Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 June 2010

305 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Jeffrey Donaldson notifying me of his resignation as a Member of the Assembly with effect from 12.00 midnight on Thursday 10 June 2010. I have since been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Mr Paul Girvan was returned on 11 June 2010 as a Member of the Assembly — I am sorry, Mr Paul Givan — for the Lagan Valley constituency to fill the vacancy. Mr Givan signed the roll of membership in my presence and that of the Clerk/Director General in the Speaker’s Office this morning and has entered his designation. Mr Givan has now taken his seat.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move the motions in my name. These important Supply resolutions seek the Assembly’s approval —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. We must first suspend the relevant Standing Orders.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am ahead of myself, Mr Speaker. I cannot wait to get started.

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 14 June 2010.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 14 June 2010.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The motion has been agreed, so today’s sitting may go beyond 7.00 pm, if required.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As the next two motions relate to the Supply resolutions, I propose to conduct only one debate on both motions. When all who wish to speak have done so, I will put the Question on the first motion. I will then call the Minister to move the second motion formally, before putting the Question without further debate.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours for the debate. The Minister of Finance and Personnel will have up to 60 minutes to allocate at his discretion between proposing the motion and making a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have 10 minutes. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,019,163,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2011 and that resources, not exceeding £7,569,483,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2011 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3 (b) and 3 (a) of table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2010-11 that was laid before the Assembly on 7 June 2010.

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £16,272,049.74, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of the Environment, for the year ending 31 March 2009 as summarised for each Department in Part II of the 2008-09 Statement of Excesses that was laid before the Assembly on 7 June 2010. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr S Wilson).]

This is take two, although my speech was almost read out in the motion. These important Supply resolutions seek the Assembly’s approval of the spending plans of Departments and other public bodies, as set out in the Main Estimates for 2010-11 and the Statement of Excesses for 2008-09, which were presented to the House on 7 June 2010.

The first resolution relates to the supply of resources and cash for the remainder of 2010-11, as detailed in the Main Estimates. Members will recall that the Vote on Account, which provided initial allocations for 2010-11, passed on 2 March 2010. The first resolution and the Budget (No. 3) Bill that I will introduce later today will provide the balance to complete the total requirements of Departments and other public bodies of more than £13 billion in cash and £14 billion of resources for 2010-11. Those require­ments reflect the Executive’s revised 2010-11 spending plans, which the Assembly approved on 20 April 2010, as well as the demand-led annually managed expenditure (AME).

I remind Members that, as part of the recent devolution of policing and justice powers, the Assembly has already approved the Main Estimates for the Department of Justice, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Public Prosecution Service, totalling more than £1·4 billion in cash and £1·3 billion of resources for 2010-11. The resolution, therefore, relates to the remaining Departments and public bodies.

The second resolution seeks Assembly approval of two cash Excess Votes, totalling £16·3 million for 2008-09, as detailed in the Statement of Excesses. The Department for Employment and Learning exceeded the cash approved by the Assembly for 2008-09 by £15·8 million. The Department of the Environment exceeded its cash by just over half a million pounds. The Comptroller and Auditor General reported those excesses. The Public Accounts Committee has considered the reasons for the excesses and recommended that the necessary sums now be provided by Excess Votes by the Assembly. I request and recommend, on behalf of the Executive, the levels of Supply set out in the two resolutions under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

As I stated, the Main Estimates reflect the opening position for 2010-11, as agreed by the Executive and the Assembly. However, as Members are aware, that opening position has already been undermined by the Chancellor’s announcement on 24 May of £6 billion of savings in public expenditure in 2010-11, which will result in a £128 million reduction in the Northern Ireland block grant. As we debate and approve the departmental expenditure plans today, I recognise that Members on all sides of the Chamber are concerned about what lies ahead in the remainder of this financial year and beyond. Indeed, households across Northern Ireland are worried about their jobs, their incomes and the continued delivery of high-standard vital public services, especially in the health and education sectors and services that have a direct impact on their daily lives and well-being.

The Executive have discussed the £120 million reduction and will address the options as part of the June monitoring round. Tough decisions lie ahead for the Executive and the Assembly, both in-year and for years to come. The good years of increased public spending year-on-year have come to an end. I accept that the appalling and unprecedented national deficit must be tackled. Although the largest Budget deficit in peacetime history was not of our making, the fallout will impact on this Administration for many years to come. We must rise to the challenge.

In today’s debate and in debates on the Budget Bill tomorrow and next week, there will no doubt be calls for more funding for particular projects or areas of spend. I look around at all Members, because I know that those calls will come from all sides of the House. I appeal to Members and Ministers to demonstrate maturity and realism in their proposals. If they want to put forward ideas for new spending, I ask that they do so in tandem with sensible suggestions about where any additional funding should be taken from.

Difficult decisions lie ahead for this Administration, and we must not baulk at those. It is a time for political maturity in our handling of the Budget. Priorities will have to be examined, and tough decisions will have to be taken. Party political and parochial preferences will have to be put aside so that we can prudently manage the public finances that are available to us in order to continue to deliver a high standard of public services for all our people. That will be especially the case as we move into Budget 2010, which will set the spending plans for the next three financial years: 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14.

I have set out to the Executive my assessment of the public expenditure context of the Budget 2010 process alongside the continued risks and uncertainties. I must confess that the picture is bleak. However, as Finance Minister, I would not be fulfilling my duty to the Assembly if I did not spell out the difficulties that lie ahead and the tough decisions that will have to be made. In the coming months, we may have to face up to the unpalatable possibility of raising local revenue. The Assembly will have to weigh up the impact on vital public services such as health or education against further delaying those decisions. The financial times have changed since the Assembly accepted its administrative and legislative responsibilities in 2007. We must face up to that and tackle the issues ahead.

I return to Budget 2010 and its timetable. It is planned that officials will take forward work over the summer months with a view to developing a draft Budget position to be considered by the Executive in early autumn. The Westminster spending review outcome in the autumn will also have an impact on any draft plans. Following the Executive’s agreement of a draft Budget, which will hopefully happen in the autumn, the public consultation process will take place, leading to Executive agreement on a final revised Budget before the end of the year. I appreciate that the Budget timetable is rather tight, but unfortunately, given the recent Westminster election that led to a new Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government, it was not feasible to commence the process any sooner.

Ideally, I would like to have commenced the Budget 2010 process much earlier, but the process is now under way. I call on Committees to commence engagement now with Departments not only on the pressures and savings in the next three years but, in the first instance, to challenge existing baselines that are set against the priorities in the Programme for Government. Too often, the focus is on pressures going forward without due diligence being given to starting baselines that may conceal funding for lower priority areas that may no longer be affordable in the current financial straits. We are in an era of tough choices, and I ask each Committee to become familiar with every expenditure line of its Department. That work should not await the commencement of a Budget exercise; it should be ongoing by Committees on a regular basis.

I share the concern and exasperation of many Committee members at the lack of information and the difficulties encountered by some Committees in obtaining meaningful information from Departments. I call on my Executive colleagues and their Departments to engage early with their Committees and other stakeholder groups in the Budget 2010 process. I call on them not only to engage early with Committees but to engage in a meaningful way, involving them in the detail of proposals and providing the information requested. Transparency is critical to ensure that the evolving Budget has the confidence of the Assembly and is credible to investors, the business sector and the wider public. That, in turn, will build confidence in our economy.

Since I took up the Finance and Personnel portfolio last year, I have faced challenges and pressures and criticism from Members. My challenges have ranged from securing sufficient resources for the Executive from the Treasury to recommending the prioritisation of those limited resources to a wide range of pressures identified by Departments. As we move into 2010-11, further challenges loom. However, I will continue to aim to do all I can to help Northern Ireland business and vulnerable, hard-working families through this difficult economic period. I am acutely aware of those who have lost their job and of where further prospects are under threat, and I am aware of the responsibilities that the Executive bear in both respects.

As the Executive endeavour to build confidence and work towards economic recovery, I ask for the support of all Members. We must strive together to improve the prospects of our people. Tough financial and policy decisions lie ahead that will require thorough consideration, strategic thinking, forward planning and a pragmatic corporate approach. I look forward to a lively debate today on these issues, and I ask Members to support the resolutions in order to approve the Excess Votes for 2008-09 and the opening position for the 2010-11 year and to ensure that provision is made for vital public services to continue beyond the current provision in the Vote on Account.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

On 2 June, senior departmental officials briefed the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the Main Estimates for 2009-2010 and the associated Budget (No. 3) Bill, which gives legislative approval to the Estimates and is to be introduced to the Assembly following this debate.

Advance copies of the Main Estimates for 2009-2010 and the Statement of Excesses for 2008-09 were made available to Committee members prior to the briefing. The Main Estimates and the associated Budget Bill are based on the Executive’s revised 2010-11 spending plans for Departments, which were approved by the Assembly on 20 April 2010. Members received a further briefing from officials on 9 June, although that evidence session focused primarily on issues of process. The Committee is mindful that the 2010-11 Main Estimates for the Department of Justice, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Public Prosecution Service have already been approved by the Assembly as part of the devolution of policing and justice, so they are not included in the Bill.

The Committee published a report in March 2010 on the Executive’s review of the 2010-11 spending plans for the Departments. In its report, the Committee recognised that the Executive have limited options for addressing the additional public spending pressures that will arise in 2010-11 and supported in principle the strategic approach of targeted rather than pro rata savings to minimise the impact on the delivery of key front line services and Programme for Government targets.

The recent statement on efficiency savings by the British Chancellor has placed a further demand of £128 million on expenditure this year, and the emergency Budget, due to be announced next week, will only add to the pressure. I recognise that the Estimates before us today do not take account of those additional pressures, and the Committee awaits clarity on the steps that the Executive plan to take to manage this in a way that does not have an adverse impact on essential front line services. It is in this context that I reiterate the Committee’s call for the urgent establishment of a formal process for Assembly scrutiny of future Executive Budgets and expenditure that will enable all Statutory Committees to plan the necessary scrutiny and focus Departments’ attention on meeting their Committees’ briefing requirements.

Indeed, while co-ordinating responses from the other Statutory Committees on the revised spending plans for 2010-11, my Committee for Finance and Personnel colleagues and I heard time and time again of dissatisfaction about the information provided by Departments and frustration with the general level of engagement. Therefore, we also recommended that, in reprioritising spending allocations between Departments and finalising the spending plans for 2010-11, the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the wider Executive take on board the concerns, conclusions and recommendations in the submissions from the Assembly Statutory Committees, which were included in our report. I expect that these issues will be reflected in the contributions from members of other Statutory Committees to the debate on the Supply resolution and when we come to debate the Budget (No. 3) Bill, to which the Minister referred; however, I ask him to again assure Members that those concerns have been taken into account.

I understand that one option is for the Executive to at least partially address further in-year pressures through the monitoring round process. Will the Minister shed some light on the potential approaches and scenarios over the coming months and on when he plans to make a statement to the Assembly on the June monitoring round? The Committee intends to publish its report before summer recess on the second part of the inquiry into the scrutiny of the Executive’s Budget and expenditure. That report specifically considers the Budget process. I ask the Minister to encourage his Department to take into account the views and recommendations of the Committee as it prepares for the Budget 2010 process. The transparency of the consultation process must be improved if any meaningful engagement is to take place and strategic decisions are to be made on how to deal with the pressures to be faced by all Departments.

