with legislation being the next step, we will miss an opportunity. Within the next month, we will have to decide whether we can move planning powers to the councils by 2011, as we had envisaged. I have said all this before, so I am not saying anything new. If that cannot be achieved, it will be a great tragedy. Planning powers were to have been a major additional power for councils not only for development control but, much more excitingly, in drawing up local development plans and, subsequently, revising them. I warn the Assembly that during the summer recess, there is a possibility that a decision may have to be taken that we will not be able to progress to the full movement of powers to the new councils in 2011.

I understand the Member’s frustration about the Antrim/Larne/Ballymena plan. Representatives of Antrim Borough Council expressed that frustration when I met them some time ago. We have been held up because of the BMAP process, which has left a gap in Antrim’s plan. However, there are ways in which that could be addressed.

At the strategic leadership board, we discussed the possibility of taking a number of council areas and allowing the transition committees to do some of the background work for the new local development plans because that would help in trying to identify some of the problems. That would move forward the plan for those areas, meaning that the new councils, when formed, would be able to quickly formalise the new development plans.

That is one way in which the Department could help areas such as Antrim in the interim, but that possibility is precluded by our inability to transfer planning powers to the councils. However, whether the transfer of those powers occurs before or after 2011, the plan is to ensure that all the councils have those planning powers. There is absolutely no reason why the councils should not get involved with the planners in conducting some of the preliminary work. The Department is gathering the information that will aid and assist that process, in case it decides to go down that route.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

In his statement, the Minister referred to the “complex legal challenges” being made to some of the development plans. How many of those development plans are subject to judicial review? What impact does the Minister expect those reviews to have on those development plans? When does the Minister expect an outcome from those judicial reviews?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Three development plans are subject to judicial review, and there are other plans that the Department has not progressed because they would be vulnerable to judicial review. Many of the judicial reviews have been taken because no strategic environmental impact assessment was carried out. The way in which we were doing those assessments, including the fact that there was no an independent body to carry them out, was deemed to be inappropriate. The Department has taken that issue to the European Court of Justice to see whether we can find a way around it.

Once local development planning powers have been transferred to the local councils, the Department will be out of the woods. That is because an independent body, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, will be able to carry out strategic environmental impact assessments. That is another reason why planning powers must be devolved to the councils as soon as possible. Until that is the case, development plans will continue to be subject to judicial review.

What really irks me is that the people who complain about how slow the planning process is are the same people who make the legal challenges that slow it down. If for their own selfish and commercial reasons they want to stop or hold up a development plan, those people use the magic wand of there not having been a strategic environmental impact assessment to secure a judicial review of the plan, which they know will hold up the process. Not only do those judicial reviews slow the process down, they tie up a great deal of my officials’ valuable time.

I accept that there are problems with the planning system in Northern Ireland, but if one looks objectively at how the planning system has improved over the past number of years, one will realise that the Department has sought to address those issues. Some of those who complain about the planning system must ask themselves whether they, by their actions, have imposed financial and manpower costs, as well as costs resulting from time delays.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have considerable sympathy with what the Minister is trying to do. My interest is in developing the economy, and if people are being agile, imaginative and, in some cases, premature with the propositions or scenarios that they anticipate, it is incumbent on Government to be agile in their response.

The Minister, by introducing the guidelines, has made a contribution. Predictably, some Members will worry about mistakes being made —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Member must ask a question.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The question is whether the Minister has considered how we can speed up the decision-making process for article 31 inquiries. That type of confidence-building measure would reassure people that the planning system is transparent and accountable. There are divisions in the House over the proposed runway extension at Belfast City Airport and over the proposed incinerator at Glenavy, so if decisions were made within prescriptive timescales, that might help to build confidence in the planning system’s openness and transparency.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Member’s remarks. I sometimes think about article 31 planning decisions myself. I plague the senior planning officers in the Department almost weekly. They must provide me with a report about what is happening with article 31 planning decisions and everything else. However, the Member hit on an important point. When dealing with article 31 inquiries, it is important that short cuts are not taken.

The Member mentioned two particular planning applications. If short cuts are taken, those who seek ways in which to stop or delay the planning process until investors decide that Northern Ireland is not worth investing in and take their money elsewhere will look for every little flaw. Many of those people have, for example, demanded public inquiries into those applications. They will check that we have robustly examined all the evidence that has been submitted. Some of the evidence in the kind of proposals that the Member mentioned is very complex and requires close examination. If that is not done, an application for a judicial review will be made. In fact, I have been threatened with a judicial review if certain things do not happen with the two aforementioned proposals. Planners must move with caution while also seeking to move with speed.

If one looks at the Department’s record on article 31 inquiries, it is clear that it has moved quite quickly. I have mentioned in the House some of the actions that have been taken. The planning process for an investment of more than £200 million in the hospital for the west of the Province was completed in under six months. The Titanic Quarter signature project and the relocation of the PRONI building are multimillion-pound developments for which the planning process was also completed in under six months. I could go on.

We have sought to speed up the processing of article 31 inquiries, but we must be very careful. Those projects have often been subject to such an inquiry because they are fairly controversial. If they are not dealt with properly, and all the detail is not considered, the Department will be doing no one a favour. If a mistake is made, and a planning application is referred to the courts, it could be tied up there for three years. A balance, therefore, must be struck. I do not want the Department to be accused of cutting corners and, as a result, ending up in the courts.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, in so far as it goes. Having listened to the statement and the Minister’s replies to questions, one thing is very clear. We live, work and operate in a red-tape, bureaucratic state. Is the Minister telling the House that that is now at an end? Are we working towards having a product that is fit for purpose? As I read through the statement, there is much merit in its contents, but can the Minister assure the House that, as the head of the Department, he is determined to tackle red tape in his Department and give people a system that is fit for purpose?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There is not only a determination on my part. Many of the proposals brought to me come from professional planning officers, who equally want to contribute to getting investment into Northern Ireland.

The Planning Service has urged me to accept and implement measures to remove red tape. The streamlining of minor planning applications was developed by professionals in the planning system who identified ways of reducing the level of bureaucracy. As a result, the processing time for planning applications that go through the streamlining process has been reduced from around 84 days to 28 days. That is a good example of where people from inside the system have sought ways of reducing red tape.

Professional planning officers also suggested that applications could be speeded up by introducing pre-application discussions, in which the Department meets all the consultees and gives advice to applicants to help them ensure that the planning application goes through quickly. The Department tells applicants all the stuff that they should have when they present a planning application and how it should be presented. If they take that advice, they are guaranteed a six-month return through the system. That is another way in which the Department has sought to reduce red tape, and it has been fully endorsed and embraced by the planning system.

I am sure that Members could quote examples of what they feel was pettiness and slowness. I have no control over consultees. Especially after the meeting that I attended at 9.00 am this morning, I could indulge myself by blowing my top about the way in which some consultees respond. The consultees I met earlier are outwith my Department; I wish that they had been part of my Department, because I could have got crosser with them.

Improvements need to be made to the system, but for the first time ever, the planning system has not only met but exceeded all the targets that have been set in the Programme for Government for processing times for minor, major and intermediate applications. That is an indication that we are moving forward. Improvements are still to be made and people still need to be pushed, but we are, at least, getting the right mood and putting some of the policies in place.

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

I welcome the Minister’s efforts to create a planning system that is more conducive to economic development. I note with alarm what he said about planning reforms being blocked and possibly jeopardised by Sinn Féin.

How can the Minister say:

“thankfully, most draft area plans are now progressing well towards their ultimate adoption”?

In my area, the northern area plan and the Antrim/ Ballymena/Larne area plan appear to be totally blocked, and matters are now moving to the European Court of Justice. I take a particular interest in tourism schemes, both those that are of regional significance and those that have local economic significance. Many good schemes are being unreasonably held up and prevented at times by the planning system.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member has probably misquoted me. I made it clear that there are a number of area plans that we are not progressing and cannot progress. He is quite right to say that a judicial review was successfully taken against the northern area plan and that the case has gone to the European Court of Justice. It is likely to be tied up there. That is outwith my Department’s control, and the same applies to the Antrim/Ballymena/Larne area plan. In an answer to Mr Ford, I explained that, where a plan is really out of date, the Department is trying, through the transition committees, to move on and to at least get the groundwork done for a new plan that local councils will be able to undertake if and when the planning reform proposals go through the Executive.

As far as tourism is concerned, I hope to bring forward PPS 16 fairly soon. It is yet to be finalised, but it should include a presumption in favour of tourism development in settlements. It will also make provision for some tourist facilities at appropriate locations in the countryside. Some of the major tourist developments have already come to me as article 31 applications. Once we had all the information on the Giant’s Causeway, we were able to progress the decision quickly. That decision has now been made. It was made in the face of a threat of judicial review; we did not shrink from that, because an important tourist facility was required. Consider the tourism signature projects: the Titanic Quarter, the Giant’s Causeway and a number of other proposals. We moved those forward fairly quickly.

There is a good thing about the powers that local councils will have. I like to dangle this carrot in front of Members, because I know that they all want to see these powers go to local councils. I hope that by doing so, I am offering a golden opportunity to bring about a positive resolution to discussion on planning reform. The Member is concerned about tourism in his area. It is in the interests of every party to progress towards a situation where, at a local level, a council that knows exactly the needs of the area will be able to shape the future. It can have a vision for the area, put it into a local development plan and shape what happens. That is the reward for getting the planning reforms through the House. I hope that we do not lose this opportunity as a result of esoteric arguments that go on within particular political parties.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. In response to Lord Morrow, the Minister has already detailed some of the actions that the Planning Service has taken to improve its performance. Perhaps the Minister could tell us specifically about the role of the strategic projects team at planning headquarters.

The Minister knows that I tried to ask this question on Thursday: there are proposals for a 20% increase in planning fees. How can he justify that at a time of economic difficulty? Is a 20% increase in fees a good move at this time?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There are now two strategic projects teams at headquarters. They have been created specifically to handle major strategic economic and investment proposals. As I have explained in previous responses, the process is that those teams talk to developers, and they should bring all the consultees to the table.

I do not claim that the system is perfect. I have received criticisms of it from developers who have come to see me and I have spoken to the managers of the strategic projects teams about that. I must also say that I have received some very complimentary comments from developers about the teams and their very positive attitude. I have mentioned some of their successes. One of their successes that did not receive much publicity last Friday, though the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment commented on it, was that in four months, one of the strategic projects teams was able to clear a 700,000 sq ft development at Bombardier, which represented an investment of £300 million.

That is the kind of work being done by the strategic projects teams. We sometimes become fixated on complaints. Of course, people come to us, as their public representatives, and tell us when things go wrong; they never come and tell us when things go right. Therefore, although we complain and whinge about problems, we do not celebrate successes.

With respect to the increase in planning fees, I make the point that those fees have not been increased for four years; even during the boom years they were not increased. There were several factors involved in deciding to increase the fees: first, costs have risen during those four years; secondly, there has been a fall in fee income as a result of the recession; thirdly, when the Department compared the fees in Northern Ireland with those in other parts of the United Kingdom, ours were significantly lower — in some cases, for major housing schemes, they were hundreds of thousands of pounds lower. I had to make a decision: did we want to start dismantling the expertise in the planning system when the demands from inside and outside the Assembly are to reduce the number of undetermined applications and processing times and be in a position, when the economic upturn comes, to deal quickly with the demands that that upturn, and planning reform, will bring?

When I looked at that question, and the fact that the Department has sought to make significant savings in the system and look for additional money where possible, I decided that I would not be thanked were I to reduce the number of professional planning officers and leave the system unprepared to deal with the economic upturn when it comes.

I was also mindful that councillors and councils continually come to me, and, indeed, to every other Minister who is handing over a service, to say that they hope that I will not be handing over an under-resourced service, which will mean that they will have to impose a burden on ratepayers. I tell the House that if I were to hand over a Planning Service in 2011 with around 20% fewer planning officers, the very people who complain about my putting up planning fees would have to find the money to recruit more planning officers and would be calling me a conman. I would be accused of handing over an under-resourced service and doing so deliberately, rather than making tough decisions.

For those reasons, I believe that the increase in planning fees is necessary. I do not believe that it will be draconian. I ask Members to bear in mind the level of fees that I am talking about: for a single dwelling in the countryside, it will be an additional £100 or £150. If someone spends £100,000 to build a new house, I do not believe that that person will stop building because he or she must pay a further £150 on planning fees. Of course, if I could have avoided the increase, I would have done so. However, for all the reasons that I have given, I believe that it is justified.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Undoubtedly, planning reform is needed urgently; every Member who also wears a hat at council level will be aware of that. I commend the strategic projects team, with which I have had meetings, for its work. It has delivered. Will the Minister confirm that the quality of service will be the same throughout the Province, whether it is Ballymena, Omagh or Downpatrick, and that every area will be subject to the same regulations, reform and rules that apply elsewhere?

As regards applications under article 31, which the Minister mentioned in his statement, sometimes referrals are hindered, halted or delayed because the Planning Service has not provided paperwork to the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) quickly enough. Will the Minister confirm and reaffirm, if necessary, that the progress of appeals under article 31 through the PAC will proceed with urgency?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, as regards the uniformity of service across Northern Ireland, the level of work and the quality of any service or determination that the two strategic project teams carry out, whether it be in Ballymena, Ards or Omagh, will always be the same. The teams are located at planning headquarters, not in divisional offices, and they work Province-wide.

Secondly, it is difficult for me to give an assurance on the outcome of an application under article 31 when it is decided that the Department should not determine the outcome of that application and that it should be the subject of a public inquiry. However, I suspect that the Member is referring to the three planning applications for shopping centres in Newtownards.

The Planning Appeals Commission — this is where I do my Pontius Pilate act — does not come under the remit of the Department of the Environment; rather, it comes under the remit of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Therefore, I can, thankfully, say that I do not have any control over the Planning Appeals Commission, which jealously guards its independence. Even though additional resources have been given to the Planning Appeals Commission, there are long waiting times. However, the commission sometimes asks the Department whether it wants priority attached to a case that it has sent to the commission; so, we have some input. If we in the Department deem an application to be particularly important, we ask that it be given greater priority. Given the time that it has taken under the article 31 process to make a determination on the planning applications for three shopping centres in Newtownards, I specifically requested that the Planning Appeals Commission give some priority to them. I understand that they are now third on the commission’s list of major planning applications to be dealt with.

Executive Committee Business

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Speaker has been advised that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will move the Second Stage of the Bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA 8/08] be agreed.

I shall briefly draw attention to a few key points and the general principles of the Bill. As Members know, the Supply resolution was debated at length and approved yesterday, and that was followed immediately by the Bill’s First Stage. Following on from the February Vote on Account, the Budget (No. 2) Bill provides the balance of cash and resources to complete the Department’s requirements to enable the delivery of services in 2009-2010 as currently planned.

For logistical reasons, accelerated passage is needed to ensure that Royal Assent is granted in July, thereby ensuring that Departments and other public bodies have the legal authority to spend the cash and use the resources for the remainder of 2009-2010 without any delay. I am glad that the Bill can be given accelerated passage because the Committee for Finance and Personnel has confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 42, it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals in the Bill. Once again, I welcome and appreciate the part that the Committee has played in progressing the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to give full legislative effect to the 2009-2010 Main Estimates that were approved yesterday through the Supply resolution. Copies of the Main Estimates volume, the Budget (No. 2) Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members.

For the benefit of Members and in accordance with the nature of Second Stage debates, as envisaged under Standing Order 32, I will briefly summarise the main features of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the issue of a further £7,566,927,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £8,311,830,000 by Departments and certain other bodies. Those amounts are in addition to the Vote on Account that the Assembly passed in February. The sums to be issued from the Consolidated Fund are to be appropriated by each Department or public body for services as detailed in column 1 of schedule 1 to the Bill, while the resources are to be used for the purpose specified in column 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill.

In addition, the Bill sets for 2009-2010 the limit on the use of operating and non-operating accruing resources, and schedule 2 specifies the purposes for which they may be used. After the Bill receives Royal Assent, under section 8 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, the Department of Finance and Personnel will lay a minute in the Assembly that specifies the accruing resources within the limits set in the Bill and that directs their use.

Clause 2 authorises the temporary borrowing by the Department of Finance and Personnel of £3,783,464,000, which is approximately half the sum authorised by clause 1(1) for issue out of the Consolidated Fund. That limit prudently allows the Department of Finance and Personnel to efficiently and effectively manage the cash during 2009-2010. However, I must stress that it does not provide for any additional cash to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund or convey any additional spending power.

The daily management of cash is an important function of DFP. That function allows it to supply cash to Departments daily to enable services to be delivered and, at the same time, ensures minimum drawdown of the Northern Ireland block grant from the Northern Ireland Office. Finally, clause 5 removes two Budget Orders that are no longer operative from the statute book.

Yesterday, I was unable to respond to two issues that Members had raised, and I said that I would address those today. Mr Attwood and Mrs Bradley asked about the childcare strategy and PlayBoard. The paper on childcare provision is one issue that the ministerial subgroup on children and young people is considering. That group will meet again this week. Furthermore, I understand that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has requested the transfer of £350,000 of its existing provision to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to enable the PlayBoard projects to continue.

Dominic Bradley raised the issue of the cost of the unregulated transfer system. The Department of Finance and Personnel is not aware of any direct costs that fall to the Department of Education as a result of its failure to establish formal arrangements for the transfer of children from primary school to secondary school. That does not mean that there are no costs: parents must pay for tests, in particular those set by the Association for Quality Education, and any subsequent legal challenges may have cost implications. It is of deep regret that parents and schools have been forced to incur additional costs because of the Minister of Education’s failure to recognise their concerns about transfer.

I return to the Bill to conclude. I said earlier that the Budget (No. 2) Bill reflects the additional cash and resources that are required to facilitate Departments’ detailed spending plans as set out in the 2009-2010 Main Estimates. I will not use any more time on the substance of the Bill, but I am happy to deal with any points of principle or detail that Members raise.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. At its meeting on 27 May 2009, the Committee took evidence from senior DFP officials on the Budget (No. 2) Bill, the general principles of which the House is now debating. The Bill authorises departmental spend for 2009-2010 of resources and associated cash requirements based on the second-year spending plans of the Executive’s three-year Budget for 2008-2011, which the Assembly approved in January 2008.

