Northern Ireland Assembly, 16 February 2010

313 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 8/09] be agreed.

I shall briefly outline the purpose and main features of the Budget Bill. The Bill will give legislative effect to the 2009-2010 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2010-11 Vote on Account, which were approved through the Supply resolutions that were passed yesterday. The 2009-2010 spring Supplementary Estimates volume and the 2010-11 Vote on Account document were laid before the Assembly on 8 February 2010, and copies of the Budget Bill and its explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members.

In accordance with the nature of Second Stage as envisaged under Standing Order 32 and for the benefit of Members, I shall briefly summarise the Bill’s general principles. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the issue of £13,772,054,000 — I was going to add “and 56 pence”, but it does not say that here — from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the use of resources totalling £15,567,071,000 by Depart­ments and certain other bodies, as detailed in the 2009-2010 spring Supplementary Estimates.

The amounts supersede those in the Vote on Account 2009-2010 and the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2009, which was passed this time last year, and those in the Main Estimate provision in the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009, which was passed by the Assembly in June 2009. The sums to be issued from the Consolidated Fund are to be appropriated by each Department or public body for services as set out in column 1 of schedule 1 to the Bill, while the resources to be used for the purposes specified are set out in column 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill.

The Budget Bill also authorises a Vote on Account for 2010-11 of cash of £6,197,971,000 and resources of £6,662,114,000, to allow the flow of cash and resources to continue to public services in the early months of 2010-11 until the Main Estimates and related Budget Bill are approved by the Assembly in June 2010. Again, the cash and resources are to be appropriated and used for the services and purposes set out in columns 1 of schedules 3 and 4 respectively. In addition, the Bill revises the 2009-2010 limit on the amount of accruing resources that may be directed by my Department to be used for the purposes in column 1 of schedule 2. That limit includes both operating and non-operating accruing resources. Under section 8 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, a direction on the actual use of the accruing resources will be provided by way of a DFP minute, which will be laid before the Assembly following Royal Assent to the Bill.

Finally, clause 5 of the Bill authorises temporary borrowing by the Department of Finance and Personnel at an upper limit of £3,098,985,000 for 2010-11. That is approximately half of the sum authorised in clause 4(1) for issue out of the Consolidated Fund for 2010-11 and is a normal safeguard for any temporary deficiency arising in the fund as part of an efficient cash management regime. Clause 5 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund or convey any additional spending power.

Accelerated passage of the Bill is needed to ensure Royal Assent as early as possible in March and, therefore, legal authority for Departments and other public bodies to spend the cash and use the resources in 2009-2010 and continue public services into 2010-11. As the House is aware, recording the detail of the December monitoring outcome announced in early January, followed by the preparation of the detailed Estimates before us, coupled with the need for Royal Assent in March, means that the accelerated passage of legislation through the Assembly is necessary.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel has an important role to play in ensuring the accelerated passage of the Bill, and I am grateful that the Committee has confirmed, in line with Standing Order 42, that it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals in the Bill and is content that the Bill may proceed by accelerated passage. I welcome and appreciate the assistance of the Committee in ensuring adherence to the legislative timetable for the Bill.

The Budget Bill brings to a close the second financial year of this Executive’s Budget for 2008-2011. As Members are now well aware, Budgets that set spending plans for future years and in respect of which we rightly spend many hours debating in-year monitoring rounds that amend those plans do not in themselves convey cash or resources to Departments, neither do they provide Departments with the legal authority to spend that cash or use those resources. That is done through the legislation that is before the House. Of course, that means that the Assembly, after the close of the financial year, will hold Departments accountable for managing and controlling that spending and the use of resources within the limits that are authorised today. We look forward, therefore, to the provisional out-turn in June 2010 and the audited 2009-2010 resource accounts, which will be laid before the Assembly in the summer.

The spending plans that are reflected in the Budget Bill were debated and approved by the House yesterday. Therefore, there is little more that I can usefully add on the detail of the Budget Bill. I am happy to deal with any points that Members raise.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to speak first as Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and then as a Member.

The Budget Bill provides statutory authority for expenditure as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2009-2010. The Bill also includes the Vote on Account, which allows Departments to incur expenditure and use resources in the early part of 2010-11 until the Main Estimates are voted on by the Assembly in early June.

Standing Order 42(2) states that accelerated passage may be granted for a Budget Bill provided that the Committee for Finance and Personnel:

“is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill”.

Yesterday, I advised the House that the Committee has taken evidence on public expenditure issues for 2009-2010 with regard to the Department of Finance and Personnel itself and also at a strategic and cross-departmental level. At the Committee’s meeting on 10 February 2010, departmental officials briefed the Committee and answered questions on the Budget Bill that is being debated today. Following that evidence session and in light of its scrutiny role in in-year monitoring rounds, the Committee was content to grant accelerated passage to the Bill. I wrote to the Speaker to inform him of the Committee’s decision.

The forthcoming financial year is the final year of the Budget for 2008-2011 that was agreed by the Assembly in January 2008. The Committee for Finance and Personnel has pressed for the establishment of a settled budgetary process as we go forward. In October 2008, the Committee made recommendations in that regard in its submission to the Executive’s review of the Budget process which has been taken forward by DFP.

The Committee’s submission to the Executive’s review was a co-ordinated one, the Committee having first taken the views of the Assembly’s other Statutory Committees. It formed the first stage of the Committee’s three-stage inquiry into the Assembly’s role in scrutinising the Executive’s Budget and expenditure. The Committee had agreed to await the outcome of the Executive’s review and the response to the recommendations in its submission before proceeding to stages two and three of its inquiry.

Although it was originally scheduled to be completed in late 2008, the Executive’s review has, unfortunately, been subject to delays. The Committee understands that it will be completed when the current review of 2010-11 spending plans has been finalised. The Committee looks forward to being apprised of the outcome and to proceeding with stages two and three of the inquiry. Stage two of the inquiry will aim to review the resources available for assisting Assembly Statutory Committees and Members in undertaking Budget and financial scrutiny and to put forward a set of practical recommendations for enhancing the Assembly’s capacity in that regard. That is for the future, however. Today, on behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.

I want to comment as an Assembly Member and to concentrate on some of the issues that we looked at yesterday, which Members were keen to debate.

During recent debates on the Budget and future spending plans, all Members accepted that no Budget is perfect. When public finances are allocated, there are positive and negative consequences. Obviously, when Members say that funding should be given to a certain matter, they must weigh up that priority against the availability of extra money. The Programme for Government sets out priorities. Although reallocations due to reduced requirements are given, what is missing from the Budget process is the way in which those outcomes are set and evaluated, particularly in respect of delivery of the programme’s priorities.

The current Budget allowance and the way in which it is adjusted year on year might be OK when there is consensus in the House, across Departments and among Ministers. During debates, however, consensus is sometimes missing, and Ministers argue, sometimes rightly, that they do not have enough money. We need to consider other ways in which to conduct the Budget process in order to ensure that we are delivering on the Programme for Government’s priorities, evaluating those priorities and evaluating outcomes.

One approach is to look at the funds that we have and how best they can be spent and to look at the Executive priorities and set out different options for delivering them. That type of approach can be more adaptable, particularly given the difficulties that we are encountering with the recession. We need to consider what will happen when we come out of recession. Our approach to setting priorities and goals must be linked to the measurement of performance and outcomes. Political will is needed to do that, and we need to work together to that end. Sometimes, the narrow party approach that some Members take causes difficulties. Local people need to have ownership of the process, and they need to have a share in the setting of priorities and to have ownership of delivery. I can look only to the way in which local councils, for instance, set their budgets. They have the local community participate in budget planning and in considering how priorities are set and delivered. We could open up a debate around that.

During yesterday’s debate on the Supply resolutions, we talked about the lack of fiscal autonomy in the North. I know that some Members’ opinion will differ from mine on that issue, but I ask that they at least open up the debate on it and do not close the subject down when it is being discussed. The lack of fiscal autonomy curtails our ability to deliver and implement the policy decisions that could change the standard of living and make better the lives of people in our communities. Hopefully, most of the Members are here to raise people’s standard and quality of living and to make better the lives of people in their communities.

I emphasise a point that I made yesterday: rates and taxation must be based on a person’s ability to pay. In the short term, we need to consider tax-varying powers. I will not come down on any side of that issue today, but we need to look at the powers that are already in the gift of the Executive and at how we can progress and develop those that need to be in the Executive’s gift.

I know that Members will be talking about the block grant and the Barnett formula. The application of the Barnett formula in the North is based on head of population. However, funding that the Barnett formula determines should be based on need rather than head of population. I do not think that the Barnett formula takes into account the greater economic and social needs in the North. For instance, we have a higher proportion of older people and of children who are dependants; higher levels of unemployment; and higher levels of poverty. We also have lower wages, yet the cost of living here is high compared with parts of Britain. Therefore, the analysis should be needs-based rather than population-based.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Committee Chairperson for giving way. Will she reflect on the possible disadvantages of a needs-based system? The point has been made on many occasions that measurements are not set out objectively. Considerable scope exists for subjectivity. In view of that, is there not a risk that a needs-based system could work against us, if the powers that be in London take a different interpretation of our needs from that which the Assembly takes?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for his intervention, and I hear what he is saying. However, it comes back to the fact that local people would be in charge of setting priorities and identifying need. I will come to that issue next, because I do not believe that the current process offers the best option; rather, it is a short-term measure.

I believe that the way forward is to look at the matter on an all-island basis and not to depend on the British Treasury to give out a block grant. However, I will come to that point.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that Dr Farry’s point has been misunderstood. The assessments of needs and of the Barnett formula and the resources that are made available under the Barnett formula will not be based on how we assess our need but on how the Treasury assesses our needs in relation to those in other parts of the United Kingdom. The real danger with that is that, given that a gap exists already and given that some people may argue that it more than covers the difference in the needs as seen in one part of the United Kingdom as opposed to this part of the United Kingdom, reopening the Barnett formula might lead to a detrimental outcome for Northern Ireland. I think that that was the Member’s point.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I understand what the Members are saying, but I am saying that I do not think that the Barnett formula as it stands is taking account of the real needs of the North of Ireland. I just outlined the needs of the population. I hear what the Minister said, and that is why I do not believe that the British Treasury should in any way control the amount of money that is to be delivered here. We need local control of that decision.

I touched on the Barnett formula, and I want to go into some of the other issues that were debated yesterday. I ask Members not to close their mind, for ideological or other reasons, to an all-island economy. At the very least, we need to open the debate. That is all that I am asking for at this time.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I listened to the Member yesterday and today, and she has repeatedly advocated the wonderful all-Ireland approach to fiscal autonomy. What fiscal autonomy does the Republic of Ireland have at this time, linked as it is with the euro and given the financial crisis that the countries that have the euro are in? Does the Member think that that is good political wisdom to foist on this House, when we already have financial benefits that we are certainly not going to give away?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I hear what the Member says. I am talking about looking at a new system. I am not talking about copying the system in the South of Ireland right across the island. If Members will give me time, I will set out some of my ideas. I am asking for people to be open-minded. For the past two years, I have been in discussions with businesspeople, people who work in the banking system and others who see the benefits of having a greater link-up of the economies of the North and the South of the island. I am asking Members to open their minds and to not close them down for ideological reasons.

Businesspeople say that the harmonisation of the two taxation systems would make it easier for people to work, live and shop in both areas of the country. The two taxation systems damage business prospects further and deepen the economic divide. One just has to look at the differential in excise duty, VAT and corporation tax and how those alternate. People might say that that differential can sometimes add to or have a positive impact on the North, but in other ways it can have a negative impact. We have to look at it beyond the current economic climate as we move forward into economic recovery. Whenever we talk about harmonising the taxation system and working together, we must be aware that the benefits would include stronger businesses, a stronger trade and a stronger skills base between North and South.

We must go further and create an all-island investment strategy that is driven by a single economic development agency. Currently, we have Invest NI and IDA Ireland, but it would create a more stable economy for our people if investment were brought to the entire island of Ireland, as opposed to either the North or the South.

In Budget debates in this Chamber, we have talked about efficiencies and about combating wastage. However, how much wastage results from having two health systems, two education and skills services and two policing and justice systems for a population of approximately six million? We must talk about efficiencies at that level also.

We must look beyond the current economic climate and the budgetary constraints in all aspects of public spending and look forward to the recovery stage, both North and South. Harmonising the taxation systems across the island will make that process easier for our population, for businesses and for trade.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This is as near to Alice in Wonderland stuff as we are going to get. The Member has spoken about the island of Ireland, but I wonder whether the penny has dropped with her yet that there are two countries here: one affiliated to the United Kingdom and the other to the Irish Republic.

The Member has also spoken about the variations in VAT and tax between the two countries. Will she tell the House what expertise and experience she has in running businesses over the past 20 or 30 years and how can she help the House?

Is the Member also aware that not only are there two countries here, there are two currencies, with the euro in the South of Ireland and the pound sterling in Northern Ireland? The British government has not made that many correct decisions, but if ever they made a correct decision it was their refusal to enter the euro zone, because that has been one of our saving graces. It is also one of the reasons why we are not in the same predicament as the Irish Republic, which is virtually bankrupt, and I do not say that with a smile on my face. The number of shoppers who come here from the South on a daily basis tells the whole story, and I am surprised, if not amazed, that the Member has made no reference to that. I say frankly and with no disrespect that the Alice in Wonderland stuff will not wash.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Members has raised issues that I am not going to answer. Insulting people is not what we are about.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I did not insult you, I asked you a question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am not an economist, and I have never professed to be one. However, I have as much right as you to come to the House and put my views across. I think that the Member should —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind Members that all remarks should be made through the Chair.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Sorry, Mr Speaker.

We have had discussions in the House on the public procurement process and how it could be used at a local and central government level to maximise social and employment opportunities for people here. It can be used to secure existing jobs and to create new ones. Something like €600 million is spent on public procurement across the island of Ireland, with £3 million spent per annum in the North alone. We can use public procurement to strengthen the economy and to change people’s lives and their standard of living.

Currently, there is no local accountability for taxation. In the short term, I want us to have fiscal powers; in the longer term, I believe that there should be an all-island economy.

Having no local accountability for taxation and spending means that we have no incentive to increase economic performance, because the additional revenue received — for instance, the additional revenue received in 2008 from fuel price increases — goes to the British Treasury. Therefore, there is no local incentive to increase economic performance.

There is an argument for asking for fiscal powers in the short term. However, I envisage, during today’s debate, that Members will have ideological problems with considering the economy on an all-island basis. I believe that doing so is the way forward with respect to creating a better life for people here and in tackling poverty and social and economic need. I ask people to keep their minds open and not to close them down. Go raibh maith agat.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member is advocating an all-Ireland economy and is saying that there are advantages for public procurement on an all-Ireland basis. Does she accept that because of the freedom of movement of goods and services within the European Community, businesses already have the freedom to conduct their business wherever they want? As regards public procurement, I am not aware of any barriers to companies in the Republic of Ireland that wish to do business in Northern Ireland. Through personal experience of the difficulties faced by a company I worked for, I am aware that, in the past, there have been difficulties with doing business in the Republic of Ireland because of some of the tendering processes there. I hope that those processes have now changed.

Will the Member please tell us how the utopian all-Ireland economy will be any different from the freedom of movement of goods and services that we presently have? Does she accept that issues relating to different VAT and tax regimes result from political decisions made by different Governments, and that it would be logical for those Governments to consider the smuggling that could result from such decisions when they are being made? Ultimately, those are decisions for Governments to take: business will find the most economic method when taking decisions and when presenting opportunities to individuals. In fact, that is why many people from the Republic of Ireland are coming to Northern Ireland to shop on a daily basis. It is of considerable economic advantage to them to do so.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for his intervention. As regards his first point, the recent InterTradeIreland report that considered procurement processes, North and South, shows that small and medium-sized businesses are being curtailed through current procurement policies. Given that our economy depends on small and medium-sized businesses, there is not the flow that the Member was talking about. This was borne out by recent evidence taken by the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the issue.

The situation is one of swings and roundabouts: at the moment, the North is probably in a better economic position than the South, but that can change, and it will change. Nobody wants to see any part of Ireland in economic difficulties, but I am talking about when the situation changes. It will change, and it will change soon. We need a system through which we can reap the benefits at all times. It will not always be the case that the North is taking the pickings off the South.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I rise to support the Minister and to make some comments in relation to the Budget Bill. Individually, in our own homes, and as young people getting married, and so on, we are well aware of the stresses that marriage can sometimes bring in relation to paying bills, etc. Those are things that we all had to go through at an early stage. Then there were family birthdays, which brought surprises and some financial strains. It was probably not easy for most of us in the Chamber when we were starting out.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Is this the Assembly or Relate?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

It is the Assembly, for those who are not too sure.

I make that comparison because the Minister sets the Budget for the Province. I was one of the first Members to say that the Budget was excellent, and I did so for the following reasons: money was granted to housing and health, but no one could have foreseen the economic circumstances that were on the horizon. The DUP Chief Whip and other Members have made that point already during the debate.

The Minister responded to the swine flu issue positively, but the Assembly had to find the extra £32 million that was given to the health budget to help to address it early. That is another example of unforeseen circumstances that involve a cost to the Assembly and to everyone in the Province. Unless we have someone with the exceptional gift of being able to look into the future, the Budget cannot take into account such unforeseen circumstances. The Minister has responded to those circumstances in the best possible way within his financial confines.

People have asked me why the health budget has been subject to efficiency savings, and every Member will have been asked that question by their constituents. Departments can make savings. The spending review report said that the lowest percentage of current expenditure savings is to come from the Department of Health at 2·1%. That compares with an average of 3·1% and reflects the priority that is afforded to health and social services.

The Minister of Finance has tried to ensure that the Health Service can deliver while efficiency savings are made. There is most certainly a need to ensure that the Health Service can thrive and continue to provide its excellent service in the Province, while making the necessary savings. However, unlike the Republic, where 35p in every pound is spent on health services, in the Province, 50p in every pound goes to the Health Service.

Some areas can and should be subject to savings. I have been told by an ex-trust worker — not my colleague Alex Easton — that, at this time every year, Departments desperately try to spend the money that they could not spend during the year. I was told that, last year, hundreds of stress balls and pencils were ordered to ensure that there was no money to return. Perhaps all those boys who are employed in the Department of Health had a stress ball for each hand and a pocket full of pencils. Money should not be spent in that way simply because the end of a financial year is coming. It should be spent more appropriately, and, in such areas, savings can be made without affecting front line services.