Next week, the Committee will publish its report on its preliminary inquiry into public sector efficiencies. I am not in a position to discuss that report today, but I emphasise that it will be vital that budgetary savings and efficiency gains do not negatively impact on the delivery of essential front line services. I also take this opportunity to encourage other Statutory Committees to increase their focus on that issue in their scrutiny of their respective Departments’ plans and performance. The debate next week will present a better opportunity to discuss such issues.

I turn, briefly, to the motion on the Supply resolution for the 2008-09 Excess Votes. Departmental officials advised the Committee of the Statement of Excesses 2008-09 in respect of the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of the Environment. Members were told that the matter had been reported to the Public Accounts Committee by the Comptroller and Auditor General and that, having considered the issue, the PAC recommended that the necessary sums be provided by Excess Votes in the Assembly. Satisfied with that process, the Committee subsequently wrote to the relevant Statutory Committees to draw the matter to their attention.

Finally, I again emphasise the Committee’s view that, in managing further public expenditure pressures in the years ahead, consideration by the Assembly of the medium- to long-term strategic issues faced by the Executive will become increasingly important. The provision of timely and accurate information by all Departments will be essential in enabling those considerations. Therefore, I encourage the Minister and his Executive colleagues to ensure that their Departments fully respect the role and process of the House in the Budget and financial scrutiny.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

My initial remarks are made as Chairperson of the Social Development Committee. As the House might expect, the Social Development Committee spends a significant portion of its time looking at the expenditure of its Department and particularly at the challenges faced by the Department in this very difficult financial year.

The Committee noted with pleasure the Department’s achievement of its key annual social housing newbuild target. The Committee also noted the more ambitious target that the Department has set for itself this year. As we all know, achieving the goal of value for money is important in social housing. It means achieving many things, not least maximising economies of scale through the procurement process. It also means the more clever use of matching finance, as well as the intelligent use of government-owned, public land. The Committee is very pleased that progress is being made on a number of those fronts. However, we note that several recent reports on housing in Northern Ireland suggest that even more is achievable. It is also hoped that the Department strikes a good balance between newbuild and the maintenance of existing social housing stock. Indeed, Committee members raise that issue regularly.

Everyone will be aware of the important economic contribution that regenerating our town and city centres makes to the whole of Northern Ireland. We have all seen that in our constituencies in one way or another. Like everyone, I recognise the difficulties in which our financial position puts us. We hope that key urban regeneration projects will continue to be supported throughout this year and beyond. Those are of particular importance to the private sector during this time of economic uncertainty.

I want to touch on some of the Committee’s concerns about the Social Security Agency, particularly where its ability to deal with its current and increased workload is concerned. The Minister for Social Development has indicated that the number of posts in the Social Security Agency will fall by around 200 but that will be achieved entirely through natural wastage and internal redeployment. That was certainly of some comfort to Committee members who were concerned about the impact of those reductions.

Although the Committee is relieved that there will probably not be any redundancies in the SSA, members are concerned that front line benefit services should not be affected in any way. Members are particularly worried about a planned further migration of 76,000 claimants over three years from income support and incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. It is not the migration or the policy that is a particular concern; rather, the concern is the impact that that move may have on the agency’s ability to deliver that migration with lower numbers. However, I assure the House that the Committee will continue to scrutinise the Department’s management of that and other related issues.

I want to make some general comments about the Supply resolution. Sometimes, there is a feeling that we simply go through the motions whenever we debate Supply resolutions, Supplementary Estimates or Budget Bills. I know that I get that sense, and I am sure that the Minister and, indeed, yourself, Mr Speaker, get the same sense. Such motions are like buses — if we wait for one, a couple come at the same time. When we vote today or tomorrow on Budget Bills, or whatever the motion may be, we must remember that we are voting not just on spending money and that there are key objectives for us to vote on. We do not just spend the money for the sake of getting rid of it; there are key objectives behind the idea of what we are doing today. We need to be mindful of those objectives when we vote today on the Supply resolutions and when we deal with the Budget (No.3) Bill tomorrow.

Obviously, the growth of our economy is foremost among all those objectives and policy priorities. Three years ago, we set the right objective of growing a vibrant and dynamic economy. Even though we have gone through the most unprecedented downturn in living memory, it is still the right objective. Obviously, we were unfortunate in the timing of the setting of that objective. We hoped to use the restoration of devolution to help to grow our economy. Unfortunately, however, we have endured some very difficult economic times in Northern Ireland. We all know from talking to people in our constituencies that the impact has been deep and long. We just have to look at the fact that every industrial sector in Northern Ireland has suffered a contraction of one kind or another. We are undergoing a recession in Northern Ireland that is longer than that that the rest of the UK will endure.

The latest labour force survey shows the Northern Ireland unemployment rate at 6·7%, and through my work on the Social Development Committee, I see the impact of that on the SSA. Although that figure is lower than the UK average of around 8%, we and the people who make up the 6·7% can take no comfort from that. Unemployment has had a massive impact. Indeed, in the past number of years, the figure has more than doubled.

In addition, the housing market is, at best, subdued. Nationwide Building Society’s first-quarter figures show that Northern Ireland, with lower house prices this quarter compared to the same quarter last year, is unique among the regions of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we know the impact that the recession is having on our country and its people.

Given public spending constraints and the limited policy levers that the Executive are able to pull, I commend the Finance Minister and his Executive colleagues for their efforts in very difficult circumstances. Without the insulation that the Northern Ireland public sector has provided, whether through maintaining high levels of expenditure, providing employment or investing record sums in infrastructure, and without the expenditure for which we will vote today and tomorrow, we would be in a much more perilous state than we are now.

To grow the economy and to get out of recession, thus ensuring that we get to where we want to be, the public sector cannot do it alone; it needs the help of others. To achieve that recovery and to get us back to economic growth, the banks must help. It would be too easy to get into a session of bashing the banks, and I am sure that others, with some justification, would like to join in. We all know that the banks played a major if not fundamental role in causing the financial crisis that has affected people not just in Northern Ireland, but globally. In many people’s eyes, they are not doing enough to get us out of the situation. If the world is to get out of the current economic crisis, we will need the banks, because establishing credit and lending money are critical to getting the whole system moving again in order to establish a recovery.

As recently as last weekend, businesspeople here told me of their concerns that the banks are not doing enough to aid recovery and to get the country going again. There is other evidence that the banks are not doing all that they possibly can. The latest figures from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in Whitehall indicate that just over 100 enterprise finance guarantee loans have been issued to Northern Ireland companies. That is out of some 10,000 that have been issued throughout the UK. In Wales, more than 400 were issued, and in Scotland, there were more than 700. Even on a pro rata basis, the figure for Northern Ireland is significantly lower. I do not know whether that is due to Northern Ireland companies’ greater caution or lack of awareness of those schemes or whether it is the responsibility of the banks for not promoting them or for not having enough knowledge about them at branch level. Nevertheless, assistance that has been available for some time does not seem to be making it through at the Northern Ireland level.

The Institute of Directors has repeatedly produced surveys — I know that there are issues about self-selecting samples — that echo what we hear on the ground in our constituencies about lending, finance and credit issues with the banks. I appeal to the banks in Northern Ireland, as others have done and will no doubt do again, to do more to get the economy going and to aid the fledgling recovery. In the discussions that I know that he has regularly with the banks, I encourage the Finance Minister to continue to take the message that I and others in the Assembly want to give, namely that the banks must do more to help us.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

We are doing our bit in the public sector. However, if the banks can help as well, we can grow the vibrant and dynamic economy that we all want.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Although the debate is extremely important, it largely fulfils the technical process of making legitimate the drawing down of moneys from the Consolidated Fund in order to maintain government spending and to meet government targets until the end of the financial year. However, today has added significance, because we are drawing down from a figure that is minus the £393 million worth of cuts that Sinn Féin and the DUP voted through the Executive.

I listened to the Minister’s opening remarks, which I welcome. The Minister is, of course, correct: we all face very difficult times. If his unremitting pursuit is to sympathetically address the pain and hardship that many of our people will endure, he will have my support. The Ulster Unionist Party will not be voting against the motion for many reasons, but mainly because it recognises that to do so would be to jeopardise the Northern Ireland Executive’s entire Budget. However, the party still has serious reservations about the manner in which those cuts were agreed and the precedent that has been set as we enter into what will be the most difficult period of fiscal management that this devolved institution has ever seen.

For over a year before the Minister of Finance and Personnel finally recognised that there was a home-made hole in our Budget, the Ulster Unionist Party had been giving repeated warnings about it. Successive DUP Finance Ministers ignored those warnings, and they point-blankly denied that there was such a problem, which made this Minister’s job more difficult. Members on the opposite Benches may be asking whether we have agreed to those reductions, and, indeed, they will no doubt inform us of that when they speak. We have agreed to them, and we have when we come to a decision. However, I recognise, and I also note, that my party did not vote for those cuts. The way in which the Minister dealt with them was, in my party’s opinion, rushed, and it bore no resemblance to a coalition Government working together to deliver on their Programme for Government.

Since we recognised some time ago that there was a serious problem, I and my party colleagues have been calling for the Programme for Government to be rewritten.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I know that the Member was not at the Executive meeting in question, but, as far as I know, the minutes of the Executive meeting of 25 March are available and are quite clear. The resolution that was agreed at that meeting contained proposals from his party leader about what it should include. There was one outstanding issue about what will happen with matters that are connected to water, and that was the only element that was left to be resolved between myself and the DRD Minister.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his intervention. I note that it has been duly recorded, and I may come back to it tomorrow.

The Ulster Unionist Party has also called for an Assembly budgetary review committee to be set up to help to build consensus and to make decisions that are on a joint vision, rather than on what we have now, which is haggling and bartering between Ministers. We have been demanding a genuine four-party coalition since it became clear that we still have a two-party carve up at the heart of government. None of those things has either happened or changed, and we are about to enter into a new period of reductions in public spending. For example, we must find our share of the £6·2 billion reductions so that the perilous levels of the national debt can be brought under control. Of course, on 22 June, more painful reductions will, undoubtedly, be outlined in the Budget.

Nothing has changed in Northern Ireland in how we deal with our changed circumstances. The Programme for Government is still the same, the financial management and scrutiny in the Executive and the Assembly are still the same, and the Executive are still proving to be as dysfunctional as ever. Indeed, I will go further and say that parties in the Executive appear to the public to be disingenuous with them about the financial realities that Northern Ireland faces as part of the United Kingdom.

During the election campaign, we had the spectacle of Jeffrey Donaldson — who I am sorry to hear is leaving the Assembly and whom I commend for giving up his double-jobbing — saying that we would not be giving a penny to the Treasury. However, on 24 May, when the £6·2 billion of cuts were announced, the Finance Minister, Sammy Wilson, said that he knew that those cuts had been coming down the line. Therefore, we must ask, because the public are asking, which of those statements was true. We must also listen to those outside, such as the economist Mike Smith who recently pointed out that the Assembly needs to get real quickly. We must have that discussion with the economists who point the finger at what we do here. There is also a danger that the people of Northern Ireland are starting to lose patience with the Assembly.

While we refuse to plan how to reduce public spending at the same time as increasing productivity, we continue to preside over waste and logjam and are accumulating a litany of our own errors. Rates arrears stand at millions of pounds; the stalled review of local government may well, depending on the discussions today, cost the taxpayer £9 million; the education and skills authority (ESA) has cost the taxpayer over £7 million; the Maze stadium project has cost £12·5 million; and the most serious of all miscalculations was the Crossnacreevy project, which cost £195 million.