Assembly approval of the Bill provides the legal authority for the balance of resources and associated cash requirements as detailed in the Main Estimates for 2009-2010, which we debated yesterday. The Committee was briefed by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and, on several occasions, senior DFP officials on the Executive’s draft Budget for 2008-2011. Moreover, the Committee sought submissions from other Statutory Committees before it published a Committee report on the draft Budget in December 2007. The Committee subsequently received a formal response from DFP and was briefed by departmental officials about the final Budget in January 2008.

During their briefing about the Budget (No. 2) Bill, DFP officials informed my Committee of the reasons for the differing figures in the Budget and the Estimates. I refer to that mainly because the anoraks who will read the document may find it of some interest. My Committee was given an explanation of why the figures are reconcilable, particularly given that the same source data are used for the Budget and the Estimates. Indeed, officials subsequently provided the Committee with a helpful paper to demonstrate that fact.

The Committee is aware of the consequences for departmental spend and the potential effect on front line services should the Bill not progress through the Assembly before the summer recess. I reinforce the Minister’s comments in that context. The Committee was consulted and is satisfied that it has been appropriately consulted about the public expenditure proposals that are contained in the Bill in accordance with Standing Order 42(2), and it is content that the Bill can proceed by accelerated passage. I wrote to the Speaker on 27 May on behalf of the Committee to confirm that.

There is an issue that has exercised the Assembly on occasion. Members will be aware of the differences of opinion that have been expressed about the respective merits of the Executive holding a formal Budget process annually, as compared to the current three-year arrangement that allows for adjustments through the in-year monitoring rounds. This is particularly important in the context of changing economic circumstances.

My Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the scrutiny of the Executive’s Budget and expenditure, stage one of which culminated in an agreed Committee submission to the review of the Executive’s Budget process in October 2008. That submission contained 10 recommendations to be considered by the Department of Finance and Personnel in its review of the Budget process.

Departmental officials were expected to report to the Minister of Finance and Personnel by the end of October 2008 on the outcome of that review. However, I understand that the report has yet to be completed because of work pressures. I would, therefore, welcome an indication from the Minister of when the report on the review of the Budget process will be available to my Committee and when the Committee will receive that formal response on the recommendations made in its submission. That would enable the Committee to proceed to stages two and three of its inquiry.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the work that he has done in balancing the books. That is a difficult task at any time, but during an economic downturn it is obviously even more difficult. The Assembly must recognise that the Minister has achieved a tremendous feat.

Despite what some Members think, the monitoring rounds enable the Northern Ireland Budget to maintain flexibility. The importance of that cannot be overestimated, as funds can be redirected to the Departments where they are needed as a matter of urgency. That is called proactive and prudent financial management. I hope that all Members agree with those two terms and further agree that they are essential for good governance in general.

As the Minister said yesterday, more than £3 billion of social security benefits will be administered during 2009-2010, which, unfortunately, is essential in these times. Some £45 million for the provision of newbuild schools is also available. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee for Regional Development, I welcome the expenditure on upgrading the Londonderry railway line and Northern Ireland Railways rolling stock.

The provision of new schools and the updating of transport infrastructure are positive means of ensuring that Northern Ireland has a strong selling package for investors as they begin to invest with the upturn in the global economy that will eventually come. Again, it shows how the Minister and the Executive have come up with proactive and viable investments that have helped reduce the impact of the recession in Northern Ireland, while putting us on a good footing for the future.

I support the motion.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

It is a pleasure to follow George Robinson, because he has given me so much to work with.

It is a pity that the Minister of Finance and Personnel is not present, because there are issues that require his attention. I am not sure of the reason for his absence, but all will undoubtedly become clear in the coming days.

George Robinson referred to the flexibility of the monitoring rounds and how they are an excellent system for managing our finances. However, I have heard that no bids will be taken for the June monitoring round because no money is available; that raises the question of whether the block grant in its entirety is overspent. We need to know about that. I realise that we are in trying financial times and that the recent election has changed the political landscape; however, if we are to deal coherently and cogently with the issues before us, we also need openness and transparency. We need to know the extent of the problem, and we must find a collective way of responding to it. It is a pity that we will not be able to meet many of the objectives of the Programme for Government; however, we must face the reality that many of the targets that we set will not be met. The Budget that is tied to those targets must be amended to reflect that reality.

It is important also to recognise the political pressures that are on this place. If the new Minister of Finance and Personnel, whoever he or she may be, maintains an inflexible and rigid approach, the people will begin to wonder about the purpose of this place. How can we respond effectively to the challenges that we face? A Budget should be a living document that is open to change and adequately reflects the events that affect us. If, as announced, the Chancellor postpones the three-year spending review, given the inflationary pressures that have entered the economic equation, it would be wise to plan for block grant cuts being brought forward from 2010 to 2011. Why would he postpone that review otherwise?

There will be cuts. Public sector cuts are regrettable, but they are not just an option: they are the only option. We must recognise that we are attempting to spend more than we earn, and, ultimately, that will be a problem for all of us. It gives me no pleasure to say that we owe it to the people of this country to explain that that is a reality and that we must ask for their support in trying to get the best value for money for all the people of Northern Ireland. To say anything else is misleading. The people have had enough of politicians being economical with the actuality.

As the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, said, the big discussion in British politics must be about how we intend to deliver quality public services when money is tight. We will have to make tough decisions, and we will have to insist on getting better value for money. That cannot be done while people throw political brickbats at one another. Tough decisions require genuine leadership from us all.

The real division in politics, which is as true of Northern Ireland as it is of the whole of the United Kingdom, is not between cuts and investment but between honesty and dishonesty. The Executive pledged to make economic development the top priority of the Programme for Government. That commitment predated the onset of the recession, but it has become all the more relevant. Moreover, the public and economic stakeholders are watching to see whether the Executive put their money where their mouth is. Innovative responses to the downturn from the economic Departments, specifically DEL and DETI, deserve favourable treatment in any of the monitoring rounds to which George Robinson referred.

The entire process ultimately concerns character. How can we, the politicians, reconnect the political system with a public who have lost faith in it? If we do not tell the truth about the Budget, what hope do we have of gaining the public’s trust whenever we are dealing with the other, more challenging issues that face this place? Perhaps that is all that we can expect from people who double- and treble-job. Those people have so little regard for the public, they pretend that they can be in two places at once and that they can do two or, on occasion, three jobs at the same time.

If we do not tell the truth about the Budget, we will not begin the process of rebuilding the electorate’s trust. It is a matter of competence.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Despite the Member’s remarks being a slight dig at double- and treble-jobbing, I will try not to throw brickbats. The Member highlighted rightly that the division or choice is between honesty and dishonesty and about transparency and being honest about the Budget. He also highlighted the need to have a tougher financial regime and the need to make cuts in the future. Given that many general points are made on the subject, on the basis of honesty and transparency, what areas does the Member believe should be cut from the Budget? It is easy for all of us to come up with a wide range of areas on which we would like to see more money spent. What services would the Member be willing to see being cut from the Budget, and from which Departments would he be willing to see finances cut?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

That raises the old canard about whether cuts are optional. If there are to be no cuts, we can carry on regardless. I say to the Member and to the House that there will be cuts, even if they are cuts that are made in real terms as a result of inflationary pressures.

I am familiar with the Department of Education, and I see that, during the previous financial stocktake, in both years, some £100 million was missing from what was required and what was available. I believe that I am right in saying, although I stand to be corrected, that there was an issue with a further £100 million of the capital budget. The point is that these are —

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that some of the figures submitted by the Department of Education to the strategic stocktake are somewhat dubious, particularly the request for fuel costs? I believe that the stocktake considered £8 million of additional fuel costs in each of the two years. That was at a time when fuel costs were going down and when they were at a lower level than was set in the original Budget. Does the Member agree that, in regard to that particular point, other costs that the Department of Education submitted and other Departments’ submissions to the strategic stocktake are, when scrutinised, not up to scratch and are not pressures at all?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will attempt to deal with the points made by both Mr Weir and —

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The other one. [Laughter.]

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The future Minister.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Which one?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I know that you are understudying for David McNarry, but — [Interruption.]

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I realise that I am dealing with two prospective Ministers. I should have made myself clearer.

That is quite a serious issue. I think that it supports our argument, which is that in order to make savings we need to scrutinise each and every Budget to see where money is being spent unwisely, where better efficiencies can be taken on board, or where the political or economic situation has changed.

The problem that I have is that, in the past, we were spending £60 million to £70 million in the education sector to make provision for teachers to take early retirement. That, in turn, provided a way of allowing new teachers to come into the profession. However, this year, only £8 million is available, which means that we will have to have compulsory redundancies. Therefore, when one looks at the scale of the problem that Mr Hamilton mentioned, there are issues for us to examine. However, there is a bigger picture that we must address.

I return to the point raised by Mr Weir. There will have to be cuts; I am sorry, but I see no other way of finding money. It would be great if people were to tell me that there is money coming along and that we will not suffer any downturn in the comprehensive spending review or any of the efficiencies that are implemented. However, prudence dictates that we plan for the future. I am not seeking to shirk responsibility; instead, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I am trying to say that the problem is one that all Members must share. I have resisted the temptation to throw brickbats. I could have said that there has been a litany of disasters and that wrong decisions were taken, but that would get us nowhere.

There is a question about whether we are genuine in our attempts to engage in a positive and constructive manner. Despite our differences we have to act sensibly, because the whole political establishment is in disrepute. Therefore, we have an opportunity to take a sensible course and admit that the recession has blown the Budget completely off course. The Finance Minister has an opportunity to come clean and tell the public what has to be done, and it is right and proper that we examine the new Budget and find a way of saying what parts are sensible and what parts we are not sure about. That is the purpose of this place, and, to use the words of a Minister in answer to a question from me yesterday, I ask people not to have a knee-jerk reaction. This is a genuine attempt to offer a solution for the future.

As George Osborne said, perhaps the most important lesson that politicians need to learn is that, if we tell the public the truth and talk honestly about the measures that we are taking and why we are taking them, they will respect that honesty and support us. That applies to all of us.

Real choices have to be made about public spending. Certain areas, such as health, need to be ring-fenced from cuts, because we are already falling far behind the rest of the United Kingdom to the tune — I know that Members have heard the figure before — of £300 million a year. We need to have a well-informed public debate about budgetary priorities, and we need to take the public into our confidence; after all, it is their money. How will that happen if the Finance Minister will not even take the Assembly into his confidence? How will that happen if the Finance Minister, with the First Minister behind him, refuses even to contemplate revising the Programme for Government?

I have sought to offer a sensible, cogent and reasonable way forward, and I look to other Members to respond in kind.

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

The SDLP has serious concerns about the Programme for Government and the Budget. We remain concerned about the extent to which the Budget was predicated upon efficiency savings and asset sales that have not been realised. That has led to major concerns from organisations and sectors about subsequent cuts in front-line services. I will primarily look at the stated objective in the Programme for Government to build a fair, inclusive and shared society, particularly in light of the disgraceful scenes last night on the Lisburn Road and the attacks on migrant workers in the area.

Members will know that the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy is some 20 months behind schedule and that significant funding has been set aside for its implementation. How will that money be ring-fenced to promote the action plans that will result from the strategy? I have held meetings with the Community Relations Council and others who are dismayed that the strategy that they are working to is four or five years out of date. As a consequence, new and innovative projects that do not fit the criteria do not receive funding, whereas some projects that are not as effective in tackling problems continue to receive funding. Society is, therefore, being held back from tackling sectarianism.

After the recent, brutal murder of Kevin McDaid, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister said that they would take the lead in challenging sectarianism. That has not been the case, as is evidenced by OFMDFM’s failure to introduce a strategy to tackle that evil, which is so prevalent in society. Moreover, how will poverty and exclusion be tackled, given that only last November or December we were told that rather than introduce a devolved strategy to tackle poverty, OFMDFM had accepted the direct rule anti-poverty strategy? How will moneys be protected? What new thinking will appear in the Programme for Government and the priorities for Government to help those on the margins of society? By that, I mean people who suffer most from economic deprivation and who live in areas that are often under the jackboot of fascists from their own community, as was seen last night.

The victims’ sector has concerns about funding in the Budget. We recognise that additional funding has been set aside in the Budget for victims’ groups. However, in the absence of a strategy and work plan for the Victims’ Commissioners and of OFMDFM’s strategy for victims and survivors, the sector is scratching around to try to find ways in which to spend the money. Therefore, how is the Minister of Finance and Personnel ensuring value for money and improved outcomes for the people who matter most?

Given the economic constraints under which the Assembly is now working, I would be grateful if the Minister could give some guarantees that each Department has set aside and ring-fenced in its budget its contribution to the implementation of Peace III. The Minister will know that very few, if any, of that programme’s initiatives will be 100% funded. From where will the additional money come, and is that money guaranteed? The Peace III programme, as Members will know, concentrates on reconciliation and on building a better future. Therefore, I want to know how the programme is being protected.

There are also delays with OFMDFM’s sustainable development strategy and action plan. What funding, if any, does that strategy now have and what priority for Government is it afforded, given that, two years into the Programme for Government, no strategy has been announced, launched or consulted on? What impact will that have on the economy and the environment?

My contribution has mainly taken the form of questions, to which I hope the Minister will be able to provide answers.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I will try to resist the temptation to repeat my remarks of yesterday or, even worse, as Basil McCrea did, to read out David McNarry’s remarks from yesterday.

It is important that we are constructive and look to the future. We must be mindful that the years ahead will be very difficult. I wish to correct some points that Members made by emphasising that we have a clear Budget settlement through to 2011 as part of the three-year CSR, which I believe that the Government will honour. The focus of uncertainty is what happens after that. There is no doubt that stringent cuts will be made right across the public sector, and Northern Ireland will take its share of those cuts.

We do not necessarily need to listen to the advice of George Osborne when it comes to the economy. I am very much a Vince Cable man myself. His commentary and record in recent months stands up to scrutiny extremely well. There is a number of options open to Her Majesty’s Government to manage the current debt burden. Cuts are one option, but changes to the taxation system should also be considered. It is important that a rounded approach is taken.

A major theme in the current discussion is how the tight budgets that we face should be addressed. We do not have the flexibility or capacity that is necessary to deal with the economic downturn and prepare for economic recovery. The day of reckoning, with respect to further efficiency savings or cuts — call them what you will — is coming for Northern Ireland. Members rightly want to protect front line services, and our party has been challenged by Ministers from all sides of the House to come up with proposals. That is fair, and we will rise to that challenge.

The imperative of finding savings is not simply to deal with the crunch that is coming to public finances; it is about trying to ensure that Northern Ireland’s public finances are placed on a much more sustainable footing. The public expenditure statistical analyses, which are published every year, show that Northern Ireland’s expenditure profile is different to that in other regions of the UK. There are good reasons for some of the differences, such as our geographical position and the profile of our population. However, not all the differentials can be justified. We need to pay more attention to that and to find out what we are doing wrong and what we could do better. The figures illustrate the historical underinvestment in our transport system, which continues today. However, expenditure in our education system is well in excess of that in other regions.

Members will know that the Alliance Party has regularly highlighted the structural problem relating to the cost of division in our society. The cost of division can be examined in economic, human, social and, even, environmental terms; I will focus on the financial aspect today. The financial cost of division is potentially £1 billion per annum. That figure comprises the direct costs of dealing with division; the indirect costs of duplicating goods, facilities and services; the cost environment to which Departments and agencies have to respond; the situation on the ground that creates expenditure distortions; and the opportunity costs of lost investment, lost tourism or problems with the labour market.

Some costs relate to devolved matters, while others do not. A major part of the increased cost involves policing and justice. In the short term, there are major pressures that Her Majesty’s Government will have to address if the devolution of policing and justice is to be successful in the coming months. In the longer term, we all need to acknowledge that aspects of policing and justice need to be handled differently.

The Deloitte report pointed out that we are spending £1·5 billion per annum, potentially; a figure based largely on a macro analysis and comparison between Northern Ireland and Wales. I freely admit that the figure is nowhere near £1·5 billion when the facts are broken down at the micro level: indeed, the report properly addressed only the direct costs and the opportunity costs of division. My party and I accept the document’s flaws, but it is a useful report that points to further conversations that we need to have.

I appreciate that for various historical reasons, some parties in the Chamber have great difficulty with the Deloitte report. I do not want to labour the point, but Sinn Féin is the party with the greatest concerns. Yesterday, Mitchel McLaughlin commented on the potential to make savings from having shared services on an all-island basis, and my party has no difficulty with that in principle. We have clear constitutional probities regarding the Northern Ireland people’s consent to any change in the constitution. That aside, I freely admit that the existence of a border on the island of Ireland causes distortions to the economy and to the delivery of certain social goods. More should be made of the institutions that exist to address those issues.

Equally, there are opportunities outside the context of those institutions where progress can be made, and my party is more than happy to engage in conversations on that issue over the coming months. Therefore, a helpful contribution is being made. It is also important that Sinn Féin recognises that the divisions in Northern Ireland’s society have a financial cost, which creates problems for the efficient delivery of services. It is important that Sinn Féin engages in a conversation on that issue. It is not a situation where it is the only show in town.

This morning, the Alliance Party published its proposals on how to deal with the cost of division. They are available on our website, and we have given copies to OFMDFM and DFP. We have made 22 recommendations on how the Government can take action to begin to address the issues. The Deputy Speaker will be pleased to hear that I am not going to read out the report, but I will comment on some of its ideas. As tempting as it is to go into the specifics of finances at this stage, it would consist of nothing more than writing figures on the back of an envelope.

It is important that we start by addressing what is good in the Deloitte report and then identify the gaps and show how Deloitte’s starting point can be progressed by the Government. It then falls to Departments to take up any of our recommendations if they feel that they are of merit and for civil servants to carry out formal appraisals to find out whether savings can be made around some of our ideas.

As the poor opposition party in the Chamber, we are limited in the resources that are available to us, particularly on detailed financial issues. Therefore, at this stage, rather than overreaching, we are talking about general concepts. I will set out some of the ideas. First, Northern Ireland needs a clear central formal policy to deal with good relations, whether it is through a shared future, or cohesion, sharing and integration. It is not good enough for OFMDFM simply to invest more money in good relations, which it has done, in the absence of an overall policy that guides how that money can be spent.

I take the point that dealing with divisions in Northern Ireland cannot simply be about tackling the costs at one end. The underlying reasons for the divisions must also be addressed. That is an important starting point.