The review’s targeted approach recognises that some Departments will have a great ability to produce savings in 2010-11 without affecting front line services more than other areas. The Minister of Finance stressed that the draft revised plans, both at Executive and departmental levels, are only proposals. However, it must be recognised that if the Department of Health were to be allowed to make a lower level of savings, other Departments would have to make even more savings. Each Department has said already that it can save no more. All Departments need to make savings, and, as much as some like to say that they run like a well-oiled machine, it does not happen that way, and all Departments can make the required cuts.

We would all like to say that no cuts are needed, but economic pressures mean that efficiency savings must be made. Every Department can do that, and in the current situation, the steps that are being taken are not only necessary but wise. One need only consider the fiasco that has been unfolding in Greece in the past week or 10 days. Who will bail out Greece? It will be the rest of Europe, and the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Members of the Assembly, will have a role to play in that. Problems in other places affect the economy and the Budget and our role in the Province.

The buck stops with the Minister of each Department. He or she alone can decide where savings can be made by choosing whether to let go of non-essential functions. Alternatively, the Minister can play the martyr and sacrifice the bigger aspects that draw attention to his or her plight and then blame everyone else. However, that is not how it should be done.

I wish to focus on the education system for a moment and on the fact that the Minister of Education will not complete newbuilds due to a lack of funding, yet she can allocate £20,000 to education youth boards that are strictly for the introduction and promotion of the Irish language. Is that a good way to spend money? I say that it is not. During a time of cutbacks, we should be looking at where money can be better spent. At the same time, the Education Minister is offering her staff the opportunity to learn the Irish language. Is that necessary? No, it is not. As far as I am concerned, money should be invested where it is needed: in schools, newbuilds, capital builds and repairs. We must ensure that everything is done according to plan.

One of our great concerns at the moment relates to prep schools. Every Member in the Chamber has probably been contacted about the issue. A cutback of £2 million has been proposed, which will actually cost £3 million because extra prep schools will need to be provided outside the areas affected and redundancies will need to be paid for. Therefore, it is a case of saving two and spending three. Where is the honesty in that position? I believe that the proposal is wrong.

Those are the types of questions that all Departments must look at when considering their budgets. Departments are not being asked to achieve the impossible; they are being asked to tighten their belts during the economic downturn until we are able to have access to the funding that we dream of having. The Budget Bill sets out the steps that are necessary, and each Department must take those steps along this financial road, which will be easier to tread than it is now. We have to support this Budget, and I urge Members to do so.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Last week, the Ulster Unionist Party was referred to as a grumpy party in a joke shared and enjoyed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Mr Speaker, you will no doubt agree that that is a spurious comment, and it is one that I readily dispute. However, today I am entitled to say that we are an angry party.

Yesterday, the Minister made light of requests that other Members and I made for a contingency fund, yet here we have, revealed as part of the unravelling of the Hillsborough betrayal, news that the DUP made a case for £25 million in a side deal with the Government, £20 million of which was for languages. Like most people in Northern Ireland and in the Chamber, I can think of many issues that are of higher priority than languages. An opportunity of leverage was wasted and lost in a concession to the creation of a bilingual society in Northern Ireland that the two main parties agreed in their side deals with the Government. What trash and tosh. A new priority has risen to the top, to which the DUP agreed without any consultation with fellow unionists. We could have used that money in so many other and better ways.

Issues are raised weekly in our Committees concerning requests for money. The Finance Minister fully understands that, because he says that he does not have money for everything, and I appreciate that. Members of all Committees, and it does not matter which ones, are continually saying that they need money for this and that. However, an opportunity to address that matter was wasted and lost because the DUP chose to agree with their partners, Sinn Féin, and barter — they got down to that level — with the Government for £20 million for the development of the Irish language. I know about the needs of carers who are looking after their loved ones at home. They do not get a look in or earn the consideration to be a near-priority in people’s minds. Money for carers was not bartered for at Hillsborough; only money for the Irish language was bartered for.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

You did not do anything.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

If that is an achievement — going to Hillsborough to welcome £20 million for the Irish language — what an achievement to be proud of. A DUP Member has just criticised the Education Minister for using and abusing her funding to complement Irish-language development.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I ask —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Mr Campbell wishes to raise a point of order.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Apart from the debating points, which I am sure will be refuted in the course of the debate, is there any provision in Standing Orders for factual inaccuracies to be repeated ad nauseam in the course of one speech?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Budget Bill is wide-ranging. Therefore, Members could talk about almost anything. [Interruption.]

Order. I say to all sides of the House that, as far as possible, Members should try to keep within the scope of the Bill. I know that that might not be easy for Members. However, it is vital to try to do that.

I will look at the Hansard report and come back to the House and Mr Campbell about his point of order.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

It always impresses me that when the party down there is rattled — and that is where it belongs: “down there” — its Members intervene with spurious points of order. However, I accept that you are going to look at the Hansard report, and I will await the outcome.

As things unravel and are revealed, perhaps we will learn what the cost of the parades panel will be, which, again, was an outcome of what appears to be developing into the “notorious” Hillsborough Castle Agreement.

What about the cost of advertising — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

What is the cost of the advertising campaign to curry support for the deal? Such things seem to be important at a time when other things cannot be attained or are set aside. We are asked to accept that we are all in this together, that it is a tight ship and that we really must understand what is going on. However, it seems that the Finance Minister can find money for what he wants, as long as it is part of the joint agenda of his party and its Sinn Féin partner. So much for consultation, which we would welcome.

The Budget Bill has two main elements: the spring Supplementary Estimates for the current financial year, which ends in April 2010, and the Vote on Account, which enables Departments to operate from April 2010 to June 2010, and which will amount to around 45% of the 2009-2010 overall Budget. In June, we will vote on a second Budget Bill, which will contain the Main Estimates to enable the Departments to operate for the entire financial year. Therefore, in a sense, today’s Budget Bill is a work in progress, and does not have to give the full picture until we get to the year’s end.

I mentioned that process because the Budget for the incoming year will be impacted by two significant changes and, as a result, will not flow as freely as in previous years. First, after the general election, and no matter who wins, we can expect a new national Budget that is likely to introduce major public sector spending cuts. Northern Ireland is likely to suffer in a disproportionate way from those cuts simply because our public sector is so large. That could manifest itself in the form of a cut in the block grant, which is the main component of the Consolidated Fund through which we finance our Departments. That could leave the Northern Ireland Executive with the unpleasant decision of what to do next, which is something that they are not too experienced in so far.

Secondly, we must appreciate that national Budget cuts, which have yet to come, will come on top of spending cuts arising from the long-term failure of Departments to meet their income-generation targets as envisaged in every Budget throughout the three-year planning cycle of the comprehensive spending review period. Those cuts, which are already in the process of being levied, will result in lower baseline budgets for Departments.

That in turn will have an impact on the capacity of the Minister of Finance to operate normal in-year monitoring transfers of money throughout the coming financial year. The sums were much smaller in the past year than they had been hitherto; they may be even smaller in future. The whole process takes on the appearance of a vicious circle, and I understand and appreciate that, in such circumstances, the Minister’s task is not an enviable one.

However, I remind the House that although it is understandable that the Minister of Finance talks up his Budget and trumpets as major successes the contracted normal delivery of targets, capital programmes and services by the Department, we must not become complacent in the face of the daunting tasks ahead. An arrogant complacency while the Budget slowly disappears due to block grant cuts and public spending cuts may be how the Minister likes to handle the situation, but the public, who are more tuned in to the realities of life — and, in many cases, lucky to have one job, let alone two or three — will not thank him for that.

The Finance Minister found it necessary to come to the House to announce £400 million of reductions. The press and the public saw that as a climbdown, and they will not be fooled by any self-congratulation, smugness or complacency in our approach to what lies ahead. It gives me no pleasure to say that. I do so only because yesterday I saw the same outrageous mixture of groundless assertions, arrogant interjections and complacency from the Benches behind the Finance Minister that have characterised the management of our finances over the past year and a half.

I want to make some suggestions about savings and the prioritisation of Government programmes. I touched on those issues yesterday when I suggested a common overall priority base scale for all Government programmes, which would place each one on a common weighted scale. Pre-agreed weightings would be applied to key substantive elements of all programmes and relative weights would be applied to politically pre-prioritised factors intrinsic to them, such as healthcare, job creation and social need. Part of developing that common scale priority approach to public spending programmes would be a radical revision of the Programme for Government, which my party and many leading economists have continuously called for over the past 12 months.

We need to develop a more hard-headed value-for-money approach to how we spend the public’s money so that we can veer away from wish-list politics, which was a characteristic of the euphoria that accompanied the St Andrews Agreement modifications in 2007. Sensible assessments of the potential impacts of public spending and investment and of the money that is actually available to spend, along with a setting of achievable targets, are essential in the current financial climate.

I want to venture further and suggest a range of measures for consideration. We need to consider a Civil Service pay freeze as an alternative to job cuts. Protecting jobs is an Ulster Unionist priority, and it has to be the priority of the House. A Civil Service pay freeze might save jobs; job losses will have to be the last resort. That is why I say to the Minister again that he must tell us whether he is on course to cut public sector jobs, or whether there is an alternative that he wishes to put to the House.

We also need to consider the amalgamation of the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) and the Central Procurement Directorate. The economies of scale from merging two bodies with such obvious overlapping remits could result in savings of several million pounds. The CBI recently proposed a sensible course: the replacement of the SIB with a fixed-term government investment plan that sets out clearly which projects are to be delivered over the three-year CSR period and includes key milestones, timelines and performance indictors.

Rather than give what has become a Cheshire cat treatment, we should ask why the Minister of Finance, despite his self-imposed target of rate recovery levels of 98%, has achieved a rate collection level of only 91%. As he told me in a letter yesterday, that 7% shortfall represents a loss of £71∙5 million to the public purse. Before the Finance Minister asked other Departments to make almost £400 million in savings, did he address and consider his own departmental shortfalls in rate recovery, which are estimated at between £124 million and £137 million? That amounts to almost 40% of the cuts that he has asked other Ministers to make.

I welcome the public spending director’s announcement to the Committee for Finance and Personnel that DFP is undertaking a review of the in-year monitoring process with better financial management and a root-and-branch restructuring of the in-year financial management process. My party has been calling for such a move for the past year and a half. However, that is the very least that we can expect in light of the collapse of the underspend culture previously operated by DFP.

We want to work with the Minister — [Laughter.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to finish.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Most of us find the Minister likeable most of the time. We hope that relations can be improved — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

This is an example of the arrogance and the nonsense that I referred to earlier that comes from the DUP Benches and from the hobbits who sit behind the Minister, and we all know where hobbits live.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I must insist that Members make their remarks through the Chair.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, we all know where those remarks come from. We hear them, and I referred to them. I am referring, through you, to the hobbits who sit behind the Minister. We all know where hobbits come from. That is what you have asked me to say, and I have said it through you.

I was working through the basis —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

He is not in the hobbit of giving way. [Laughter.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I remind Members to be very careful with their language in the Chamber. I am listening very carefully to what Members are saying, but a sense of good temper is very important in the Chamber.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Having established that most of us like the Minister most of the time, I will conclude by saying that good results can be achieved. We need the Executive to set an example and to join together to produce co-operation and inclusion. To my mind, that is the best way that we, as an Assembly, can be constructive and instructive and can help the Minister through his difficulties and through the mistakes that he continues to make.

I make my appeal to Ulster Unionist Ministers as well. We need corporate and collective government. As I said yesterday, we must now be open, up front and transparent in telling people what might be the worst that lies in store. I am quite sure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel will address that, and I urge him to do so.

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

The SDLP believes that this is the wrong Budget because it is the result of the wrong process of creating a Budget. However, my party colleagues and I will be responsible in our approach to the debate and the content of the Bill. We recognise that the finances must be put in place by the first day of a new financial year to enable us to run the Government. I hope that other Members will approach the debate responsibly; so far, the proceedings have, at times, sunk below the level of anything that could be called serious debate.

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

The process was wrong because there should have been a full, new annual Budget. The conditions were such as to require that, not to mention the legal position. The SDLP has long argued for the establishment of an Assembly Committee to prioritise the Budget, and I referred to that again yesterday. The Budget ought to address the recession and, specifically, the extremely different circumstances in which we now operate, but that has not happened.

In April 2009, the SDLP brought forward its proposals in a discussion document entitled ‘New Priorities in Difficult Times’. We recognise that elements of that document require a further degree of finesse. We were prepared to put the document on the table and engage with other parties to finesse and improve it. We regret that that opportunity was not taken. Some elements of that document were incorporated into Executive policy, but only a few. A certain amount of praise was heaped on our document among political circles here, but as a whole, our project was not embraced, and we are worse off as a result.

We are not alone in pointing out weaknesses in the way in which the Budget is created. In last week’s take-note debate on the 2010-11 spending plans, the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel said:

“As regards the 2010-11 Budget shortfall, the Committee has previously highlighted its general concern at the range and amount of new emerging pressures on existing Budget allocations. That concern was raised as far back as October 2008 in the Committee’s submission to the Executive’s strategic stocktake of the Budget position for 2009-2010 and 2010-11. At that time, the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) sought to assure the Committee that any pressures could be managed through the in-year monitoring processes.” — [Official Report, Vol 48, No 2, p59, col 2].

The idea that difficulties can be managed through in-year monitoring has become a farce.

On Tuesday 29 January 2008, the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, Peter Robinson, said in the Chamber:

“It would be madness for any Finance Minister to bring forward a Budget and say that it will stand for three years and not be changed in any way. That would be a ludicrous position to adopt. There will be changes in the environment and in how we have to do business over the next three years. We will be required to look at different priorities, and it will be the Executive’s job to re-order them; to look at what money is released in monitoring rounds; and to consider the spending of any further funds that we receive by way of asset sales. I give a clear undertaking that the Executive will continue to review and revise the Budget as necessary. Any responsible Executive would do that.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 27, p147, col 2].

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will complete my point and then I will give way to Mr Hamilton. [Interruption.]

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order, please.

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

There is a certain innocence about Mr Robinson’s statement at that time. He said that we could revise the Budget by way of monitoring rounds, and that we would consider how to deal with further asset sales that were going to happen. The world has turned upside down since then, and not only have there been no extra sales, but the original asset sales that were predicted have not happened.

We know what has become of the mechanism of monitoring rounds, but considering the overall principle of what he was saying, it would be madness for any Finance Minister to bring forward a Budget and state that it will sit there for three years. However, that has been the stance taken by successive Finance Ministers in the round, and we are worse off for it.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I said that I would give way to Mr Hamilton initially, and I am happy to give way to the Minister.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not know what planet the Member is living on. First, we have reallocated hundreds of millions of pounds over the monitoring rounds as easements and reduced requirements have occurred, and we have directed money towards other priorities.

Secondly, we have reviewed the Budget. We have had two debates about that in the House. I am now being criticised for reviewing the Budget to the tune of nearly £400 million. Who says that the Budget is set in stone? In-year monitoring has allowed hundreds of millions of pounds to be reallocated. This review has allowed nearly £400 million to be reallocated. I do not know where the Member is coming from with his idea that we are going down a mad route of not responding to changed circumstances.

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

I will reply to the Minister before I defer to Mr Hamilton.

I do not want to engage in a polemical debate over this. I am surprised that the Minister uses the opportunity offered by the monitoring rounds in his defence. There has been good spending by the Departments, and I give credit to the improvements that have been made. DFP has been instrumental in producing that good outcome, but the effect of that has been that it has become clear to everyone that monitoring rounds have become highly unsatisfactory as a vehicle for dealing with pressures. Everyone recognises that as a problem.

What we are being presented with at the moment in addressing the £370 million shortfall in the Budget for next year is not a review: it is a way of dealing with a crisis that has emerged in the finances, and nothing more than that.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. The point that I initially wanted to make has in part been made by the Finance Minister. To be fair to the Member, he used a full quote from the former Finance Minister Mr Robinson. Does he not accept that the point that Mr Robinson made has been proven to be the case? Around £1 billion has been reallocated from one area of the Budget to another in order to address the priorities that he was talking about. Nobody can say that the Budget in this Executive and Assembly has been in any way static over the past number of years.

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

I remain surprised at the defence of monitoring rounds. I am simply surprised that anyone can offer monitoring rounds as a strategic response to major change in the world economy, which has had huge consequences for us here, as everywhere. I think that a better response is called for.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I made the point in Committee that largesse has not been distributed at certain points in in-year monitoring periods for the past number of years. As the Member acknowledged, that has happened partly because of the need to tackle chronic underspend across Departments.

Does the Member not accept that, despite that difficulty, sizeable volumes of money have been distributed in in-year monitoring rounds? In December 2008, for example, the Executive targeted £90 million at priority areas in response to the onset of the economic downturn. Does he not accept that the difficulties in in-year monitoring processes would be inherent in any Budget review? The pain that some people believe is attributable to the redistributions and the £370 million of adjustments would be the same in a Budget process.

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

We made our points, and we should move on. However, I find it surprising that anyone would argue that, after two years, we will not have learned much more about the quality of the work that is undertaken in Departments. It is a surprising argument that we would not have reassessed the most valuable elements of the projects that are being run under the Programme for Government, even if we had not been hit by the economic deluge. Given the economic deluge, there is an opportunity and, indeed, a demand to readdress fundamentally how we use our considerable resources.

The Minister is not in his place, but I praise him for invest to save, which is the single most innovative element of his proposals for next year.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member not accept that invest to save is similar to the concepts that were used under Executive programme funds? The concept has been rebadged after the funds that previously allowed cross-departmental working and improvements were done away with.

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

I am not sure that invest to save will have that character. Departments will put in bids for individual projects, and those will be assessed.

I want to give the Minister a lot of credit for what he is doing with invest to save. It would have been easy for him to shy away from the concept, given the financial pressures, but he allocated an indicative sum of £26 million to it. If it is at all possible, the Minister should go further and enhance that sum.

As I said to the Minister in Committee last week, it may still be worth addressing cases that could bring a longer-term payback. That can sometimes be quantified, and the Minister knows all about calculations that involve present value. One cannot govern simply with a slide rule. Policy consideration must involve political dimensions and values. We need to think carefully about what is worth doing, and we must have a clear set of social values. Invest to save is a desirable concept, and I urge the Minister to make the most of it.