If there have been errors, we must come clean because we need to deal with them. How many more potential economic disasters and examples of wasteful and silly spending are sitting on Ministers’ desks? How many more times will the public feel that they have been let down by the Executive? There is a clear reason why the Finance Minister tells the other Ministers to come to him so that they can all work together. He is worried that there may be some issues that we do not yet know about. However, when we are being hit from all directions, the last thing that the Assembly can afford is more surprises.

By the Minister’s own admission, there has not been a consolidated vision on the economy for Northern Ireland. That must change. I have dealt with many of the past failings of the Assembly, because I do not want them to be repeated. However, I am totally committed to, and believe fundamentally in, the Assembly and what it will bring to Northern Ireland. I echo the Minister’s belief that a mature debate is needed; he is spot on with that. However, we must check what we have not worked out and what we can and cannot afford, and the Minister must initiate a mature debate on that. The Ulster Unionist Party is up for it, and I know from talking to colleagues that everyone would be interested in such a debate, but it is what we focus on and bring to the table that matters. I ask the Minister to bring that focus and to initiate the debate.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I am grateful for the opportunity to address our growing budgetary crisis in the context of the Supply resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates; namely, the Budget for this year. In doing so, I will set out in headline terms the SDLP’s perspective of the financial challenges that we all face.

The Executive drew up their Programme for Government in 2007 in relatively good economic conditions. That year had followed a decade of uninterrupted economic growth in Britain and Northern Ireland, and there was no reason to believe that the trend, at least in relation to the growth in the Northern Ireland block and net public expenditure, would not continue. Every year, we had experienced year-on-year increases in public expenditure, and the booming land and property market had resulted in a bumper harvest of capital receipts. Therefore, the economic analysis — or what passed for economic analysis — that underpinned the Programme for Government made assumptions of steady economic growth. The assumption was that all trends would continue, as would the buoyant returns to Departments.

For the next three years, the block grant was settled favourably. When that was translated into three-year budgets, Departments were allocated resources that, in most cases, would have allowed them to expand and to develop their services. That was particularly true of those Departments closest to the economy. They, in line with the Executive’s corporate decision to put the economy first, were afforded extremely generous allocations.

Then, however, it all started to go wrong. When the global downturn hit Britain and Northern Ireland, it created an almost immediate budgetary crisis, which meant that any further generosity to the North from the Chancellor was most unlikely. It seemed that we would be lucky to get to the end of the three-year CSR period without London asking for some of its money back. Recently, it asked for £128 million to be returned in the current year, which is year three of the CSR. Swingeing cuts lie ahead in the next CSR, and, no doubt, we will hear something to that effect next Tuesday, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers his Budget.

The bursting of the economic bubble in Northern Ireland coincided with the global downturn, thereby producing a double whammy. Ever-growing public expenditure, a sunny economic outlook and the widespread availability of cheap mortgages had created an unprecedented property boom of our own making. Three years ago, the early signs of the economic downturn were picked up quickly in the Department for Social Development in which I resided. We experienced a dramatic slowing of Housing Executive house sales and a collapse in the market for land that was suitable for building. Unfortunately, as the DSD capital budget was based substantially on a high expectation of capital receipts from house and land sales, it faced a shortfall of some £100 million in each year.

The Executive, to their credit, recognised the problem, but they were not sufficiently mobile to address it seriously. Apart from one disgraceful smash-and-grab raid, when Nigel Dodds was Finance Minister, the Executive tried to direct extra resources to housing in various monitoring rounds. Had it not been for the financial crisis, we in DSD might not have been so quick to introduce a range of measures that allowed us to get more bang for the buck. My colleague Alex Attwood will continue the good work that was done in that area.

DSD was not the only Department to be affected. Other Departments — I point out to Sammy that I can be generous to others — experienced new and unanticipated budgetary pressures that arose from the downturn. As Mr McNarry stated, at one point, DARD budgeted for a £200 million receipt from the sale of land at Crossnacreevy, the value of which collapsed. DFP was left with a major shortfall after the collapse of its PFI office rationalisation programme. Even the Planning Service went from being snowed under to experiencing a shortfall in receipts for fees as new planning applications dried up. Centrally, the DFP-sponsored capital asset realisation team (CART) budgeted to bring in hundreds of millions of pounds in asset sales, but ended up bringing in zero.

At the same time, extra money was needed to fund a range of new pressures across Departments. The various health trusts have had to execute cuts. The strange position in my constituency, for example, is that the Health Minister opened the new hospital in Downpatrick this week, and, at the same time, the trust decided to close a 15-bed medical unit. I am implacably opposed to that decision because it will impact on front line services. I will say it again: front line services must be protected, and the needs of the people must not be sacrificed on the altar of financial expediency.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

We all come to the House and condemn Ministers for the awful things that they have done. Will the Member tell the House what she and her colleagues are prepared to sacrifice from their political wish lists, which cost the Executive millions of pounds and deliver very little, if anything, for the people who want to use, for example, those hospital beds in Downpatrick and for priority front line services such as education, health and social services?

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The Member for North Antrim will be well aware that the SDLP is in the House and in politics to protect front line services.

What should we do about the problem? I will answer the questions that were posed by Mr Storey and the Minister. The SDLP realised very early on that our budgetary fortunes needed a turnaround and the Budget was no longer fit for purpose. We could not credibly argue that the Programme for Government was still on course when there was a head-in-the-sand approach to the economic downturn’s battering of the Budget. Given those changes, I urged the Executive, time and time again, to conduct a full review of our Budget priorities. The Executive repeatedly refused to do so and claimed that it would be too awkward and that it would lead to the reopening of issues that had been settled earlier. We were given strategic stocktakes and departmental top-slicing, none of which tackled the real issues.

In April 2009, the SDLP produced a party document, ‘New Priorities in Difficult Times’, which set out our view of what needed to be done. Much credit is due to my colleagues Declan O’Loan, Alasdair McDonnell and Alex Attwood for that important work. Our document was unprecedented. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The SDLP was the first party in Northern Ireland to bring forward a budgetary document. In fact, the First Minister and the then Minister of Finance and Personnel adopted some of the document’s good ideas.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

No, I will not give way.

We never claimed that our document was the finished article, but it was worthy of stimulating a serious debate. No one else brought forward any ideas. At the same time, ‘New Priorities in Difficult Times’ received some grudging comments, and others copied it. I saw that myself at Executive meetings.

Implementation of those proposals is better late than never. Let us re-examine ways in which to push more resources into the areas that will sustain and grow employment during the recession and will position our economy to capitalise when the recovery comes. Let us re-examine ways in which we can find savings in the public sector, with a particular focus on senior salaries and perks and, at the same time, protect front line services and ensure betterment and improvement for our people. That is what the Assembly should be about.

The SDLP made specific proposals on how to find new sources of funding and capital receipts. Most of those ideas are still valid, such as the re-profiling of Housing Executive debt and the sale and leaseback of Housing Executive buildings. I was encouraged to do that. However, the Department of Finance and Personnel was unwilling even to consider the idea. Let us make up for lost time and examine the proposals in our party document.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member should bring her remarks to a close.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

There is less than a year left in this mandate. Therefore, let us get on with the job and provide for the people who need it most.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is always a pleasure to speak after Margaret Ritchie in a debate. However, it seems that the SDLP believes its internal propaganda on these matters. That said, we miss Declan O’Loan and hope for his return from the naughty step to the debates in the very near future.

I will start off with a topical financial matter; the situation relating to DARD and the disallowances or fines, or whatever you want to call them, that have been announced by the European Union. That is a damning indictment of the Department and it will have repercussions for public expenditure in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that some allowances have already been made in budgets to cover the eventuality of disallowances, but clearly the scale of what has happened dwarfs the provision that has been made, so there will be consequences.

Even if the Finance Minister and his Department can address that issue without budgetary changes, it will be at the expense of the other things that could be done with the money that is tied up in that, so there is an opportunity cost. That is a reality that the House needs to take seriously. I am very alarmed at the lack of accountability around the issue, not least the fact that the Agriculture Minister has not made a statement to the Assembly on this critical matter for Northern Ireland. It is critical not just for her Department but for public expenditure here.

I appreciate that it is still a matter for negotiation, with only £30 million confirmed so far and the other £30 million under appeal. However, it is one quarter of the Department’s annual budget, and it is half the level of cuts that we are being asked to fund later this year from the Treasury. That puts it into perspective and draws to attention the lack of accountability that we have had on the matter so far.

In the broad context of where we are, we have to appreciate the challenges that are coming. So far, it is just the tip of the iceberg. What is before us simply reflects the internal readjustments that we have had to make as an Executive and an Assembly, resulting from shortfalls arising and events knocking our budgets off course over the past number of years. The Assembly has also endorsed some financial distortions, which have created longer-term public finance problems for us.

In the future, we will see the cuts working their way through from the Treasury. There will be £128 million in cuts during this financial year. We will have to wait with interest to see what happens over the next three years. That will have implications for the 2011-2014 Budget, or Budgets, depending on how the Executive want to take that forward.

One aspect of that is the timing of the cuts. A number of parties have made their views known about avoiding rashly trying to pay down the debt quickly, particularly bearing in mind the risk of a double-dip recession. That is a theme that is appearing right across the UK and Europe, where we have seen a sudden shift in Governments’ attitudes, from simply trying to hold off paying off debt to paying off debt very quickly with strong austerity measures. There is a sense that there is panic and that the proposed actions may go too far the other way. Those are, largely, debates for national Governments rather than ourselves. However, Northern Ireland is one of the regions that will be left to deal with the consequences of the decisions that are taken not only by our national Government but by other Governments across Europe. We will have to deal with the impact of their actions on demand, particularly if we end up with a situation in which local companies try to export to markets that are closing elsewhere in Europe.

I was baffled by some Members’ comments. In particular, I was rather taken aback by David McNarry’s call for a mature debate. He referred to other parties being disingenuous, but I found a number of his remarks to be disingenuous. The Ulster Unionist Party has been very clear and very strong — misguided in my opinion — in arguing about the problems of debt and the need to pay off debt quicker than other parties would like. The party has also been strong in identifying the so-called black hole in local public finances that has arisen due to other circumstances over the past number of years. However, at the same time, the Ulster Unionist Party, more than any other party, is trying to stand back from taking any tough decisions when they have been required. It has been playing politics on the matter more than anyone else. Even today, I did not hear any new policies or proposals from that party. All we hear about is the need to be frank and mature with people and to take tough decisions, but when the opportunity comes along, they duck it.

What we did receive were proposals for process — a new Programme for Government, a new Budget. Although I concur with those proposals, we have to appreciate that those are just process matters that will frame the choices that we are facing as an Executive and an Assembly and within which we will have to make tough decisions. There is no point in Members talking about tough decisions unless they show an indication and willingness to make them in illustrating where savings can be made.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Since the Member has mentioned me, I wonder whether he might be able to help me by directing me to the type of tough decisions that he is talking about and which he is prepared to bring forward, so that we can engage in a mature debate on them. Will he list them for me?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am just coming to that, so that is a handy introduction. First, let us go to the heart of the matter. The Executive and Assembly will have to bite the bullet on water charges during the next financial year. I have been particularly critical of the DUP for its approach to a number of populist decisions regarding finance and a reluctance to address the need to raise revenue, but I must say that I welcome the comments made today by the Finance Minister and his indication that certain things are inevitable in the near future. We may disagree over the timing of when that has to be, but there is an appreciation of coming to that point.