The Government need to recognise formally that the financial costs of a divided society is an important aspect that they must address. Some Ministers have acknowledged that informally, but it is not part of formal Government documents, the Programme for Government, the Budget or Departments’ efficiency delivery plans. We still have time to begin some of that work in the current comprehensive spending review period, but we should be looking forward to the next comprehensive spending review period, when the real challenge will come from central Government.

We need to start with the Deloitte report. I appreciate that it has been disavowed by OFMDFM, but it should be brought back in. Although the report is flawed, OFMDFM should bank it as a starting point. Further research is needed. We advocate that a formal audit be carried out of the communal background of people who use different goods, facilities and services, because there is strong anecdotal evidence that there are major differentials in certain parts of the community in Northern Ireland in respect of usage. Furthermore, barriers have been erected, and people do not always use the facility that is nearest to them. People go out of their way to use a facility that is further away because, for various reasons, they feel safer doing so. That type of problem is highlighted in Brendan Murtagh and Peter Shirlow’s research.

We should also set ourselves a goal of trying to address the £123 million in efficiency savings that is needed over the next two years and find out whether we can meet some of the savings from initial work in this area. All Departments should have a clear duty to encourage desegregation and to promote sharing, and we already have equality monitoring in the proofing of new policies. It would be an easy step to move to “sharing proofing” to find out whether a policy promotes sharing or further entrenches segregation and all its financial implications.

However, we must be straight and face up to the cost involved in trying to move towards sharing and away from segregation. It must be accepted that, in some cases, initial oncosts may be incurred through providing new facilities upfront before being able to address the rationalisation of existing segregated facilities. However, all new facilities should be built with the explicit objective of promoting sharing through public use.

OFMDFM has an important co-ordinating role to play; Dolores Kelly referred to the anti-poverty strategy that comes under its remit. In Northern Ireland, a clear correlation exists between deprivation and segregated areas. There is almost a two-speed Northern Ireland: one section of the population is plugged into the global economy and doing well, but another section is, essentially, excluded through factors that include segregation. If the opportunities for everyone in society are to be improved, it is important to tackle segregation.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must do more work to break down the various barriers that exist in rural communities. Those barriers are real and although some non-governmental research has been conducted in recent years, that work must be developed.

Sadly, some elements of culture in our society are highly segregated. As well as appreciating and recognising the different cultural traditions, DCAL must do more work to promote shared cultural experiences.

I have three suggestions for the Department for Employment and Learning. DEL must appreciate the genuine problems that segregation causes in the labour market. People feel inhibited from working in certain areas of Northern Ireland, particularly greater Belfast. That inhibition has economic and financial costs for society and must, therefore, be tackled.

It is not wise for our society to have a multitude of teacher-training organisations, and the differing cultural demands can be met by one organisation. Progress can be made in that area in future. Some Members in the Chamber may object to that proposal, but there you go. We must also explore whether major differences exist in the use of jobcentres by different sections of the community.

The Department of Education is probably at the front line in dealing with segregation that potentially causes a distortion of as much as £300 million a year in that sector. We must move ahead more adventurously with area planning and sustainable schools, and the Department must take more seriously its existing duty to promote or facilitate integrated education. Substantial evidence shows that parents want the choice of integrated schools but only 6% of children avail themselves of that opportunity. The availability of integrated schooling does not meet the demand.

I am not saying that integrated schooling is a panacea for every problem, but it must be one of a menu of options for sharing. Before I am accused of saying that I want a one-size-fits-all system in Northern Ireland, I appreciate that there will be different sectors in education for the foreseeable future. However, greater sharing, and integrated education as a particularly favoured option, must be promoted in that system. When difficult decisions have to be taken on the rationalisation of the school estate, shared or integrated options can facilitate the sustainability of the local option, as opposed to children having to travel. That is an important point to bear in mind. I was slightly dismayed that towards the end of yesterday’s debate on the Supply resolution, there was talk of slowing up the process of establishing sustainable schools. I take the opposite view: that process should be taken forward.

DETI must ensure that segregation and the barriers to economic development that arise from it are properly factored into the current review of economic development policy. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is, undoubtedly, well placed to comment on that shortly.

The Department of the Environment must make shared space central to planning for the future, particularly for plans that include a public space element. We must ensure that people are encouraged to mix with one another. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors argues that, in parts, Northern Ireland has the largest carbon footprint in the United Kingdom, due to segregation and other factors. Therefore, tackling segregation is linked to addressing climate change.

The Department of Finance and Personnel has an important co-ordinating role. In particular, PEDU may be useful in challenging some actions by Departments.

It is important for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to conduct an audit to explore patterns of usage of its facilities by different sections of the community. There is huge expenditure in that area and, as Basil McCrea set out, there are huge financial pressures. As I understand it, Members are particularly keen to ensure that we protect front line services in that area, which is one part of the equation that we must address.

The Department for Regional Development must look at the spatial provision of transport. Is that done in the most efficient way? The evidence for the city of Belfast alone suggests that it is not. Again, therefore, greater efficiencies can be had from considering different approaches.

I pay tribute to and acknowledge the very positive leadership that the Minister for Social Development has shown in talking about mixed housing and shared neighbourhoods. We have seen significant moves forward under the current devolved regime and before that, with sharing having worked its way onto the housing agenda. Obviously, a lot more must be done, because we still have a very segregated social housing sector. Related to that is the blighting of land, and the demand for segregated housing creates major inefficiencies and cost pressures. The Department for Social Development is another Department in which finance is particularly acute at the moment.

At a general level, we must try to tackle divides in our society and the issue of peace walls, as they create barriers to people interacting and to economic activity. They are further examples of blights on the landscape. When I talk about those barriers, I refer not only to the formal so-called “peace walls” in greater Belfast and some other parts of Northern Ireland; there are a number of imaginary “peace walls” in communities. For example, the Westlink in Belfast is a barrier. Some people in the west of the city do not go into the city centre: the Westlink acts as a wall. The River Foyle in Derry or Londonderry is a barrier rather than something that unites the people of that city.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I want to pick up on the Member’s point that people from west Belfast do not go into the city centre. Does he agree that many surveys that have been carried out show that hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people travel from west Belfast to the city centre every year, using public transport and black taxis? I live on the west Belfast side of the Westlink, and most people there constantly visit the city centre.

A further point that I want to raise relates to the issue of interfaces. I know that everyone wants to see the day that the interfaces are taken away. However, does the Member recognise that excellent work is going on between both sides of the community in an effort to change the mindsets that mean that peace walls must remain at interfaces, and that their premature removal would have serious consequences for people living on both sides of an interface?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for his comments. First, on the issue of movement, there is evidence that there are people in the west of the city who do not travel into the city centre. That may well be a generalisation. Indeed, some residents of west Belfast, such as Mr McCann, manage to make it to work in east Belfast every day; it is important to acknowledge that. Equally, some people from Poleglass may not enter Lisburn but would instead go to Sprucefield. It is not just a Belfast issue.

Security is a consideration with peace walls and interfaces, and no one wants to take the responsibility for taking all the peace walls down in one go. Nevertheless, important work is being carried out in that area by people such as Neil Jarman who raise the issue and highlight opportunities to take some of the walls down. We should avoid becoming complacent and accepting that the present arrangements must be the reality. We must always challenge and probe, pushing as far and as fast as we can, to get the walls down, because, in the long run, they do not serve communities. They are not a cure for the divisions in our society; they are a sticking plaster.

Peace walls place a greater obligation on the police and other aspects of government to ensure that people who take risks and show initiative have protection and back-up from the rest of us. Those are important points, and perhaps we need to discuss them further in the Chamber by having a formal debate on peace walls. We should note the comments of the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, at the US/Northern Ireland investment conference last spring.

I have talked a great deal about the pressures and costs for the public sector and about how it needs to respond; however, we must acknowledge that sometimes those costs are also borne by the private sector. Therefore, when the Government are attempting to make the economy more efficient, opportunities may arise for them to assist the private sector to make its services more efficient and to reduce its cost pressures. We all stand to benefit from that exercise.

I appreciate that that was a fairly long review of the opportunities that exist for us, but it demonstrates that there is substantial scope for changing public policy in Northern Ireland. I am not naive enough to suggest that we can make all those changes overnight; indeed, it may take several Assembly mandates or even a generation. Nevertheless, it is critical that we make a start on those reforms, particularly in light of the coming Budget pressures. My party makes those proposals in a constructive manner, and it is more than happy to engage in debate with Members from all sides of the Chamber and with Ministers and their officials.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I, therefore, propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when the next Member to be called to speak will be Simon Hamilton.

The sitting was suspended at 12.28 pm.

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

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Looking at the sparsity of the Chamber, obviously it was not clear enough before the lunch break that I would be speaking —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

It was clear.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Oh dear. I am happy to delay, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you want to let in all of the screaming hordes who want to hear my contribution, but I will ably go on.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for the proceedings to continue given the lack of Members in the Chamber? Do we have a quorum?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

If, Mr Robinson, you are drawing my attention to the fact that there is not a quorum, I inform you that we can proceed with the business after the bell has been rung to notify other Members that a quorum is required.

We now have a quorum, so Mr Hamilton should proceed.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Ken Robinson’s cunning plan did not work.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

It was Baldrick’s plan. [Laughter.]

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

His attempt to try to silence me has failed.

I am pleased to be able to speak during the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Coming, as it usually does, a day after a debate on the Supply resolution, there is always some level of difficulty in saying something new or original. However, as you can testify, Mr Deputy Speaker, that has been no impediment to me speaking in the past, and it will not be so today.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Hear, hear.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for that. I enjoy the opportunity to contribute to a Budget debate because it is one of the most important things that we do as a legislature. Although there may be some level of commonality in the way in which such debates work out in the end, it is still a very important aspect of our work. It is a good opportunity for Members from all corners of the House to talk about public finances in their broadest sense or to talk about particular aspects of their own constituencies or Departments in which they have a particular interest. I welcome the opportunity to speak about such matters.

Before I make some comments about the Executive’s response to the economic difficulties that we face, I will pick up on a few comments that were made by Mr Basil McCrea before the lunch break. When listening to his remarks, certainly the start of them, I was reminded of one of those vintage television programmes in which the regular actor who played a role was sometimes unavailable and it would have been announced that that role would be played by somebody else. Perhaps it should have been announced that the role of David McNarry would today be played by Basil McCrea. I thought that that was the vein down which he would go. Ultimately, however, he was not as unique as David can sometimes be in his contributions.

I will attempt to correct some of the points made by Basil McCrea. He repeated the line that was used yesterday, that no bids were being submitted by Departments in respect of the June monitoring round. I spoke about that yesterday, and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment made it perfectly clear that bids are being submitted. Indeed, the Committee for Finance and Personnel received a presentation from officials that outlined the bids that the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) made. I am sure that the Education Committee, of which Mr Basil McCrea is a member, has heard officials from the Department of Education outline the various bids that they have made. In fact, I would be very surprised if the Department of Education did not make any bids. Bids are certainly being made.

However, what the Executive choose to do with those bids can only be assessed when they have all been received and looked at in the context of where we are. Clearly, there is always an over-application for the limited funds that are available in any monitoring round, and some will be unsuccessful. Indeed, the Executive may take a strategic decision to do certain things during that round, but to say that no bids are being submitted is wrong and was corrected yesterday by the Minister. I find it peculiar that we have heard that statement made again today by members of the Ulster Unionist Party.

Again, there was talk of a lack of flexibility; it has been said that the Budget was rigid and inflexible. I reiterate the point that monitoring round processes are far from rigid and inflexible. In fact, they are quite the opposite. They allow for a degree of flexibility and often for a rapid response to pressures that emerge and that need to be dealt with quickly. It is foolish to suggest that a process that in the past two years has allowed the reallocation from one Department to another of funding of some £1 billion is inflexible. To call such a process inflexible is ludicrous.

In Northern Ireland, £1 billion is a large amount of money in public expenditure. Obviously, it is not as big a sum as that of the Budget itself. However, even if the Budget process were reopened, a reallocation of as much as £1 billion would not be expected. Therefore, to achieve such a reallocation over a two-year period is quite impressive.

Mr Basil McCrea talked at length about what he saw as the inevitability of cuts. Certainly, I would be the first to acknowledge that there are significant pressures on public expenditure beyond the next spending round. The figures are fairly secure for the current comprehensive spending review (CSR) period, but there is less certainty about what happens beyond that. We will have to deal with that situation when we face it. I will not submit in any way to some inevitability of cuts for Northern Ireland, and I know that my party will not do so either. We will fight for Northern Ireland’s position and for what we believe to be its entitlements within the United Kingdom. We will continue to argue that some aspects of Northern Ireland mean that it is a special case, even as we move forward. We will not surrender in any way to some inevitability of cuts.

There are pressures on public expenditure in Northern Ireland. In response to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s most recent Budget announcement, people said that Northern Ireland would face something in the order of £600 million of cuts. In fact, the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party said that that would happen; I may be corrected on the figure, but I think that he said something like £600 million. When it turned out that, in effect, the Chancellor’s Budget had a neutral impact because of Barnett consequentials, I did not see anyone apologising to the House for that. Therefore, sometimes people believe that large-scale cuts or efficiencies are inevitable, but when the situation pans out, it ends up being not that bad.

If there is a belief that cuts or further efficiencies are somehow inevitable and that we must face up to them, I do not see those on the Ulster Unionist Party Benches being mature about the need for efficiencies. Why has there been constant whingeing about the 3% efficiencies in the current CSR period? If we are to face up to the supposed reality of further efficiencies and cuts, why is there a demand that funding for the Health Service be ring-fenced and that it be untouched? I have spoken about this in the House previously, and I do not wish to repeat myself too much, but it is completely wrong to say that half the Budget, with all the obvious inefficiencies that remain in the Health Service, should be ring-fenced and that inefficiency be copper fastened in the system. If, as was suggested, public finances are under increasing pressure, nowhere is immune to scrutiny or can be exempt from it. We need to look everywhere. We cannot just take half the Budget, or what might be slightly over half the Budget at that time, and say that it is ring-fenced.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Member accept that the funding gap for health services means that we are falling well behind the level of funding for those services in England and Wales?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

When the Member spoke about that issue previously, I pointed out to him that expenditure per capita in Northern Ireland has actually been rising quite rapidly to the point where it is higher here than in other parts of the United Kingdom. The Budget settlement that we see panning out through the Budget (No. 2) Bill has taken expenditure on health in Northern Ireland to record levels. I ask the Member to consider this question: if, as his colleague said earlier, cuts are inevitable, why should one element of public expenditure be immune? Why should it be protected over anything else? The Member’s party is adopting a contradictory position that he needs to answer for.

I also heard the old chestnut today about a revision to the Programme for Government. As often as that will be said, I will throw back the same line: I ask that those Members of the Ulster Unionist Party who say and believe that the Programme for Government should be revised please tell their party leader, who when quizzed on it, repeated to the BBC that it did not need to be revised at all and that its principles were correct.

We can debate budget lines, and we can say that money could be taken from one place and spent elsewhere; that is a legitimate argument. The Programme for Government sets the growth of a vibrant and dynamic economy as the Executive’s number one priority. Why, in the midst of a difficult economic position, would anyone want to move away from that? In response to the question about pressures on public expenditure in Northern Ireland, we should try to achieve the economic growth that we had hoped would exist in Northern Ireland but which, unfortunately, has been made all the more difficult by the current circumstances.

During yesterday’s debate on the Supply resolution for the 2009-2010 Main Estimates and today’s debate on the Budget (No. 2) Bill, quite a few Members talked about the response of the Executive, the Assembly and Departments to what are some of the most trying of economic circumstances that not only Northern Ireland, but the whole world, is facing. If devolution is to be about anything, it is to be about ever-improving public services, trying to make a difference and doing things differently to how they were done 10 years ago or to how they might be done if direct rule was still in place.

When people ask me what the Executive are doing or trying to do, or about what the Assembly and I, as a Member, are doing to support and help the economy, I cannot help but mention the record levels of invest­ment that have been made in capital infrastructure in Northern Ireland. The investment strategy for Northern Ireland sets out a target of £18 billion of investment over a 10-year period. In the past year, that has manifested itself through an investment of £1·6 billion or £1·7 billion. The final figures have not yet been brought to the House, but, whatever they are, record levels of investment have been made in infrastructure in Northern Ireland. That compares favourably with approximately £1·1 billion of investment in the previous year. One does not need to go too far back into the direct rule past to see that the investment was about £650 million in 2002-03.

The current level of investment is not to be sniffed at. Sometimes, we use figures such as £1 billion and cast them aside. We see that footballers are bought and sold for £80 million, and it seems like a snip. A figure such as £1 billion does not sound like a lot when it slips off the tongue, but it is a substantial amount of money, and it demonstrates the substantial investment that is going into Northern Ireland’s infrastructure. It is transforming how Northern Ireland looks and how public services are being delivered.

Every aspect of public service delivery is being positively impacted upon by that level of investment. It is visible across every aspect of life in Northern Ireland. It is evident in the likes of roads, with the widening of the M2 and the improvements on the A1 to Newry. Furthermore, more than £100 million has been invested in the Dungannon to Ballygawley road, which is in the Minister’s constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

One can also see improvements to the educational infrastructure, and they offer obvious benefits to those who attend such institutions as the new Belfast Metropolitan College, which is investing some £40 million in a new campus at the Titanic Quarter. Last year, £350 million was invested in schools, and, this year, closer to £400 million will be invested in schools across Northern Ireland. That investment offers obvious benefits. Not only does it provide a nice new shiny building in a town, but it is beneficial to those who attend the schools. Pupils will have a richer learning experience in the improved environment, and the teaching experiences of staff will be more pleasurable. Staff will benefit in that respect, and they will benefit from the pupils warming to that educational environment.

Massive investment has been made in healthcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland as well. For instance, investment has been made in the infrastructures of the Royal Victoria Hospital, Altnagelvin Area Hospital and the Ulster Hospital.

Last year, our waning waste-water infrastructure received investment of almost £200 million, and an investment of over £100 million is scheduled for this year.

If I may be parochial, as all Members tend to be in Budget debates, let me say how happy I am that more than £80 million of capital investment went into my constituency of Strangford. Investment was made in new roads in Newtownards, which were not new roads merely for the sake of new roads that take traffic away from the congested town centre. In fact, they open up massive economic opportunities in the town that were lost in the past number of decades.