I want to link the Bain report on the location of public sector jobs to the collapse of Workplace 2010 and, indeed, to invest to save. I am disappointed, as I have frequently said in the House, in this Finance Minister’s reaction to the Bain report on the location of public sector jobs. I still find it baffling that a Department could commission such a report in a positive and enthusiastic manner, and then for the Minister at that time, who was not the Minister who commissioned the report, to be cautious about it, to say the least, when it came in. The report’s conclusions cannot have been all that different from the expectations when it was commissioned. The present Finance Minister has continued with that cautiousness, and that is a political mistake.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I was going to quote some things that the Minister has said, but I am content to allow him to put his own interpretation on them.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Maybe I can save the Member from having to quote on the issue at all. I am alarmed that he said that I was cautious about the Bain report. I could not have been more forthright. I do not believe that it is deliverable; that it represents value for money, which is what the report itself said; that the £40 million that would be required to redistribute the proposed number of jobs would be regarded as good expenditure; or that it would even achieve the Member’s hoped for objectives, namely, the dispersal of jobs. The report’s recommendations would simply move people around and have them travel more, except to different locations. Therefore, I hope that the Member will not describe me as being cautious about the Bain report, because I do not like being described as cautious. I would rather be seen as forthright.

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

I am disappointed, because one always tries to let people down gently. [Laughter.] One also tries to be optimistic in the hope of getting some positive movement from the Minister. I do not find in the report the figure of £40 million that he quotes. I could say more about the costings in the report, and I urge Members to read its detail. Figures are very often quoted in the Chamber and then re-quoted, and they suddenly become biblical truths. However, they are not always biblical truths, and that is the case in this instance.

I will quote one or two things that the Minister said. He referred to the importance of improving our infrastructure, and said, basically, that doing that would do the job far more effectively than Bain’s recommendations. He said:

“Over the next 10 years, £800 million will be invested in infrastructure to the benefit of the north-west. That kind of investment is likely to draw even more investment from the private sector and elsewhere. If we want to deal with the problem of economic inequality across Northern Ireland, perhaps we should focus attention on that rather than on the Bain report.” — [Official Report, Vol 47, No 5, p264, col 1].

I agree with all that, except:

“rather than on the Bain report”.

The Minister is absolutely right that developing our infrastructure through building roads, providing high-quality broadband, and so on will play a part in equalising economic distribution. However, it will play only a part. There will still be an emphasis on economic development in one section of Northern Ireland — in fact, in one section of Ireland as a whole. That factor needs to be brought in, and I will come back to that.

The independent Barnett review into economic policy that was commissioned by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment specifically said that government needs to play its part in ensuring equitable distribution of economic benefit, because the market, if left to itself, will create geographical strong points in the economy, and a deliberate governmental policy is needed to counter that.

I was again disappointed when, during the Bain debate, the Minister raised points that were beneath him. He referred to my party’s headquarters being in Belfast. The Bain report says that the headquarters of organisations should remain in Belfast, and I accept that. There has to be some recognition that the strategic centre of such an organisation has to be co-located with and adjacent to the Assembly. Broadly speaking, that is a valid point. The Bain report makes that point, and goes on to lay out a plan for a wider distribution of other sections of organisations.

I will relate this to Workplace 2010. That was a very ambitious programme to upgrade a large proportion of the Civil Service estate by involving private finance. Let us recall that the aim was to provide an estate that would be fit for purpose for a modern office environment, which the existing estate is not. It was also intended to produce an estate that was much more efficient to run. First, it was to be much more energy efficient, and, secondly, the area needed for each staff member was to be considerably smaller, so the savings would have been very considerable.

I relate this also to the invest to save concept. If one integrates the Bain report, the invest to save idea, and the principle of what it was intended to achieve through Workplace 2010, that produces a coherent set of policies. I urge the Minister and all Members to think carefully about that point; it has real validity.

This comes down to politics being about what we want to achieve; having a view of the kind of society that we want and setting out to realise it. It is about doing that rather than saying it is just too big a difficulty; I create this figure of £40 million; I cannot tackle it; I will do nothing, and I surrender — that is not the best approach that we can get from the Minister. [Interruption.]

I want to refer again to the —

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

What the Member has said puzzles me in many respects. He and I represent the same constituency. He is well aware of the support in that constituency for the redistribution of public sector jobs in order to secure current employment and to build on it. Let us consider County Hall in Ballymena as an example. The SDLP’s view to date on the establishment of the education and skills authority (ESA), which the Education Minister and I will deal with later, is that, in order to get huge savings, there must be the collapse of the five education and library boards. That would invariably mean that the jobs that are currently located in County Hall would be lost. Even if we accept the Member’s point that there is some rationale in locating some of those services close to this Building, surely, he and I ought to be ensuring that the jobs that currently exist in places such as Ballymena are protected, to ensure that our constituency does not lose out in the event of any other reorganisation of the Government estate.

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

I am sure that the Member does not mean that there cannot be restructuring of our governmental system. We all recognise that at times that will be necessary. The whole point about the Bain report is that, in the context of that restructuring, the location of the jobs is re-aligned in a strategic way. One should not leave it simply to the call of individual Departments, but should give an overview. The Bain report listed 13 different bodies that were all necessarily restructuring and recommended that we consider the relocation of those in that context. That meaningfully addresses the Member’s point.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Bain report was also about people. In particular, a number of women in the Senior Civil Service had to bypass promotion because they wanted to be closer to their families. The Bain report was also about choice and whether people wanted to travel to work. That applied, particularly, to women with families, who had to forego promotion in order to work in Belfast.

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

The Member makes a valid point. Those kinds of social issues must come into the thinking on that matter. As I suggested earlier, one simply cannot govern by slide rule.

I refer to the Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) response to the Executive’s spending plans for 2010-11. A document cannot be quantified in the way in which I am about to do; however, I note that the CBI managed to produce half a page of points of welcome and two pages of critique and concerns. That comes from a leading voice of business in Northern Ireland. Given that much of the defence of the Budget is that it is a Budget for the economy, it is perhaps a little bit surprising that that significant voice of business is so lacklustre in its welcome for the direction in which the Minister is taking us.

The CBI is very concerned about the lack of clarity on the gross capital expenditure that is likely in 2010-11, which it believes is likely to fall by between 10% and 15% on the 2009-2010 levels. It states:

“Maintaining capital expenditure is critical not only to improving public services but as a significant stimulus to the economy”.

That is a point that we have made often.

I see that the Minister wishes to get to his feet again.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I congratulate the Member on understanding what debate is about and being prepared to give way, which is unlike the spokesman for the Ulster Unionist Party. I appreciate that the Member has given way.

The Member made a point about the CBI and its criticism of the Budget. We in Northern Ireland know that it is always easier to criticise than it is to find points of agreement. The Member talked about:

“the direction in which the Minister is taking us.”

Again, I hammer home the message that this is an Executive Budget. It was agreed unanimously by the Executive. Therefore, it has the fingerprints of his party leader all over it. It is not the direction in which this Assembly is being dragged along by me; it is the direction in which this Assembly is being pointed by a corporate decision of the Executive, which includes the Member’s party leader. I am sure that the Member does not want to annoy her so early in her new position.

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

I am not troubled by the Minister’s intervention. He will know that the SDLP has been extremely forthright in its consideration of how the Budget is used. We have stated, over a period of years and with absolute clarity, that a very different process should be used around creating the Budget. Clearly, that is the position that the Minister for Social Development, who is now our party leader, brought forward strongly at Executive level. She would endorse every word that I am saying.

In relation to public services, the CBI states:

“Failure to grasp the opportunity of more fundamental reform and restructuring could put services at risk. We believe there is significant scope to redesign, re-engineer and reform public services to deliver enhanced services and better outcomes.”

I do not agree with every comment that the CBI makes, but there is significant merit in that one. For all our talk of efficiency savings over the past two or three years, we have not embarked seriously on the issue of public sector reform. Most importantly, we do no service to the more disadvantaged in this community if we accept a public service that does not use its resources in the best way possible; that is, a public service that neither reduces the amount of resources that it uses nor gets better value out of those resources. We have a long way to go in that regard. I find it a matter of regret that there is so little real political debate here.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for being so generous in accepting my interventions. I hope that, in reading the document to which he refers, he has fully understood the point that the CBI makes. The part that he has cited is CBI-speak for the privatisation and introduction to the private sector of the delivery of many of our public services. I am happy to debate that. Indeed, I have some sympathy with that view, but will the Member clarify whether that is the SDLP’s new position? I have always understood that the SDLP is the first to protest when any suggestion is made of private involvement in the public sector.

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

I do not accept the Minister’s point. There may or may not be a case for private sector involvement. The point is to start a serious examination of how we deliver public services. That may result in one outcome or another. It may simply result in a better way of running public sector business. It may lead to a degree of outsourcing some of that service or an alteration of the public/private mix. I have no difficulty engaging in that debate.

The CBI goes on to refer to “improving workforce management”. It compares Civil Service absence rates with those in the private sector. That is an issue that causes the Minister of Finance and Personnel a considerable problem, and he knows it. The CBI document mentions “better utilisation of existing assets” and talks about the need to “‘sweat’ existing assets much harder”, including the schools estate and hospital services. However, I would also include making better use of the Civil Service office estate, as I said earlier. We must accept that our existing Civil Service office estate is simply not fit for purpose. If the Minister does not like Bain, having witnessed the collapse of Workplace 2010, I ask what he is offering as the new way forward. That new way forward has yet to be offered. I certainly would not swallow everything that the CBI says hook, line and sinker, but there is merit in considering the points that it makes. The CBI is a far from enthusiastic supporter of the Budget.

I want to comment on the economy, because our Budget is extremely linked to it. We remain in the position of not finding the Holy Grail — the remedy that will significantly alter our budgetary position of sitting at 80% of the UK’s average per capita output — and the prognosis is that that situation will continue. Even the recent IREP report to which I referred earlier contains nothing to suggest that there is a game plan to get us out of that position.

I also want to comment on the North/South dimension and on issues that the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Jennifer McCann, raised, including fiscal autonomy and the Barnett formula. I do not see how we will begin to get out of the economic doldrums that we have been in for decades — we are at a particularly low point at the moment — unless we start to plan our economy on a whole-island basis. Let us accept that, for now, we are where we are. Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom, but it is on the island of Ireland. Unless we start to use all the existing linkages and assets, we will not prosper. I have no doubt that we are —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I would like the Member to explain the point that he has just made. He appears to suggest that the economy of the Republic of Ireland is sufficiently large to compete in a global economy. All accepted wisdom is that economies of scale from larger economic blocs are needed. The United Kingdom is able to compete worldwide; the Republic of Ireland is not. Such issues arise if one considers the number of trading partners in Europe. I cannot understand why the Member tries to tie our economy more closely to one that adds little in scale and has its own fiscal problems.

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

I do not accept the Member’s point about scale. One could give counter examples of any number of small, niche economies around the world; Luxembourg comes to mind. Therefore, the Member’s point about scale makes no sense. On the other hand, a small economy that sets out to be isolationist will not survive in the modern, open global economy. I argue for openness. Let us use all the links that we have to the best of our ability. For all the Minister’s pragmatism — he referred to the North/South dimension yesterday — we have not begun to tap into our relationship with the South. We politically resist opportunities that would greatly benefit us, and we must start to use every one of them.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

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

I would prefer to move on. However, if the Member wishes to say something —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

As the Member gave way somewhat reluctantly, I thank him for doing so. I am interested in the issue, and the Member has not explained why we would want to do as he suggested. There are other issues, such as foreign direct investment from the United States, for which this part of the island of Ireland is in direct competition with the other part. Surely it would be better to identify and deal with areas in which we can reap the biggest reward for our efforts. I think, in particular, of the huge economy in the north-west of England. Where are the plans to develop those links or consider our links with the rest of the Commonwealth? The Member and I have attended events at which many countries from around the world were represented. Why can we not try to exploit our relationship with South Africa, New Zealand, Rwanda or Peru? Given that we already have many free trade institutions in place, why is there such a fixation on one small part of the world?

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

The Member will not find me slow to embrace all international linkages, which is why I attended the events to which he referred. However, there is particular emphasis on Ireland because Northern Ireland is situated on the island of Ireland, and our economies and societies are inextricably bound up with each other, so we should not continue to create artificial barriers.

I could quote much evidence on the subject; however, just yesterday, in this Building, although not in the Chamber, I listened to an important debate on our involvement in and maximising our potential with the EU. People who visited the EU recently reported on the weakness of our engagement with it. They commented on our European political representatives’ weak interaction and their poor links with the Assembly. In addition, they pointed out the lack of secretariat support in recognising and influencing what happens in Europe. In so many ways, we are not engaged in the action in Europe to the same extent as others or to the extent that we need to be.

I refer again to the situation in the South of Ireland, which is experiencing massive economic problems. I said before — I repeat it now — that I envied the Irish people their problems, because, at the end of the day, they are masters of their own fate, and they know it. When they have a problem, they and only they can address it, as they are doing now. As a devolved region, we do not have those same controls.

Jennifer McCann’s remarks about fiscal autonomy opened up a debate about the Barnett formula, through which some people naturally fear we may end up in a worse position. Nevertheless, I am convinced that we must take more control of our own affairs. If we take more control of our affairs and use the linkages that exist to the south of us as well as to the east of us, that will be the beginning. There needs to be a lot more built on that, but I fundamentally believe that we need to move forward in that direction.

I want to refer to spatial planning, which is one element of economic planning. Doing spatial planning on this island as two separate exercises can be nothing but damaging to how we go forward. How can we plan our infrastructure? To refer to the earlier debate on the Minister’s point, how important is infrastructure to economic development? How can we talk about our infrastructure in terms of roads, seaports and airports? Our communication systems involve broadband nowadays, and there so many aspects to that, but how can we discuss that in two separate sections on this island and hope to get the best outcome for all of us? I just cannot conceive of that.

It is not just a technocratic exercise where you do all the sums and the answer churns out at the end; it involves consideration of what kind of society we want. The whole east of the island has the weight of the economic development, which raises major questions about the economic sustainability of the rest of the island and the fundamental question about what kind of society we want to see. We need to bring our values to that, and we need to bring our political views to that and have clear and open debate. However, let us be clear on the terms of that debate before it happens.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Does the Member acknowledge that the weight of the economic development on the east of the island of Ireland might have less to do with the evils of partition and the lack of a joined-up spatial plan across the island than with the fact that that is where the access to the markets is?

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

The Member makes some point. The free market will create its own momentum in relation to these things. You have to go along with some of that, and that point was made in the Barnett report, but it does not mean that we simply allow the free market to dictate in its entirety the type of society that we create. That is where our political influence comes to bear.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

I am becoming increasingly reluctant to do so.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Minister — sorry, the Member; that was a Freudian slip — talks about a government-inspired shift in spatial planning rather than simply relying on the market. Does the Member agree that the last person, from a governmental point of view, who tried to make a massive population and spatial shift from the east coast to the west coast was Oliver Cromwell and that that was not universally welcomed?

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

We have disappeared from rational debate, so I will not respond to that.

I want to comment on banks and NAMA, because they are of huge importance to our economy. There is no point in having serious talk about the Budget unless we are reflecting on the economy as well. Much has been said about NAMA. It is certainly not without risk, but, at a minimum, it is a serious attempt to address a problem that threatens us in a very serious way. Unless we can get our banks operating as serious lending institutions again, the consequences for our economy are serious. The Minister has recognised that NAMA is very relevant to us, and I welcome the fact that he is involved in putting one or two independent members on its advisory panel. He is wise to do that, and I urge him to continue keeping a close watch on the situation, because it will develop as the years go on.

I am thinking now about the situation with the banks. Banks here are in a different situation to those in the Republic of Ireland or Great Britain. I fear that even if all goes well with NAMA with respect to the properties in Northern Ireland — I hope that it does — we may be hit by greater problems than those we are facing at present in the ability and willingness of our banks to lend to local businesses. Due to the recession, it is likely that the demand from businesses for money is not as great as it would be ordinarily. We look to a time of upturn. However, I fear that banks will still not be in a position to lend. As far as the Committees are concerned, I believe that we have established that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has primacy in matters relating to banking. I also assume that the lead at departmental level is with DETI, and I urge that Department to take this point very much to its notice and consider that banks here are a separate entity to those elsewhere and require a particular policy initiative.

I want to refer to PIIGS but not the kind that are dealt with by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. It is the acronym for euro zone countries whose budgets are seriously challenged at present; in particular, Greece.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

For information purposes, will the Member identify the countries in the PIIGS grouping?

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

I am sure that the Member is well aware that the acronym refers to Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Although it might seem esoteric to the Budget debate, I am referring to PIIGS because, if outcomes in those countries are not good, our little debate here today may be irrelevant.

The Assembly must watch what is going on in the euro zone at present. Hedge funds containing massive resources are betting against the euro, and Greece is the first target. If the euro were to collapse in Greece and the country had to pull out of the euro zone, the potential domino effect would be serious for us. The economy is now global, and we depend very much on economic stability. Even though the United Kingdom is outside the euro zone, the stability of the zone is extremely important to us. It is important to our local firms, many of which export into the euro zone. Therefore, the Assembly must take that seriously.

Although I believe that Greece should face serious challenges, serious questions should also be asked about whether, in all honesty, the country satisfied the convergence criteria when it entered the euro zone. However, it is in the euro zone, and the problem must be tackled. It is not wise for the euro zone to turn its back on Greece. It should insist on the hard remedies that the Irish economy has had to take. I believe that the point that Mr McCrea hinted at earlier was that one of the “I”s in PIIGS stands for Ireland. Ireland has taken harsh medicine, and it is important that Greece does the same.

It is also important that there is international solidarity with any threatened economy against those hedge funds. Britain, even though it is outside the euro zone, should play its part in working towards that solidarity politically.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member made a point about Greece. Is he suggesting that it was only some sort of Machiavellian plot by hedge funds that created Greece’s problems, or does he accept that there are serious structural financial problems in the country that must be addressed? Furthermore, how would he deal with civil unrest due to the austerity programmes that would be introduced to deal with those problems? Would he simply tell the Governments that they have to tough it out?

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

The Member made a perfectly proper point, which I addressed. In many ways, Greece has been the author of its own misfortune, and it must put its house in order. However, aligned with that, I still think that there should be political and economic support for a country in the euro zone that is going through difficulties.

I move now to a more minor but local point — the boiler scrappage scheme. The Chancellor introduced a boiler scrappage scheme for, I presume, England and Wales or possibly only England. That scheme was greatly welcomed, because it is an encouragement for people to upgrade that source of energy supply in their home. It will also contribute much to improving their energy efficiency and reducing their carbon footprint. I have been disappointed in how negatively unambitiously we have tackled that issue. DSD is considering the potential to include a boiler scrappage scheme in the warm homes scheme. If such a scheme is introduced, it will be in the context of fuel poverty, and it will be severely means-tested. That means that many people in the community will not benefit from it.