I draw attention to the fact that the Health Minister is going round damning anyone who dares touch his budget. There is a case for protecting money in health and in protecting front line services, but it is inconsistent to do that without appreciating the need to raise revenue and try to balance the books in Northern Ireland. If we identify the underspend in health, compared to other regions in the UK, the flip side is that we have to be honest and frank and appreciate that there are distortions in our Budget in that some revenue-raising occurs elsewhere in the UK but does not occur here. That is the first tough decision that the Assembly has to make. My party is prepared to put its cards on the table and say that that has to be done and that it is something that every party in the Assembly, if they want to be responsible, has to sell to the electorate.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Is the Member saying that now that his party has a Minister in the Executive, that Minister will be encouraging cuts in the health budget?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am glad that Mr McNarry can count now and that he has moved on from a four-party Executive to a five-party Executive. He has not been listening to what I have said. My party wants to protect front line services in health, but, so far, we are the only party here that has been prepared to state the uncomfortable truth that we will have to raise revenue in Northern Ireland to better balance our books and to protect areas, such as health, that we deem to be important to society.

Let me take it a step further and make another point. Water charges will have to be introduced, but they will have to be linked to ability to pay and usage. They will be progressive and linked to people’s income and resources. Therefore, people who are better off will pay more, and those who are not will pay less. There are vulnerable people in our society who depend disproportionately on public services, and it is those people who will suffer most from the cuts or the strong austerity approach that is taken by a future Executive.

I find it utterly baffling that the two nationalist parties here, who claim to be left wing, and the trade unions talk on the one hand about the need to, quite rightly, protect public services, but, uniquely among social democratic and socialist parties in western Europe, are reluctant to address the difficult issue of how to raise money. In fact, they totally avoid the issue. The Assembly will have to come to terms with that issue over the coming year. That is the uncomfortable truth on the way forward.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I will make my opening remarks in my capacity as the Chairperson of the Education Committee. I do so to remind the House that this is not the first time that we have had occasion to speak in relation to these issues, particularly when it comes to finance and the Department of Education. Earlier this year, I reported to the House that, unfortunately, the Education Committee was not in a position to give its views on measures to address the savings and the budget pressures facing the Department of Education in the review of spending plans.

The reason for the position that the Committee has adopted, which I reported to the House and which is, as I understand, uncommon in the Department of Education and my Committee, is also being faced by several other statutory Committees. They have had the same experience. The reason is that the Committee was not provided with necessary information.

I understand that Members like to get a great deal of information and reports when they come to the House and to Committees. However, that information must be relevant. It must illustrate for Members the necessary impact of potential spending reductions, particularly on front line classroom services. We all use that phrase glibly. Therefore, we must define what we mean by front line services. When it comes to education, there can be no service more front line than that provided by the schoolteacher in the classroom.

Unfortunately, I must report to the House that the Committee remains to this very moment uninformed as to the impact of cuts in the Minister of Education’s budget for 2010-11. Following the Minister’s announcement of her budget on 21 April 2010, the Committee has had three separate briefing sessions with senior officials from her Department, the most recent being on 2 June 2010. For example, officials were unable to inform the Committee about the impact of the 1·6% minimum cut in the £400 million central budget to education and library boards. No information on education and library boards’ resource-allocation plans was available. Let us remember that those organisations deliver 95% of services to schools. Yet, last week, in correspondence to the Committee, we heard from Mr Dominic Bradley about seconded teachers in the Western and Belfast Boards’ teams who deliver literacy and numeracy being sent back to schools because of lack of information and uncertainty from the Department on earmarked funding budgets for such special programmes. Therefore, the issue is not only that there is a lack of information available to Members but that it is not even available to people who deliver education services.

Members will recall that during her response to a recent oral question, the Minister of Education informed the House that there will be 221 teacher redundancies in 2010. The Committee awaits information on that and on any further redundancies, as it has written to the Minister and her Department on that particular issue.

The point that I am trying to make is that there is a lack of transparency on the impact of announced education cuts, particularly on classrooms, and that concerns the Committee greatly. When she announced her budget, the Minister stated that her priority has been “to protect frontline services.” Yet, the Committee has not seen where she will make cuts and has growing fears that classrooms will bear the brunt of the cuts.

Cuts are with us. Unfortunately, it seems that there are more to come. I fully support the Finance Minister’s point that transparency is critical to ensure that the emerging Budget has credibility. That is particularly important with regard to the education budget, which impacts directly on every child and young person in Northern Ireland, as well as, of course, on their parents and teachers.

I wish to tell Members of the House and the Minister of Finance and Personnel about a recommendation that the Committee made recently to the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the Budget process, which I trust will be actioned. The Committee for Education recommended that standard guidance to Northern Ireland Departments on the timing and provision of relevant information to Assembly Statutory Committees be drawn up by DFP in consultation with Statutory Committees and submitted to the Executive for consideration and agreement. The commitment of individual Ministers to that guidance would be essential. Again, DFP, in consultation with statutory Committees, would monitor adherence to standard guidance.

I will now make some comments in my capacity as an MLA. I return to a point that the leader of the SDLP unfortunately did not answer. It is very easy for Members to come to the House and say that it is the Minister opposite, or a Minister from another party with responsibility for another Department, who has miscalculated and has not been able to deliver the goods. All the while, we all retain political wish lists that, in reality, have delivered very little, if anything, for the people of Northern Ireland.

If one considers the journey that we have come on to establish the institutions, we have all had to be brought to a place where, although we are not all content with the structure of those institutions, as Mr McNarry said, by being here in the House, we are committed to the process of devolution. Let me throw down a challenge to the parties in the House and reveal some of the political wish lists. Let me ask Members present whether we are content to say that it is not right to continue to have cuts in health, education and social services, while at the same time we retain 11 or 12 Departments and 108 MLAs. We remember that the very Chamber in which we sit today in Parliament Buildings governed Northern Ireland in a past generation with 54 or 57 Members. Let us be honest —

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

God forbid.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member want to reply? He has some comment to make from a sedentary position, so I will let him speak.

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

I was simply making a prayer, and saying that God forbid that those days ever return, because I remember vividly what they were like.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

That is a typical answer from the SDLP — no substance. Is the Member prepared to join my party, which has been consistent on the issue, in saying that, instead of having 6 MLAs from every constituency —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to make his remarks through the Chair.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Through the Chair, Mr Speaker, does the Member accept that it is now time for all parties to make a commitment to having 54 Members, or whatever the number would be, instead of 108 Members? That would give the people of Northern Ireland confidence that the Assembly is more than just a very expensive talking shop that says what should be done but is not prepared to take the hard decisions to which Mr Farry referred.

Let us have honesty in the House, and, by that, I mean honesty from us all. If we must have a five-party mandatory coalition, we must have it on the basis that we will all have to experience pain and engage for the betterment of Northern Ireland.

I will return tomorrow to the specific issues that the education service in Northern Ireland is facing. We will all do well to have a mature debate on the huge issues that face our class­rooms and those involved in the administration of education. I trust that Members, rather than seek merely to make political points for the benefit of their party, will remain focused on the fact that we in the Assembly have a responsibility for all the people of Northern Ireland and not just a select few.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I speak in favour of the motions. Four hours have been designated for the debate. If the Assembly had sufficient fiscal powers, it might be a debate on the initiatives and measures that we could design to reflect a more realistic response to those external financial pressures that are bearing down, not just on our economy but on the whole range of public services. However, we do not have those powers.

The reason why so little of the debate has drilled down into the issues of how we apply the revenues is because we are preoccupied with managing the cuts that Westminster is imposing. We all understand that there is a global recession and that there are deficits that require responses at government level. On more than one occasion, comment has been made here about the travails facing the Southern economy, and that situation is not without consequence in other regions as well as in Westminster and, subsequently, here.

Tomorrow sees the publication of the report on the Saville Inquiry, and I wish to get to what I think is the nub of the issue. Already, some of the commentary on that matter has been predictable. Unionists have a certain wariness of the Saville report. Within nationalism, there is a burning sense of injustice, which has been compounded by the fact that the foremost law officer of the British state challenged the integrity of the people who were wounded and killed that day. The issue has been dividing parties here, and that is where I come to this debate.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I insist that the Member come back to the debate.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I am actually dealing with it, and I will now illustrate my point. It is an issue on which there should be unanimity, and there are many issues on which we should agree a way forward. We should have a collegiate approach, but we do not. There have been predictable interventions, and there will be some more tomorrow. That goes to the heart of why the Assembly is being seen as a group of people who cannot take tough decisions and who cannot set aside partisan positions when, in fact, that is the required response.

The previous Member spelt out how we are over-governed here. I agree that we have too many Departments, Ministers, MLAs, councils, quangos and consultants. In fact, we have too much of everything. It costs more to deliver front line services here, about which we are so exercised, than it does in any other region. My point is relevant, because although it is expensive to develop cohesion and coherence, it is logical to do so. However, that does not exist at present for understandable reasons.

The reference that was made to the old Stormont regime cuts no ice on this side of the House. As a young person interested in politics, I visited that Stormont, and it did not commend itself to me as being the type of Assembly or Parliament to which we should try to return. It was mentioned in the discussion that there is a mandatory five-party coalition here. However, we should really think carefully about that, because that is not the case. It is not mandatory to nominate, and any party here, including mine, may decide not to nominate. Parties that agree to nominate are accepting the basis on which people will serve together. I think that we should set that aside, because what we must do as a group of people who have different political perspectives, ambitions and aspirations is to get on with the business of being partners in government. That would open up other options.

If we are not yet ready to discuss dismantling the arrangements that have been made in respect of the number of MLAs or the number of constituencies in the region — and I suspect that we are not ready to do so — we will have to get to that point. However, can we address the question of why it costs so much to deliver services here in comparison with other regions? In many instances, they are doing it better. What are they doing and how are they doing it? They are delivering better front line services for less expenditure per capita. That is the challenge that we have not yet addressed.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member and his party can help to address the cost of front line services. For example, the Police Service here costs £400 a person compared with around £20 or £30 a person in other parts of the United Kingdom.

In some parts of my constituency, there has clearly been an attempt by the Member’s colleagues to create agitation on issues such as parades, thereby establishing an environment in which police resources have to be doubled. If a sensible approach were taken to such issues, money would not have to be spent and the Department of Justice would save money.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

There are probably two ways of looking at the issue. If marches are controversial or, indeed, offensive to some sections of our community, why would we insist on revisiting that, given that there are so many opportunities? I acknowledge the fact that the majority of marches to which the Member refers take place in areas in which they are welcome, where there is no need for policing operations and no offence is caused.

There is a straightforward answer to the Member’s challenge: problems are being policed rather than resources being poured into finding solutions. We could avoid problems and also save money with a common-sense approach.

My broad thesis today — I acknowledge your indulgence, Mr Speaker — is that the conflict, which we are all tasked with trying to resolve, continues to divide us. However, we have to rise above that if we are to deliver a different future and not revisit the past, of which we have all been victims.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the motion. The allocation of funding and the question of how much funding is available are always issues, but never so much as when we are at the heart of an economic downturn. Therefore, we are more focused today than we have been for a long time, especially in light of the Prime Minister’s comments at Westminster. The allocation of funding has never been as vital as when we are faced with cuts in all Departments and worries about whether projects will continue if their funding is cut. Each and every one of us can point to such projects in our constituencies.