We have also seen investment in waste-water treatment works and housing. In the fishing village of Portavogie, some £1 million of improvements to the harbour have been scheduled between now and 2011.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Minister — will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister is not on her feet, but the Member will happily give way.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way and for his sermon about what is coming to Strangford. However, as he has the ear of the Minister, will he direct some funding to the A20 and the A2? Those, I remind the Member, are roads that go beyond Newtownards, down the Ards Peninsula, and they have not seen investment for donkeys’ years.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Obviously, when Mr McCarthy said “Minister”, he was thinking of the sermon that I was giving.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

You knew what I was getting at.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I understand the Member’s point. He and I, along with others, have lobbied strenuously through the years for ongoing improvements to both of those coastal roads. We do not want to see superhighways on the Ards Peninsula, by any means, because they are beautiful roads and their twists and turns make them a tourist attraction in many respects. However, we would like to see occasional improvements to them. I am always happy to join the Member in lobbying for that.

Whether it is those minor roads, major roads, hospitals, colleges or schools, there can be no doubt that massive investment is going on across Northern Ireland. We can always want more. Mr McCarthy is always prone to asking for more. We all want more for our areas and for Northern Ireland in general, and we will always want to see local firms benefiting from capital investment. The Committee for Finance and Personnel is engaged in an inquiry into the public procurement process. Particularly in these difficult times, we all want to see local construction firms getting more of a benefit, or, at least, more awareness of the opportunities that exist in the current set-up.

I could talk for an eternity about all the projects that are going on in Northern Ireland, in my constituency and everyone else’s. However, I sometimes think that the public are unaware of where that investment comes from. People just see cranes or buildings being built and they do not always attribute those things to their own money being ploughed back into their community and building a better Northern Ireland.

I am not so narrow-minded that I will not learn lessons from our neighbours across the border. They have a good scheme whereby they highlight where the national development plan is going into individual villages, never mind the towns and cities. They make it clear to people in those areas how much of their taxes are being reinvested in their local communities. We can learn a lesson from that, so that when people ask what the Assembly and Executive do, we can point to projects in their areas. We could advertise clearly in those areas that the investment has not come from Mars but from the Northern Ireland Executive.

Yesterday, one Member described the Executive as a “do-nothing Government”. Not only is that inaccurate but the Member, Mr McNarry, who is not here today, disparaged his party colleagues, the Minister of Health and the Minister for Employment and Learning. I can have a knockabout go at them with the best, but they too are playing their parts, through their Departments, in investing in Northern Ireland through the provision of new healthcare facilities, new colleges and so on.

Those Ministers play their parts in some other measures that the Executive are bringing forward. I talked about infrastructure, but there is also assistance going into people’s pockets and to businesses in the form of rates relief and lone pensioner allowance. The latter is something that the Assembly should be particularly proud of; it is one of our finer achievements. According to the last figures that I saw, more than 17,000 individuals in Northern Ireland have benefited from the lone pensioner allowance to the tune of about £2·7 million. That works out, on average, at £150 a person. That is a substantial amount, especially as the demographic group in receipt of it are over 70 years of age and live alone. One hundred and fifty pounds off their rates bills is a substantial amount and a great assistance.

There are also free prescriptions, which are benefiting the public to the tune of £13 million. Free public transport has been extended to those over 60 years of age, which is helping to the tune of around £18 million. There is the fuel credit, which Dr Farry should know better than to describe as a winter fuel payment. That is an entirely separate —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I called it the “spring fuel payment”.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

That is inaccurate as well, because it is a fuel credit. I do not know what Dr Farry does, but, funnily enough, people buy fuel throughout the year. The fuel credit has helped many individuals, and it is not to be confused with the winter fuel payment, which is a completely different benefit.

The freezing of the non-domestic regional rate has helped businesses. The capping of the industrial rate has helped a great many manufacturing businesses with their cash flow and has been proven to have helped some of those businesses through these more difficult times. At the tail end of last year when it was becoming much more apparent how bad the economic downturn was, the Economic Development Forum called for investment in construction, finance for businesses, help for businesses in difficulty, and work to be done on skills. I will not say that everything that the Executive and the Assembly have done has been perfect and will insulate Northern Ireland entirely from the worst ravages of the recession, but they can be marked pretty favourably against the criteria for which experts in industry and the wider business sector called.

I have already talked about the roll-out of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI) and the record levels of investment in capital infra­structure in Northern Ireland. The Minister of Finance and Personnel’s Department and Invest Northern Ireland are launching a new venture capital fund in the coming weeks. Obviously, problems with finance still exist, because our banks hold so much control. I read with interest the Institute of Directors’ recent report on some of the negative experiences that its members have had with banks.

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment announced in May the short-term aid scheme to help businesses in difficulty. It is a £15 million fund for businesses that have experienced difficulties to help them to retain staff to get themselves out of trouble. At the same time, the Minister for Employment and Learning announced the Skillsafe scheme, which focuses on apprenticeships. The Executive and the Assembly can therefore be marked very favourably against the criteria that the Economic Development Forum identified in the latter part of last year.

I have said before that I am pleased that we have a local Assembly that is capable of debating issues, and that decisions are not foisted on us but are open for discussion. Almost every party in the Assembly is party to the Executive, who formalise and devise the Budget. We can all dispute whether the right actions are being taken, but at least we can all agree that it is much better to debate and implement our own Budget rather than to have it foisted on us. Despite our particular differences of emphasis from time to time, we can all agree that record levels of investment are going into construction and infrastructure in Northern Ireland; that direct help has been given to some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society; and that we have helped businesses that have had a rough time and will continue to have a rough time for some months.

We can, rightly, be proud of many of the initiatives that have been undertaken. Yes, we would all like to do more, but the Budget shows us that a limited amount of resources are at our disposal. We have done a good job with those limited resources, and we will continue to do our best with them. I welcome the Budget (No. 2) Bill and am happy to support it.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr Hamilton has delivered a lengthy and accurate list of the Executive’s achievements. He spoke about the billions of pounds that we are investing in our infrastructure, in our health services, in our education services and across society. However, are we mapping a course for economic recovery in this part of Ireland and across the island of Ireland? Are we playing a role in the future economic destiny of this group of islands? As we stand here today debating the Budget (No. 2) Bill, I wonder if the title of the debate is loftier than the process in which we are involved. What we are really doing is dividing up the dubiously-named block grant. We are dividing up what the British Exchequer has decided that it will give us during the current CSR period.

Later in my speech, I will outline what I and my party believe is the way forward. However, I was interested in what Basil McCrea said today about the current CSR, and I am sure that many people will refer to his speech. At one point, he said that we should make cuts now because cuts will be coming. Where, and on what basis, should those cuts be made? I too suspect that the British Government will introduce swathing cuts to the block grant here and across its overall Budget. However, I am not sure whether it is prudent from a financial perspective or wise from an economic perspective to make cuts to services now based on that assumption.

His most startling and revealing comment, which shows the views of the Ulster Unionist Party today, was that public-sector cuts are the only option. He did not say that they are one of the options, a possibility, or that the matter is open for discussion: he said that they are the only option. Our economy relies largely on public-sector jobs, and what Mr McCrea is saying is that there will be major redundancies across the public sector. He is saying that those redundancies will not be because of changes in service requirements, but because the Executive should, as their only option, cut thousands of jobs and services across the public sector to balance the books. Where does he get that philosophy from? He gets it from the Conservative Party.

I am ambivalent about what political party the Ulster Unionist Party aligns itself with: I do not lose any sleep over it one way or the other. However, I am very concerned when a member of a political party stands in this Chamber and pronounces that the future economic direction involves public-sector cuts, because that will mean unemployment in tens of thousands of homes, the removal of millions of pounds of wages from the economy, and the impact that will have on future investment, etc. Conservative Governments throughout the world have attempted to rectify economic downturns by picking on public services, and it has never been shown to work. All it has done, as we saw during the Thatcher years and the Major years, is bring further deprivation and hardship to the most vulnerable in our society. It does not create the economic dynamic to bring us into a new economic era.

I ask Mr McCrea to reflect on his call for public-sector cuts, because I am sure that the civil servants working in this building, those who work in the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL), and particularly those in the Health Service, who saw the worst of the cuts during the previous Conservative Administration, will be very anxious when they hear that the Ulster Unionist Party is proposing that the only option is public-service cuts.

Also, I am not convinced that the current British Government is committed to a three-year CSR period. They may well make changes at the end of the current financial year, or before that. However, I am not advocating that the Executive, on that basis, should change their budgetary commitments or the Programme for Government at this stage; although we must be wary and continue forward thinking as there is a possibility that the current British Government is going to make changes to its CSR arrangements because of the financial situation in which they, and many Governments throughout the world, find themselves during the economic downturn. The fact is that the taxes that would, under their social agenda and their mindset, commit them to the current spend, are not forthcoming.

We also heard that perhaps we should follow the course that has been set by George Osborne, Alistair Darling or, for that matter, Brian Lenihan. I apologise; I cannot remember the name of the finance spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is Vince Cable. How could you forget?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am sure that his work could provide me with some night-time reading.

Members suggested that we could follow some of the economic changes to society that those people propose. However, that misses the point. Sinn Féin believes that we should map our own economic destiny. The way out of the economic downturn is for the North to involve itself in an economic recovery plan across the island of Ireland. I await the cries from the Benches opposite about the current state of the Dublin Government’s finances. Indeed, they are a disgrace. The Dublin Government have mismanaged the wealth that was created by the so-called Celtic tiger economy, although it is worth noting that that wealth benefited only some sections of society and not all the people of the Twenty-six Counties. That is true when the gap between rural and urban areas, and between the poor and the rich, is considered. The Dublin Government have squandered that wealth.

We do not seek a Fianna Fáil solution to the economic downturn; neither do we seek a solution from the British Labour Party or from the British Conservative Party. We seek an all-Ireland-based solution. In the interim, that will be between the Assembly and the Dáil. I wonder how often the Minister of Finance and Personnel or the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who is filling in for him, have met their counterparts in Dublin to discuss how to map a way forward to economic recovery, how to invest the benefits of that economic recovery in the marginalised sections of society and how to create a wealth base to ensure that services are provided by not cutting public-sector posts, as Basil McCrea has advocated.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member may wish to tell the House whose economic policies he looks up to, but I shall leave that as a side point.

Does the Member distinguish between greater economic co-operation and greater fiscal co-operation on the island of Ireland? I see economic opportunities, particularly considering the great strides that are being made in the South of Ireland on the green economy in contrast to the slower rate of progress up here. However, we rely on a subvention of around £7 billion that can be absorbed by the 60 million people of the United Kingdom. Could that burden be absorbed by the taxpayers of a united Ireland in the short term? Is a distinction to be made between the argument in favour of greater economic co-operation and the argument to do with fiscal dependency?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The person to whom I looked for advice on budgetary control was my mother, who reared nine of us on a very limited budget.

There are very few states around the world whose economic policies we would wish to match. I am an Irish republican, and I have my views on how the world should be shaped. However, as a people, whether we are unionist, nationalist or republican, we have the wherewithal to master our economic destiny. Fiscal co-operation and broader co-operation are one and the same thing. We are running two health services and two education services. All our services run back to back, and we must consider the costings.

Dr Farry said that he was willing to have a conversation with Sinn Féin on such issues. Our door is open, and I hope that we start that conversation soon. No one should fear conversation and debate. The outcome of any consideration of the possibilities for more efficient and effective delivery of services on this island will not threaten anyone.

With respect to our economic destiny, and looking towards Europe and the world, we are competing against each other. Yesterday, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment gave figures, similar to Dr Farry’s, illustrating how we could not afford to live without the intervention of the British Government. This may seem somewhat self-serving, but given the history of the British Government in Ireland, I see no reason why they should not continue to make financial interventions in Ireland for many years to come. It is their political, military and economic interventions that I have major concerns about; however, they have a debt to this society that will be paid out over many years.

As regards our position as members of Sinn Féin and as Irish republicans, we are not isolationists and we do not seek to cut ourselves off and float into the middle of the Atlantic. We have a vision of an Ireland of equals, in which we can work and co-operate with our nearest neighbours in England, Scotland and Wales, take our place as equals in the greater European framework and, within that, work in a world economy. How we use our economic growth — our economic destiny — is the important thing. That is where political differences are most blatant.

When we come out of this economic downturn, we want to see a focus on delivering to marginalised communities. The list read out by Mr Hamilton shows that the Executive are doing good work. There is no doubt about that. As Members canvassed during the election campaigns, they will all have realised that there are still wide swathes of society, urban and rural, that are marginalised and left behind and will remain so. In areas that were once affluent, or marginally affluent, unemployment is on the rise.

The unemployment figures hide the reality of the situation. Far more people than are counted in those figures are economically inactive. There are people on what used to be known as “the sick”, that is, disability benefits, and so on, who are no longer working or who are incapable of finding work in this society. Those people feel that regardless of the billions of pounds referred to by Mr Hamilton, the Executive and this institution do not deliver for them. As this CSR period continues and we enter into the next spending round after 2011, we must ensure that we have an equality-driven agenda that focuses on targeting social needs, so that we can improve society.

I have some final points to make about education; most debates in this House have education brought into them in some way. I listened with interest yesterday when the Minister replied to a question by saying — I paraphrase her remark — that there were no recognisable adverse costings of transfer 2010 at this stage, though the failure of the policy was the responsibility of the Education Minister. However, it is the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and her Democratic Unionist Party colleagues who have failed to hold the debate around the Executive table. Recently, we have heard much from that party’s leadership that it will listen and learn. Perhaps if the Minister’s Executive colleagues start listening and learning, we could resolve the education issue and a few other outstanding matters.

If we are to improve our economic lot, we will have to listen to and learn from each other. That is the only way forward for society. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Yesterday, I spoke of the great sense of déjà vu in these debates. It is difficult to find much that is novel. One thing is novel about this debate, and I will come to it in a moment. However, it is difficult for me to follow a speech that I think is almost worthy of a Nobel Prize in economics. Sinn Féin’s analysis of the economy shows that that party would have difficulty distinguishing between Milton Friedman and Milton Keynes.

In this debate we have seen many old hobby horses ridden around the paddock, although the Member who last spoke gave a high level of exposition and detail. Not surprisingly, the Alliance Party, which, to be fair, gives a fairly consistent message, rode its hobby horse, the costs and implications of division, for several laps of the Chamber.

From across the Chamber, the Assembly has heard about the magic bullet of an all-Ireland economy, which does not so much leap into the future as embrace de Valera. There seems to be a remarkable lack of understanding of the difference between economic intervention and fiscal intervention. Like Stephen Farry, I am certainly happy, and believe that it would be useful, to examine where there can be economic co-operation of mutual benefit. Anyone in the Chamber would welcome that. However, there is as much sense in looking south and linking Northern Ireland into an all-island economy, particularly in view of the Irish Republic’s current fiscal state, as there would be in looking north for such a fiscal connection and, perhaps, linking into Iceland’s economy. I suppose that if Northern Ireland were to link with Iceland, it would, at least, be assured of a plentiful supply of fish. There would be some advantage.

One slightly novel aspect of the debate is that, due to earlier events in the Chamber, the House has been deprived of the analysis and measured contribution of Mr McNarry, which is always a source of great comfort, particularly on these Benches. One feels that Mr McNarry’s absence is almost like ‘Hamlet’ without the prince. A colleague said, somewhat uncharitably, that it is more like ‘Hamlet’ without Yorick.

Mr Basil McCrea made a valiant attempt to act as Mr McNarry’s understudy. However, there were major differences. Although, like my colleague, I disagree with a number of aspects of Mr McCrea’s analysis, it was, at least, delivered in a measured tone, the nature of which has certainly blown a hole in anything that I had intended to say by way of response.

I agree with Dr Farry that although Mr McCrea is wrong to highlight the threat that exists prior to 2011, clearly there are potential problems post-2011. I must say, without too much political point scoring, that that threat to the public purse comes potentially from a Conservative Government. The Executive’s record, both in obtaining the extra £1 billion at the start of the process, and in robustly defending the Budget at Westminster, has been one of high merit.

In the Chancellor’s recent Budget statement, there were some fairly grim predictions of cuts to block grants. However, although £123 million was taken out, additional income of £116 million was put in. Although that may not be ideal, most Members would agree that it is as good financially as one could have anticipated. There are major threats, which have already been mentioned, from a potential incoming Conservative Government. I wonder whether when, as I suspect, a series of unpopular decisions is taken at Westminster and, indeed, massive cuts are made by that potential Government, Mr McCrea and his colleagues will be quite so keen to be associated with, and to consistently quote, the name of George Osborne. Will there be a little more blue water between the parties at that stage? That remains to be seen.

Again, reference has been made to honesty and transparency and to preparing for the future. I have no problem with that. However, as regards any reduction in expenditure by various Departments, which seems to have been predicted by Mr McCrea and to which others have referred, when people make a case for reallocation of resources, it is always easy to come up with a long list of where money should go. However, when pressed about where additional money might come from, Mr McCrea talked vaguely of cuts without making any reference to where they might be made, with the exception of some form of ring-fencing in the Health Department. Indeed, Mr McCrea, in disagreement with his party leader, wants the entire Programme for Government and, effectively, the Budget to be rejigged.

As my colleague Mr Hamilton indicated, I think that Basil McCrea and his colleagues want the Health Department to be insulated from efficiency changes. However, that Department’s budget is not under any pressure from efficiencies. If I am wrong about that, I am more than happy to be corrected. The Health Department’s budget accounts for approximately 50% of the overall Budget and for a clear majority of new money in the Budget. Therefore, if Mr McCrea wants to ring-fence the health budget from any form of efficiency at a time when, according to him, cuts must be made, one wonders what level of swingeing cuts he wants to see being made to other Departments’ budgets.

All of us want to ensure that money for front line services is protected. This is not an attack on the Health Minister, because the issue pre-dates his time in office by a number of years. Over the past 10 to 15 years, one has seen a rapid growth in the amount of money being invested in the Health Service, and in administration and bureaucracy; however, one has not seen the same level of rapid growth in delivery on health. The real issue is that a Department the size of the Health Department should be delivering as much as it possibly can to front line services given the amount of money that it receives. We should all unite on that point.

I believe that the Budget before us, which I agree with the Minister for Employment and Learning is based fundamentally on the Programme for Government and on the sound economics of putting the economy first, is continuing to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Any degree of analysis bears that out, and one only needs to look at the list of capital investments, totalling £1·6 billion or £1·7 billion, for Departments in 2009-2010 to see that. For example, the Department for Regional Development will receive more than £400 million in capital investment; the Department for Social Development will receive almost £400 million; the Department of Education will receive £275 million; and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will receive £223 million. Now, and over the next few years, that money will deliver real benefits and real change for the people of Northern Ireland.