I enquired whether there was a Barnett consequential to the scheme. There is a modest consequential of £0·7 million. However, rather than say that we will merely submerge that sum into the general accounts, which is the current reply, a more imaginative approach would have been to talk it up to some degree and offer people the incentive to upgrade their boiler. That would not require a massive sum of money. In other words, we should do our best to replicate the scheme that the Chancellor introduced in England. That would be an imaginative thing to do, and the Assembly would welcome it and would be seen to be doing a good thing that is going in the direction that many people want to go. A significant cost is involved in changing over, and introducing such a scheme would encourage people to make such a changeover. Many more people, even those who received the cash incentive, would change over, because a lot of attention would be attracted to the concept and a wave of change would be created. If the Minister introduced such a scheme, it would be a good incentive for people.

In some ways, if we do not get the big picture right, the issues that are being debated are merely academic. The big picture relates to our political situation and political disagreements. Today, we heard the news that we are spending government money on advertising the Hillsborough agreement. I think that that is rather sad. I was at Hillsborough, and there was a blockade of cameras and journalists outside Hillsborough Castle. We did not need to seek the attention that the media were paying to the agreement. I do not know why we feel that we need to spend government money on advertising something in which the media has such an intense interest. Conducting such an exercise seems to be scraping the barrel of political activity. However, I want to speak about the matter more generally. Why were we at Hillsborough? We were there because the political structures, which were hard wrought over many years, were not being used. The political structures are not ideal, and they are not the structures for an ordinary society. However, this is not an ordinary society, and the structures are the best that we can create to deal with an extraordinary society. Those structures were being manipulated at Hillsborough, particularly by two parties that were using and milking them for their own advantage.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I ask the Member to come back to the motion.

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

As I said at the outset, this is one section of my speech. I heard what you said, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will try to be as brief as possible. However, something needs to be said. If we do not get this right, all the other talk about our Budget and economy goes nowhere. That is why what I am saying is relevant. I think that it was the Speaker and not you, Mr Deputy Speaker, who said at the outset of the debate that almost everything has its place in a Budget debate. He was right.

We were at Hillsborough because the two largest parties were not using the political structures in the interests of all. In the day-to-day dynamics in particular, they were not involving the other parties in the process of government. As a result, we had the 153-day stalemate in 2008, and then we had a crisis that almost collapsed the Assembly a month ago. We have a process of negotiation, but how do we conduct that process of negotiation? The two largest parties take the lead and involve the other two parties in the Executive to a very limited extent, to say the least.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order. I know that what the Member is saying may be relevant to where we are at. However, the Member needs to return to the Budget Bill. The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 12.30 pm. Can the Member indicate whether he will be finished by then?

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

I will be finished before then. One of the major elements to come out of the political talks at Hillsborough was the fact that the two largest parties were to lead the discussion on parades. That is most unwise. If we are to get anywhere, we need to get back to the principles of the Good Friday Agreement and work together in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland so that we can provide them with the economy, Health Service and education system for which they are crying out.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Business Committee has agreed to meet immediately on the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when the first Member to be called to speak will be Stephen Farry.

The sitting was suspended at 12.27 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is with pleasure that I take the opportunity to make a few short remarks on the Budget Bill. It is fair to say that we have had a rather wide-ranging debate so far, covering topics such as Oliver Cromwell and the Hillsborough agreement, and we have taken a trip around the world’s economies. I will try to stick as far as possible to the principles of the Bill and to the context of public finances in Northern Ireland, which is what we are here to discuss.

In essence, the Alliance Party had three criticisms of the original Budget that the Executive set. That Budget did not address the cost of division by trying to reorient our society, it did not rebalance or modernise our economy by trying to tackle the major structural problems and it did not properly sustain public services. All three points are still valid today, and, perhaps, they are even more valid.

I now move on to some of the comments that other Members made. A great deal of comment was made on the subject of tax-varying powers, and Jennifer McCann has been as vocal as my party in asking for those powers to be given to Northern Ireland. Tax-varying powers can work in two ways. First, they can increase revenue take if that is the choice that we make as a society. Secondly, they can create financial incentives for economic change in our society. It is in that context that we should most consider those powers.

Today’s debate is particularly relevant when set against the launch of the new Northern Ireland Economic Reform Group think tank, which has renewed calls for a differential rate of corporation tax for Northern Ireland. Although I appreciate that that issue has been raised in the past and rebuffed by the UK Treasury, the Assembly, and the Executive in particular, must keep it alive. Economists have identified it as the best tool for making a major step change in our economic condition, and if we want to rebalance our economy, we should use it.

I also appreciate that if we went down the road of introducing a lower rate of corporation tax, the loss of revenue would have to come out of the block grant. We would have to make that choice. However, we are already doing that through the decision that we as a body made to defer water charges for a further year. That revenue had to be found from somewhere, because it was not provided for originally in the block grant, and we have had to forgo that money. All that rather begs the question of what will actually make the biggest difference if we are to transform our economy. Will it be a differential rate of corporation tax, which has the potential to bring in new investment and encourage economic activity? Will it be a deferral of water charges, which is effectively a standstill approach that may save people money today but that will not fundamentally change the underlying context of our society?

While I am on the topic of revenue raising, I may as well return to the subject of the regional rate, on which the House will be having a fuller debate next week. The Executive have presented the freeze in the regional rate as a virtue and a means by which they are easing the cost pressures that households and businesses face during the economic downturn. That may be true today, but it was not the objective when that policy was set in 2008 as part of the three-year Budget, which was well before there was an economic downturn or any talk of one. The Alliance Party is not advocating massive hikes in the regional rate; far from it. However, it feels that it should form part of the Assembly’s armoury.

It is noticeable that Northern Ireland, unlike virtually every other jurisdiction, is seeking to address its financial shortfalls purely through cuts in public spending. I appreciate the DUP’s position on that issue, but the four parties in the Executive took that decision collectively. To say the least, I am surprised that the SDLP and Sinn Féin, which both purport to be social democratic parties, would support an approach that is based solely on the cutting of revenue.

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

I thought that Mr Farry was above such cheap, erroneous point scoring. I take it that he will accept that we have presented a different process for addressing the Budget, from which we would certainly have expected a different outcome.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I was going to come to that point later. The SDLP is heavy on process but light on tough decisions on the income and expenditure choices facing us. The point stands. In Westminster, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour Party agree that addressing the financial gap involves a mixture of tax rises and expenditure cuts. They are divided on when they should start rowing back on the massive national debt and the precise mixture of the tools available. It is only in Northern Ireland that we are taking a solitary approach based on public spending cuts to address the balance. We are well outside the European, and indeed the wider, mainstream on that issue. Both the SDLP and Sinn Féin need to reflect seriously on that, because —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I have not come to you yet.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am waiting with eager anticipation. I want a bit of clarity. The Member has, I think, chastised this place for relying solely on fiscal cuts, but he seems to be arguing that we should be raising additional revenue. Is that the point that the Member is making?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

If the Member had listened to what I said yesterday, in previous debates, and to what I am saying today, that would have been clear. I am sticking my head above the parapet on a political kamikaze run. The Assembly has to face up to difficult choices. Mr McCrea and Mr O’Loan referred to the austerity measures in the Republic of Ireland as if they were a virtue, and spoke about how well the Government there are doing in addressing their Budget and taking tough decisions; yet here they back away from such decisions quite dramatically.

We have to overcome the taboo that we cannot in any circumstances seek to increase the rate of revenue raised from the people of Northern Ireland. That is simply not sustainable. There will come a time — if not during the forthcoming financial year then in future financial years — when the Assembly will have to address issues regarding the regional rate and water charges. The question is not whether that will happen; it is when it will happen. There is no fundamental issue at stake. We are saying as a party that we have to face up to those choices. Others are not prepared to be as straight with the people of Northern Ireland as we are.

What we suggest — an inflation-based rise in the regional rate — would amount to about 20p or 30p per week for the average household in Northern Ireland. Had that had been done over the past two or three years, it would have raised an extra £25 million or £30 million for the Executive. That may not be a huge amount of money, but, in conjunction with other measures to soften some of the harsh cuts that are affecting our public services, it could have made a difference.

The Minister rightly made the point — while recognising that we made the argument about equality — that the freezing of regional rates and water charges tends to benefit the better off rather than the worse off. It is, in effect, a regressive subsidy. Most economists in this island and further afield recognise that. The Minister rightly made the point that people on the margins are affected by such decisions, and I concur. However, the way to respond to that comment is to recognise that the issue is not whether revenue-raising powers should be introduced but how that should be done and the fairness of the measures that are taken. The value of a property is a blunt instrument in assessing ability to pay water charges or property taxes. It is not a bad method, but there are better ways of doing it.

The issue is how to finesse around the edges to ensure that people on the margins are not affected adversely by those measures. However, there are some people who are able to pay increases in regional rates and water charges quite comfortably. Those people should be making their contribution to society, particularly when others who depend on public services are suffering.

Ideally, the regional rate and the district rate would both rise at the rate of inflation. Some councils in Northern Ireland have introduced hikes in their rates of 7% and although the Executive have frozen the regional rate, the net effect is still a rise in rates. More action by councils to control their costs would probably have exactly the same net effect on the people of Northern Ireland as the Executive having responsibility for revenue raising, and both those measures would mean that we would all be better off.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member has drawn an interesting parallel in referring to the way that some local councils have sought to deal with the pressures that they face by increasing the district rate. Is there not a real danger that if we were to go down the route to which the Member refers, by giving more emphasis to the Assembly’s having revenue-raising ability, we would fall into the same trap as councils? Councils should be looking for efficiencies but they have not, and they have consequently increased the district rate. Equally, if the Assembly were to use the regional rate as a safety valve, it might stop Ministers and, indeed, the Assembly from looking for the real efficiencies that can still be found from the money that we spend.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I acknowledge the Minister’s comments. Earlier in the debate and at last week’s meeting of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, he made the point that it is important to ensure that people see inefficiencies being taken out of the system before additional revenue raising is considered. That is true to an extent, but there are distortions in the way that public finances are addressed in Northern Ireland. The average household contribution in Northern Ireland is still lower than the average in the rest of the UK, which suggests a certain imbalance towards here. The Treasury may not have drawn that to our attention to date, but, at some stage, we may have to come to terms with that structural imbalance in UK public financing. Indeed, if the Barnett formula were to be reopened, that might be an obvious line of attack for those seeking to tighten public expenditure at a wider UK level.

The Barnett formula in general was mentioned. The Alliance Party was the only party in the Assembly to respond to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula. It is probably wise to play safe with the current formula. Over time, it will converge to parity, but it may well be a case of better the devil you know, because any needs-based system will be based around a number of subjective determinations. There is no settled objective definition of what is meant by need, and if we were to lose the debate, Northern Ireland could suffer as a consequence. That point was drawn out in the evidence to the House of Lords Committee.

The need for an all-island dimension to the economy was mentioned. The issue needs to be separated into two aspects: the financial aspect and the economic aspect. It is perfectly clear that, financially, we depend on London for a subvention of some £8 billion a year. It is one thing for London and the UK economy as a whole to subsidise Northern Ireland, but if that cost were passed to Dublin, particularly in the current situation, that state would be bankrupted. I appreciate the point that, in the long run, the financial situation may well change, but as we stand, that argument is not a runner.

There are economic opportunities to do things better and differently on an all-island basis. I fully acknowledge that there is some distortion of economic and social policy, whether it be spatial planning, the provision of services, or unnecessary duplication, because of the border. Equally, there is the issue of competition. My party is more than happy to engage in discussions about that. We contend that the cost of division in our society is a source of —

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member raised the issue of competition. Does he agree that we could strengthen our global, competitive advantage by looking at investment on an all-island basis?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I do not disagree with what the Member is saying. Leaving aside the political dimension and the principle of consent, there are opportunities to do things on an all-island basis, such as promoting tourism or aspects of the green economy. Equally, there are opportunities for us to compete with the Republic of Ireland for inward investment. A mixed approach is probably the best one for now, and we should keep politics out of that as best we can.

Basil McCrea made some interesting interventions about the comparisons between the economy of the Republic of Ireland and that of the UK and about which one is better placed to compete on the international stage. I do not think that Northern Ireland must choose either a UK dimension or an all-island dimension. We can do both — that is the opportunity that this region has. It is important that we consider the economies of the UK and the Republic of Ireland or all-island in the wider context of the European Union. I am a strong supporter of the European Union. I do not think that the euro caused the huge problems in the Republic of Ireland or Greece. Those problems were caused by reckless speculation and spending. The housing bubble south of the border was based on sand rather than on any fundamental realities in that economy, and we are seeing a major readjustment. Neither the euro nor the approach to Europe as a whole was to blame for that.

I welcome the concept of invest to save, and I highlight that the cost of division is one area where that approach can be adopted. We must recognise that, in trying to reorientate the way in which we provide goods, facilities and services in a divided society, some upfront expenditure will be required to unlock savings elsewhere. I encourage Departments to think in those terms and DFP to show leadership in encouraging them to do so. I rather suspect that Departments will make many claims for the modest sums that have been allocated to the invest to save fund so far. However, if they are prepared to come forward in the way in which I suggested, that is to be welcomed.

Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I want to make a brief comment about the Hillsborough agreement, which David McNarry and Declan O’Loan have already mentioned. I am not going to go into the wider political dimensions of that, because I do not think that that is appropriate today. I want to comment on the agreement in the context of the Budget and our economic and financial situation. I recognise that the Hillsborough agreement is a fix, but it was a necessary fix to address many of the poor relationships that have built up within our structures over recent years and, particularly, in recent months. Issues that have been caught in a logjam needed to be freed so that we can move on. If things look unusual — for example, £20 million being spent on language when there are other pressing needs — people need to take a step back and put that into the wider context. If this does not succeed, this society will be in very serious trouble. If the institutions collapse and we return to a form of direct rule or joint authority, there will be major financial and economic implications for Northern Ireland, not least the loss of international credibility and investment, never mind the cost implications of further polarisation on the streets of Northern Ireland.

Therefore, there is a huge, but perhaps hidden, financial and economic imperative to get on and seal the deal. I appreciate that things are very fragile at the moment, and it is important that we do not seek to undermine that. I am not happy with every detail of the Hillsborough agreement. However, most people in Northern Ireland are not focused on the minutiae of that; they are focused on getting stability back so that they can get on with their lives and see the Assembly address bread-and-butter issues. Let us look at where we are in that wider picture. I apologise for making that point, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate your indulgence. However, it needed to be said given what other Members said earlier.

I recognise that the Budget has been knocked off course by events, some of which were external; for example, the economic recession and the impact on property prices. Other events were self-inflicted; for example, the decision, freely taken by all parties, to defer water charges beyond the date originally set out in the Budget. We are now faced with the situation in which difficult choices have to be made.

There has been a lot of discussion around process and the way in which we address these matters. The SDLP mentioned a new Budget, and I concur with that party on the limitations of monitoring rounds. One cannot drill down as far as one would like into Departments’ existing plans because Departments are in control of what they surrender. Therefore, one cannot scrutinise the real priorities in the Departments. Equally, Members can talk about contingency funds or about making the Budget more efficient with respect to how expenditure is handled. Such discussions are welcome and will make some difference. However, they do not really address the fundamentals and do not balance the books. The only way that we can balance the books is by making tough choices on revenue and on public expenditure. That is the reality of where we are. If Members focus on so-called magic solutions that are not magic solutions at all, they do a great disservice to us and to the people.

Jim Shannon mentioned spending on health, and, perhaps, it is worth focusing on that as one example of where tough decisions have to be made. A lot of Members are disappointed that they have not seen any evidence that the Health Minister is willing to engage. It is likely that things will be imposed on him if he does not engage in a pro-active manner.

I recognise that there are problems with our spend on health. Due to our higher levels of ill health, we start with a much higher need per capita than the rest of the UK. We did get some increased funding through the original Budget. However, despite that, we are continuing to flatline in comparison with the rates of investment elsewhere in the UK, while demand is increasing due to greater numbers of people going through the system, more expensive drugs and more expensive technology.

We have to address the imbalances within the existing health budget; for example, the underfunding of mental health services. Although there may be a funding gap of £300 million or £600 million, depending on the figures, the Health Minister did settle for his budget, and that is something that he has to remember when he makes complaints similar to those that we have heard today.

Although I am sympathetic to the problems facing the health budget, the notion that we could insulate it from any re-examination is unrealistic. In common with any other aspect of public services, there are ways of doing things differently and more efficiently. Every Department benefits from a process of challenge and internal change, and the Health Department is no different. Indeed, perhaps that Department is more in need of that process than others. It is unrealistic to seek to exempt the Health Department, and those who make such an argument have to be straight with the people of Northern Ireland and explain where the money will come from if the health budget is frozen.

I notice that the Ulster Unionist Party is rigorous in opposing water charges, even though that would address imbalances in the health budget in one fell swoop. That party also suggests that if we freeze the health budget, all other aspects of the Budget could take the hit. However, that would mean almost doubling the rate of cuts in almost every other Department in Northern Ireland, including those relating to the economy.

At a time when we are trying to rebalance our economy, cutting back expenditure in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment or the Department for Employment and Learning — another Department with an Ulster Unionist Minister — is crazy. That will undermine our ability to transform our society, and we will remain in our current situation with a continued dependency on the public sector and a massive subvention from the UK Treasury.

The emphasis needs to be on our economy; it has to be the number one priority. The economy is the top priority in the Programme for Government and the Budget. I may disagree with how the emphasis is applied, but the economy has to remain the main focus of our society; we cannot continue as we are, because our public finances are not sustainable. We need to bring in more wealth creation and become less dependent on the Treasury by generating more tax revenue in Northern Ireland.

We are seeing the effects of cuts in our economy filtering through. In my constituency, the development of a new art and technology centre, as part of the South Eastern Regional College, has been put on hold. Such a centre would offer training to our young people to help them to become entrepreneurs, start their own businesses, create wealth and employ people. Therefore, there is a danger that we will lose out and miss what is important for moving our society forward.

I have been on my feet for some time, so I will try to conclude my comments. I reiterate the point that I made yesterday. In the medium to long term, we need to have a proper benchmarking exercise on how we spend money compared with other jurisdictions, particularly our neighbouring jurisdictions. I fully accept that, as a devolved Assembly, we have the right to make our own decisions on our spending priorities and on social, economic and environmental matters. There are areas in which we are doing that sensibly, but there are areas in which we are not. By looking at how other societies balance their expenditure, perhaps we can learn lessons.