Since 2008, unemployment in Northern Ireland has risen by 18,000 people. Strangford, the constituency that I represent, has an unemploy­ment rate that is higher than the UK average, leaving too many able-bodied people out of work. There has been a 63% rise in redundancies, caused not only by the decline in newbuilds and projects in the construction industry but by a decline in manufacturing. We have been trying to address those issues at a local level.

There is a well-known saying that people must speculate to accumulate, which is apt in the circumstances. A funding allocation is required to encourage growth and prosperity.

Lately A collouged wi’ fowk fae the engineerin’ sector i mae ain constituency. Thae boadies alloo at thair bes an appenin the noo fer a boost tae the nummer o’ engineerin’ joabs, bit at thon windae bes closin’ an’ noo bes the tim’ fer ection. Innovation, new maide technology an’ oangaein bettherments i engineerin’ hefts economic forderin.

I recently spoke to members of the engineering sector in my constituency, who said that there is an opening at present for a boost in engineering jobs. However, that window is slowly closing. Now is the time for action, innovation, new technology and continuous improvement in engineering, which will stimulate economic development. The manufacturing sector contributes some 25% of gross value added to the Northern Ireland economy. Therefore, we must focus on the manufacturing sector to improve the Northern Ireland economy and, by association, that of the UK. It is my hope that, through the allocation of the Supply resolution, sufficient money will be granted by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) and the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) to encourage the engineering sector in particular and, subsequently, growth in the local economy.

It is simple: the expansion of businesses means the creation of jobs, which means that fewer people will be on soul-destroying benefits and more people will live independently and make a contribution to society. Many people want to make a contribution, but they need jobs and the opportunity to do so. Redundancies in the manufacturing sector have left too many men in their 50s applying for jobs and losing out to younger men. Training for the unemployed must be a priority for the Government, and I hope that that will be taken on board when the time comes.

Those men, who worked all their lives, have no desire to be dependent on benefits. However, they also have no training to go into other fields of work, and they must be given more chances to change that. That is what we were elected to do, and that is what we must do. I am sure that many Members are aware of that niche in the market: those who are over 50 who cannot get jobs, or are finding it much harder to get jobs, who have worked all their days, and want the opportunity to continue to work.

As I said in a debate on last year’s Budget allocation, this is a time for the tightening of belts in areas where they can be tightened without affecting front line services. I think in particular about health, and the fact that I have been contacted by literally dozens of people — arthritis clubs, Chest, Heart and Stroke, MS, and the Gateway club — all of whom have been notified by the local health trust that the bus service that they have enjoyed for years could well be removed. Petitions have been organised, and are in the process of being filled. It is vital that everyone involved does their bit. Every one of those groups that I have approached, or which approached me, has stated clearly that the outings and events that they go to on their buses are essential, and are therapeutic to those who are not well and who live just for the trips out, the meals and the interaction. The threat of any cutbacks to that service is to be challenged. I have written to Minister McGimpsey, informing him that the bus service needs to be retained, and that any penny pinching and reduction in that vital service cannot be allowed to be considered.

There are dozens of those volunteer groups in the Ards borough, which I represent wearing my other hat. Other Members, too, will be aware of such groups. Part of their work depends on that free bus service. The importance of its retention cannot be underlined enough, and I urge the Minister to make his cuts in some other area where efficiencies can be made, and not in the provision of front line services.

I have highlighted before the money that can be saved with regard to the money that is wasted on the dispense weekly and Medisure packages that offer prescription aid. Those services were introduced for those who were unable to get out to collect their prescriptions, but I have been informed that they have allegedly been abused by some businesses and are offered to anyone on repeat prescription. That was not why that service was offered. I suggest to the Minister that he should be aware of the cost of that dispensing of prescriptions has quadrupled. Therefore, there are savings to be made if he looks closely at the system. In some cases, that service is a vital aid to unwell people, but in other cases it is simply a way for some to make money. Surely that should be looked at to deliver efficiency savings.

I cannot go into great detail about the best way for all the money to go. However, we can run a healthy and prosperous Northern Ireland on the block grant if every Minister in the Executive takes a hold of their Department and makes the sensible savings that are possible, not just the obvious cuts. This will not be done by one Minister or another Minister, or by the Finance Minister on his own, but by all Ministers in all Departments.

I do not envy the Minister of Finance and Personnel in distributing the grant for which he is responsible. However, I do trust him, and I know that he will do what is best. I know that the budgets that he will allocate out of his money will be budgets on which every Department can function, and every Department should play their part in that. I support the motion.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to make some remarks about the education budget. Mr Storey has referred to some aspects of that budget.

The Minister of Education told us members of the Committee for Education that she seeks to make savings that will protect front line services. That, surely, is a laudable way to go about things. Unfortunately, however, her own officials do not seem to be in agreement with her. Her own senior officials tell the Education Committee that they cannot guarantee us that the savings that they will make will not impact on the classroom situation. We are therefore left wondering who is right: the Minister or her officials. That is a theme that we encounter time and time again when dealing with the Minister of Education.

The Chairperson of the Education Committee referred to the lack of information that comes from the Department to the Committee. Indeed, it is not only the Education Committee that suffers because of a lack of information.

As was mentioned earlier, the education and library boards are in a similar position. The difference is that their not receiving the information impacts on front line services.

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

The earmarked funding that education and library boards receive annually is usually revealed to them in March or April. However, we are now in the middle of June and they have not been told how much resource they are getting for earmarked projects. Not all those projects are luxuries that can be done without; in fact, the opposite is true. Earmarked funding pays for important curricular support work, including the literacy and numeracy teams that work in education and library boards and are mainly directed at underachieving pupils. Such pupils really need the type of support that that funding enables them to get. If that is not a front line service, I do not know what is.

A Public Accounts Committee report that dealt with literacy and numeracy underlined the need for greater emphasis to be placed on effective work in that area. The phonics programme, which was much promoted by the Department and, we are led to believe, will be a key element in the literacy and numeracy strategy, is also in doubt, as are the jobs of specialist teaching assistants in literacy and numeracy. Such people are trained to support teachers at the chalk face, in the classroom. Once again, I emphasis that that is a front line service and one that is being affected because the Department of Education has not got its act together on its budget. As a result, front line services, which the Minister claims that she will protect to the end, are being affected.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel will remember his lowly days as Chairperson of the Education Committee. From that experience, he will be aware of the backlog in school maintenance. If my memory serves me correctly, while he was Chairperson, the backlog was estimated to be around £160 million worth of work. The latest estimate is £300 million. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a huge amount of work that is waiting to be done in schools. Some of it involves urgent health and safety work, which, obviously, must be prioritised. I can think of schools in my constituency that have been long awaiting new buildings. Some of them have been waiting for 10 years and more. I am sure that other Members can think of projects in their constituency that are awaiting the call. That creates a huge amount of frustration among teachers, parents and boards of governors. It is hardly surprising that many of them have grown cynical about the Department’s excuses, including the Minister’s latest, interminable review, which is the latest in a long line of put-offs that those people have had to endure.

Time and again, the Minister has told us that she is seeking to create a world-class education system. I certainly support her in that. She has said, though, that it is not the nature of accommodation that is important but the quality of teaching and learning. I agree that the quality of teaching and learning is very important. However, apart from the odd flying visit here and there, it is obvious that the Minister has not spent much time in schools. If she had, she would know that first-class facilities have a positive effect on teaching, learning, morale and, indeed, the local perception of schools and pupils’ enjoyment of their educational experience.

If every school is to be a good school, we need the investment in the schools estate that will help schools respond to the needs of the twenty-first century. Schools cannot do that in 1970s facilities. Some of our teachers tell us that they have been working in outdated buildings and facilities that are long in need of replacement. Indeed, some who have long left school will say that plans for newbuilds at their school were being talked about when they were in P1.

The most effective way of reducing the backlog in school maintenance and improving the schools estate is to invest in capital schemes. Sticking plasters here and there are not a long-term solution. The longer that work is left undone, the more the schools estate deteriorates and the worse will be the conditions in which our children and teachers have to work. The longer that maintenance is delayed, the greater will be the bill we will face at the end of the day. A lack of investment now is a false saving, which, in the longer term, will cost us more.

The further pressures on the education budget this year, we are told, may mean that no newbuilds will go on site in 2010-11. As I said, the backlog in school maintenance continues to grow. If there is no investment in school newbuilds this year, that backlog will be even greater this time next year. The Minister of Education tells us that that is not the case and that she will make decisions in light of the review, but when will the review end? It seems to be ongoing, month after month. As I said, mixed messages emanate from the Department: officials tell us that there will be no newbuilds, while the Minister says that there will be. We need certainty about that.

In tomorrow’s debate, I hope to explore some of those themes in greater detail, but, in the meantime, there is a clear need for the Department of Education to explain to members of the Education Committee and to the education and library boards the exact details of the education budget for 2010-11. With that information, we will be in a position to assess the budget and predict its effect, but without it, in the current circumstances, we will be unable to do so.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Mr Bradley referred to what he hopes to return to tomorrow in the debate on the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 3) Bill. As a member of the Finance Committee, I frequently had to reassess or reheat what had been said the previous day, dressing up the same remarks for different debates. That is one of the reliefs of no longer being on the Finance Committee; it is a task that does not fall to me. Today, I will bite the bullet. I appreciate the prison pallor of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, who had no such early release scheme visited on him. He will have to digest remarks again tomorrow, although he is a man who can recycle remarks fairly easily.

Before I make a few general comments, I will make some observations in my role as Chair­person of the Audit Committee. Given the current economic climate, the Audit Committee believes that it has never been more important to ensure that the Northern Ireland Audit Office achieves its aims of providing objective information, advice and assurance on the use of public funds and encouraging beneficial change in the provision of public services. The Audit Office also seeks to achieve the highest standards in financial management and reporting and propriety in the conduct of public business.

There is no question that we all recognise the importance of that work. The Audit Office’s main estimate for 2010-11 of just over £9 million represents a decrease of approximately 3·5% on last year’s provision of £9·39 million. Although it is the intention of the Audit Office to significantly increase the extent of its value for money work on the policing and justice bodies during 2010-11, it intends to meet the increased costs of that work through efficiencies made in the rest of its work and by the redeployment of staff. The Audit Committee welcomes that approach.

In considering the Audit Office’s Main Estimates for 2010-11, the Committee consulted the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Public Accounts Committee, both of which were content. In view of that and having questioned officials from the Audit Office, the Committee unanimously agreed the Main Estimates at its meeting on 9 March 2010. The Committee will continue to scrutinise the Audit Office’s expenditure to ensure value for money and that its aims are being achieved.

In aiding DFP and the Public Accounts Committee, the Audit Office makes a significant and valuable contribution. In keeping with the spirit of auditing, its work is based on financial prudence. Circumstances that are largely outside its control, namely the devolution of policing and justice, mean that the work of the Audit Office will expand. To ensure that it does not face an increased cost burden, the Audit Office is seeking to make efficiencies in its organisation. The Audit Committee welcomes the valuable work and contribution of that office.

As a former long-standing member of the Finance and Personnel Committee, I used to play a slightly more prominent role on occasions such as today. Various changes meant that I exited that role and, in case anyone had any doubts, had to hang up my anorak. Consequently, I will not go into the minutiae of the Supply resolutions. Suffice it to say that we all recognise that we are moving into a tougher financial situation. The concern is that, so far, we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. It was prudent of the Finance Minister to warn of the overall financial situation in which we are likely to find ourselves over the next few years. We must bear it in mind that about £1 billion will come out of the Budget.