My colleague mentioned various investments in Strangford. Such investments have a ripple effect across a number of constituencies. For example, my constituency colleague Dr Farry and I recently attended a presentation on the proposed changes to capital investment for the Ulster Hospital over the next few years. Although the hospital is located outside North Down, it will be of service to the people there and further afield.

A high level of investment is taking place. In 2009-2010, £184 million will be invested in roads projects; £35 million will be invested in the Royal Hospitals; and £31 million will be invested in tourism signature projects. Therefore, people who accuse the Executive of doing nothing are wide of the mark. Those amounts of money, which are a record level of investment, will support and help the construction industry, in particular.

Work has been done with the Treasury to ensure that in the region of £80 million can be re-profiled and carried over to the next financial year. Clearly, a strong commitment exists to make use of that opportunity.

As I said, it is easy for us to identify a range of areas in which we want to see additional money being invested. Indeed, some bids that will be made in the next monitoring round will be met over the next year or two and some will not. The Committee for the Environment, on which I sit, would like to see a range of things happening, particularly on the capital investment side, and it is clear that investment will be needed through the RPA to bring that forward. That has been factored in to a large extent.

One area that has been neglected for many years, particularly under direct rule, is investment in waste infrastructure. Leaving aside the current debate in Belfast about the incinerator, owing to years of neglect of waste infrastructure during direct rule, we have a lot of catching up to do. Money will, clearly, have to be allocated to that area.

Several Members made important points about the planning backlog. Although some planning reforms are starting to have an effect, that area requires more money. One could argue that the most important area for the Department of the Environment is road safety, and it is keen to apply pressure to make improvements that will reduce the adverse statistics. I am sure that members of any Statutory Committee could come up with a similar range of proposals that they believe worthy of double the current funding. It would not be difficult to draw up such a set of proposals.

During the period of the Transitional Assembly, one party managed to spend the block grant in about four days of motions. I will not name that party because I do not want to embarrass the SDLP. However, it is easy politics to say that such-and-such requires more money, and, to be honest, genuine arguments could be made for that money. Even where there is money to be spent, there must be a degree of balance. Although the Minister has used worthy arguments about social housing, I am not sure that the balance between new housing and investment in housing maintenance has been achieved. In my constituency — and others will testify to similar experiences — several projects seem to have been put firmly on the back burner, because housing maintenance seems to have been placed at the bottom of the pile. We must use our money well.

The Executive have taken a strategic decision, which has, ultimately, been bought into by those around that table, that places economic development in this country at the top of the agenda. Others have outlined the burdens on individuals at home, the lone pensioner allowance, the freezing of the regional rate and the help that is available to businesses. Manufacturing rates and the non-domestic rate have been frozen, and initiatives such as relief for small businesses have been introduced to respond to the recession. I welcome such measures.

We should try to learn lessons from elsewhere, particularly in respect of rates on small businesses. Many people who run small businesses in England have written to their MPs to request the introduction of measures similar to those in Northern Ireland and Wales. They want to copy that model because we have created a business-friendly environment. The party opposite wants not only its silver bullet of all-Ireland co-operation but a high level of fiscal control and tax-raising powers. That will, inevitably, cause pressure to spend more money over the forthcoming years and will increase financial pressure on households and businesses.

We have maintained a business-friendly environment and created a situation that places Northern Ireland in the best position to withstand the recession and to recover during the global recovery. However, we must not be complacent and simply hope to weather the storm. As other Members have said, the Executive will, I assume, consider in days to come the issues that the Economic Development Forum has identified, such as financing SMEs and helping businesses in difficulties. The Budget is pro-business and has stood the test of time. Mr McNarry and others constantly stargaze in search of a black hole; he is outside today and may have a better chance of finding that elusive black hole.

The Budget (No. 2) Bill will stand the test of time, it can take us forward, and I commend it to the House.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Taking a broader look at today’s Budget debate, I think that Gordon Brown’s economic strategy has had a hugely damaging effect on the UK’s public sector, private sector and citizens’ personal finances. That strategy, combined with the ongoing consequences of a world recession, means that any UK Government, be it Labour or Conservative, will have some difficult decisions to make over the next few years. It would be dishonest and fundamentally absurd for anyone to pretend that we can spend or borrow our way out of the present crisis, let alone argue that spending can remain untouched or completely ring-fenced.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Has the Member heard of John Maynard Keynes?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Yes, I have. Was that just a quiz?

The DUP says that the next Conservative Government will be a Government of swingeing cuts. In precisely the same way that it tried to scare voters into voting for it to stop Sinn Féin topping the poll in the European election, its Members are now trying to scare voters into not voting for Conservatives and Unionists in a general election because of threatened cuts.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I presume that I will get more time in which to speak after Question Time.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

As the motion relates to legislation, Members have unlimited time in which to speak.

The Conservative Party, to be fair to it, has been well documented and very much on the record in saying that it intends to ring-fence funding in four areas, including health and overseas development. It has also indicated that there will be cuts in all other Departments. It is not an issue of the DUP scaring voters; it is a matter of public record that the Conservative Party is going to introduce cuts when it gets into Government.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful for that intervention. It is actually the Member’s party that has the track record of trying to scare voters about Sinn Féin topping the poll and, quite bizarrely, arguing at one time that it would never go into Government with Sinn Féin. Look where it is now: sitting very happily with Sinn Féin.

Perhaps the DUP can explain the basis for its scare tactics and produce some evidence that it will resist the cuts. Perhaps its Members will also explain where they will find the money to continue to spend at the same levels.

The DUP is offering no alternative. What financial strategy does it have for maintaining spending at present levels while coping with the continuing economic downturn and a requirement to pay back the huge sums borrowed by Labour over the past couple of years? Does the DUP really believe that attacking the Conservatives will make it easier to influence a Conservative Government in the future? Did DUP MPs not vote last week to bring down Gordon Brown’s Government? Mind you, they have changed their minds; they had the chance to vote against the Government on the issue of 42-day detention. [Interruption.]

I am happy to take the point that was shouted from a sedentary position.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Member castigates us about the vote on 42-day detention. The one Ulster Unionist MP also voted with the Government on that issue. I presume, therefore, that he is also condemning the only Ulster Unionist Member of Parliament.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I know that Mr McCallister has taken a lot of interventions.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I will happily answer that point later.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

You can return to that issue later. I have to interrupt because we are now moving to Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline his Department’s assessment of the economic multiplier effect of sports stadia when they are built in (i) out of town centre; and (ii) town centre locations. (AQO 2991/09)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The economic viability of any stadium is primarily dependent on the number of matches that are played and the number of spectators who attend those matches. However, it is generally accepted that sports stadiums can have a greater multiplier effect when built in town-centre locations rather than out-of-town locations.

Research suggests that town centre stadiums have greater spillover effects because of their convenience to restaurants, hotels, bars, shops and tourist attractions. A pedestrian-friendly environment is often cited as one of the main reasons for the greater economic impact of town centre stadium locations.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he still support the concept of a shared stadium for Northern Ireland with the involvement of the governing bodies of rugby, football and Gaelic sports?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Most people would support the idea of a shared stadium. However, Members will recall that the original plan for the Maze meant that the sporting bodies would have had to use the stadium at completely different times; that is not the type of shared space that most people envisage when they talk about a shared environment. That was the concept, however, and we all know what happened. The business cases were reviewed by my Department and others, and I made a statement that moved the situation forward.

I remind the Member and the House that, had I not taken the decision that I did, we would still be wrestling with whether to proceed with the Maze stadium project. I have no hesitation in saying that I took the right decision. The three sports governing bodies concerned met me and gave me their preferred suggestions about the way forward in ways that meet the strategic objectives of their sports. That is the position at the moment, and it is to be hoped that we will be able to build on that in the very near future.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister will be aware that not everything that matters happens in Belfast. Does he have plans to address deficiencies in sports stadiums outside Belfast?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that relevant and timely question. We must settle on provision for the three main sports, but there are stadiums in various parts of Northern Ireland. At my previous appearance at Question Time, I spoke about considerable development in Irish League and Gaelic sports grounds. I hope that we have moved a little further on that today and will move even further in the next few weeks. Stadiums across Northern Ireland that cater for the three main sporting disciplines are in need of upgrading, and I am determined that that will happen. Significant investment and resources will be required to meet that demand, but that should not deter us. It is my intention to assist the development of stadium facilities where possible.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

The Minister mentioned the significant investment that will be required to upgrade stadiums in Northern Ireland. Has he considered the effect that such investment could have on much-needed construction jobs?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes I have, but I should add a caveat. Other honourable Members — not the Member who asked the question — were critical of me and said that a decision should be taken to proceed with the Maze stadium project because it would provide much-needed construction jobs in the current downturn. I made the point, which I hope is obvious to all Members, that, no matter what decision had been taken, we would not have created construction jobs now, three months ago or in three months’ time. The need to involve the planning system and the need to consider the options and business case appraisals that would have to be made meant that, whatever the decision, no construction jobs would be available until the 2010-2011 financial year at the earliest.

The answer to the honourable Member’s question is yes, but no decision would have meant construction jobs in this financial year. It would not have been possible to proceed in that timescale.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what steps his Department has taken to secure additional funding for voluntary and community arts. (AQO 2992/09)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

My Department and the Arts Council recognise and are fully supportive of the important role that voluntary and community arts play in promoting community and social cohesion, in targeting social need, and as a vehicle for physical, environmental and social regeneration.

In 2008-09, the Arts Council awarded funding of circa £5 million for community and voluntary arts activities. That was an increase of 31% from the £3·78 million awarded in 2007-08. During 2008-09, my Department has secured additional funding of £500,000 to support the work of the Re-imaging Communities programme. In addition, the Department has contributed £450,000 to the community festivals fund, which leveraged upwards of a further £450,000 support from local councils.

As the Member will be aware, additional funding allocations, which I have outlined, are of particular significance at a time when there are very real pressures on the public purse and many competing priorities.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer; it is quite useful to get some of those figures, along with a general overview of the issue. I am happy that the Minister supports the role that the voluntary and community sector and community arts play. I commend him for increasing that funding.

Is the Minister aware of the early findings of Liverpool’s ‘Impacts 08’ assessment? Those early findings were very supportive of money going into voluntary and community arts and the impact that it has had on their city, not only in a social context but in an economic context.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes, I am aware of those findings. The wider public can often have the view that money going into community and voluntary arts is simply that and no more, producing development in artistic talent but not contributing to the economy. What we have seen and will continue to see over the next 12 to 18 months is significant investment in that sector that will lead to investment in the economy and to people gaining employment when they would otherwise have had great difficulty in doing so.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s response to that question. One of the clear indications coming from the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee’s inquiry into the funding of the arts is that there has been higher investment from the private sector in the community arts and other forms in other regions. Does the Minister have any plans or proposals that could help to inject some funding? Ms Ramsey mentioned Liverpool: there was a huge injection of private sector funding that enabled that city to formalise its bid to become the Capital of Culture.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am open to any suggestions or proposals for attracting private sector investment. Now is the time to do that, because, as we begin, I hope, to see the end of the current recession, whether in the current twelve-month period or in the next year, the private sector will be looking for locations to invest in. Investors will look at areas where they would not only derive some significant advantage for their business but could begin to see development in establishing beyond their initial reach. I want to promote and develop that. I would be happy to meet the honourable Member or others who might have ideas or suggestions along those lines.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Given that there has been increased arts funding for the voluntary sector, can the Minister say why the Arts Council has decided to cut the core funding of £60,000 to the Creative Writers Network, which is the main support service for the literary sector and for all our local writers and groups?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am not aware of the rationale behind the decision that the honourable Member mentioned. However, I will ensure that the Arts Council is informed of the basis of her question and that the response that I get is forwarded to her.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his assessment of government support for the development of Ulster-Scots culture and heritage in starting to move towards equality and parity between the Ulster-Scots and Irish speaking communities. (AQO 2993/09)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I believe that parity of funding between Ulster Scots and Irish is required to enable the infrastructure of the Ulster-Scots community to develop so that it can protect and enhance its language, heritage and cultural traditions. In recent years, significant progress has been made in redressing the imbalance in funding between Ulster Scots and Irish. For example, between 2005 and 2008, the funding allocations from my Department for Ulster Scots almost doubled. In the same period, the funding for Irish increased by 6%. It is my intention that the reduction in the disparity of funding will continue in 2009-2010.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister will be aware that there are two very successful Ulster-Scots organisations in my constituency based in Cairncastle and Ballycarry. Both those organisations will be pleased with the improvement in funding. One issue that irritates them is the lack of funding that Ulster Scots has received in the past. Why has there been that historical gap in funding between Ulster-Scots and Irish cultural groups?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am well aware of the two organisations that the Member mentioned. Indeed, I was invited to visit one last year, and I met representatives of the other yesterday. Therefore, I am well aware of their activities, projects and ideas for expansion. I support those expansion ideas, but it is the Ulster-Scots Agency’s job to promote and develop them, and I hope that it is doing that.

We all know the various criteria that apply to Ulster Scots and Irish and that they are at different stages of development. However, the fact that the two are at different stages of development, in my view, does not mean that there should also be different stages of funding. I take almost the opposite view: if there is deep interest in both Irish and Ulster Scots, which there is, and if one is at a more advanced stage than the other, it is perfectly obvious what must be done to redress the problem. Pouring more money into the cultural outlook that has been funded and advanced significantly over the years and not giving funding to the one that has not received the same resource is not the solution. Instead, the attitude should be to support the cultural outlook of Ulster Scots, not to diminish or disadvantage the Irish language. It must be ensured that parity is achieved. I hope that I receive the support of the House in following that path, but, if I do not, I will pursue it anyway.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Does the Minister not agree that it would be better to stop the tedious arguments about the relative merits of Irish and Ulster Scots and the difference in status that the Council of Europe affords to each one? Instead, we should regard them as separate entities and treat them fairly according to their separate and peculiar needs.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I do not have a difficulty with the Member’s question. However, in treating each cultural outlook according to its own rights, demands and needs, I find that the historical imbalance exists. Members in the House, or people outside the House, can choose to deny that, hide their heads in the sand and hope that that is not the case, but there has been a massive imbalance in funding, a continuation of which I am not prepared to preside over.

If the opposite were the case, what would I be told? What would any Minister be told if he or she was presiding over tens of millions of pounds being poured into Ulster Scots and miniscule amounts being poured into Irish? I or whichever Minister was responsible for that would be lectured, attacked, lambasted and told to rectify the imbalance. The imbalance needs to be rectified. It is in the process of being rectified, and we will continue until we get it right.

That will not mean underestimating, disadvantaging or discriminating against Irish. That will not be the case, and anyone who infers otherwise is wrong and should look at what I have said and will continue to say. Irish and Ulster Scots need support, will continue to be supported, and parity must be achieved.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Does the Minister believe that legislation is necessary to ensure that equality and parity exists between Ulster Scots and Irish across the many cultural manifestations, and what consideration has he given to creating such legislation?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I congratulate the Member on his recent election to the House. He mentioned legislation. He will, I am sure, be aware of the attempt to have Irish language legislation introduced. That route would not be advantageous or productive. The languages strategy, which is the route that I am taking, will be a much better one to achieve the goal of promoting the Irish language, Ulster Scots or any indigenous minority language in which people choose to engage, speak or have a cultural manifestation. All those need to be supported, and a language strategy that takes account of the needs of each is the best way to achieve that. I hope to be able to present that strategy to the Executive in the very near future and then to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure and, subsequently, to the House for consideration.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I call Mr P J Bradley.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Dominic Bradley, Mr Deputy Speaker, on this occasion.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order. I call Mr P J Bradley to ask the next question.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether approval has been sought for the reallocation of moneys earmarked for the proposed Maze Stadium and for an update on the current plans for those moneys. (AQO 2994/09)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I do not care which Bradley it is; I have no difficulty with either.

Under the current capital programme, my Department has the delegated authority to allocate funding that is provided under the social pillar to individual projects in that pillar. Therefore, funding that was allocated originally to a multi-sports stadium can be reallocated without additional approvals. The only requirement is that expenditure remains within the overall allocations indicated by the comprehensive spending review and the investment strategy for Northern Ireland.

I am content that the Department of Finance and Personnel will continue to have the normal approval role for any individual projects that might be outwith my Department’s delegated approval limits. I can confirm that £22 million has been reallocated to enable the acceleration of other DCAL projects, including priority sports programmes and projects in the current year. We have, for example, brought forward expenditure on the elite facilities programme and the stadia safety programme. We expect those and other changes to be ratified by the Executive in the June monitoring round.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I note the spending of £22 million. How much would have been spent over the next three years on sports stadia development, what is happening to that money now, and how much of it will be spent on sport?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Member asks a very general question. The overall sporting allocation was previously outlined, and it will not change. As was outlined in answer to a previous question, I hope to be able to take advantage of the sporting allocation to ensure that expenditure that can go ahead in the current financial year, albeit limited expenditure, is spent so that, for example, we develop some of the smaller grounds in line with the safety of sports grounds programme.

We could also consider the implementation of other measures under the elite facilities programme. It is important that those facilities are in place in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics. Olympic teams could come here to avail themselves of our training facilities, but they will go elsewhere if we cannot offer those facilities. Projects will proceed that may not have proceeded had we not taken decisions in monitoring rounds and on the reallocation of the Maze stadium moneys. The projects will benefit sporting bodies across Northern Ireland, and that will be advantageous for everyone.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister is well known for his keen support of all sports but, in particular, his support of the Northern Ireland football team. What action is planned to ensure that Windsor Park, the home of the Northern Ireland football team, can continue to host international football in the short term?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

That is a pertinent and timely question. No football supporter wants Northern Ireland to have to play home games in Liverpool, Glasgow, Kilmarnock or wherever else. Northern Ireland is well placed in the 2010 World Cup qualifying campaign, and one does not want the team to have to play home games on an away ground. It is essential that international football is retained at Windsor Park. I have been informed that only a limited campaign and programme of work are required to ensure that that happens. I will consider that within the next couple of weeks. I will seek to keep expenditure on the interim work at a level that does not impinge on any long-term resolution that may be reached among the three sporting bodies. Until that resolution is reached, an expenditure of within £1 million should be sufficient to ensure that international football can continue to be played at Windsor Park in the short term.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wish to ask the Minister about the money that was originally allocated to the development of a stadium at the Maze/Long Kesh site. Recently, proposals were launched for £20 million to be granted to upgrade Windsor Park. Raymond Kennedy, the president of the IFA, said that he would seek a meeting with the Minister to ascertain whether that amount of money will be allocated to upgrade Windsor Park. Will the Minister comment on that? It is also perceived that, if £20 million is used to upgrade Windsor Park, the money will go to Linfield Football Club rather than to the IFA.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I have made it clear to the IFA and to Linfield Football Club that, depending on the outcome of the proposals that the IFA has put to me, the contract between Linfield and the IFA will have to be renegotiated. A variety of options may be required to develop that outcome, but the contract will have to be renegotiated. Indeed, Linfield referred to that in a recent statement.