There are areas in which our spending is well above the UK average, and there are others in which it is below the UK average. Even in some Departments, the profile of expenditure is radically different from that which one would see elsewhere. The cost of division may be one reason for that, but the issue is much broader. In the medium to long term, we need to look to see where, from an outside perspective, the inefficiencies lie in our public spending and how we can do things better to provide the same level of service to the people of Northern Ireland much more cost-effectively. I welcome the debate, and, no doubt, it will continue over the weeks and months to come.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I support the Budget. To paraphrase the Finance Minister, a Budget made in Ulster is the best Budget of all. If this House is to mean anything, we must be able to deliver real benefit and bring real change to people. I will point out 14 or 15 key areas in which the Budget will make a real difference to people’s lives, not only in my constituency of Strangford but across Northern Ireland. The Budget will deliver real change and a positive way forward.

We have looked at the regional rate, and businesses in Strangford tell me that, to paraphrase Dennis Healey, they have been squeezed until the pips squeak; they have nothing more to give. I congratulate the Minister of Finance and Personnel, because we have sweated the assets of the £13 billion available to us, and both he and his predecessors have shown good stewardship of the economy by freezing the regional rate. That has not been easy, and tough choices have had to be made, but I can tell the Minister that some businesses in Strangford are operating today purely because the regional rate has been frozen for the past three years. Real jobs and real employment have been sustained, and real businesses have benefited from the hard decisions that were made to freeze the regional rate.

I declare an interest as a member of the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, a member of Ards Borough Council, a member of the Committee of the Regions and a governor of Regent House School.

We are in global markets. We find ourselves in competition with China and India. I remember Ian Pearson telling us that Northern Ireland must make tough decisions or China will have our dinner and India will have our tea.

That is the global market in which we operate. It behoves us not only in the Assembly but in individual councils to keep those rates at a level that enables the business community and ratepayers to stay afloat and keep their heads above the water. I congratulate my council, which secured a rate rise of only 0∙28% above inflation. That, combined with the regional rate, affords Strangford the opportunity to go forward and compete in the business world.

Small businesses are the backbone and linchpin of our economy. If we remove small businesses, many of which are family-run, from any constituency in Northern Ireland, economic difficulties will ensue. The small business rate relief scheme in the Budget allowed small businesses to continue to operate in increasingly difficult markets. Although some bigger companies have left Northern Ireland, the small businesses have kept Northern Ireland going, have kept the economy going during years of terrorism and now keep the economy going in times of unprecedented economic recession.

The RPA aims to improve procurement and human resource functions and to increase savings that can be passed on directly to the ratepayer. We seek to provide better shared services, and we aim to deliver those in a manner that is more economically efficient. By doing so, we can pass a direct benefit back to the people. We did that with the regional rate, and we are doing it for small businesses through the RPA.

I turn to one of the major industries in my constituency: construction. Many households in Portaferry and beyond depend on the construction industry for survival. The main or only breadwinner is employed either directly in the construction industry or in supplying it. Despite the number of people who deny it, the House’s courageous decisions on capital spend kept the construction industry afloat. At present, 54% of people employed in the construction industry — more than one in every two — have remained in employment, stayed in their home and survived as breadwinners as a result of the decisions that the House made. That situation is mirrored in the Strangford constituency. That is where the rubber hits the road. We must keep people in employment, make big decisions and support the local economy right through to the household level. That is a fourth area in which the Budget led to gains.

I turn now to the Department for Employment and Learning. Some £203 million has been set aside for the two universities to improve teaching and learning and to provide a constructive challenge for the future. If the priority is education, education, education, the resources should surely follow that mantra. That £203 million will boost teaching and learning and, most critically for universities, which are now research-led to such a great extent, it will boost research. Furthermore, it will keep our universities at the top level, give all our children the opportunity to receive a world-class education in Northern Ireland and prevent the brain drain. That is a fifth area in which the Budget delivered real change for people in Northern Ireland.

DEL has done constructive work to help young people who are not involved in education, employment or training. The Committee for Employment and Learning has shown leadership in addressing the situation of people who genuinely need to be given an opportunity and need a hand up rather than a handout. The Budget delivered for those people. In future, that Committee will want to conduct an inquiry into how the Budget can further help the 50,000 children who are not in any form of education, employment or training.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member accept that the situation is extremely serious? In the past number of years, the number of young people who are not in work has risen from approximately 23,000 or 24,000 to more than 50,000. Is that not an indication that, although the allocated money is welcome, we need much more than money? We require a clear, focused strategy to help those young people because, by and large, they miss out on the economic benefits that arise as a result of the activity around them.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I fully accept the Member’s point. As a social worker for the past 21 years, I worked with young people who, having been the victims of sexual abuse, drug dependency or other chemical dependencies, missed out on their education. The Member is correct that an increase of 27,000 in the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training is unacceptable, and we must reverse that trend. That may have to mean not using more resources but perhaps using the available resources in a smarter way.

The Committee for Employment and Learning heard a brilliant presentation from a young girl who brought herself out of an addiction to crack cocaine. She has been clean for the past nine months and is involved in a proper programme. It may be that we need to use our resources in a smarter way for such young people. The Budget delivered through helping the Prince’s Trust, and it gave many young people, as I said earlier, a hand up rather than a handout.

The Budget delivered increased equality to my Ulster-Scots culture. We can point to a number of cultural facilities, such as the refurbished Ulster Museum, and say that those gains for all the people of Northern Ireland were the result of work that was done in the Assembly.

I dealt with agriculture matters during my involvement with the Committee of the Regions. As a result of the Assembly’s work on the Budget, £300 million went to the common agricultural policy and directly helped those farmers who are most in need. The Assembly ensured that some £6·7 million was invested directly in farm modernisation to help farmers in my Strangford constituency who depend on aid. The Budget produced real gains for agriculture.

I want to see more work done in education. We must get that process right, and we must do better. I declared an interest as a member of the board of governors of Regent House Grammar School. Many parents choose to use the prep school at Regent House. The Department’s contribution to the prep school is £800 per pupil, whereas the corresponding contribution to other good local schools for which I can vouch, such as Castle Gardens Primary School, Newtownards Model Primary School, Londonderry Primary School and Donaghadee Primary School, is some £1,800. The closure of that prep school will not only contravene equality legislation but will discriminate against many parents who made the choice to send their children there. We must examine that situation carefully. If the closure of the prep school goes ahead — I do not think that it will — the board of governors will be faced with making a number of highly qualified teachers redundant. It would be a shame for that to happen when the Assembly is trying to promote education.

There is a big demand for social housing in Strangford, as elsewhere. We can stand over the fact that, as a result of the Budget, 500 more affordable homes were built. We are well on the way to meeting the target of building 10,000 social houses by 2013. The House can point to the gains that the Budget delivered.

This morning, a part of Portaferry in my constituency was sealed off to facilitate work on a new road. The Castlebawn roundabout and a major new link road have greatly benefited Newtownards. We need to tell people what the Assembly has achieved for them. Real progress has been made in Strangford as a result of a Budget that was made in Northern Ireland.

In the period before the installation of road safety cameras, there were 169 deaths on the roads. Newly released figures show that the number of road deaths is down to 76. There are 93 people alive today because of an effective Budget. We should be trumpeting those significant achievements rather than cynically hiding away from them.

Yesterday’s news bulletins carried the unusual story of an ambulance that caught fire and had to be taken away. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety tells us that as a result of the Budget and a multimillion pound investment — his words, not mine — we will move towards a situation in which no Ambulance Service vehicle is more than five years old. Therefore, again because of the work done on the Budget in this House and as that programme is rolled out, no one will have to get into an ambulance that is more than five years old. These are major gains, and 66 new ambulances are already in service.

I listened to Mr McNarry, who was on his “hobbit horse” earlier. There are some who want to walk in two directions on financial policy, and I would like someone to clarify the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force (UCUNF) financial policy for me. Is it the one that is led by Sylvia Hermon, the darling of the Labour Party — that is, the Alistair Darling of the Labour Party — with no cuts and increased investment, or is it the policy of David McNarry, the junior partner to Ken Clarke, whom he was parroting earlier, which is one of savage cuts? We need to know which of those two financial policies the Ulster Unionist Party will follow. It is going in two different directions. Robert Frost wrote a poem that contained the lines:

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —

I took the one less travelled by”.

The import of that is that one can only walk one road. We need to know whether the Ulster Unionist Party wants to take us down the Darling road of Sylvia Hermon or the Ken Clarke road of severe cuts. There is political cowardice in not telling us what cuts it will advocate and where those cuts will be. The UUP can no more walk on two sides of the street at the same time than it can try to walk on both sides of the street in opposite directions. We need to know whether Sylvia Hermon is leading the financial policy for the Ulster Unionist Party, as Darling, or whether it is Ken Clarke.

To be fair, David McNarry quoted Ken Clarke, and I am tempted to use the line that I knew Ken Clarke, and David McNarry, you are no Ken Clarke.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Given that all your parties were present at Hatfield House, perhaps the DUP could throw some light on that issue for those of us on this side of the House.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The DUP policy is clearly outlined by the Finance Minister, and I suggest that the Member reads it.

We cannot have a financially incompetent position where David McNarry tells us that he is going to impose severe cuts, while in another part of North Down his colleague tells us that there will be fewer cuts and more investment. There needs to be some honesty in their position.

I turn to a serious matter, and I declare an interest as an Orangeman and a sir knight. David McNarry raised the issue of the cost of parading. It is regrettable that he is not in the Chamber, because I wanted to reply to his point, and he would not give way earlier. One of the key members of his party, UCUNF, has referred in his blog to the Orange Order having “sociopathic tendencies”. I challenge the Ulster Unionists to tell us today whether they stand by that remark. Is it UCUNF policy that the Orange Order has sociopathic tendencies? If so, the anger that they feel when they describe themselves as angry men is nothing compared to what I heard at lunchtime in my constituency. For the record, the story is in the ‘News Letter’ today. It states that the blog was written by Mr Peel, a Conservative member, who claims that anyone who wishes to join the Orange Order has “sociopathic tendencies”. The Ulster Unionists need to tell us the costs associated with those comments, at a time when people are working extremely hard and there is goodwill on all sides to resolve the parading issue.

I commend the Orange Order for showing real leadership. At a time when members of my party and others are working extremely hard to deal with the costs of parading, we cannot have David McNarry’s Ulster Unionists and Conservatives saying that Orangemen have sociopathic tendencies. Those are costly comments. The Orange Order of Dr Barnardo does not have sociopathic tendencies. An explanation is required. If that member is to be expelled, so be it.

I wish to speak about the all-Ireland economy. I appreciate your laxity, Mr Speaker, in saying that Members can refer to many matters in the debate. Jennifer McCann argued for an all-Ireland economy, and I will attack the argument rather than the person who made it. One should not let the facts get in the way of a good argument, but anyone who argues for an all-Ireland economy is not letting the facts get in the way of a bad argument. It is financially irresponsible to talk of an all-Ireland economy at this time. No economist would agree with the argument, because it is the political equivalent of trying to push water up a hill.

I accept the Member’s point that there must be open minds. However, those open minds should consider the benefit of the power block of the east-west relationship. Our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom is the primary economic block on which to build and take ourselves forward. It will deliver more jobs and sustain more businesses right across Northern Ireland. Indeed, one could argue that it would be better to twin with Greece or Iceland than to have an all-Ireland economy.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I was referred to as Alice in Wonderland earlier, but now I am wondering where the White Rabbit is. Does the Member not agree that, although the economic and social needs of his Strangford constituency are perhaps being met, there are people in areas such as the north-west or north and west Belfast who are unemployed and living in poverty? Those communities have not seen the investment that the Member for Strangford has seen in his constituency. Everybody is asking why we would want to join with an economy that is in such dire straits as the South of Ireland. Is the Member saying that it would have been OK to do it several years ago when the Celtic tiger was in play?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I was in Brussels last Thursday. I saw the heads of state arriving, and I saw the blind panic on their faces at the situation in the euro zone. Is anyone arguing today that we should have placed ourselves in the euro zone? There was fiscal concern and blind panic among those heads of state. I do not want to refer to the Republic of Ireland as a bankrupt country, but that is not far off the mark. People in north and west Belfast and in the west of the Province should look to this Budget, because it delivered a better M2. The east-west economy is a better guarantor of success for those people than an all-Ireland economy.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Is it not as straightforward as this: as a Sinn Féin Member indicated, Northern Ireland can either be incorporated into a population of six million inside the euro debacle, or it can remain among a population of 60 million in the sterling zone, with the stability and democracy that that offers us, inside the European Union but outside the euro debacle?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The Member made his point very well; I cannot add to it.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member reflect on the fact that the argument between the euro zone and the sterling zone is overly simplistic? Does he recall that the UK sterling zone had to have recourse to the International Monetary Fund to address its financial situation in the late 1970s? More recently, Iceland, which is not in the euro zone, had to be bailed out. Greece’s problems were not caused by the euro zone; they were domestic. Rather, the euro zone creates a situation in which all the countries in Europe have to show solidarity and rescue any country that falls.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

My learned friend Mr Farry will agree with me that no one, having considered any reasonable length of time, can argue that tying Northern Ireland’s interests in with the rest of the United Kingdom is to its economic disadvantage compared to having an all-Ireland economy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We are now into the realms of global finance, but, since the Speaker invited Members to be as wide-ranging as possible, I hope that he will indulge us.

Will the Member accept that part of the problem for countries in the euro zone, especially small countries, is that their problems are exacerbated by the fact that being in the euro zone has removed from them many of the levers that a country would normally have to control its own fiscal policy, exchange rate and monetary policy? They are tied into what suits the biggest countries, which often does not suit the smaller countries, and, when one country is hit with a shock that maybe does not affect the other countries, they find that they are very restricted in their movement. Therefore, as my honourable friend argued, having flexibility and independence as a result of being outside the euro zone is a remedy to that problem, whereas being in the euro zone is the cause of the problem.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I can only agree with all those points.

I want to pay tribute to those who spent many hours at Hillsborough. My party leader had six hours’ sleep over six days as he sought agreement. I say to Members: do not make the perfect the enemy of the possible.

We have to show the public the difference that we made to the economy and how we kept it at a point at which everyone in Northern Ireland will have an economic advantage. We have to show how we boosted small businesses and the construction industry, achieved savings through procurement and how one in every two construction jobs is a result of work done in this House. We have to show how our farmers walk away with £300 million from the common agricultural policy and £6·7 million for farm modernisation; how our roads are in a more improved state; and how we have 66 new ambulances on the road and a programme that will deliver new ambulances within five years.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Since the Member is on a list of remedies, will he state what plans he or his party have to redress the imbalance between the public and private sectors? Will he freeze wages, or will he cut jobs?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

With respect, that question has come from a party that has just parroted Ken Clarke. It will cut more jobs, people’s benefits, the Roads Service, the Health Service and the Department for Social Development, and it is now looking for answers. The answers are there if the Member would look at them. The answers are there in the frozen — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The answers are there in the frozen regional rate, the small business rates relief and in RPA, in relation to procurement and human resources functions. The answers are there. The Member might not like it, but this House delivered proper construction jobs for people out there.

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

The Member has detailed places where the answers may well be for his viewing. However, there are no answers in the Hillsborough agreement. There are processes and working groups, but there is no detail. Will the Member point out to me where the answers and the detail are in the Hillsborough Castle Agreement, which OFMDFM is trying to sell across the airwaves?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to sally into the House not having heard any of the debate or discussion and come in here with, allegedly, some advice? The Member just wanders in here, slithers into her chair and gets up and demands to be heard. How outrageous.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I said this morning about how wide the debate may go. However, I also said to Members that it will be vital to try, as far as possible, to stay within the scope of the Bill. The scope has certainly been widened. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

In addition, I am always of the opinion that Members should be in the House for as much of a debate as possible. I know that that is sometimes not easy for Members, but it is important.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I thank you for that clarification. As all Members know, the debate is available for viewing in our own rooms.

Is it in order for the Member opposite to say that a Member “slithers into her chair”?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I always advise Members about their use of language in the House and about tempering their language. I remind the House of the importance of the language that Members use.

We are now close to Question Time.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Further to Lord Morrow’s point of order, it seems to me that the Member responded to a Member who had asked the Member who had the Floor to give way. She then responded to the Member who made the intervention. Is that a correct use of asking a Member to give way?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will move on from that point. [Laughter.]

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I will conclude. The answers that the honourable Member for Upper Bann seeks lie with the Executive, of which her party leader is a member. Her party leader supports and has endorsed the Budget. I assume that Margaret Ritchie can give the honourable Member the answers that she seeks. However, I will give the Member a quick summary. The Executive have a Minister of Finance and Personnel who has delivered for business through the regional rate and rates relief; he has delivered on the review of public administration; he has delivered for the construction industry, the universities and the agriculture industry; he has delivered greater equality for Ulster Scots, which, in the past, was deprived of its fair share of money; and he has delivered for the Health Service and Roads Service. For all those reasons, I commend the Budget and the good stewardship of the Minister of Finance and Personnel to the House.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. As Question Time commences at 3.00 pm, the House may take its ease until that time. When the debate resumes, Mr McLaughlin will be the next Member to speak.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Culture, Arts and Leisure

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

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to provide a brief summary of the projects planned by his Department for the South Down constituency in the 2010-11 financial year, and the total capital investment in these projects. (AQO 764/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Seven separate capital projects are planned for the South Down constituency in the 2010-11 financial year. The total capital investment in the projects that are planned for 2010-11 is £1·518 million. Funding for the arts included the allocation of £600,000 out of a total project investment of £1·2 million to Down District Council for the extension to the Down Arts Centre. An allocation of £80,000 out of a total project investment of £107,000 has been made to the Newcastle Glees Musical Society for the refurbishment of its premises.

Funding for sport included the allocation of £49,000 out of a total project investment of £245,000 to St Malachy’s GAC in Castlewellan for its sports pitch. An allocation of £49,000 out of a total project investment of £245,000 has been made to Drumgath GAC for its sports pavilion. An allocation of £73,500 out of a total project investment of £245,000 has been made to Clonduff GAC for its sports pitch and lights. An allocation of £66,000 out of a total project investment of £220,000 has been made to An Ríocht GAC for its sports pitch. Furthermore, £250,000 out of a total project investment of £5·158 million has been made to Tollymore Mountain Centre for the rebuild of the mountain centre.

Funding for libraries included the allocation of £350,000 out of a total project investment of £1·1 million for a newbuild at Kilkeel library.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. I certainly welcome the level of spending in my constituency. I know that Mr McCausland, since becoming the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, has been out and about and fact-finding in South Down, which I welcome.

Is the Minister aware of the delays that are associated with the development proposals for Bryansford GAC? If not, will he undertake to liaise with his Executive colleague Mr Poots to bring forward the project?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am glad that Mr Bradley noted that I have been in South Down. He very kindly provided me with a tour of the Ross monument in Rostrevor, for which I am grateful.