My other role is that of Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. Its parent Department, in common with others, will be subject to financial scrutiny and constraints, and it will have to face up to the fact that the cake will simply be smaller. It must be recognised that the Department for Employment and Learning will face inescapable pressures because of student loans, particularly as a by-product of the recession. That issue may need to be tackled on a wider national basis, but, with projections of approximately £20 million for the next year, we must face up to the fact that the consequences for the devolved institution are unavoidable.

As we move into more straitened financial circumstances, it is inevitable that more young people will try to gain additional qualifications. They will look towards higher and further education, and, in doing so, they will, potentially, place even greater strain on the system.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I listened carefully to the Member’s comments. I ask the Minister for Finance and Personnel to take on board the issue of the budget for research and development, which has not been mentioned. Northern Ireland can become a centre of energy, but no money is being pumped into realising that. No matter where small businesses or firms turn, their way is blocked. Something must be done, because Northern Ireland has much to offer, but the hands of businesses are tied.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Northern Ireland certainly has a lot to offer. The Executive and my party, in particular, have taken the approach of trying to untie hands and remove barriers to business where those exist. We are trying to ensure that our businesses have a low-cost environment, and, obviously, that applies to research and development.

In whatever decisions we take, many of which will be forced on us, we must ensure that we protect the economy for the long run. Although there will be pressures on the Department for Employment and Learning, putting training in place for young people is key. In many ways, such training programmes are the building blocks of our economy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Savage made an important intervention. As a result of the independent review of economic policy, which is now being taken forward by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, one of the main emphases will be on moving away from selective assistance for firms and towards research and development, innovation and skills etc. As the Member pointed out, that is the way to build a high value-added economy.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I welcome the Minister’s remarks. It is important that we focus tightly on helping to develop the economy, because that is the long-term solution for Northern Ireland. That may be done through focusing on R&D or ensuring that young people receive adequate training so that they are fit to meet the demands of the twenty-first century and contribute to the economy. All of that is important.

There is also a challenge to ensure that resources are used well, and the Department of Education has a role to play in that. If we are to build long-term economic sustainability, we need to reposition our economy and place greater focus on STEM subjects in education. Although it is important that the Department of Finance, DEL and DETI play their roles, it is clear from the meetings that I have been involved in that there is also a strong role to be played by the Department of Education in respect of what is done for young people before they reach the age of 16 to prepare them for the workforce. I urge the Minister to bear that in mind when making the tough choices that lie ahead.

Unfortunately, we have moved from having a range of good choices about what good things to put money into to a much tougher financial regime of which good things we will ultimately have to cut.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I welcome the proposals and look forward to the rest of the debate.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise for not being present for the earlier part of the debate, although I listened to it while conducting other business in my room. The debate has understandably — perhaps predictably — divided along the traditional lines of how people feel public funds should be utilised to stimulate an economy. Unfortunately, the debate has largely been about how we administer the cuts that will inevitably come from the Tory-Lib Dem Government in Britain. Therefore, the debate has not gone in the direction that it needs to go.

My colleague Mitchel McLaughlin said that we need to have a lengthy discussion about how we stimulate an economy. We are not having an economic debate in that sense. We are having a debate about how we administer cuts and work with the Budget handed down to us in what is somewhat ungraciously termed the block grant. It is as if there are no taxes or funds raised in this part of the world and we just live off a grant handed down to us by the British Government. That ignores the reality of the taxes that leave this island, the European grants and all the other ways in which the British Government benefit from being here.

That is where the debate needs to lead to. If economic debate concentrates solely on the Six Counties, that economy will not work. Since the partition of the state, through the various stages of our history, apart from in the war years, we have had a weak and weakened economy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member has made an important point as regards what the debate should be about. However, does he accept that, by the time it comes to the final Budget, the debate must be about administering what we have and the spending plans for this financial year? Does the Member accept that the debate that he wants should take place before the Budget is formulated and that the place for that debate, as I said in my opening speech, is in Committees as they interview their Minister and departmental officials to establish policies? Does he accept that the Assembly collectively should consider those issues at the start of the process rather than when we are debating the final shape of the Budget?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I agree with the Minister to a degree: Committees’ role is to scrutinise and support their Departments. Inevitably, however, each Committee acts in a silo from which it looks at an individual Department’s budget. The same can be said of Ministers, who look at their budget in isolation. We need a debate in the Chamber and in broader society about how we manage our Budget and how we build an economy so that we are not simply dealing with a block grant or moneys handed down to us by the British Treasury to divide up, even though that money invariably does not go far enough. There is a role for Committees, and I have heard comments about the information and the time that Departments give their Committee to have that informed debate.

Our economy, apart from the war years, has largely been based on British Government subventions, and as long as it is based on a six-county model, we are going nowhere. We will continue to have these debates, and the next Finance Minister and the one after that will continue to struggle with funding that does not meet the needs of the society that we are charged with governing.

I take an all-Ireland perspective on how we build our economy. Members on the Benches opposite have pointed the finger down South and said, “Look at the mess that they made of their economy”. Haven’t they just? They had an opportunity to build a society on the wealth that they had created that would have laid firm foundations for future generations, but they squandered it. However, it is not productive simply to point the finger at political representatives in Dublin and say, “Didn’t you make a mess of that?”.

In some ways, we have an all-Ireland economy. One need only look at the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and the hundreds of millions of pounds that it now controls in the North. It now has an influence in the property market that may or may not be to the benefit of this society. The Finance Minister has spoken to his Dublin counterpart about the implications of such a block of money being held by that agency, and the issue has been raised at North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Those assets need to be secured and used properly for the benefit of people across the island and not just of NAMA.

I am not arguing for an isolationist policy to create an economy on the island of Ireland that turns its back on its neighbours in Scotland, England and Wales. If we move forward collectively, we can build an economy to benefit the people on all these islands. We should move forward in that way instead of dealing with the economy as we do.

As my party’s education spokesperson, I may now be taking the silo approach that I spoke of. Along with many others, I believe that education and health are the two key principles on which we will build a healthy and strong economy. Thus far, our education budget has been robust enough to allow advances to be made in education. There has been a large-scale building programme and investment in schools and front line services, and new, imaginative initiatives have been put in place. However, I not only fear but believe that all those measures will come to an end, not only because of the imminent cuts but because of some that we already face. The Education Committee has been told of the danger to our capital build programme of money running out. If that were the case, no more schools would be built. School maintenance causes great concern to everyone. Earlier, I heard mention of redundancies in schools in respect of teachers and front line services. I suspect that much of that is aligned to the falling roll numbers at this stage of the educational calendar, but it is concerning that education is beginning to feel the initial bites of the earlier Budget cuts.

I have great sympathy for the Health Minister as he pursues the delivery of health services in the current circumstances. However, the argument to simply ring-fence the health budget causes me concern because it ignores the simple fact that society, the Executive and the Assembly should be about creating good health, not simply managing poor health. If we ring-fence the health budget to the detriment of all the other services, we will spend our time treating ill people instead of ensuring that we provide proper housing, schooling, jobs and an environ­ment in which people’s mental and physical health improves. I appeal to those who use the argument that health funding should be ring-fenced to think of the full implications of that.

That brings me to another subject that has been mooted for several months and reaches fever pitch on some occasions: the introduction of direct water charges. Those charges could generate £300 million, but where will that money come from? Obviously, it will come from every household in the North, including the most vulnerable. When one looks at societies across the globe that have introduced direct water charging, it has had a detrimental effect on people’s health and well-being. Therefore, what we give with one hand, we will take with the other. If that £300 million were redistributed throughout our Executive, I have no doubt that, over time, due to the introduction of extra pressures on people’s lives and the reluctance to use water and all that goes with that, there would be an effect on our Health Service.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We live in a service economy. If we take extra money out of home budgets, we take extra money out of our service economy. That will have a further knock-on effect on the economy.

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

I will reiterate some of the comments made by Margaret Ritchie about revisiting the Programme for Government and the Budget. We have been consistent on that. Everybody is aware of the changing financial circumstances and the worries of government Departments about how they spend their money and the worries of the public about what they will lose as a result of cutbacks. That is the logic that we have repeated time and again in our calls for revisiting the Budget and the Programme for Government. We still think that that needs to be done. We need to have a full debate about how we make best use of the money.

The cutbacks in my constituency are, like every­where else, causing unemployment and creating difficulties for families. We are fortunate that the new hospital in Enniskillen has been started and will be completed. We hope that it will be fully functional in a couple of years and that, when it is, there will not be any ward closures, as was the experience at Downe Hospital. I will come back to that point in a few minutes.

The roads in my constituency are in a deplorable state. For more than 20 years, there has been no investment in new roads, and there is not enough money to maintain minor roads. Consequently, roads there are deteriorating, crumbling and breaking up.

For everybody in society — maybe it is a global thing — all kinds of unexpected shocks are cropping up. In Fermanagh, as a result of the problems at Quinn Insurance, hundreds of jobs will be lost, and the company’s long-term future is uncertain. Against that background, it is important that all Departments ensure that every available resource is directed to help and support the people who will be left without a job and the families who will be left without a breadwinner. In respect of the latest crisis at Quinn Insurance, I acknowledge the hard work by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Employment and Learning to provide what support they can.

Mervyn Storey said that it is fine and well to cut everything down. However, in the present economic circumstances, as a border constituency, Fermanagh needs a fully functioning North/South Ministerial Council, because that is the best way to draw in financial support to stimulate business. Invest Northern Ireland’s record in Fermanagh is not good, and we do not expect it to improve. Therefore, the best context for ensuring that constituency’s economic future is through a fully functioning North/South Ministerial Council. We know about Waterways Ireland, which must be supported, as does InterTradeIreland, but, in the interests of the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and, indeed, our cross-border neighbours, all aspects of the North/South Ministerial Council need to be working at new levels and facing up to new challenges.

George Savage mentioned research and development, and, in order to find new ways to grow indigenous businesses, it is important for economic development that that area has a centre of excellence. If possible, large businesses must be developed, and, for the good of the community, a range of new micro-businesses must be developed.

Turning to health, given that it is carers’ week, I shall start by talking about them. We are all aware of the heroic work that carers do and of the scarcity of resources to help them, particularly in domiciliary and respite care. For example, the demand for care for dementia sufferers is growing: 1,400 new respite care places are needed. In the Budget, only £600,000 has been made available to meet that demand. That is a considerable shortfall, which only adds to the burden of those who carry out that work.

The number of stroke suffers is also rising. Rehabilitation is very important to those individuals; however, for the coming year, the Department does not have sufficient money to support rehabilitation services. That discrepancy, in turn, will put more pressure on carers, so that area must be looked at. Owing to financial pressures, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s policy for the coming year is for shorter hospital stays. Of course, it is often good for patients to get out of hospital. However, elected representatives know that it is not a perfect world, and, sometimes, ill people are sent home in circumstances that their families consider too early. That, again, puts further pressure on the home and on the dwindling domiciliary care budget.

I turn now to the capital development side of the Health Service and the projects that are waiting for support. Those projects range from the proposed women’s and children’s hospitals in Belfast to the Antrim Area Hospital, which is under increased pressure because of the closures at Whiteabbey Hospital and the Mid-Ulster Hospital. Indeed, Antrim Area Hospital needs a new wing for additional beds, and it needs extended accident and emergency services. There is a real crisis there, because the powers that be decided, just like the click of a finger, to close down the Mid-Ulster Hospital, with the result that the crisis has moved to the Antrim Area Hospital.