I have met representatives from the IFA, the GAA and the Ulster Branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union. Each body has put separate proposals to me for the strategic needs of its sport. If the IFA puts a proposal to me that is similar to what the Member outlined, I will consider it in the context of the IFA proposal. However, there can be no question of a massive improvement of Windsor Park under the terms of the old contract. Neither Linfield Football Club nor the IFA has suggested that that will occur. In fact, almost everyone in Northern Ireland accepts that it will not be the case. A more level playing field for all the other football clubs in Northern Ireland is required, and that will be the case. We need to develop the proposals to the point at which I can bring them to the Executive and then the Assembly for approval, after which we can proceed urgently to resolve the outstanding matters.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what the Ulster-Scots Agency has done to assist community development and east-west links during his time in office. (AQO 2995/09)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

As part of a recent review, the Ulster-Scots Agency’s financial assistance scheme has been included for consideration in an application for funding community development workers to advance local initiatives and programmes in the community and to support travel arrangements for events in Scotland. The revised financial assistance scheme is to be presented for approval at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in language format, which is in a few weeks’ time.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister indicate when the agency will introduce the new proposals?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The North/South Ministerial Council, which meets in about three weeks’ time, will have to approve the proposals. I am hopeful that the proposals can be developed immediately thereafter. Community support officers will be of significant help in supporting and developing the Ulster-Scots cultural outlook and their travel to Scotland, within very strict criteria, to help them to develop the whole Ulster-Scots outlook in its natural hinterland on the west coast of Scotland. It is a welcome development, which I hope will be supported by all.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I call Mr Dominic Bradley.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Fuair tú an fear ceart an uair seo. Mr Deputy Speaker, you got the right Bradley this time.

Does the Minister agree that the tripartite project, which is known as the Colmcille project, has done excellent work in fostering east-west relations and links? Does he also agree that there has been a positive cross-community aspect to the project, and can he assure me that it will have continued support?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

My understanding is that the Colmcille project is doing very good work, as the honourable Member said, and it is proceeding apace. I want to be supportive in so far as I can, but the funding arrangements will be slightly different for that group, because the responsibility for it has changed in the past few months. However, it seems to be doing very good work, and I hope that that work can continue and be funded appropriately.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to provide an update on the proposal for a national stadium. (AQO 2996/09)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

For Members who may have not heard me, I have already announced that the multi-sports stadium at the Maze will not be going ahead. As a consequence, I asked the three governing bodies of the sports involved to make known their preferred alternatives for the stadium site. All three bodies have now responded with their options.

My Department will now prepare a strategic outline case, which will identify the options to be tested in a full economic appraisal, on which the Department of Finance and Personnel will need to sign off. The subsequent full economic appraisal or appraisals will review the shortlisted options for value for money, operational viability, sustainability and affordability. Any appraisal will be carried out to the recommended green book standards and is likely to include variants of the preferred options that the governing bodies proposed. As part of the process, an oversight group that represents DCAL, Sport Northern Ireland and the Strategic Investment Board has been established with a remit to undertake the necessary business cases and to make recommendations on stadium provision.

Executive Committee Business

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I regret that Mr Weir is not in the Chamber, but I am happy to answer his question about my colleague Lady Sylvia Hermon. She supported the Government to give the DUP a chance to organise itself following its humiliation in the European Election.

It is strange that the DUP seems determined to keep attacking the Conservative Party’s proposals, when it failed to notice some of the small print in the Chancellor’s Budget speech. The Chancellor indicated that, when debt charges are taken into account, there could be cuts amounting to 7%. He also said that after 2013 capital spending will drop from 3·1% to 1·3% of GDP. This morning, we heard that 350,000 public-sector job cuts may occur under Labour. The Conservatives have promised to safeguard key services; yesterday, the shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, wrote:

“we have also used the past four years to change our party and affirm our commitment to the values of our public services. We protect health spending because our priority is the NHS. We protect overseas aid spending because of our moral commitment to the poorest and the millennium goals we promised them.”

The DUP may consider that there is some PR advantage in attacking the Conservatives for what they might do. However, in truth, the DUP has not put forward a single credible, deliverable policy to sort out the mountain of debt that will be inherited from the Labour Government. People are not stupid; every one of us is aware of the current economic mess. People want a Government with a clear set of policies to clean up that mess. The DUP’s sound bites and cheap attacks only highlight its lack of solutions, and my colleague David McNarry has been making that argument for months. George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, said:

“Perhaps the most important lesson from around the world is that if you talk honestly to the public about the spending decisions that need to be taken, they will respect you and support you.”

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Oh, very well. Have two goes, Vince.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member explain why David Cameron and the rest of the Conservatives have been so keen to silence Andrew Lansley? He let the cat out of the bag, and they seem to want to keep the news of the pain until after the general election.

On a wider point, will the Member answer the points made by several Members in the Chamber when they highlighted a number of ways to tackle the large debt burden beyond simple cuts in spending? For example, changes to the taxation system must be considered. Sometimes, reducing taxes can increase economic activity, which produces a greater tax take. Is there a wider range of options available to address the debt burden, rather than simple spending cuts?

Also, does the Member recognise that it is legitimate for Governments to invest in economic recovery? That is a well-established Keynesian economic theory. At the start of his contribution, the Member seemed to regard such investment as extremely unusual. It is, in fact, mainstream economic thinking.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remind Members that interventions should be short.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The young Vince Cable has not quite got the hang of short, snappy interventions yet.

Dr Farry made several points. I was relieved to hear him suggest that tax cuts could stimulate economic activity in some places: we may make a Conservative and unionist out of him yet.

I was about to address some of the points made by other Members. Mr Hamilton made a similar comment to Mr Weir’s; namely that cuts are not inevitable. However, there is an inability to take difficult decisions, to which my colleague Mr McCrea hinted. For example, no decision has been taken, nor leadership shown by the Executive, on water charges. Will the Executive introduce water charges? What are the implications for VAT and the Treasury? All such decisions could have a huge impact on Northern Ireland’s budgetary position.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Mr McCallister has raised the issue of the challenge that water charges present to the Executive, of which two of his party colleagues are members. It is well-acknowledged that that undoubtedly presents a major challenge for the Executive. The Member is encouraging the Executive to take a tough decision on water charges; therefore, do he and his party advocate that the introduction of water charges should commence as quickly as possible? Alternatively, does he accept, as I believe that the rest of us in the Chamber do, that the introduction of water charges for domestic customers at this moment would be detrimental and retrograde in the current circumstances?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am recommending that the Executive make a decision. That is the problem with so much of what is going on in this place: the Executive have not made a decision on water charges.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Clearly, the Executive have taken a decision in the current year to defer water charges. Is the Member now saying that, in the midst of very difficult circumstances for individuals and households faced with the potential cost of water charges, that was the wrong decision?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Mr Hamilton seems to misunderstand my point. A Member who sits on the Committee for Finance and Personnel should know that the decision on water has huge implications. There are also VAT implications in relation to the Treasury guidance on Northern Ireland Water.

There is huge pressure for the Executive to make a decision on this and set out a long-term strategy for how we fund water; how we fund the much-needed investment in water; how we fund other public services; and how we protect families who are under pressure from increased debt. I accept that many families are under a lot of pressure, but my point is that the Executive must consider these issues. Mr Hamilton has said that cuts are not inevitable, yet he appears to be living in a cloud cuckoo land where you can have it both ways. That is not possible; Members must start being honest with the public.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

There is nothing that I like better than an honest politician. Will Mr McCallister tell the House here and now that the Ulster Unionist/Conservative/Tory party will introduce water charges? The Member’s party is part of the Executive and the House must have an honest answer.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

We have two Ministers on the Executive, neither of whom is in charge of water. The Ulster Unionist Party’s position is clear; it has been opposed to water charging throughout. We have included that policy in manifestos. All that I am calling for today is some honesty from other parties about how they would fund water. How can they continue to say that they do not want cuts in public services, do not want anything to change and that they will somehow go to Westminster and deliver all those services?

It is a fantasy to believe that all of that can be achieved without imposing charges, finding other sources of revenue, or cutting spending on public services. There has been opposition to the ring-fencing of National Health Service spending. The DUP has been opposed to the creation of the Public Health Agency, which will help improve the health of our population in the long term. The DUP has opposed banning above-the-counter sales of cigarettes in an effort to address the public health issue, even though that move will save money in the long term.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I will, provided that Mr Hamilton is very quick.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

There is so much to say that it is very difficult to be quick. First, the DUP does not oppose doing away with the display of tobacco products. [Interruption.] Yes, hold on a second. Given the current circumstances, the DUP has taken the very sensible and prudent position that the ban should not be implemented here before it is implemented in the rest of the UK. Indeed, I thought that the Member, as a conservative and a unionist, would have accepted that there should be a common position across the United Kingdom.

Mr McCallister keeps raising the issue of inevitability, yet his party leader was quoted yesterday as saying that cuts were inevitable. There is a ludicrous element to this argument. We have a settled financial position up to the end of the CSR. Nobody knows what will happen beyond that period. It may prove to be more difficult than now.

However, to run around talking about the inevitability of major cuts and saying that that option is the only choice is scaremongering to a great many people in Northern Ireland who are employed in the public sector and, more importantly, to those who are dependent on public services. A massive amount of scaremongering is going on, the subject of which is untested in reality, because we cannot deal with financial situations beyond 2011 that have not yet appeared.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remind Members to keep their interventions short. Members should also address all their remarks through the Chair.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I will follow on from Mr Hamilton’s speech. His argument about the smoking ban was bizarre. The idea that a party such as the DUP would put finance before saving lives is shameful, and —

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will you give way?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Members must direct their comments through the Chair.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I have been more than generous to Mr Hamilton, and, on this occasion, I want to address some of Mr O’Dowd’s points. One can see that the DUP has been teaming up with Sinn Féin. Mr O’Dowd’s contribution was a mixture of him trying to distance himself from Mrs Thatcher and his praise for the person to whom he looked for advice about managing a household budget: his mother. I believe that Mrs Thatcher was one of the first people to draw an analogy between running a household budget and running an economy. Therefore, he may wish to ask his mother how he can continue to spend more money than he earns, which is one of the issues facing the Assembly.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The only thing that Mrs Thatcher and I have in common is that we both have mothers. The Member’s colleague Basil McCrea said that the only option is to cut public services. Does the Member support that point of view?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

If the Member wants, I will allow Mr McCrea to answer that question. The Ulster Unionist Party is saying that other parties in the House seem to be oblivious to the fact that we are in an economic crisis. They seem to be sailing along, thinking that 2011 is a long way off and that we do not need to worry about it: let us keep spending as we do not need to think about who will pay for water charges, how we will handle the economic downturn, the fact that the economy is in crisis and the debt that we will inherit from the Labour Government. Mr O’Dowd’s party seems to think the same way.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member agree that the parties opposite appear to be saying that under no circumstances will there be cuts and that, consequently, they are not prepared to consider any efficiencies or ways to do things better, or to address the new realities that we face? In fact, while the country is running headlong into a crisis, their heads are in the sand.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I completely agree; their heads are in the sand. Indeed, Mr O’Dowd spoke about looking to the Republic of Ireland. Of all the economies in the European Union, we should not be taking our lead from the Republic of Ireland. We must be realistic about what will happen after the current spending cycle, and the fact that the Executive have not had the courage to bring forward another Budget and that they refuse to reconsider the budgetary process and the Programme for Government demonstrates that we are not being real. In fairness, even the Alliance Party admits that we may have to consider other options, and the young Vince Cable floated the idea of tax cuts in order to stimulate parts of the economy.

I accept some of Mr O’Dowd’s points. So far, the Executive have found it difficult to address the needs of marginalised people and those who have been left behind. Even during the years of economic boom, a considerable number of people in Northern Ireland, especially in some working-class Protestant areas, and throughout the United Kingdom have suffered because of health inequalities and educational under­achievement. We must begin to address those problems and get a grip on what we are doing and on our long-term goals.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

In the interests of equality, will the Member join with me in calling for massive investment in Protestant working-class areas, in which there is absolute educational underachievement? The real root of trouble in our society comes from not giving those people every opportunity to succeed. Our party alone will lead those people to the promised land.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order. I ask the Member not to give way again because there have been quite a few interventions. I think that there have been 10, and I am sure that the Minister wants to respond.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have given way to Mr Hamilton again, but there is no time. I draw my remarks to a close by pointing out that it is strange that the DUP is so content to keep attacking Conservative and Unionist policies when, at some point, probably next year, it will have to lobby a Conservative Chancellor.

The UUP believes in making the case for Northern Ireland by attending policy meetings, working up a proper policy agenda in the run-up to the next general election, assisting our Conservative colleagues and telling them what we would like Northern Ireland to become. We should steer Northern Ireland towards being an enterprise zone. We want to see some of the costs of division —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Should we have tax-varying powers?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

In the hands of the Alliance Party or Sinn Féin, tax-varying powers would inevitably be tax-raising powers. I would happily give way, but the Deputy Speaker has directed me not to.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I again remind Members to address their remarks through the Chair.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I would happily give way, but the Deputy Speaker has ordered me not to. Our two great parties, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Conservative Party, will work together to produce and deliver Northern Ireland-friendly policies for the difficult years ahead. What, precisely, does the DUP have to offer?

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

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on the Budget (No. 2) Bill, although, of course, it is the wrong Budget Bill. We should have a very different Budget Bill in front of us as a result of very different budgetary circumstances.

I remind the Assembly of two things. As we have said before, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, an annual Budget ought to be delivered to the Assembly, but that has not happened. We can now look at the wisdom of that piece of legislation because, even in ordinary times, it is necessary to create a fresh Budget so that one can properly manage the affairs of Government. We do not live in ordinary times — we live in the most extraordinary times. We join with every serious economic pundit who comments on affairs in Northern Ireland in saying that, given the recession and the extreme economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, there was an onus on this Assembly and on the Executive to address the situation by reconsidering the Programme for Government and the accompanying Budget. I regret the nature of the Budget that is before us.

The absent Minister of Finance and Personnel said that he must always be flexible and responsive to changing circumstances. I have previously referred to a senior official who spoke about the need for a cessation of low-priority programmes. More recently, another senior official came before the Committee for Finance and Personnel and referred to redrawing the Budget. The Minister talks about being flexible and responsive, but, in fact, there is nothing flexible and responsive about what he has done.

I gave credit yesterday, which I repeat today, to certain initiatives that have been taken, within existing Budget lines, to respond to the recession. However, the circumstances of the moment called for something much more radical.

Before making my remarks, I want to comment on some points that have been made already. John O’Dowd made a couple of interesting contributions. He asked whether we are charting a course for economy recovery. It was clear that his answer to that is no. Referring to the marginalised and the economically disadvantaged, he said that the Executive and this institution are not delivering for them. One might be forgiven for thinking that Mr O’Dowd was forgetting that his party is rather intimately involved in what emerges from the Executive and that his colleague is the deputy First Minister. Implicit in his language was subservience to the Democratic Unionist Party. It was clear that he knew who calls the shots nowadays.

In his response to something that John O’Dowd said, Stephen Farry referred to the UK subvention and how we would need the cushion of a population of 60 million, which the island of Ireland could not support, to provide us with that large subvention. That is a counsel of despair. Are we to be condemned for ever to be a poor region of the United Kingdom? That is fundamentally what we are being offered. Those sorts of statements indicate the psychology — a very dangerous psychology — that lies beneath them. We must find a way in which to stand on our own two feet and think for ourselves, instead of being trammelled by the kind of constraints to which Dr Farry referred.

Stephen Farry also said much about a shared future. I agree with and support much of what he said, and I acknowledge what he said about the Minister for Social Development’s contribution to shared-housing initiatives. He overstates the case, however, when he talks about other matters. Much of what he and his party put forward on a shared future is a blancmange of easy tolerance and removes what he considers to be the unfortunate obstacles of diversity to a degree that is impractical, unattainable and, in fact, undesirable. He essentially proposes the model of integrated education as the ideal. If that argument is taken to its logical conclusion, he is saying that that should be a primary policy objective. I would say that, as well as being unattainable, that would not be a sound policy objective.

I will now move on to my own comments. I shall start with a few more remarks about Workplace 2010, which was referred to yesterday. In the debate on the Supply resolution for the 2009-2010 Main Estimates, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment said the following, which is quite revealing:

“the reasons why the project was not completed were external, and did not represent a failure by the Executive to proceed with it. It was simply the case that both contractors who were involved in the competitive tendering process joined together, and as a result, there was no competitive tendering. That was the issue, and we could not proceed.” — [Official Report, Vol 42, No 1, p46, col 1].

I think that she is right, but that was not the reason for the collapse of Workplace 2010 that was given to the Assembly, the Finance Committee or the public. A document on the Workplace 2010 website provides the same argument and text that has been used in the other places to which I referred. It states:

“Following this review, and as a result of discussions with the now combined Telereal/Trillium business, the parties have decided that it will not be possible to conclude the current Workplace 2010 procurement process in the foreseeable future. This is because exceptional market conditions have made it difficult to obtain debt finance for this type of property-related contract, and because of the fall in the value of commercial property.

Consequently the current procurement has been terminated.”

That is a totally different reason. I draw the conclusion — and, as I said, I agree with the Minister —

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

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

I have not finished drawing the conclusion, but I am willing to give way.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Perhaps I will draw it for the Member. Does he agree that the two arguments that he has cited are not mutually exclusive? I do not think that it was ever said that one argument excluded the other.

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

Let anyone inspect the record, and they will find that the quotation that I have taken from the Workplace 2010 website was put forward as the unique and sole explanation for the collapse of the project, and not the reason that the Minister gave yesterday. That is so important, because there are various ways in which the reduction of the process to two bidders could have led to difficulty and the collapse of the project, one of which ensued. That means that the process of carrying out the project contained within it a fundamental flaw, and the Minister revealed that yesterday.