I can deal only with the funding side of the issue that he raised about the Gaelic football club in Bryansford. I am not familiar with the issue, but I will endeavour to look into it and come back to the Member about the matter.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Why did the Minister’s Department send back £2·5 million in reduced capital requirements in the February monitoring round when projects in South Down and other constituencies that involve grass-roots, community-based sports clubs were ready to spend that money? Could that money not have been re-profiled? How did the Minister magically find £5 million yesterday for the Ulster-Scots broadcasting matter?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I will deal with the last point first. Obviously, Mr McElduff did not bother to listen properly to the news because that money for broadcasting, since it is a reserved matter, is dealt with by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in London. It does not come out of my Department, nor does the money for the Irish-language broadcast fund. All the money for broadcasting comes from the Treasury through DCMS to Northern Ireland Screen, so we will set aside that matter.

The Member quoted a figure of £2·5 million being returned in the current monitoring round. That figure seems to have been quoted quite widely in the media in the context of an event that was organised by Sport Northern Ireland the other day in the Wellington Park Hotel. I will give an example of why such money is returned. Last year, there was an underspend of £722,000, which was part of a £1 million fund for motorsport safety. That sort of situation is totally unacceptable, and I have asked officials to look into that as an example and as a matter of urgency. Most of my Department’s budget is given to arm’s-length bodies. If such bodies cannot deliver with the money that they have, there is a clear problem that I am determined to have addressed.

To take motorsport safety as an example: I have a letter from coroner John Leckey that makes for serious reading. He states, and we agree, that safety is an important issue, but it is the responsibility of a sport’s governing body. However, when almost £750,000 remains unspent, we must have answers. That is an intolerable situation that I am not prepared to permit to continue, and I am sure that the public will not appreciate or tolerate it much either. Therefore, questions will be asked about why some arm’s-length bodies have not managed to spend the money that was given to them by my Department. If they had spent it, we would not be in the position of having an amount of money — £2·5 million in this case — returned in the current monitoring round. I am sure that the Member will accept that I am determined to deal with that issue.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Minister provide a brief written summary of projects that are planned by his Department for my Newry and Armagh constituency, which borders South Down? [Laughter.]

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

All politics is parochial. I have the greatest pleasure in assuring the Member that I will provide the information that he requested.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if his Department has any plans to mark the anniversary of the centenary of Kennedy Kane McArthur’s victory in the 1912 Olympic marathon event. (AQO 765/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am aware of the Member’s enthusiasm for the celebration of the centenary of Kennedy Kane McArthur’s victory in the 1912 Olympic marathon. He has urged Lord Coe to give official recognition to the achievements of Kennedy Kane McArthur as part of the 2012 London Olympics, and all credit to the Member for his determination. He and I met representatives of Dervock and District Community Association and I conveyed my support for its plans to celebrate Kennedy Kane McArthur’s Olympic victory.

To that end, I asked my officials to provide ongoing advice and support to the Dervock and District Community Association on how to become involved with the London 2012 games, to identify avenues for potential grant assistance and to identify potential partners for delivery of its intention to mark the centenary of the Olympic victory. That help has been provided, and, at the stage when the organisers can realise their plans, my Department will provide further support to help them to raise the event’s profile and link it to the London 2012 games.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his interest in the issue. Northern Ireland must honour such events as the centenary of Kennedy Kane McArthur’s win, particularly as it comes up when the Olympic Games will be held in London in our nation. Has the Minister any further suggestions about steps that the Dervock and District Community Association could take to realise its plans to mark the centenary of an achievement by one of our country’s key and important historical figures?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

It is worth noting that Ulster has many black holes in its history — events that get forgotten. That is certainly true in the realm of sport. Therefore, I am pleased that the folk in Dervock and the Member are committed to marking the important centenary. Such events and individuals can be inspirational to today’s young athletes. They create good role models.

As my officials outlined, the organisers should focus their first efforts on partnerships to create a small celebratory exhibition, for which they could apply for a London 2012 Inspire Mark. They could also participate in London 2012’s open weekend, which runs from 23 July to 25 July 2010. Organisers could focus their efforts on producing the documentation that is necessary to apply to the events unit for a grant to fund their half marathon. The award of a London 2012 Inspire Mark would provide the official recognition of Kennedy Kane McArthur that the Member sought from Lord Coe during his recent visit.

Billy Leonard (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister detail the criteria by which the Department assesses or selects past sports achievers? How are those criteria applied across the board?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The campaign is not a departmental initiative. It arose in the community, with the Member’s political support. Therefore, it is not a question of setting criteria. The Member and folk in Dervock came forward with a remarkable and impressive story. As well as being inspirational, McArthur was a very colourful character and a remarkable individual. When identifying key figures, others might follow his example.

When we met London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) representatives, I said that we were keen to see efforts being devoted to looking at Northern Ireland’s sporting history and, perhaps, to creating an Ulster sporting hall of fame, because I am sure that other people who reached a world standard have been forgotten, so it would be good to remember them. I have tasked officials with that work, and, in due course, I will come back to the House on it.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

It is fitting that we remember K K McArthur and other great Irish runners and Olympians, such as Pat O’Callaghan and Bob Tisdall. In the light of London 2012, what plans does the Minister have for, and how much money does he intend to put aside to ensure that we get, elite training facilities for the region? Furthermore, is he in discussions with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland about promoting the potential of athletes who plan to compete in London, be it in an Irish or a Team GB shirt?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member asked first about elite facilities. Work is ongoing to assess a range of sports bodies’ proposals for elite facilities. Recently, I received a paper that gives an indication of the thinking on the current assessment round. Proposals that get through that sift will then require an outline business case, which will take up more time and effort, so the timescale is uncertain. It is easy to erect a facility, but its sustainability is a key consideration. We can all identify sporting facilities, buildings and leisure centres that were provided in the past that may not be fit for purpose now or are proving to be very difficult to sustain. The elite facilities for which there were applications are wide and varied. Some proposals give every indication of stacking up financially and being sustainable, and others may not. It is important that we get the assessment process right, because such projects are not put up simply for the next six months or a year. Their ongoing running costs, from the Exchequer or wherever, is the major issue. Therefore, we would be unwise and foolish to move ahead with them pre-emptively.

The Member will also be aware that there was a difficulty with two applications, resulting in legal proceedings and challenges. Those cases are still being dealt with, which has delayed matters. The delay is not down to anyone in the Depart­ment; the matter was outside our control, and it is still to be fully resolved. However, those cases have been set aside to enable us to proceed with the other applications. That is why we are where we are. We decided to park those cases until they are fully resolved and to move ahead with the others. It would be inappropriate to let those cases hold the others back any further.

I cannot remember the Member’s other question. However, if he gets one question answered, he is doing rightly.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline any research being undertaken by Sport NI into the levels of adult participation in sport and physical activity. (AQO 766/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Sport Northern Ireland is undertaking a large-scale survey into levels of adult participation in sport and physical activity. The survey is being carried out as part of the delivery of ‘Sports Matters: the Northern Ireland Strategy for Sport and Physical Recreation 2009-2019’.

The aim of the survey is to enable comprehensive estimates to be made as to the amount of sport and physical activity that adults in Northern Ireland undertake and how frequently and intensively they do so. As part of the survey, Sport NI will also be gathering information on a range of related issues, including levels of participation among different groups of adults, motivations for participation, reasons for non-participation, club membership, volunteering and coaching. It is expected that the findings will be available in October.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given that the Minister’s Department has announced that sport will be a major loser in the Department’s revised budget expenditure, will the Minister ensure that the specific Programme for Government target for a strategy for sport relating to significantly increasing adult participation in physical activity will not be affected by those cuts? I am particularly concerned, as I am sure the Minister is also, about the impact that the cuts would have on areas of social deprivation.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Quite a bit has been said over the past few days about cuts in funding for sport for the incoming year. Therefore, it will be helpful if I set the record straight on that. Prior to the recent announcement of my Department’s proposed budget for 2010-11, Sport NI’s indicative budget, and I emphasise the word “indicative” — it is purely an indication — for that year was £13 million for resource and £20·8 million for capital. The indicative budget now provides Sport NI with £11 million for resource and £20·3 million for capital. Despite the reduction from the previous indicative budget, that still gives Sport NI an uplift or increase of £2 million in its resource budget compared to the current year. That represents an increase in expenditure for the next year of 23%.

Some people seem to manage, and I do not know how they do it, because they are certainly not using the arithmetic that I learned at school, to turn an increase of 23% into a reduction or a cut, which seems quite remarkable. There is also a £7 million increase in the capital budget above that originally indicated in the comprehensive spending review for 2008-2011. I emphasise that there has been a 23% increase in the resource budget, because I looked at some of the press statements over the past few days from various interviews, and people have been saying that the proposals would mean that 120 local clubs would face the prospect of no funding at all, 50 or more top athletes would not get any financial help, jobs would go, 24 community sports posts would be under threat, including one in the Member’s constituency, and a further five jobs would be lost in schools. However, if there is a 23% increase next year and an uplift and increase of £2 million, I cannot understand why there should be any reductions or job losses at all. It is not as big an increase as we wanted or hoped for, and it is not as big an increase as we anticipated, but it is still an increase.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Has the Minister considered developing any adult-focused sports programme geared at addressing health defects in the adult population as a result of physical inactivity?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

This brings me to the issue of our strategy, which is called Sport Matters. I must point out to the Member that it was approved by the Northern Ireland Executive in December 2009. The strategy looks at how we make sport more effective, how we ensure that there is a cross-departmental approach to it and how we ensure that it is used in addressing issues of health and obesity, which is the sort of thing that the Member was speaking about. The Executive eventually approved the document in December 2009. I hope to publish it in the near future, and I am considering the next steps in taking forward its implementation. To that end, I have written to the Minister for Social Development, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, asking them to nominate a senior official from each Department to join a Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL)-led Sport Matters monitoring group.

It is my intention to chair that monitoring group, which will be expected to oversee the delivery of Sport Matters.

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

The Minister, quite rightly, mentioned the cross-departmental nature of sporting issues. Accepting that participation in exercise starts during childhood and school years, and, hopefully, continues throughout adult life, what conversations, if any, has he had with the Minister of Education with regard to the ongoing delay of the publication of the sport strategy for schools?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member is right to identify the fact that although we were able to proceed on many sporting issues that are solely the preserve of one Department, namely DCAL — we could move ahead on all of those — the fact that Sport Matters was held up for so long affected our ability to get interdepartmental co-operation. That point was not made specifically to the Education Minister, but it was made in a general way on quite a number of occasions. I hope that now that we have reached the point at which it has been approved and is about to be published, we will move quickly towards having the monitoring group in place and will see the results of that in the near future.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Has DCAL or Sport Northern Ireland carried out any other surveys on participation in sport and physical activity by, for example, women, older people, people with disabilities and children?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

DCAL annually runs a module in the continuous household survey, which measures the number of adults who have participated in sport during the previous 12 months. The results are published annually on the DCAL website. Continuous household survey data is available on a wide range of different groups of adults, which includes men, women, older people, people who suffer social or economic deprivation and people with disabilities.

DCAL also ran a module on sport participation in the 2007 young persons’ behaviour and attitudes survey, which was aimed at those aged between 12 and 16 years. We will repeat that module in the 2010 survey. Those results are also published on the DCAL website. In 2009, DCAL carried out research on the impact of the economic downturn on participation and attendance. That publication, which contains the findings from the May 2009 Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency omnibus survey, reports on the impact of the economic downturn on participation in, and attendance at, cultural and leisure activities and events.

Sport Northern Ireland’s existing large-scale adult sport and physical activity survey already looks at a wide range of different groups of adults, which includes men and women, older people, people who suffer social or economic deprivation and people with disabilities. Sport Northern Ireland also plans to undertake further surveys on participation by children and young people as part of its broader research strategy.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what new initiatives and services Libraries Northern Ireland has been able to offer since separation from the education and library boards. (AQO 767/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Libraries Northern Ireland assumed responsibility for the public library service on 1 April 2009. Much of its work during its initial year of operation has focused on strategic issues, such as completing the transfer of responsibilities to Libraries NI and putting in place a framework for effective and efficient delivery of library services; harmonising policies and practices from the five education and library boards to ensure a single coherent service; developing, through public consultation, the future strategic direction of library services for Northern Ireland; and delivering the efficiencies that were projected in the review of public administration by reducing administration costs by £600,000.

Even during its relatively short period of existence, a noticeable improvement to the delivery of library services is evident. For example, Libraries NI has invested more in the library estate in one year than was invested in any previous year. New libraries have opened in Newtownstewart and Antrim. Work on a number of other projects is under way. Libraries NI has increased expenditure in library stock. It is on track to invest £2 per person on stock, which is an increase of more than £1 million from the previous year. It has started a £1 million project called Health in Mind to improve access to information on mental health and well-being.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his reply. What funding has been made available to the Library Service to enhance community participation and training for the elderly in the use of computers?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I have been looking carefully at the draft allocation of Libraries NI’s budget for 2010-11, and we are still looking at that budget. The Member identified certain areas that he sees as priorities, and they are worthwhile initiatives. I will keep those in mind as we look at how Libraries NI sets out its budget for the incoming year. It will put its budget and business plan for the year in front of me, and, at that stage, I will bear in mind the Member’s suggestions.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the positive contribution that libraries and libraries provision can make to those in our communities who are socially and economically disadvantaged, will the Minister assure us that libraries that are in areas of social need will be kept open following the current review?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

A strategic review is being undertaken, particularly on the Belfast estate. I assume that the Member is referring to that area. The board of Libraries NI is carrying out a public consultation on a strategic review of the library service in the greater Belfast area. The Libraries NI board agreed unanimously to carry out that consultation. The Libraries NI board includes elected councillors from the Member’s party, the SDLP, my party and the Ulster Unionist Party. No final decisions have been made, and I encourage anyone with an interest in the Belfast public library service to participate in the consultation. The consultation process has been extended until 5 April 2010 to give communities that are concerned about developments or who have suggestions for improvements a good opportunity to input fully into the process.

Libraries NI has undertaken that review to improve services. It is not about saving money; it is about providing a better service. Any savings that are made in the review will allow better allocation of existing resources in library stock, longer opening hours, other library services and more outreach services.

One example of good practice is the Grove Wellbeing Centre in north Belfast. That centre is in an area that is recognised as being socially disadvantaged. In that community, the new provision has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of people who are registering as library users and in the number of books that are being borrowed. The important factor relates not so much to buildings as to getting people to use libraries. The more that libraries are used and the more people who read and borrow books, the better it will be for that community, for literacy and for the social benefits that flow from library usage. I am sure that the Member will agree that increased usage has to be a priority. In recent years, there has been a steady decline in the use of libraries, not only in the city but across the United Kingdom. We want to see that situation reversed, and the success of that is dependent on having better services that will attract people.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá ceist agam don Aire faoi leabharlanna Thuaisceart Éireann agus faoi chúrsaí oidhreachta.

The Minister will be aware that the legislation that set up Libraries Northern Ireland has a heritage brief for Libraries Northern Ireland. Will the Minister explain why Libraries Northern Ireland has delayed in acting upon the heritage brief, especially when specialist libraries, such as the Irish and Local Studies Library in Armagh, are uncertain about their future? Will the Minister assure me that the heritage brief of Libraries Northern Ireland will be presented to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure without further delay?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Minister, you may answer any or all of those questions.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member will be aware that I was a member of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure when the Libraries Bill was going through the Assembly and the Committee. He will also recognise that I was one of the Committee members who pressed most strongly for heavy emphasis to be placed on cultural heritage, particularly that of Northern Ireland. I have spoken to the chief librarian and to others, including the chairperson of Libraries NI, about the matter. They are conscious of the issue.

They recognise the important role of libraries in relation to cultural heritage. We should bear in mind that the organisation was established only on 1 April 2009, but it is considering the matter and treating it seriously.

I have no doubt that if the Committee were to contact Libraries NI, it would be more than happy to come to make a presentation. It is a valuable area of work because it helps to build a sense of social cohesion and a shared and better future. Libraries can play an important role in that. I am sure that the Member will support me in emphasising that point to Libraries NI, because it is fully committed to the matter.

Executive Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I do not wish to speak at any great length on the motion. Other Members have demonstrated an impressive capacity to do so, but I do not share the assumption that sufficient anoraks exist in society to follow such extensive outpourings.

The context in which we are discussing the Budget Bill has already been set out, and it has been largely uncontested during the debate. The consequences of global economic downturns, the range of reliefs on rates on water, the inability to dispose of surplus land assets because of market conditions and the imposition of efficiency costs by Westminster are obvious to all Members. However, should the Assembly simply manage the impact of the changed economic circumstances or should we respond with confidence, imagination and innovation?

In Jonathan Bell’s contribution, he effectively set out how Departments are utilising the funds available to them to invest in quality services, and so forth. However, the financial reach of Executive resources is clearly finite. Nevertheless, there is the ability to continue to address the agreed Programme for Government targets, although people would not know that from the local media as there appears to be a general commitment to engender a sense of failure and pessimism. When I hear some of those comments, I am reminded of David Ervine’s words in the Chamber when he said that many people in society were clairvoyant and could see the future, and it was all bad. He was mainly referring to the unionist community, although it struck a chord across the board. However, I do not agree.

I welcome the Departments’ disposition in delivering on their briefs within the Budget constraints and the available resources as a first step in defending what is happening here and explaining it in greater detail. That is why I am bemused by today’s criticism of the proposal to explain to people the details of the Hillsborough agreement. We should not be afraid to inform people, and we should not be afraid of informed debate.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member accept that it would have been a good idea to have had all parties involved in the Hillsborough agreement and not just two of them?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I am quite certain that all the parties were at Hillsborough. I am also quite certain that a range of discussions and topics were processed and that all parties were involved. I do not argue that the procedures that we are devising in the developing political process are perfect, and I accept that they can be improved. I accept that if there is angst or resentment that the processes are not sufficiently inclusive, that should be addressed. I also accept that efforts to resolve difficult issues require concentrated focus, which perhaps narrows down the range of participation. However, I absolutely accept the general principle that the Member addresses. We should continue to address the challenges and deficiencies.

There were some interesting responses from across the Chamber when Jennifer McCann introduced the issue of the Barnett formula, and I found myself almost responding to those responses in the same knee-jerk fashion. To argue that it is dangerous to review the Barnett formula at the current time is only one perspective on what is a challenge for the Assembly as a whole. The reality is that Barnett is already being reviewed by the Treasury and Whitehall, and they have set the terms of reference for that review. Are we expected to sit back and accept its outcome, or can we engage with it, perhaps to our advantage, if only to debunk some of the misapprehensions?