The Downe Hospital was referred to. Although it is a new hospital, lo and behold, just after it was opened, we heard that a ward had been closed down. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), if not the Executive, must take a serious look at how things are managed. We put scarce capital resources into newbuild, and, as the recurrent side has not been thought through, the necessary resources are not available to support the new capital project and all its facilities. As a result, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety decided to close some wards and save some money out of the recurrent budget. That is bad management.

I mentioned further capital projects. However, I omitted to mention the Omagh hospital, and I want to put that on the record. I mentioned the new hospital at Enniskillen. If money is put into those resources, we should fulfil the expectations of the people who will get the benefit of those resources. We all know that they are needed, whether in Belfast for the women’s and children’s hospitals, which are regional facilities that will serve us all, or for the more rural hospitals. Whenever people see a newbuild, they expect results. They do not expect to be let down by the management in the Health Service or the management in government through a scarcity of resources. We end up in the silly situation where the facility is in place, but cuts are made to the resources that are needed for it.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. However, I am concerned about the priorities that are reflected in the Supply resolution, and I question some of those priorities. For example, is it more important to reduce hospital waiting lists or to defer water charges? Is it more important for patients to get the drugs that they require or for the rates to be frozen? Is the abolition of prescription charges a priority? Should we be spending more money on industrial derating when it tends to benefit the most profitable businesses and does little to help those who are struggling? Should we not be spending more money on the green new deal? Is free public transport for the over 60s a priority?

I do not know the answers to those questions, but we should debate the issues now. We are in a new economic climate, and decisions that we took some years ago, such as that on water charges, should be reviewed. We must find an alternative means to fund water and sewerage services. They cannot be met from the block grant at the expense of other services. Under the Barnett formula, there is nothing in the block grant to pay for water. In the rest of the UK, consumers pay directly to water companies, and there is no call on public finance.

Therefore, Northern Ireland Water must be funded from existing resources; namely, the block grant or the regional rate. Indeed, the £300 million payment to Northern Ireland Water is a similar amount to the £367 million of budgetary cuts that the Minister proposed some months ago.

If we continue to fund Northern Ireland Water from the block grant, there must be a reduction in the resources available for other services, such as housing, health and education. As spending on health comprises half of the total Budget, the burden for paying for water services will inevitably fall heaviest on the already underfunded Health Service. I initially highlighted the problem of health funding in my speech on the Budget in November 2007, yet it has continued for three successive years. I pointed out that, in the absence of an alternative source of funding for water services, the Health Service budget would be reduced, which would inevitably lead to cuts in services and significant redundancies. Unfortunately, that has proven to be the case over the past few months.

As a result of demographic trends and the fact that NHS inflation is significantly higher than basic inflation, the increase in the Health Service budget represented, at best, a freeze in overall expenditure, which compared with an increase of 4% in real terms in the Health Service in England. That meant that the health budget was unable to meet new demands, such as the implementation of the recommendations of the Bamford review. Therefore, in order to provide funding for water services, we were required to accept a de facto freeze in the health budget and a level of service below that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the figures show that the Health Service here receives £600 million less than the rest of the United Kingdom.

In deciding to continue to fund our water services from the block grant, we have ignored the costs of providing other services, and that cannot continue. There must be an open debate on the implications for other services of a decision to continue to fund water services from the block grant. The public must be made aware of the issue and allowed to make a choice between the non-payment of water charges and the reduction of provision for health and education.

I am particularly concerned about the failure to implement the recommendations of the Bamford review. Mental health services are the Cinderella services of the Health Service in Northern Ireland, even though we have a higher incidence of mental health problems than the rest of the United Kingdom. We spend only 8% of our health budget on mental health services here, compared with a figure of 12% in the rest of the United Kingdom. People in Northern Ireland deserve as good a mental health service as is provided elsewhere. We are not providing mental health services fit for the twenty-first century. Despite the valiant efforts of the overworked and under-resourced mental health teams, the quality of service provided in Northern Ireland is disgracefully inadequate, particularly given the level of need. The recommendations of the Bamford review sought to resolve that problem. However, we do not have the resources to implement those recommendations, and it is clear that the proposed cuts in the overall health budget will result in a poor service. We are well behind England and Wales in providing services for people with personality disorders and severe mental health problems, and we will fall further behind if the proposed cuts are made.

We must look again at our priorities, including water charges, domestic and industrial rates, prescription charges and free bus passes. Making them a priority was fine when we had a booming economy. However, they must now be reconsidered.

Another move that may result in some Executive savings would be to scrap the reorganisation of local government. It is now clear that we will not meet the original objectives of the review of public administration (RPA).

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Does the Member agree that the public would be totally aghast if the Executive were to scrap the RPA? Almost £120 million has been spent in preparing for the RPA, so to simply scrap it would be unacceptable to the public.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I do not accept that at all, because £80 million of the money that has been spent on the RPA was spent on Health Service reforms, which have been completed already. Some £9 million has been spent on local government. To continue spending would be to throw good money after bad. As the PricewaterhouseCoopers report indicated, £118 million will be needed in the next year to implement the RPA and the restructuring of local government. We do not have that money. Where will it come from? Will it come from the Health Service budget or the education budget? It is a case of throwing good money after bad, and the RPA will not achieve the savings that were indicated originally.

If one reads carefully the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, one will see that most of the savings, which will be made over 25 years, depend on making major decisions, which the councils are not willing to make; for example, centralised services —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

Yes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The nonsense that ill-informed journalists are pumping out about RPA needs to be knocked on the head. There is an upfront cost, but it will not come from this year’s Budget. It will be spread over 10 years, and councils will take it as a loan. The return will be much higher than the cost, and, spread across 11 councils over 10 years, the hit will be very little each year.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

The cost of restructuring, of redundancies and of paying off councillors will have to be borne within the next year. There will be a considerable up-front cost, for which the money is not currently available to meet it. Therefore, we should look again at the whole idea of RPA and at whether we can achieve the savings predicted. According to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, that is extremely unlikely. The savings are to be phased over 25 years, and they are fairly insignificant. The savings could be met by the existing councils without their going through the disruption of reorganisation.

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

At this stage of the debate, the Members who made fine speeches have retired to the well-appointed restaurants in the Building for sustenance. For many people, however, the luxury of going to a restaurant does not exist, and many of the people whom I represent knock on the doors of the Assembly Ombudsman to look for some kind of justice and equality. The ombudsman’s budget is included in the lead motion. Three years ago, the ombudsman was promised greater powers to represent more people on ordinary, everyday issues that are important to them. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) made that promise, and it has not been delivered.

Although I may be going slightly off the subject, I am justified in saying that we should have value for money. Let the agencies that represent ordinary people have the powers that they need. I feel strongly about that issue, and let us hope that, now that much of the mopping-up to move the Assembly forward has been addressed, serious thought will be given to providing the ombudsman with the additional powers that he needs on simple issues, such as planning, which affects people across Northern Ireland.

The ombudsman’s website states:

“The purpose of my Office is to ensure that every citizen in Northern Ireland is served by a fair and efficient public administration that is committed to accountability; openness; and quality of service.”

He concludes by saying that he hopes that people find that to be the case. Many people cannot, but that is no fault at all of the ombudsman. Simply put, the work that should have been done has not been done. I am sure that every Member will agree that the ombudsman should get the additional powers that he needs to deliver the kind of service that I am sure that he wants to deliver to all the citizens of Northern Ireland.

My colleague Dominic Bradley covered the subject of literacy and numeracy, and I make no apology for returning to it. That was a major issue during the first Assembly mandate, when I was Chairman of the Audit Committee. However, we still have a horrendous problem today, with 250,000 people between the ages of 16 and 64 lacking basic skills in literacy and numeracy. We may thump our chests and claim that we are delivering equality for people, but what sort of society do we live in if those numbers of people do not have those basic skills?

That issue perpetuates itself to the next generation. I say that as a former teacher. I know that our Minister, Mr Wilson, was a teacher and, therefore, knows exactly what I mean. The £7 billion under discussion today is a lot of money. It is an affront if we cannot deliver services to those 250,000 people, particularly in these times of economic depression, when a person’s chances of getting a sustainable job are diminished if they do not have the basic skills. Beyond that, lacking those skills can even affect people’s ability to socialise, relate to their family or read an ordinary medicine bottle. I acknowledge that work has been done, but, in these stringent times, I appeal to the House to not forget those people, who are often described as unemployable.

A decent infrastructure is very important, particularly now that we are in the doldrums. The people of Dungiven will be watching very carefully to see our plans for spending capital money. Those people live in an atmosphere that is poisoned by carbon dioxide and they will be praying and hoping that whatever decisions we make over the next couple of days, they will get their bypass. As someone who strongly believes in increasing rail use and reducing road use as far as possible, I hope that the work that still needs to be done on the railway between our two principal cities, namely Derry and Belfast, is not affected. The stretch of railway between Coleraine and Derry is in an awful state and needs capital investment to provide even a basic service to take people from one city to the other in less than two and a half hours.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order. As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes it ease until that time. The debate will continue after Question Time, when Jim Wells will be the first Member to speak.

Environment

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment how much his Department has spent on the review of public administration process to date. (AQO 1396/10)

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Ceist uimhir a haon, le do thoil. Question number 1.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I think that I heard someone say question number one; I would be responding only if that were the case, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The latest figures available are to the end of May 2010, and they show that my Department has spent £9·6 million on the local government aspects of the review of public administration (RPA).

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I think that he is facing a difficulty in that public opinion will be holding him responsible for the squandering of the money involved in the process, given his insistence on holding up changes to the councils. Even DUP-controlled councils have criticised his approach on the matter. When will the Minister accept the reality that the RPA must go ahead and to continue to sustain the 26-council model is not value for money?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Member’s question, and I note his comments about people holding things up. It is interesting that I have a document with me relating to the policy proposals for the local government reorganisation Bill. Those policy proposals were put to the Executive a year and a half ago by my colleague Sammy Wilson, who was Minister of the Environment at that time. The only reason why those policy proposals have not been consulted on is that the Member’s own party — the deputy First Minister’s office — has held that back. I will not take lectures from the Member opposite about who has been holding things back when it is clear that this policy document has been held back by his party alone.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that until a decision is made, schedules are being binned, costs continue to mount and increased risks to ratepayers exist, as Land and Property Services (LPS) will have less time to get things right?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is the case. I do not think that the Member will have to wait very much longer until that decision is made, one way or another.

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

I will not ask the Minister to take any lectures, but will he give some indication of whether he still intends to take a few million pounds out of the pockets of hard-pressed ratepayers to fund the scheme?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I suppose that I will have to abide by the decision of the Executive, who may well decide that it is a consequence of the £128 million of cuts this year. I think that I was being kind when I suggested to the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) that £1 billion of cuts could be made over five years; it is looking much more like £1·25 billion over three years. Perhaps the Member and his party will assist me in identifying from where the sources of funding to do that should come, if we do not ask local government to pay for it.