Some £175 million was to come from Workplace 2010 receipts. Yesterday, the Minister said that:

“The potential of £175 million from Workplace 2010 receipts was factored into the plans for 2008-09. However, the loss of those receipts was managed through the in-year monitoring process. Lower construction costs also provided an opportunity for Northern Ireland Departments to procure capital projects at lower cost.” — [Official Report, Vol 42, No 1, p46, col 1].

We are coming to a situation in which the Budget can be balanced only if various projects collapse or drop out. We are starting to see the collapse of projects being presented not as a failure of the Executive to deliver, but as a virtue. That was implicit and put forward directly in what the Minister said yesterday. That is a dangerous situation.

Yesterday, I referred to a third issue arising from the Workplace 2010 debacle, and I will repeat it today, because it is has serious implications for the Budget. The issue of the Civil Service estate remains unaddressed. When Peter Robinson was Minister of Finance and Personnel he said:

“We have an estate that needs major investment to bring it up to scratch and provide better working conditions that will drive improvements in the delivery of services, which, ultimately, is what the public sector is in business to do.”

Workplace 2010 was described as an absolutely essential part of the Civil Service reform programme. The Workplace 2010 website states:

“Workplace 2010 involves the introduction of new accommodation standards, including open plan working, which will enable the NICS to rationalise its existing estate and dispose of surplus, poor quality accommodation.

This ambitious and challenging programme will deliver: modern, flexible and efficient workspace for staff; accommodation that meets business needs; a smaller, more efficient estate; value for money for the taxpayer; an environment that will support and enable significant and lasting change.”

All of that, which was absolutely necessary, has not been delivered, and the Minister has not made a revised proposal to provide it in this year’s Budget, or even to embark on solving the difficult problem of the Civil Service estate.

I will comment briefly on the current failure to bring forward proposals to implement the Bain Review’s recommendations on the location of public-sector jobs. As I said yesterday, from the start of the Assembly’s mandate, that was one fundamental policy issue on which all parties were united in calling for action. The independent review by Sir George Bain and, as he put it, its “modest” proposals, created the template for that action. However, the Minister has not brought forward proposals, and, in fact, has been the most negative and cautious contributor in the Assembly on that matter.

Consultancy fees have been much talked about. Not all such fees are unjustified, and we must be careful in what we say about that issue. However, considering the scale of consultancy fees, there is no question that an issue exists. Yesterday, I suggested that we might obtain much better value for money by utilising the university sector here.

My main point is that there is an indicator of political stagnation in the reliance on consultancy advice. When the Assembly was established, there was a view that the Civil Service had become atrophied but that the new political regime would sort that out. Now we see that the political system has itself atrophied; the system is not moving on, and it has the same dependency on outside consultants as was the case previously.

I wish to comment on the Finance Minister’s answer on the issue of dealing with the current problems. He said that they will be dealt with through the monitoring rounds. It is clear that monitoring rounds do not provide a strategic answer to the problems of the moment. For example, they do not provide what one senior civil servant described as the “cessation of low-priority programmes”. They allow only the redistribution of money from programmes that simply cannot go ahead and must return their money to the centre. That is the most modest redistribution of money, and, as a method of achieving a Programme for Government that is adjusted to meet the real needs of the moment, it is inadequate. I can now refer accurately to our Minister of Finance and Personnel as our Minister for monitoring rounds.

I support what Stephen Farry said about addressing the twin issues of the further £123 million of efficiencies that will be taken from the Northern Ireland Budget and the Barnett consequentials, which, over two years, total £116 million. I agree with him that we should not simply wipe our brows once again and claim that we have got away with it, and use the £116 million to largely cover the £123 million. We must use the Barnett consequentials for the purposes for which they were created. In the Budget for Great Britain, those purposes included business modernisation; training and employment; renewable energy; low-carbon technologies; social housing and energy efficiency. Let us put that money to work for what are particularly good purposes.

As I have said previously, the establishment of the performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU) was announced with much fanfare, but we have seen little output from it. Major questions must be asked about PEDU, and we must ask about its work programme for the future, because we know that it is remarkably limited.

I will comment on some of the pressures that exist in the Budget for this year. The first, and one that is often not noted, is that we are starting with a Budget that is overcommitted. The Minister may inform us of its level of initial overcommitment, but it is considerable.

The second major pressure facing the Minister is the equal pay issue. There has been an extreme delay in seriously engaging with that issue, and it has been 13 months since the previous Minister of Finance announced his willingness to negotiate on the matter. Only now are we starting a three-month review of one critical part of the solution. That is not fair to the civil servants who are involved, and it is causing a deep feeling of unfairness. The costing of at least £100 million that the Minister gave at the time is not provided for in any way in the Budget.

Water charges have been deferred, and that has left a considerable gap in the Budget for this year. The asset sales that were predicted have not materialised. This year, further efficiency savings of 3% will be demanded. Yesterday, I quoted serious anecdotal evidence from senior managers in the Housing Executive and the Health Service of the extent to which that is bearing down. The general comment that one hears is that the budgetary situation in agencies and spending sections of Departments is more difficult than it has been at any time in the careers of the staff who are involved.

I referred to the extra £123 million of efficiency savings. Also coming up is the issue of the £200 million asset at Crossnacreevy, which is now worth only £6 million.

What are we doing with the money, and how well are we spending it? That is as critical an issue as allocating budgets in the first place, and the Minister accepts that fact. I will comment on one point that the Minister of the Environment made in his statement this morning when he talked about the relationship between the development plans and major economic developments. He went on to say that his planning reform proposals are not able to progress, that he is in danger of losing them, and that they are stuck with the Executive and the deputy First Minister. That was perhaps the most explicit statement about difficulties between the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin. It is an extremely important issue, and, clearly, it begins to be part of the explanation as to why a very small volume of Executive business is coming before the Assembly.

I want to refer at considerably greater length to the monitoring of targets in the Programme for Government. I will quote from yesterday’s Official Report what the First Minister, Peter Robinson, said about the issue. Those of us who were in the Chamber at the time would have noticed that he was very calm and collected about the matter and that he was very reassuring indeed.

I will give a few quotations that illustrate that. In answer to the first question of the day he told us:

“On 5 March 2009, the Executive finalised the formal delivery framework for the Programme for Government. Structures and processes have been established across Departments to monitor and report on performance.” — [Official Report, Vol 42, No 1, p 23, col 2].

One might say that that is all very healthy. He went on to say:

“a lead Minister and a senior official have been assigned to each target and commitment in the Programme for Government. Therefore, a person has been identified as being responsible for answering for each of the key goals…Each Department assesses where it stands on meeting those key goals through a traffic-light system whereby progress is identified as red, amber — an amber/green category has crept in — or green. Therefore, we know whether people are meeting their targets in each Department. Those results will be gathered in a delivery report, which will come to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) and will be monitored by my officials.”

He added:

“that scrutiny will allow us to see where we are falling behind and, therefore, where more energy, or even resources, may be required to meet those targets.” — [Official Report, Vol 42, No 1, p24, col 1].

So, all is well in the world of delivering the Programme for Government, one may say. One may wonder, then, why the Committee for Finance and Personnel received a document last week that tells a different story. The subject of the document was the progress on establishing a performance management framework for delivery of the PFG targets and commitments.

I will make two remarks as an aside. First, it has been two years since this Assembly and this Executive started business, and only now are we at the stage of developing a mechanism for verifying that the things that we agreed to do in the Programme for Government are actually being done. Secondly, the document I am referring to comes from the aforementioned performance and efficiency delivery unit. I wonder about that. That unit was supposed to be a powerful instrument that would swoop in on serious problems, analyse them to death in a very short period of time, deliver an answer to the body that requested it, and move on again. Yet here it is apparently doing core work of the Department of Finance and Personnel, which one would not expect PEDU to be involved in at all. I draw some conclusions about PEDU from that.

As I said, the document gives a different story about the monitoring of targets. It tells us:

“On the 7th January our Minister wrote to Ministerial Colleagues to highlight certain issues of concern around the robustness of the Delivery Agreements stating that DFP officials would be engaging directly with departments with the aim of ensuring that improvements to the Delivery Agreements were actioned.”

It goes on to outline two key issues of concern, the first of which is about the fact that public service agreement (PSA) targets require Departments to work closely together, and the second of which is about indicators that have yet to be fully developed. The annex of the document deals with key themes and issues, of which there are seven. They are all detailed criticisms about what is not present and what is not working in the system of monitoring: five of them are very serious, two are less serious.

The first states that there is no statistical data or baseline, and:

“a number of the returns on individual indicators record that no data is available either because the baseline and associated indicators have not yet been agreed or that such information will not be available until a future date. In at least one case, for example, it is reported that the baseline for a target to be delivered during the PfG period 2008-2011 will not be available until 2010/2011.”

The second deals with long-range targets and the availability of milestones, and states that, when the targets are long range beyond the current CSR period, no milestones have been identified within the CSR period.

The third theme is headed:

“No evidence of cooperation between departments:”

and states:

“many of the PSAs are cross cutting in nature and require actions to be carried out by a number of Departments. To facilitate a joined-up focus on delivery it was anticipated that during the preparation of delivery agreements, the lead department would establish a board drawing representation from key contributors, including, where appropriate, officials from other departments. There is little evidence that to date PSA delivery boards have been established in this regard.”

At this point, I think that I am entitled to make an aside that the SDLP remarked on the requirement to have Executive programmes to deal with such issues as childcare and poverty, and we pointed out the need for cross-cutting work. We were told that we should not have any fears because all of that was covered by the PSAs and that they would nicely join up. However, the document provides evidence that, two years after the Executive started their work, the PSAs are not even starting to be joined up.

The fourth point is about the inconsistency in Departments’ assessment of red, amber and green (RAG) status. Mr Robinson said that that was all fine and that everyone was working nicely on their reds, ambers or greens. The document states:

“the RAG system aimed to provide a clear and transparent assessment of progress with very clear guidance issued to departments. Notwithstanding this, however, there are considerable inconsistencies in how departments have assessed progress.”

The document’s fifth point is:

“Mitigating measures to bring delivery back on track: Very few returns set out what action departments propose to take to either bring delivery back on track or move from a red to an amber/amber/ green assessment.”

Its sixth point is one of the relatively small criticisms:

“PSA delivery agreements not agreed: for a very small number of PSAs it is apparent that not all elements of the delivery framework have been agreed.”

The seventh point is on the changing of targets:

“It was apparent in the departmental monitoring returns that a number of the targets have been amended by the responsible department.”

So, insert: “if you are not meeting your target, change your target”. The document goes on to say:

“Targets can only be amended with Executive agreement.”

The needs of the time demanded that a revised Budget should have been produced, but we did not get one. Are we delivering on the existing Budget? Those in DFP and OFMDFM who are leading the process of analysing whether the Executive are delivering on it do not know the answer because they do not have the mechanisms for measuring it.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I support the Budget (No. 2) Bill, which will authorise departmental spend as it is set out in the Bill. I shall pick up on points that have been made by a number of Members. Basil McCrea — quoting George Osborne, of course — asked how the Executive intend to deliver when money is tight and public-sector cuts are the only option. Unfortunately, Basil McCrea failed to say where the cuts should be made and in which Department they should be made. In fact, the onus is on each Minister to handle his or her budget and to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible.

The big-spending Departments are the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education. For example, the Bill allocates a figure of almost £18·75 million to a particular sector of the Department of Education, but what is to be prioritised within that? I fear that the Minister of Education might, once again, “deprioritise” the Youth Service, which should be a priority service in the Department. Questions must be asked of the Minister of Education about how she sets her priorities within the Budget allocation of the Bill.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I had hoped to interject before the Member moved on to talk about the Minister of Education.

In my speech, I said that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must be prioritised because it is £300 million per annum behind the rest of the UK. I am sure that the Member will agree with my colleague Mr McCallister and me that the lives of our people come first.

I also indicated that the Departments most involved in the economy — the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment — should be given priority and that that is in line with the thinking of this House.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I note that, once again, even when he has the opportunity, Basil McCrea fails to tell us where the cuts are to be made. Which services, or which Departments, should face cuts? I will return to some points that John McCallister made. That question was put to him and again there was a failure to address and answer that question. In the past 10 years, if we look at the number of administration staff —

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

A little patience is a good thing.

Over the past 10 years, the number of administration staff in the National Health Service has risen by over 30% and the number of managers has risen by 100%. It may be that some fat on the administrative side of the Health Department could be cut away, with the saving being directed towards front line services.

I will give Mr McCallister the opportunity to respond.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Member accept that there will have to be cuts at some time, or does he have his head in the sand and believe that there will be no cuts at any stage?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member should know more about that than me. I will return to my point in a moment; the Member has taken me over this matter twice. Were there to be a Conservative Government, there will be no escaping the fact that a Conservative Government will mean Conservative cuts. Until we see what sort of cuts his colleagues will impose on Northern Ireland, we just do not know what will happen.

I return to the issue of education, which is a priority. I agree with Basil McCrea about the importance of directing resources towards those in our society who are underachieving, particularly boys, and particularly those in disadvantaged Protestant areas. However, the Committee for Education is addressing that issue, and we need to keep pressing the Minister on that because although she has a budget, the question is how she will prioritise it. In view of her constant references to equality, I am sure that she will want to ensure that appropriate resources are directed to those who are educationally disadvantaged so that that can be redressed.

I now address the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I am sure that, when reviewing her budget, she will want to look at the role of Tourism Ireland. Tourism is important for helping the economy and creating jobs. One of the least successful aspects of our tourism infrastructure is Tourism Ireland. Given the investment that Northern Ireland makes in Tourism Ireland and the resultant numbers of tourists coming here compared with those going to the Republic, it is clear that a lot of work remains to be done. I am sure that the Minister will continue working with Tourism Ireland and challenging it as regards its targets and the reward that we get in Northern Ireland for our investment in that body.

I also wish to pick up on points raised by Dolores Kelly and Stephen Farry. Several Members raised the issue of a cohesion, sharing and integration strategy. We need a robust and comprehensive strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration if we are to achieve a Northern Ireland society based on equality, diversity and interdependence. My party is committed to such a strategy and, as I look around the Chamber, I see a number of other parties committed to such a strategy. However, as several Members have said, that has not come through yet. The only conclusion that one can draw from that is that it is because of the unwillingness and intransigence of Sinn Féin in that regard.

The strategy has not come through as a result of our system of government, and that is why we want to change that. I hope that we will see movement in that direction as others recognise that we need to amend the system of government so that it is not possible for such Members — I suppose I can describe them as “backwoodsmen” — to hold us back from a shared future.

Lessons can be learned from ‘A Shared Future’ about general expenditure in society. There are savings to be made in certain areas, and one of the obvious examples is teacher training. A lot of money could be saved by simplifying the system and having a single teacher-training college. There is no logical reason, or any other kind, that anyone could put forward with any credibility to explain why there should be two teacher-training provisions when, in fact, one would suffice for a place the size of Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be addressed as a way to save money that could be directed to other services.

We can also look at the review of public administration with regard to education. We have started to unpick the system. It has been deconstructed. We are now trying to construct a new system, which must be based on the principle of equality across all the sectors. Over six months ago, the Education Committee wrote to the Minister to ask for a list of, and an explanation for, all the inequalities in the education system, including sectoral inequalities. It took the Minister six months to produce an answer, and when we got that response six months later, after there had been further communication and questions asked, that particular element of our query had not been answered.

The approach that is taken towards the review of the education system must be based on equality and efficiency and on the principle of a shared future. That is bound to have implications for the schools estate and various other matters. It must mean an end to any preferential treatment of one sector over another.

Stephen Farry talked about the duty that has resulted, I suppose, from the Belfast Agreement to promote Irish-medium education and integrated education. If there is to be equality, all sectors must be promoted. It should not be the case that two sectors are picked out for special mention and attention; every sector should be treated equally. I hope that as we move forward, a system, administration and structure for education will be achieved in which there is not only equality, but efficiency.

I return to John McCallister. I am still disappointed because in spite of the best efforts of my colleague and others at this end of the Chamber, and of Kieran McCarthy, who was valiant in his attempt to achieve it, we could not get an answer from John McCallister. Can he not simply give the House a yes or no answer? Does he advocate water charges, yes or no? I am more than happy to give way to him as long as I get a yes or no answer. A simple answer will suffice. Is there one?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

The Member always tries to set out preconditions. The point that I was making on water charges was that, at some stage, we have to have a debate. The Executive must bring forward proposals. If the Member is asking whether I am for or against water charges, the answer is that, of course, I am against them. However, we have to have that debate. The Minister must answer questions about VAT and funding. This debate is on the Budget. There are serious funding issues.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am glad that eventually —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

If Basil McCrea will just listen for a while, I will respond to John McCallister. I am glad that, eventually, we managed to drag an answer out of him. I am sure that Kieran McCarthy and everyone else in the Chamber will be delighted to have finally gotten an answer. It is unfortunate that he ran away from the question for so long this afternoon.

As I said earlier, there is no escaping the fact that Northern Ireland’s future financial position is bound to be influenced by what the Government at Westminster do. We are part of the United Kingdom. I agree with Mr McCallister that that is a good thing. However, the result of that is that, of course, if his colleagues and friends in the Conservative Party are in Government, Northern Ireland faces substantial cuts. He must take responsibility for those cuts, which will be imposed by people who operate under the Conservative and Unionist Whip at Westminster. He will be part of that system, or at least his party will.

Those are the main issues that I want to raise. Most other issues have been covered at some length. I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, which has teased out quite a lot of —

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member was clear in the question that he asked Mr McCallister, so will he set out, very clearly, where he stands on the issue of water charges? Is he for or against them? We have been told, on behalf of the Executive, that water charges have been deferred, so does that mean that the Budget that the Assembly passed last year provided for the imposition of water charges? How could water charges have been deferred if they were not provided for? They could only have been provided for in a Budget.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Mr Durkan was actually the person who first proposed water charges; there is no getting away from that fact. On that point, I finish my contribution.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes or no?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Mr Durkan was the first person to propose water charges.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes or no?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

He was the first person.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes or no?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

He was the first person.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am not keen to join the debate at this point because I am enjoying watching ‘The Muppet Show’. I do not know which Members are supposed to be Waldorf and Statler, but it is great to hear some of the comments.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Name names.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

You two are Dastardly and Muttley.