I have been at close quarters to the Treasury. I was part of an all-party delegation that sat across the table from Treasury officials whose basic starting point was that they were giving too much financial assistance to this region. To leave those officials with that impression would be a strategic mistake. All parties must engage with the Treasury to demonstrate that we have confidence, imagination and valid opinions about what would work in this region and what is important.

The real question is whether people in this region, and the Chamber, begin with a view that the Barnett formula is fair to the North, and I suspect that many feel that it is not. Most of the MLAs who have engaged in the discussion around the Barnett formula have acknowledged that Departments are struggling with the reality of budget deficits, just as they were struggling in the more benign economic circumstances in 2008, before the restoration of devolution. We had a very ambitious Programme for Government, and, before that, we had a broader range of issues that Members and parties wanted to address.

Those issues were narrowed down, refined and tailored to suit the available resources during the budgetary discussions, but that does not mean that we reached a consensus that we had sufficient resources to begin with. As I have said before in the Chamber, we had to cut our coats to suit the cloth that was available. Whether we continue with that unequal struggle or examine ways of supplementing the block grant or available revenues to address the range of services to which our people are entitled is a question that can become a unifying influence in an Assembly that has seen many examples of discord and a lack of co-ordination.

In the budgetary discussion during the preparation for Government process, a consensus emerged among Members that the Barnett formula was intrinsically flawed. If we are afraid to admit that now, in the aftermath of devolution, what do Members think the attitude of the Treasury will be to such a lack of self-confidence and demonstration of dependency? Do they believe that the Treasury will be impelled to greater generosity? I suspect not; rather it will see this region, the Executive and the parties in it as a soft touch. We must address that by being more forthright in exercising our challenge function and in expressing our view that the Barnett allocation is insufficient to provide the quality of service that is available in other regions in the Whitehall domain.

Today’s proposals by the Northern Ireland Economic Reform Group in relation to corporation tax are interesting, because they also highlight the issue of consensus. There is a consensus among all Members of the all-party delegation that met Gordon Brown and his Treasury advisers that a corporation tax adjustment is necessary here.

That consensus was an important and encouraging development. It was not a starting point for my party, but it was recognition across the board that we had to engage with Gordon Brown and his advisers to demonstrate our ability to agree on what we felt was required to help with the number one priority of rebuilding the economy.

The ability of all parties to address an important platform issue on which they would all agree, and that they would all agree to prosecute, was an important example that we should carry forward. The fact that Gordon Brown and his advisers deflected, and, indeed, rejected, that approach is neither surprising nor as strategically relevant as the fact that the Assembly has given every indication since then of having thrown in the towel on the issue. That has been a huge mistake.

The threat to our economic well-being is of sufficient importance to command new initiatives and a return to achieving all-party mandates. I am responding in part to the point made by Basil McCrea. We should tackle the present-day problems with the same approach that we took in the period immediately before the restoration of devolution.

It may be of some interest to the Minister if I suggest that there may be scope to develop an approach to the economy: perhaps a subcommittee with clear terms of reference that could draw on the experience of the Assembly parties and key stakeholders such as business, further and higher education, the social-economy sector, the community and voluntary sector and the trades union movement. The challenge is to respond rather than to manage.

Some Members referred to the Bain report, about which I will make some comments. There was also a reference to the very interesting concept of invest to save; it is interesting even in combination. The Minister referred to the spectacle of civil servants passing each other in cars, buses and trains on their way to work; that is not a valid response to the intrinsic value of local, subregional economies being allowed to develop and grow through a concentrated and committed policy of relocation or decentralisation.

Mr O’Loan, who is not in his place, referred to Workplace 2010, the collapse of which leaves the Executive with the challenge of addressing substandard — and, in some instances, below substandard — Civil Service accommodation. However, that setback should be turned into a comeback. We should attempt to address the imperative requirement of addressing Civil Service accommodation through a process that allows us to open our minds to the possibility and benefits — cost and otherwise — of developing Civil Service accommodation in areas outside what might be regarded as the centre of government or the clusters around the centre of government.

This is a small region, and it is perfectly within our capacity, and in the spirit of value for money and invest to save, to look beyond east and south Belfast as options for the location of government offices. It also makes environmental common sense, as it would lead to reduced travel times and less motorised transportation on our roads.

Jennifer McCann drew attention to the equality issue, particularly in relation to gender, and I support the points that she made. I have had discussions with senior civil servants who had to decline opportunities for advancement because it would have meant separation from their families and relocating to offices in Belfast. That was an injustice to them, and it has done a disservice to us, because those were capable civil servants with enormous potential and experience, but because of the glass ceiling, they were, in effect, discriminated against.

The onus remains on the Assembly to demonstrate that we can deal not with the consequences of our own failure but with the failure that developed over many decades and that will not be resolved overnight. Unquestionably, a pattern of discrimination emerged that has resulted in long-standing patterns of regional disparity and some hot spots of social and economic disadvantage that are difficult to resolve. We have to start somewhere if we are to resolve that in the long term, and an opportunity exists through the way in which the Executive distribute the benefits and advantages that flow from relocation and having government go into those areas to provide opportunity and important impetus to the subregional economy.

My main thesis is that the political and economic crisis must be responded to. All elected representatives should work in collaboration and agreement with one other on the delivery of robust and sustainable government. Our realistic and pragmatic approach to the Budget should not be the only demonstration of our ability to manage our own affairs. We must demonstrate that that we are looking not only at new ways of working with one other but at delivering quality, robust, sound and sustainable government.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Some lengthy contributions have been made, particularly this morning, but my contribution will not be quite as lengthy — it certainly will not be as technical — as some of those speeches. A colleague said that the Members who speak earliest are often the anoraks, and I will make a point of not falling out with the wrong people in case I am appointed to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for the next year.

The Speaker was brave when he said that he would allow latitude in the debate for Members to speak on whatever issue they want, and David McNarry certainly took that opportunity. My colleague Jonathan Bell said that he contrasted the view of one side of the Ulster Unionist Party with the view of the other side of the Ulster Unionist Party. One view of David McNarry could also be contrasted with the other view of David McNarry. He talked about trying to be friends with, and about building better relations with, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, yet he came out with unsavoury, unparliamentary language to Members on the DUP Benches, both during and after his speech. I hope that the Speaker will look at his comments.

Mr McNarry made many comments at the start of his speech about the Hillsborough agreement. I look forward to our having a debate on that issue in the House. Today is not the time to do that, so I will not go on to use this occasion to discuss it, but I look forward to having a real debate in the Assembly on the Agreement at Hillsborough Castle in the coming weeks. It was also strange that Mr McNarry seemed to take a negative attitude towards the fact that the Parades Commission will be abolished at the end of the year. I am not sure that too many members of the Loyal Orders throughout Northern Ireland will share either that view or his love of the Parades Commission.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Is it not the case that the position of the Ulster Unionists and Conservatives, as expressed by Owen Paterson, the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is that the Parades Commission should remain?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. In recent weeks, we have heard suggestions that some members of the Ulster Unionist Party have been travelling across the country and suggesting likewise. That will be met with concern by members of the unionist community.

One positive point during Mr McNarry’s speech was the intervention from my colleague the Member for East Antrim Sean Neeson. I hope that Hansard staff picked up on his witty retort, because it deserves to have been noted.

It is clear that today’s economic circumstances are different from those that existed when the Budget and the investment strategy were drawn up. However, at that time, when devolution was returned, the Executive put growing the economy at the heart of the Budget. The economy is vital to the future of Northern Ireland. Declan O’Loan argued that the entire Budget and Programme for Government should be scrapped and started again.

Even if our opinions on how we should address those issues differ, the one thing that we can agree on is that the economy should still be very much at the centre of what the Executive and the Assembly do. In that sense, we got it absolutely right when we made the economy our number one priority.

These arguments are a bit old. We have had them before, and we will have them again. The Minister mentioned that the in-year monitoring process has been useful in allowing for adjustments and reallocation of finances to be made during the year to the tune of around £1 billion. In-year monitoring allows for flexibility, and it has been used to good effect over recent years.

Whenever we discuss issues such as this, it is important that we have mature debates. With the exception of a few Members’ contributions, today’s debate has, by and large, been just that. In the early days of devolution — the party that I am mostly talking about is not actually represented here at the moment — countless motions were tabled that called for the Executive to bring forward one priority or another. Had those sorts of motions been agreed to, the entire block budget would have been spent within a fortnight of devolution returning. It is important that we take these debates seriously, that we recognise that we do not have bottomless pits of money to throw around the place and that we need to treat the issues in question with a level of maturity.

Previous Budget debates over the years have been renowned for Members standing up and reeling off a list of pet projects in their constituencies. Again, Members have shown a level of maturity today by not doing that. Given that the Minister and I both represent East Antrim, he will be well aware of anything that is on my list. One of the constituency issues that I raised during our first Budget debate was the A8 road. I am pleased that progress has now been made on that issue and that commuters will have safer journeys and quicker travel times between Belfast and Larne. That is good not only for the East Antrim constituency but for the whole of Northern Ireland. That is positive. I noted that the Minister said yesterday that the new road means that he will be able to have a few extra minutes in bed in the mornings. Given his lack of sleep during the Hillsborough negotiations, he probably deserves that more than the rest of us.

There are many things that we would want to do if we had bottomless pits of money. We could scrap student fees or extend free public transport, but to talk about doing that would be to engage in fantasy politics. As I said, today’s debate has been more mature, because Members realise that we cannot allow for such luxuries in the current economic climate. The reality is that finances are tight. Over recent years, the Executive have committed vast sums of money to certain projects. The Civil Service equal pay claim and the continued deferral of water charges, which were perhaps mentioned more today than yesterday, are massive commitments for the public purse. I listened to some Members today and yesterday say that we should consider changing our view on water rates. Given the tough economic circumstances that people in Northern Ireland face, I think that the Executive made the right decision in deferring water charges. Many people have lost their jobs, and, consequently, their finances are tighter than ever. It is not the right time for the Executive to ask householders to pay water charges. Therefore, the Executive’s decision was the right one. There was also a huge investment of around £22·3 million in the Bombardier CSeries project to secure the economy and safeguard jobs. That showed that this part of the world can deliver such projects. Again, such investments are very important.

My colleague Jonathan Bell talked about the decision that was taken at the beginning of this mandate to freeze the regional rate and about the effect that that had on small businesses in his Strangford constituency. He will be aware that businesses across the Province are still operating today because of such decisions. It is important that we highlight some of the positive things that have come from the Assembly. Although some members of the media are always negative about what the Assembly has achieved, I think that we can quite rightly be proud of the achievements that I mentioned.

I wish to address briefly some of the challenges that various Departments face. I will focus primarily on those Departments on whose Statutory Committees I sit. I know that the various Chairpersons who spoke yesterday discussed much of this, but I wish to examine briefly some of the issues that face the scrutiny Committees on which I sit.

The Education Department is clearly one of the biggest spenders in the Assembly. For the future of the economy, it is vital that children have the best possible start in life. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that the money going to that Department is spent wisely. Members across the House are genuinely concerned that that money is perhaps not being spent as wisely as it should be.

Budget constraints have led to some uncertainty for those schools that were hoping for new buildings this year or next year. In my constituency, schools in Islandmagee and Larne were looking forward to newbuilds, but that is now very uncertain. When officials came to the Education Committee, as other members of the Committee will know, they ruled out newbuilds totally, saying that no new schools would be built this year or next year. However, when the Minister came to the Committee, she publicly contradicted her officials and said that that decision had not yet been made.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I see from the budget figure on the capital programme for schools that the level of spend is going down by roughly 10%. Clearly, that will have an implication on capital spend. However, the lack of information emanating from the Department of Education on the capital school building situation is deeply disturbing and very worrying for Members and for their constituencies. Only today, I was given the nebulous answer that the situation is being looked at. Does the Member agree that, in any form of capital build, there is a need for a level of certainty, and that the Department of Education’s dragging its feet on indicating how its budget on capital build will be allocated is deeply undermining confidence in the sector?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely, and that is the point that I was making. There is uncertainty, and that is not helped by the fact that when the Minister does come to the Education Committee, she sings a different song to that of her officials. That is something that all Committee members have expressed concern about, and it is a deep concern for those schools expecting newbuilds this year or next year.

Earlier, I mentioned how, in these sorts of debates, it is always tempting for Members to raise their pet projects, but I will resist at this stage. We are aware that one of the Minister of Education’s pet projects is Irish-medium education. There is a concern that perhaps she will divert funding towards that medium rather than towards other areas in which significantly more children are educated. For example, the need for funding for primary schools is a great concern, and I am sure that Members across the House will have been contacted by local primary schools that are very concerned that they are not getting the level of funding that they need. One of the biggest issues — it has certainly filled my mailbox in the past few months, and, I am sure, those of other Members — and one which has been looked at seriously by the Education Committee is that of special educational needs. That is a massive issue for the public, and one which must receive adequate funding. It is important that the money that the Education Minister gets is allocated to the right areas and to the areas in which it will make the biggest difference.

Another point that was raised today by my colleague from Strangford, and which was raised yesterday by the Alliance Member for Lagan Valley, Mr Lunn, is the concern around the attempt to withdraw funding from prep schools. The Education Minister will find that it is not quite as easy to do that as she hopes. It has not yet sunk in for the Minister that the changes made under the St Andrews Agreement mean that she cannot go off and make solo runs and that she needs Executive approval for cross-cutting and novel ideas. The Minister will find that more difficult to implement than she previously thought.

The ePIC issue, which has come up in the Environment Committee, has, over the past number of years, been quite a considerable financial drain, with millions of pounds being spent on it. Members of the Environment Committee went to Scotland to see a similar project. We hope that our version will be more successful, because, on the day that we went over for a demonstration, the whole system crashed and did not work at all. However, projects such as that will, hopefully, be of benefit to constituents in the future.

We are all very aware that the number of major planning applications has fallen in recent years, which, again, impacts on the amount of resource coming back into the Department.

The Environment Committee is also looking at the challenges that local government reform will bring. There will be a debate on that issue in the House next week.

I am also a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee. We hope that no additional resources will be needed in the next year for issues that that Committee deals with, because that would mean that we would have a lot more work to do and that more complaints had been made about the conduct of Assembly Members. There is a serious point on that issue, because, over the past number of years, quite a few frivolous complaints have been made against Members, and they eat up the time of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards and cost a considerable amount of money that could be spent elsewhere.

The global downturn has had a local impact. When we talk about the global downturn and the global financial crisis, it is probably the local impact that hits us harder than anything. In my constituency, there were job losses at FG Wilson, which is a major employer not only in Larne but in the surrounding area. There were considerable job losses at Nortel in Monkstown, and the recent announcement by Avaya that more jobs may go is of deep concern to local representatives and to those who are employed there and their families.

We know that the Executive are limited in what they can do in such situations. It is not the role of a Government to create jobs; their role is to create an environment in which jobs can be created through investment, foreign or otherwise, and in which the circumstances are right for entrepreneurs to start businesses and create employment. In that role, the Enterprise Minister and Invest NI should be congratulated on their efforts, particularly with regard to the situation in Monkstown. Last week or the week before, the MLAs for East Antrim were invited to a meeting with the Enterprise Minister, at which she explained the efforts that she has made to save some of those jobs.

The situation is very difficult. Members of the public do not always understand that and are often quick to blame the politicians, even when businesses are acting in bad faith. It is important that the Executive make every effort to save the jobs that are under threat, so that we do not have hundreds more people out of work in the Monkstown area.

One important action that the Executive can take in such situations is to ensure that investment continues to help those who have recently lost their job to help them to train and to get the skills that they require to find other work or that they will require when there is an upturn in the economy and more jobs are available. It is important that the Minister for Employment and Learning continues to fund those training projects, and I hope that he will. We heard about the vast number of young people in our community who are out of work. We should all be concerned about that. We want to see as many of those individuals as possible brought into training and, ultimately, employment.

Over the past number of days, we have heard how the global economic downturn has impacted on all Governments across Europe and the world, and we have had quite a debate about its impact on the Government in the Irish Republic. That does not seem to have put off some Members who have legitimate political aspirations to join the Irish Republic. The financial difficulties in which that country finds itself have not put off those Members from wanting to link our fortunes to those of that country in the future.

Over recent years, we have also had significant difficulties when looking at the assets that we own. Part of the Executive’s Budget was based on revenue from asset sales, but, given the property crash and everything else in recent years, we are not getting as much revenue as we had anticipated. Again, that brings challenges and means that there are difficult decisions to take.

In recent weeks, I have heard some Members say — in the Canteen and elsewhere — that they would not like to be Sammy Wilson and to have to make a Budget in the current economic climate. Those Members miss the point: this is not just a difficult time for the Finance Minister; it is a difficult time for the whole Executive and the whole Assembly. The Budget has been agreed by the Executive, and all Members have a duty to make an input to help to find the right approach for Northern Ireland. It is also important that all Departments take some pain in finding the savings. We simply cannot pass on the responsibility to ratepayers; that is an irresponsible approach for government to take.

I am concerned when some Members talk about wanting the Assembly to have tax-raising powers, because politicians are not talking about lowering taxes.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way in a second. Politicians are not talking about lowering taxes; they are talking about raising taxes. Every instinct in my body is to avoid government that simply increases the tax burden on people and raises taxes.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the Member agree that it is the issue of tax-varying powers that has been raised during the debate? The British Treasury raises taxes at the moment anyway.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes. However, if the Assembly obtains such powers, I very much doubt whether Members will want to reduce taxes for the general public. They will only want to increase them. I do not want to promote the sort of politics that just raises taxes for individuals before the Executive take the difficult decisions to find the efficiencies themselves. In recent months, we have debated tax-varying powers. If those powers came to the Assembly, that would impact on the money that we receive from the Treasury. The matter has been argued in detail in recent times.

Over the past couple of days, some Members have suggested that an all-Ireland approach is the solution to all financial difficulties. In fact, the same Members say that an all-Ireland approach may be the solution to global warming or to a range of other issues. I am not entirely sure that businesses in Newry and other border towns agree with that approach, because, in recent times, businesses in those areas have benefited from the fact that the border exists rather than lost out because of it.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the Member agree that a joined-up approach on infrastructure already exists for investment north and south? Moreover, there is already a cross-border approach to stimulating innovation in research and development. Furthermore, does he agree that co-ordinated delivery of services in areas such as education and health would be more efficient, provide more value for money and, therefore, be beneficial to the economy?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

There is a difference between an all-Ireland economy and co-operation between the two jurisdictions in this part of the world. I will return to that issue in a moment.

Regardless of all those issues, we must recognise that there are tougher times ahead and that, irrespective of whether the Labour Party — unlikely as that is — or the Conservative Party provides the next Government in Westminster, there will be large cuts to the Budget and to the Northern Ireland Budget. That will raise challenges for us and will mean that we must find huge savings. That is a challenge for all of us.

The Member has just mentioned an all-Ireland economy, and the issue comes down to cross-border structures versus cross-border co-operation. The current Finance Minister has been working with his counterpart on issues such as the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). In his previous role, as Environment Minister, he worked with his counterpart in the Irish Republic on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. That highlights that the DUP is in favour of co-operation that is beneficial to both jurisdictions. However, we have some difficulty with the amount of wastage and bureaucracy in some existing cross-border structures.

Last year, I spoke during a debate in the House on the cross-border structures and bodies that were set up as part of the Belfast Agreement. Questions have been asked about whether all those structures and the bureaucracy that comes with them is entirely necessary to facilitate good and proper co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic. During previous debates, the Finance Minister said that he will talk to his counterparts in the Irish Republic about important issues and that he has no difficulty picking up the phone to talk to individuals or to organise meetings. That is a much better way to do things than to have the forced North/South structures, with all the money that is spent on them. [Interruption.]

I will give way to the Member now.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Although I neither agree nor disagree with the Member about the bureaucracy in the cross-border bodies, given that they are relatively small, does he agree that there is bureaucracy, duplication and wastage in our local systems? Does he share my concern about that, or is he concerned just about the cross-border bodies?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I share those concerns. Where efficiency savings are to be made, they should be made at every level. Certain Departments in Northern Ireland should also be making efficiency savings. However, when the Irish Government were seeking significant savings, the first place they looked was the North/South bodies. They identified that huge sums of money were being pumped into those bodies, and, having asked whether such spending was necessary, they determined that it was not. Nationalist Members in particular seem to be wedded to the North/South structures, so there is a challenge for them to see whether we can have relationships with the Irish Government other than those through the structures that are using up huge amounts of money and bureaucracy.

During questions for oral answer to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister yesterday, a Sinn Féin Member, I think, raised the issue of an all-island civic forum. The Civic Forum that we had in Northern Ireland provided no tangible benefit to the people, and huge sums of money were pumped into it for no benefit at all. I do not believe that it should come back, and I certainly do not believe that it should be expanded into an all-Ireland body, given that we are in difficult enough times.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel said yesterday that he did not want to sound like a populist. The Minister could be accused of many things, but being populist is not one of them. He said that there were savings to be found here, which goes back to Dr McDonnell’s point: if efficiency savings are to be found in Northern Ireland, we should look here first. We can look at the Assembly itself, but I know that that approach has been criticised in some quarters as a party political tactic that would work to the advantage of the Democratic Unionist Party. Since 1998, when this place was established, we have been saying that there are too many Members in the Assembly and too many Departments and that we want to reduce the numbers of both. Other parties are hearing that message and can see that there are savings to be made in that area. It is not just a question of financial savings; there is the added benefit of such a reduction resulting in more efficient government by streamlined Departments. We should consider that, because we need to find efficiencies wherever we can.

Today and in previous debates, Members have focused on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety because of the massive efficiency savings that it is required to make. We know about the huge levels of bureaucracy and wastage in that Department. For example, even last year in a response to a question for oral answer, the Assembly was told about how much money was wasted on simple things such as missed appointments. If steps can be taken to reduce the number of appointments that are lost through people not turning up or forgetting about them, we should take them.

More recently, the swine flu issue caused huge financial pressures, and through Assembly questions we have determined that some 60% of the vaccines that were bought to combat swine flu have not been used and are sitting on the shelf. Questions must be asked about how much money the Minister spent on those vaccines and whether the information on which he based his decisions was entirely accurate, given that, at the time, a number of experts warned him against such measures. The fact that 60% of the vaccines have not been used and the threat of swine flu was not as bad as some people had determined should be an issue of concern. The Minister refused to answer my Assembly questions about the money that was spent on the swine flu episode, but that is probably more to do with the protection of the pharmaceutical companies, who have benefited most. We have had debates about the need for that Department to make efficiency savings, and Mr Farry highlighted the lack of movement by the Health Minister and his Department.

Efficiency savings need to be made across the board, and, although this debate gives Members an opportunity to say what they want money to be spent on, it is an occasion for us to be serious about finding ways to find greater efficiencies by examining the use of our Budget to ensure that people get value for money. Ultimately, it is the people whom we represent who will get the benefit of the Budget.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I approached the Speaker at 2.00 pm today to enquire as to whether there would be a problem with my speaking to ‘Stormont Live’ at 2.30 pm. I need not have worried, because Mr Ross had yet to speak. For a man who started his diatribe by saying that he would not take long, to reach half an hour is something of a record. Mr Ross had much to say, but little of it was of any substance.

Important things need to be said on the Budget. There have been interesting contributions from Members that warrant discussion. One of the key points that Dr Farry made was on the need to take tough decisions. I am disappointed that he is not in the Chamber, although I understand why. He used the phrase “political kamikaze”. I ask Mr Bell, who is of course leaving the Chamber, whether he would support job cuts or wage freezes. What action would he take to meet the inevitable reduction in public finances to which Mr Ross referred? The simple fact is that discussions will have to happen among parties. There are tough issues for us to struggle with. There is much discussion in the Chamber about a shared future but relatively little discussion about shared responsibility.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel states that this is an Executive Budget and that no party can disagree with it. It may surprise people to learn that none of the four parties in the Executive, as well as the fifth party that is trying its damnedest to get into it, can say that it does not agree with the Budget. I agree with the Minister on that. Therefore, I wonder why we spend so long debating the issues. It comes back to the way in which modern politics has evolved, where, true to form, Mr Bell and Mr Ross claim the credit for everything that has happened, whether they were personally responsible or not. However, where blame is to be laid, it is to be laid anywhere but at their feet. It is no wonder then that the people of Northern Ireland look at their political class in dismay. They can no longer trust what is said, because it is all PR spin. It is all about how a situation is managed. I find that disgraceful.

I am prepared, as a Member of this Assembly, to engage in generous and genuine discussion. I am disappointed that Mitchel McLaughlin has left the Chamber. Perhaps his colleagues will relay to him that I noted the generosity of his comments, and I heard him say that, if there are issues of inclusivity to be addressed, we should address them. The Ulster Unionist Party has made no secret of the fact that it does not feel part of the Executive and that the Executive do not take notice of what we have to say. The logical conclusion of what I said about supporting the Minister of Finance —

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Of course.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member says that the Executive do not listen. Does he include his party’s member on the Executive in what he says, or is he excluded from criticism?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am grateful to the Member for his intervention, because —

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

Two members.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes, we have two members on the Executive. As usual, I have got the SDLP to do the counting for me. That is tremendous.

I will respond to Mr McCann. The Assembly needs an opposition. If we cannot resolve our issues in an Executive, my contention is that we should have at least a two-party coalition run this place. If parties on the Executive do not accept our contribution, do not want our input and do not want inclusivity, the four-party coalition arrangement is nonsense, and there should be an opposition. Perhaps that answers the Member’s question. [Interruption.]

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I appreciate the fact that the Member comes to the House and sincerely tries and that he becomes exasperated when he is not listened to. However, does he not accept that the structures of the House are the result of what his party and his mathematician friends in the SDLP constructed —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. The Speaker started the debate by saying that he would allow a good deal of latitude. However, there is latitude, and then there is latitude. We have moved away from the Budget debate altogether. I ask the Member to return to the motion.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

In addressing the Budget, there is a question of political stability. Political stability is important for investment; nothing frightens off investment more than political instability. Discussions about potential unity between various parties are ongoing. There is an issue of whether we can agree on a set of principles, values and policies and find a common way forward. However, I hear Members saying, in effect, that their idea is right and that others are wrong. Unless we create some form of corporate governance that shares responsibility, we will be unable to take the tough decisions that need to be taken.

The need to raise taxes has been mentioned. Some Members, such as Mitchel McLaughlin, have said that we ought to do something about corporation tax. A simple answer might be to vary corporation tax or even reduce it to zero, but I do not know whether people would find that acceptable. However, £250 million would have to be taken off the block grant; Members can make up the difference as they see best.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member makes the point that a reduction in corporation tax would result in a reduction in the block grant. Does he not accept that that does not mean that he has split the atom today? It was a key element of the Azores ruling of the European Court of Justice. There were three components to that ruling, one of which was that there must be a commensurate reduction in assistance to match the benefit of the reduction in corporation tax. The Member’s suggestion is in no way new, novel or unique.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I accept that the principle was outlined in the Azores ruling. My point is that every action has consequences. To have a proper debate on the issue, all eventualities must be taken into consideration.

People have asked what it will take for the people of Northern Ireland to become interested in politics. If the Assembly were to decide to raise taxes, that would certainly get people interested in politics and concentrate minds.

I am pleased to see Mr O’Loan back in the Chamber. He asked whether we should increase rates, bring in water rates and so on. Is he not aware of the pressure that many working and non-working people are under? The private sector is experiencing wage reductions, while the fundamentals in this place carry on unchallenged. Two thirds of our economy is based in the public sector, but no one challenges that fact. No one gets to grips with that, because it would be political suicide to do so.

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

I do not know whether I have understood the Member correctly. I am surprised that he seems to be saying that I called for an increase in rates. He either misheard me or is confusing me with a Member who sits closer to him in the Chamber than I do.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am grateful to the Member for that clarification. However, my question stems from what the Member said about Greece. What would happen if an attempt to take tougher action, as suggested by others in the euro zone, were to lead to civil unrest? If we were to exert similar pressure, how would he deal with any resulting unrest? Only by reaching agreement as an all-party coalition, which the Executive are supposed to be, can we take decisions to tackle the inequalities and inefficiencies in the system. It is not right for people to go into their baronial castles and lob missiles at other Ministers. Decisions have to be made.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am getting to the stage when I cannot take any more, but —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We are all probably getting to that stage, Basil. I am listening to what Basil McCrea is saying, particularly about the Executive. I thought, perhaps naively, that the Programme for Government, the investment strategy and, particularly, the Budget were founded on unanimous decisions by the Executive.

What Basil has not taken on board — it comes up in every debate on the Budget or the monitoring rounds — is that all Ministers and Departments take some pain. I have heard constituents talk about the immaturity of people in this place and their inability to agree, and I have no doubt that the Member’s constituents say much the same. However, his party’s Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is a prime example. That Minister’s performance when dealing with budgets leads those constituents to think that we are not mature enough to agree, never mind deliver.

I do not expect Basil to agree with my next point, but I will make it nonetheless. I believe that Basil’s comments are genuine. However, rather than lecturing the rest of us about maturity and good governance, he needs to have that conversation within his party. To me and most other Members, good governance means agreeing a Budget. It also means recognising that, somewhere down the line, we will all have to experience some pain, although not necessarily through the loss of front line jobs. I do not agree with the Member’s position on the public sector, particularly on health.

Basil needs a hug, because he is getting extremely exercised about the debate. All joking aside, however, time and time again we hear talk about good governance and the construction of the Executive; I find that a bit rich. The Member should have a chat with his party colleagues first.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you for that short, sharp intervention.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am pleased to hear that at least some people are listening to what I say, rather than to what they think that I should be saying. I have not included certain issues in my speech today. Perhaps the Member thinks that I should mention the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety amongst others. I am clear that, when the lack of money creates problems, hard decisions will have to be taken. All Ministers must take collective responsibility, including the UUP’s Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and Minister for Employment and Learning. I do not know whether the Member misheard me, but I agree with her on that issue.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in his summation, whether the Minister of Education is happy with the cuts that have been put to her Department. Other Members spoke about the difficulties that we face. As I understand it — I am open to correction — we spent £250 million on capital expenditure last year.

This year, that was reduced to £170 million. I have been told that, because of the failure of the framework contracts and the inability to use the PPP, there is zero free money available for capital expenditure. I am told by the Department that that is what that means. There is only £30 million left for minor works against a backlog of £240 million. Our schools are falling apart. Perhaps the Minister of Finance and Personnel will clarify for me whether that situation is acceptable to the Minister of Education. Many people in schools are unhappy with that situation.

People talk to me about the revenue side of the Department of Education, but there is £100 million worth of cuts to be made: that is what we are facing. Given that 75% to 80% of the education budget is spent on labour, how can such cuts be made without imposing wage cuts or redundancies? Is this an Executive decision? Is it supported by the Minister? Both health and education are underfunded compared to their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.

When it comes to an issue, if people unite and decide on the right way forward, then I will have to consider that. However, if a party cannot live with what is agreed in the Executive, there is only one place for it to be; namely, in opposition. I say that repeatedly. I am not an economist, but my opinion is that we will experience a series of years in which there will be cuts in available budgets, and very painful adjustments will have to be made. I think that it was the Finance Minister who asked whether we should keep on increasing the rates or taxes, or whether we should deal with inefficiencies and misallocation of funds. This is a trying time; but it is also an opportunity to get public finances sorted out for the next 30 to 40 years.

I long for a concerted effort to be made to deal with the structural inequalities in our system. We must find ways to balance the public and private sectors. It is not right that public sector jobs pay 25% more than commensurate jobs in the private sector. In addition, it cannot be right that wages of working people here are 80% of the wages of those in the rest of the country. On such issues, I want to see the introduction of an investment strategy that will maximise the added value that our economy can deliver. I do not mind whether it is in telecoms, IT or some other sector; but we, as a part of this world, must work out where to invest resources in order to maximise return, and that includes investment in infrastructure.

I want to say something concerning the Alliance Party. It may have been Mr Farry who talked about raising taxes. When it comes to that issue, I find it incredible that a party that is supposed to be trying to build consensus is being destructive when others are trying to mend fences. Members have to find some way of dealing with the issues that face us.

The Executive are responsible for the Budget, and as far as the UUP is concerned, they are dysfunctional. Our litmus test for the Executive is the resolution of education issues, and I do not just mean the 11-plus: I mean the Budget; investment; jobs; the early years’ strategy; funding for preparatory schools; and the changes in the common funding formula, which may see money being taken away from schools with sixth forms and given to others. All those issues must be dealt with on a collaborative and cohesive basis. If, and only if, the Executive can resolve the education issues, can we then have confidence that they are able to handle this Budget or any other powers that they want to obtain.

I know that Members feel that they have been waiting here for a long time. This has been a long debate, and they will ask for what purpose. Part of what I said was new and unscripted. The Members who chose to listen heard me talk about the way forward for the new political dispensation in this place. We will get nowhere without inclusiveness, equality and making sure that everybody is on board. Otherwise, we will only fiddle while Rome burns. The money will run out and all the people of Northern Ireland will suffer.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil áthas orm páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht thábhachtach seo faoi chúrsaí cáinaisnéise. Ba mhaith liom díriú go háirithe ar chúrsaí oideachais i mo óráid.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this Budget debate. As Mr O’Loan outlined our party position in some detail, I will direct my comments to the education budget, which was mentioned by several Members earlier in the debate. I am somewhat concerned about the state of the finances in the Department of Education. The capital resource was mentioned by a number of Members. We are told that due to pressures on the capital resource, there will be no newbuilds in 2010-11. In fact, the shortfall in the capital budget is £92 million.

Senior officials from the Department told the Committee on several occasions that there would be no newbuilds in 2010-11. The Minister then came to the Committee and told us that her officials do not speak for her. We, as Committee members, are trying to work out for whom they were speaking and whether we believe the Minister or the officials. There seems to be a degree of confusion between the Minister and her officials.

The Minister told us that, depending on the ongoing review, there may be some newbuilds next year. However, the Minister seems to be confused, and the message that goes out from the Department is one of confusion. Schools that were told that their projects would go on site in the spring of this year are confused. They now do not know whether that will happen. That is after a wait of eight or nine years in some cases and after review after review and economic appraisal after economic appraisal until the governors, teachers, parents and education providers are blue in the face, exasperated and frustrated.

The Minister very kindly wrote to the Education Committee on 14 January to obtain our views on how her Department can deliver savings and address pressures in the overall context of her priorities for education. It was very kind of the Minister to invite us to participate in the process. It is perhaps ironic that when the Minister had more money at her disposal, she did not invite us to participate in the process of spending that money, but when it came to making cuts, she was very generous and invited us to participate in the process. Unfortunately, however, some members may have viewed the Minister’s invitation as an act of cynicism rather than kindness. Who could blame them? How can members of the Committee give their views on budgetary issues when they are not given the information that is needed to make informed decisions? The Minister may have asked us to make alternative proposals, but how can we do so when we have no sight of important information that is needed to make informed decisions?

Given the current capital difficulties, most people would find it difficult to foresee any newbuild in the coming year or, indeed, in years to come. Add the shortfall in capital resource of £92 million to the backlog in school maintenance of £270 million, and we have a recipe for a crumbling schools estate. That is hardly the facility or the accommodation needed to produce a twenty-first century education system.

The Department of Education’s resource budget is not much better. Coincidentally, its shortfall is also £92 million, and there are no solid plans as to how that pressure will be met. The Minister’s officials have outlined areas, including C2k, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), the entitlement framework and the school improvement programme, in which total savings of around £30 million can be made. The Committee has not been given any rationale on those savings. It has not been told what impact the savings would have on the projects concerned. Areas of supposed policy priority are being reduced: the entitlement framework by £5·5 million and school improvement by £7 million. We are being asked to support savings without any indication of their effects and without knowing whether the Minister agrees with the proposed savings.

For example, the entitlement framework is already well behind schedule, as indicated clearly in the ‘Together Towards Entitlement’ report. The Minister said that work needed to be accelerated to ensure that all schools are up to speed in delivering the entitlement framework, yet she is withdrawing resources from that very area. There is a contradiction in proposals from the Department; a tension between the savings being proposed and the policy areas being promoted.

We are told that a convergence plan will be enacted for education and library boards to produce further savings. That convergence plan has not yet been presented to the Committee. The privileged few who have had sight of it tell us that no figures have yet been set against the various proposals. If Members, including those on the Education Committee, are to assess the Department of Education’s finances, we need the information that is required to do so. At present, the Department does not seem to be in a position to provide that information, which is an incredible position for any Department. I fear that, in the absence of achievable proposals being available to Members to scrutinise, we may end up with cuts that go right to the front line delivery of education services.

If the Minister wants our views, let her come forward with firm proposals and a clear rationale for them. Let us see the convergence plan for the education and library boards and the savings that will accrue from that process. At the moment, we are largely in the dark about the Department of Education’s finances. The reason for that seems to be that the Minister is no better informed than we are. Perhaps, the Minister and her officials should sit down together to discuss and agree the Department’s finances and come to the Committee with a unified message, one that contains the information that Members need to assess the proposals that the Minister is bringing forward. To date, that has not happened.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member enlighten us as to why he is calling for the restoration of the 11-plus?