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Speaker. Considering the lengthy contributions made by some other Members, the House will be glad to hear that I do not propose to speak for too long. The Committee for Employment and Learning will meet departmental officials tomorrow to discuss in more detail the Budget and spending in general. We will make recommendations to the Minister for Employment and Learning after that.

As other Members said, there is no escaping the fact that our economy is in the middle of a deep recession. Unemployment is increasing, people are struggling to get credit and, as a result, the housing market is frozen. The Assembly should not run away from addressing the other issues associated with the recession; however, it has already addressed some of the more serious issues. There is a danger that people will fall into an underclass in which they cannot find work and cannot be reached by the skills and training programmes that are available through the Department for Employment and Learning.

The Committee has chosen to look at the economic difficulties in the most holistic way possible. We have looked at the Executive as a whole and, on numerous occasions, have written to Ministers, not only the Minister for Employment and Learning, about our concerns. We will continue to do that because we recognise the benefit of the Executive taking a joined-up approach that will get us through these difficult times as painlessly as possible.

One of the Committee’s key messages is that all Departments must bring forward capital investment to stimulate the construction industry. We have had countless debates in the Chamber about the construction industry. Such investment will stimulate other sectors and cause a ripple effect throughout the economy.

The Department for Employment and Learning has been updating the Committee fortnightly on the number of apprentices who have been made redundant since September 2008. The current total stands at just over 15,000, which is a concern in itself, especially if you consider that many of those being made redundant are young people who are only starting out in their career.

The Committee has tabled a motion for next Monday on its report on the way forward for apprenticeships, which includes a number of recommendations. The apprenticeship programme can help people to get jobs during the economic downturn and help prepare society for when the upturn comes.

Some businesses have to make cuts during a recession, and many employers in this part of the world view training and skills development as a luxury that they cannot currently afford. This is the most important time for businesses to invest in skills. When the upturn comes and the global economy begins to recover, businesses that have continued to invest in training and development will be in the best position to succeed with new business ventures and to move into the new industries that often develop in the wake of a recession. Such examples are visible throughout the world.

The Department for Employment and Learning acts as a key driver for the development of skills and for the reskilling and upskilling of our workforce. Workforce development and economic development are inseparable and must go hand in hand, as some Members have said during the debate. Therefore, the Committee calls for further budgeting to allow the Department to deal with those issues.

We welcome the increased Budget provision for the Department for Employment and Learning in 2009-2010, but we urge the Minister not to repeat the underspend of previous years. We have raised that issue with him. Some of the Department’s key programmes involve the demand-led provision of skills and training, uptake of which will grow considerably during the recession as unemployment rises. The Committee considers it vital that funding matches demand for those programmes so that no redundant workers are cast aside. I appeal to the Minister of Finance and Personnel — to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who has stepped in — regardless of who holds that post this week or next week to be as flexible as possible with the funding requirement for such programmes so that we can intervene when redundancies arise. As I said, the Committee will receive an in-depth briefing tomorrow from departmental officials. We will raise our concerns directly with the Minister and the officials.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I think that I am the final Member to speak before the Minister replies. Therefore, given that the Minister has sat in the Chamber for many hours during the past two days, it is appropriate that, speaking for myself and most other Members, I acknowledge her attention. Moreover, given her response to yesterday’s debate, I want to acknowledge that, in her current capacity, she is at least responding to the debate, which too often is characterised by exchanges of party positions.

Yesterday, the Minister replied to the material issues and said that she would reply to any outstanding issues on the Floor today. That is the right principle to adopt; a Minister should reply immediately or as soon as possible after a debate. Other Ministers do not adhere to that principle. I remind the Minister of her promise to reply to my questions about whether, further to the ministerial meeting of 28 May, there is a budget line for the childcare strategy, in particular for the period after August, when the funding for PlayBoard expires. Furthermore, I ask the Minister to outline whether a budget line exists for the consequences of any outcome, especially a quick outcome to the equal pay issue. The Minister did not mention that matter in her response yesterday.

I remind the Minister of the welcome commitment that she entered into yesterday about the review of Senior Civil Service pay and bonuses, which I hope will materialise in the fullness of time. In an intervention during yesterday’s debate, I said — I repeat it today — that what the Minister said represents an important principle, if it matures in practice. Yesterday, when referring to the senior Civil Service pay and bonuses review, the Minister said that:

“My colleagues are discussing the issue, and the terms of reference may well be extended, as they are not set in stone.” — [Official Report, Vol 42, No 1, p49, col 1].

That is an important principle that now must be developed so that the review extends beyond senior civil servants and takes account of those in publicly funded senior positions. The example was given of the vice-chancellor of Queen’s, whose salary increased by one third over four years, allegedly by 5·5% this year and by 13% last year. However, he is not unique. Other senior public officials in higher education and in other publicly funded bodies enjoy equally high — some would say excessive — salaries. Furthermore, they could receive excessive wage increases, which, given the economic circumstances that we all face, is wrong.

It was interesting that SOLACE (Society of Local Authority Chief Executives) has advised its chief executives to publish their pay and expenses on websites in a push for transparency. SOLACE has published guidance on its website to all chief executives to show how they can address public concern about the levels of pay in the public sector. I think that that means at the higher levels of the public sector.

It is important that the Assembly send out the message that the review should cover much more than senior civil servants’ bonuses, and I urge the Executive to endorse terms of reference that will do that. In the meantime, I ask the Minister to reply to questions about salaries in the public sector at senior level. For example, does the Minister believe that it is equitable and proportionate for a publicly funded body in the North to increase senior salaries by 5·5% in this financial year, when the offer to other employees in the same institution is an increase of 0·5%, especially given the current economic situation? Does the Minister believe that publicly funded bodies in the North should have a reporting function to the relevant Minister — presumably the Minister of Finance and Personnel — especially given that they are a drain on an already tight Budget? That would enable the salary scales and the salary increases in any one year to be subject to some monitoring by government. That is important when one considers that the Government fund 40% of the entire budget line of Queen’s. Will the Minister go further and say that in the current situation, in which some civil servants — one in the North and a number in Britain — have suspended bonuses, it is time for the Government to say that wage increases for senior staff in publicly funded bodies, which come out of the public purse of the Northern Ireland taxpayer, should be suspended?

Given the limitations of the Budget, the three principles of no differential treatment of staff, suspension of wage increases for higher-paid public servants and a reporting requirement to government by publicly funded bodies will go some way to filling in the gap between now and when the review of senior salaries is complete, which, we know, will take some time. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider a much wider review of the size and scale of payments to senior civil servants generally, as Members will be surprised by the scale and size of such payments. Seven senior civil servants at grade 5 or above are currently working in the Department for Employment and Learning. They are on a basic salary of more than £80,000, without bonuses, pensions, increments or length-of-service increases. The Department of the Environment has 16 civil servants at grade 5 or above; the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has 34; the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has 26; the Department for Regional Development has 16; and the Department of Finance and Personnel has 39. Unfortunately, I do not know the number of senior civil servants in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, because the answer that came back from that Department is inscrutable and requires someone with greater skills than mine to work it out. My guess is that there are about 28 or 29. That is the size of the Senior Civil Service.

Having realised that, one begins to consider the issue that Declan O’Loan raised about the performance and efficiency delivery unit and what it reported back, two years after the introduction of the Programme for Government, about how Departments were or were not living up to their performance and efficiency requirements. If we are serious about dealing with the issue of what chief executives and senior civil servants are paid and how that sets the tone and culture for public service in the North, I suggest to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that, as part of whatever it is that Mr Dodds says that he does by way of an ongoing review of the Budget, she examines the figures that I have given today. I ask her to do that in light of a meeting between SDLP representatives and the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service that took place a couple of months ago, during which we asked him to explain why there were 26 officials at grade 5 or above in OFMDFM. He replied, curiously, that there was residual work that had to be done following devolution. The example that he gave us of that work was managing VIP visits. One would think that the head of the Civil Service, when asked about the work of the 26 senior civil servants in OFMDFM, would have given an answer of more substance and weight than a reference to the management of VIP visits. That is, no doubt, part of their function, but I am surprised that senior civil servants would do that type of work.

I suggest to the Minister that the Government are only skirting the issue of salaries and bonuses for senior civil servants. We should deal with the scale and size of our Senior Civil Service, whether it is fit for purpose and whether all those people are necessary and are doing their jobs. Based on many indicators — in respect of DEL also — questions must be asked about how all those issues are worked through.

There is a third and urgent matter to consider. From this side of the House, the nature of some of the debate, especially yesterday’s exchange between Mr Beggs and Mr Hamilton, which was a bust-up about who would or would not make cuts, when they would make cuts and the scale of any such cuts, seemed to miss the wood for the trees. There is a much more immediate and urgent question to be asked about who does what when they are in or out of government. What are public bodies in the North doing, in this time frame, about future spending issues?

I mentioned the situation at Queen’s University in yesterday’s debate. A leaked document, which or may not lack validity — I doubt that it is invalid — quoted informed sources as saying that, from 2012, Queen’s University should expect a 10% cut in Government funds. That was the basis — some might say the pretext — for the threat of more than 300 redundancies. If Queen’s University is thinking in that way, is the University of Ulster doing the same? Are other publicly funded bodies thinking in that way? That is a crucial issue. If Simon Hamilton is right in saying that we do not know what the future holds, then there should be a conversation between funding Departments in government and those that they fund to reassure them about what they might or might not do in the future. If there is a risk of 10% of the staff of Queen’s University being made redundant, whether that risk is spurious, conversations need to be held with Queen’s University or with any other body that is thinking in that way, to make sure that people do not lose their jobs during a recession, when there is no empirical or proper reason for them to do so.

Ministers have an obligation, and it arises from what the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment said in the House yesterday about the block grant beyond 2011-12. She said that it:

“will be confirmed only as part of the next UK-wide spending review, which is not expected until some time next year.”

If people are acting in advance of the outcome of a spending review, then there is an obligation to tell them that they are doing so. Furthermore, they should be reminded of what the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment said about our Budget in the House yesterday:

“Some very rash assertions were made about funding cuts, the best examples of which were made during the debates on the previous Budget, when similar fears were largely overblown. Once again, that highlights the folly of rushed and ill-informed judgement on Budget proposals”. — [Official Report, Vol 42, No 1, p45, col 1].

Will there be other institutions — Queen’s University may be one — that will once again have the folly of rushed and ill-informed judgement on Budget proposals that they think are going to come in two or three years’ time? The consequences of that folly and rushed judge­ment will be that people’s jobs will go to the wall.

There are issues around how the Government are handing the recession, and I will come to those shortly. However, the current situation is that there is a risk of 10% job cuts at Queen’s University, and other institutions could be thinking the same. There could be 10% staff cuts in other publicly funded bodies, in higher and further education, local councils and so on. Is there an obligation to reassure them and ensure that some of the worst practices do not prevail over sensible, mature judgements at this time?

Queen’s University may have better sources of information than our Government. It may well be, for example, that the Russell Group of universities, because of its access to information in London, is better informed and is making decisions in advance of those made by our Government. If that is the case, then there is an even more fundamental issue. Where does authority reside? Does it reside in publicly funded institutions taking advice from informed sources outside the North who think that they know better than us? Are the Government in a position of authority, and are they meant to tell institutions in the North what is or is not good public policy when it comes to their future spending priorities and expenditure and the consequences for its employees?

My colleague extracted some very useful information from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment yesterday about the economic policy units. In doing so, he reminded the Minister about what the SDLP said about economic policy units, which was that, if the three of them could be amalgamated, £0·7 million could be saved in each of the next two years. I suggest that the Government need to think about that.

When the SDLP held the meeting with the head of the Civil Service that I referred to earlier, we asked him what the OFMDFM economic policy unit did. He replied that it had a co-ordinating role in the recession. I invite Members to think about that for a second. The SDLP and other parties are arguing that all that the DUP and Sinn Féin are doing is to manage the Budget in the context of a recession. Now, apparently, there is a group of people in OFMDFM whose purpose is to co-ordinate the Government’s role in response to the recession.

Will the Minister confirm what she and her Department’s economic policy unit did with respect to the proposals that she brought forward with DEL recently? What was the OFMDFM economic policy unit’s input to those proposals? If it had a primary role, what was the Minister’s economic policy unit doing at that time? Was it a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth? It just does not add up.

Economic policy units seem to be places to put senior civil servants at grade 5 and above to give them a sense of purpose and mission. Those people may well be doing good jobs, and the Department of Finance and Personnel economic policy unit may be different to the others, but I do not know what the OFMDFM economic policy unit is doing. I ask the Minister to respond to all of that.

The point that Mr O’Loan made yesterday is absolutely right. The Minister said that she was going to meet university economists to see what advice she could get from them. That is a good place to look for advice. It is certainly a better place to look than the OFMDFM economic policy unit. If it is co-ordinating a response to the recession, God help us all. Yesterday, the Minister said that she would meet economists from our local universities this week to discuss what input they could provide to the economic response to the recession. If I were one of those economists, I would be a wee bit worried about that meeting. The Minister did not speak very respectfully yesterday about the work of two university economists who may well be two of the economists whom she meets in the near future.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, they are.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I thought that they might be.

To paraphrase the Minister’s words yesterday, she said that, because the report was commissioned by the Department for Social Development, the Social Development Minister was being self-serving. She also said that one pays for the advice that one wants. Those were not the words she used, but they reflect the tone of what she said. Her exact words were:

“its content and conclusions clearly reflect that it was commissioned by DSD.”

The Minister then went further and said:

“Evidence for the construction sector as a whole is based on data for Scotland that are five years old.”

She continued by saying that the evidence in the report was based on a single study from 2003 and that the report:

“is not particularly applicable to Northern Ireland or informative in the current economic climate.” — [Official Report, Vol 42, No 1, p47, col 1].

In the week that the Minister might be meeting the authors of that report, telling them that their report is not applicable to Northern Ireland does not seem like an invitation for input into the Government. I ask the Minister to reflect on that point, because the report’s content is much more serious than her dismissal of it suggests.

The logic of the Minister’s comments is that if a Department commissions advice from a consultant, that is self-serving and the advice cannot be relied upon, which is not a credible argument. In any case, it is not respectful to the two men who wrote the report. I ask the Minister to look at the report by Smyth and Bailey this weekend, as she did last weekend. In the absence of any other evidence about the economic multiplier for construction from social housing, it cannot be dismissed. If other Departments, such as the Department for Regional Development, have not gone off and found out what the economic multiplier might be from their investment, that is their problem.

However, when another Department obtains credible evidence, and if there is no contrary evidence, that evidence must be given a fair wind and serious consideration. If that Department’s conclusion is that investment in social housing stacks up in an economic recession and will improve society, so be it. Such an investment is a lot better than buying trains from Spain, which brings no multiplier whatever to Northern Ireland. That has happened, and it is an issue that we may explore further at another time.

I was listening to an interview the other day, and a well-rehearsed phrase was used to describe this island’s economy. “Paradigm shift” was the phrase that was used to illustrate the fact that the future economy of Ireland will be based on the service industries and that as a result of what has happened over the past months and years, foreign direct investment will go into those industries. However, there is a need to discuss the shape that that foreign direct investment on the island of Ireland will take, given what has happened recently. For example, will the Americans ensure that their businesses stay home and manage and reconfigure their economy to ensure that such investment can be made?

The point was also made in the interview that those service industries are not traditional service industries such as ASDA or Tesco, but are service industries to the high-tech industries that are going to be the way forward in the North. For example, when Yahoo invested in Ireland, it came as an IT company. However, it is actually a service industry, and it came here because we have young, imaginative, highly trained and educated people. Although those people would not be creating products in the traditional sense, a paradigm shift would be one element of the development of the economies of Ireland, with the result that they will be based on service industries.

Although I have not responded to what anyone else said during today’s debate, I will respond, as is my wont, to what John O’Dowd said. He made many valid points; I am not dismissing his contribution. Indeed, Mr O’Loan endorsed his essential point, which concerned how we must change our culture and attitude to an all-island economy and how it works. That argument is so compelling that it should be self-evident; unfortunately, however, our politics get in the way.

Mr O’Dowd’s point was that London should pay its debt to the island of Ireland because of what it did over previous decades and before. I agree that London has an obligation to tell the truth about what happened on this island over the years and decades. I also believe that to maintain stability in Northern Ireland, whatever its future constitutional framework, there must be significant financial guarantees from London.

However, that argument cannot be made without arguing that the republican movement should also pay its debt to the people of Ireland. That has two features. First, the movement must tell the truth about what it did in the past, and secondly, it must repay the millions of pounds that it has accrued in assets, either voluntarily or by seizure, to the people of Ireland. That demand cannot be made of London while different principles are being applied elsewhere.

If there are to be future guarantees on London funding, and I agree with those demands, I want to know about the millions of pounds in criminal assets that were gathered, and retained, by the republican movement. Furthermore, I want to know how many live investigations the PSNI has into the historic assets of illegal loyalist and republican organisations. I believe that there are none. I want to know how many live investigations the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) has into the historic assets of the IRA, the UDA, the UVF and the rest. However, again, I fear that I would not be very impressed by the answer.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I am very interested in the Member’s proposal. However, where exactly does he want to begin with the republican movement? Does he want to start with the Fenians, the United Irishmen, 1916, or does he simply mean 1970?

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I will start with those who were convicted in Cork for actions arising from the Northern Bank robbery. The Irish state has convicted people —

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

You should have said that.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

You asked me for an example, so I am giving you an example, and I will give you many more before I have finished. That is where I start, because that was a conviction by the Irish state in public session in a public court, which stated that individuals under the direction of people in the IRA were involved in the Northern Bank robbery. The Irish people have said that the IRA committed the Northern Bank robbery, and there is an obligation on those who committed that robbery to respect the Irish people and their wishes, and hand back that money and all the other moneys that have been taken over the past decades.

In 1984, the New Ireland Forum published a report that assessed the cost of violence up to 1982. That report stated that the overall loss to the Southern economy because of the years of violence, just until 1982, was £1·08 billion. The total cost to the North — including compensation for deaths and injuries, the loss of economic output, the loss of tourism, the increased securitisation of the North and all the horrors and abuses of rights that came with that — was £5·55 billion in only 13 years. That should be put in the context of the discussion about recession, the economy and the need to inject public funds into the North.

The cost to the people of Ireland caused by those who engaged in violence, state and non-state, together with the financial consequences for the economy and tourism of our country totalled £11 billion.