The argument across a range of parties in the Executive has been that if local government is the financial beneficiary, it, rather than central government, should pay. I note that the Member is shaking his head, but that is not the view of one particular party; it is the view of a range of parties in the Executive.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

Does the Minister anticipate his Department contributing towards the £118 million?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Central government, or the Executive, are saying that the £118 million would, largely, have to be found by local government. To reduce the burden of the rates that the additional £20 million will mean in areas such as Fermanagh and Castlereagh, central government will be looking to assist. I remind Members that if we borrow £118 million, it will have to be paid back over 10 years at a cost of a further £33 million. Therefore, £151 million would have to be paid back over 10 years, and the Executive would have £25 million to pay back over 10 years.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on his Department’s budgetary position. (AQO 1397/10)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Following the meeting on 15 April, at which the Executive agreed the 2010-11 revised spending plans for all Departments, my Department’s current and capital budgets for 2010-11 are £129·6 million and £182·4 million, respectively.

Practically all the capital budget relates to the strategic waste infrastructure fund. As part of the June monitoring round, my officials have requested that £173·6 million be re-profiled into future years. Furthermore, a bid was included in the June monitoring submission to DFP for £5 million capital funding in 2010 to support local government with the cost of the new recycling and composting infrastructure.

My Department faces a number of significant pressures in its current budget that total in excess of £16 million, which is more than 12·5% of the opening current budget. My Department’s June monitoring submission to DFP, therefore, also includes a number of bids to cover those and other current budgetary pressures.

In parallel, my officials are progressing internal reviews of the Planning Service and of the delivery of corporate services functions in an attempt to realise savings in the financial year.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his full response. Does he accept that it was misguided to recruit new Planning Service staff until August 2009, when, within eight months, he sought to redeploy one third of its staff?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Certainly, when I came into my position and was alerted to the Planning Service’s difficulties, my Department immediately instigated a staff recruitment freeze. Therefore, I will not accept any criticism on that front. I could not have acted any quicker on that matter. It took some time for the Department’s identification of the scale of the downturn in planning applications to feed through. Therefore, if a quicker response time were required, it was perhaps not realised because that information was not fed through earlier.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Bearing in mind his budgetary position, I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the planning issue that involves permanent dwellers and second-home owners, particularly those on the north coast. Is he able, either in 2010 or 2011, in so far as he can determine his budget for that year, to at least keep the matter under review, given the situation that exists on the north coast for permanent dwellers?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If we consider the current position, I should say that the Department needs to identify other sources of income. It also needs to identify how it can live within its means. Staff redeployment is one issue that has come up. I make no apologies for acting early on that particular matter and for seeking to identify staff redeployment, as opposed to letting the situation get to the point where the Department would have to lay people off.

The Member’s point about income was valid. My Department will continue to give that matter its full consideration. It will also look at other sources of income for the Planning Service. It will look at changing the planning fee structure to make it more fit for purpose and up to date. As a means to close the gap between where we are and where we need to be at the end of the year, we are looking at other services for which the Planning Service can charge.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Has the Minister had any opportunity to speak to his colleague at the Department of Finance and Personnel about the redeployment of 271 staff from the Planning Service and around 80 staff from the Department? According to the most recent figures, which I have obtained from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, 246 vacancies are open for the redeployment of staff. Quite clearly, that figure is not compatible with the number of people who require redeployment.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Conversations and discussions with the Minister of Finance and Personnel are ongoing. I am also looking at other means of introducing fresh income streams. For example, the Department has an open-file policy, for which we may decide to charge a fairly nominal sum. The Planning Service has a time pressure on it, and there may be a degree of acceptance of a small fee to be charged for that policy. However, given the number of cases that are looked at, a small fee could generate further income of £500,000, which could reduce the number of staff that we need to lose.

We are looking at other potential sources of income. I know that the Member objected to the rise in planning fees that took place last year. We are at the point where we can introduce a further incremental annual rise, as I promised to do last year, as opposed to having one-off large rises. We are looking at other ways of deriving income, and that will, hopefully, offset some of the numbers that we need to lose to live within our budget.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment how many councils have indicated their support for his proposal that councils provide £118 million to pay for the review of public administration. (AQO 1399/10)

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

7. asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on local government reform. (AQO 1402/10)

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

10. asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on the financing of local government reform. (AQO 1405/10)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4, 7 and 10 together.

With the Executive facing substantial costs of £1 billion over the next five years, they are not in a position to fund the reform of local government. For that reason, the Executive asked me to identify whether local government would be prepared to fund the upfront costs of £118 million. On behalf of the Executive, I wrote to NILGA on 20 May, with copies to councils, to determine whether councils would fund the full upfront cost of implementing local government reform.

On 4 June 2010, the president of NILGA responded on behalf of the sector, restating the sector’s commitment to the reform programme and reiterating the seven principles under which local government would contribute to the funding of local government reform. Additionally, nine individual councils and one transition committee have responded directly to express their position. In the main, they are not supportive of local government funding the full cost of reform, with most indicating their support of the seven principles under which local government would contribute to the cost of reform.

At the Executive meeting on 10 June 2010, the Executive had very constructive discussions relating to the future of the local government reform programme. Discussion continued over the weekend, with a further Executive meeting planned for later today.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given that the group representing local government has accused the Minister of being provocative, the public accuse him of wasting millions of their money and political parties here accuse him of messing around, does he not accept that the morale of the staff in councils is very low because he has not introduced the reform programme? We all hold him to account for that. I would much prefer an answer, not a lecture, from the Minister.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Perhaps I will get a question as opposed to a speech from the Member; that might be helpful.

There is no reason for money to be wasted, because we can move forward from today. Whatever decision we arrive at, we can move forward and ensure that collaboration takes place between the councils to provide savings to the public. Whether that collaboration goes forward with or without amalgamation will be decided by the Executive later.

Maybe the Member is not aware that I am Minister of the Environment in the Assembly. I take the decisions on what the Executive are asked to approve, and the Executive have not approved the papers that have been put forward. It is for all parties across the board to take the blame if there is blame to be taken for anything, as opposed to that being directed at one particular person.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am sure that the Minister has been embarrassed that his colleagues in Lisburn and Castlereagh have refused to back his plan, although he can hardly be surprised, given the lack of a business case. Will the Minister now come clean and tell us which of his colleagues is blocking progress being made on the issue, and why, after three years, nothing has been finalised?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If the Member cared to read the minutes of meetings as opposed to reading newspaper articles, he might ascertain facts. Facts are always a more useful position to speak from than the one that he has just adopted. Lisburn and Castlereagh councils are not in favour of paying the full costs, but I was sent to ascertain, on behalf of the Executive — on behalf of the Member’s party, which belongs to the Executive, as do the parties of others in the Chamber — the views of local government on the issue.

The views of local government are very clear. A member of Sinn Féin put to NILGA the suggestion that the costs of reform be split 50/50, and that was rejected. Local government is prepared to make a contribution to its reform, but it is not prepared to pay for it all.

What is the Assembly’s view? In the Executive, the Health Minister, the Employment Minister, Sinn Féin’s three Ministers and the SDLP’s Minister have all said that they are not prepared to contribute, and the Minister of Justice’s budget is ring-fenced. Therefore, my Executive colleagues are indicating to me that, like local government, they are not prepared to make a contribution. Let the public read into that what they may.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I declare an interest as a member of Craigavon Borough Council. Does the Minister accept that it is unreasonable to expect local government to pay an unquantified bill for an unquantified benefit at an unquantified risk?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That might be the case. However, even if it is, is it reasonable to ask central government to take the hit, given that it has just taken a £128 million hit, courtesy of the Member’s colleagues in the Conservative Party, and given that it will have to take a further hit of £1·25 billion over the next three years, courtesy of his party colleagues?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister confirm that one of the core objectives of RPA is delivering value for money and that he put forward proposals endorsing option five, which would have delivered £438 million of savings and maximum efficiency, but the party opposite — Sinn Féin — rejected that?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I explained at the outset that the cost would be £118 million, plus £20 million for convergence and approximately £38 million for interest payments, and that the savings would be £159 million. For the benefit of Members around the Chamber who do not understand simple arithmetic, I will explain: that does not stack up. It only staked up when the proposals on convergence and collaboration, which could have delivered £400 million of savings, were introduced. However, local government rejected that, and Sinn Féin was responsible for a lot of the spade work for that rejection.

Members are directing fire at me for not delivering something that could save us money, but what is on the table will not save us money. It will only save money if all the councils are engaged in the necessary collaboration. We may proceed with amalgamation, but if we do so, I will insist that collaboration is put in place, or we may proceed with collaboration, which will save money up front, and proceed with amalgamation at a later point. That is a decision for the Executive to make, and I am confident that they will make that decision.

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

I see that we are now getting into the blame game. If we proceed with RPA, the £400 million of savings would be made over a 25-year time frame. Therefore, the Minister is crystal ball gazing.

The Boundary Commission’s report was a key component that has held up the movement on local government reform. Will the Minister tell the House whether we have decided on that report?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I said, there have been discussions on that issue and there has been movement on it, which I welcome.

In case the Member has been living in some other location outside Northern Ireland, I remind her that the blame game has been going on for quite some time on this issue. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I will not be accepting the blame for not making those savings when others, including the Member’s party, were the blocking mechanisms that stopped a potential £400 million of savings being made. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will not proceed with a system whereby we spend £170-odd million to save £150 million, because that does not make financial sense to me.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment which quangos he proposes to abolish and how he envisages their responsibilities being carried out in the future. (AQO 1400/10)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

At present, I have no plans to abolish any of the quangos for which my Department has responsibility. However, I have doubts about the continuing need for the Local Government Staff Commission, particularly in the context of moving to an 11-council model and the development of collaborative arrangements across councils for the delivery of back-office services, including human resource services.

In that context, I will wish to initiate a review of the commission before the end of the year. The form and precise timing of that review will depend on Executive decisions on the future of the local government reform programme.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, I am a wee bit disappointed about the future of quangos. I am sure that the Minister would agree that many quangos have long outlived their usefulness and that it is time that they were marched off the scene. Is this not a golden opportunity to save countless millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that is being spent on keeping those quangos in place? Does the Minister agree that we have devolution and that the Assembly should take on those responsibilities?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I absolutely agree with the Member. My Department has responsibility for only two non-departmental public bodies. The other three bodies are statutory advisory committees, which are required in order to meet European legislation. Significant changes are required for the two non-departmental public bodies for which the Department has full responsibility — I already referred to one of them — because the cost of some £1 million is no longer acceptable to the public. We will examine, address and challenge that issue over the coming months.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Some quangos perform required functions and are better being at arm’s length from government. What conclusion has the Minister reached on the performance of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency? Is he prepared to reconsider an independent environ­mental protection agency for Northern Ireland?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is interesting that the party that has always been aligned with quangos over the years is crying out for more quangos.

Some time ago, Arlene Foster made the right decision not to form a new quango. We have public accountability through the Minister, the Department and the Committee, which there would not otherwise be. I will defend public accountability. We fought for a devolved Administration to be brought back to Northern Ireland. We fought to ensure that local people could have their say on local issues. We fought to achieve all that, and I am not going to hand it off lightly to an independent body over which we, the public, would have no control.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

It is regrettable that quangos, across the board, have not been tackled in a more positive way. Does the Minister accept that creating another super-quango, such as the single business organisation, is fraught with difficulties? I remind him of the debacle with LPS and its work in recent times, which is still not satisfactory.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Therein lies the problem. The caveman mentality of not moving matters forward is why we are where we are with the review of public administration. Other parties continue to block and block and block again. Despite facts being put in front of the other parties to show that savings can be made and benefits derived, all of which could be delivered to the public, all we hear is that they are afraid of change. I am not afraid of change, and I am fed up with others attempting to block it.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment what assessment has been made of the impact that the redeployment of Planning Service staff may have on the ability of Planning Service to process planning applications. (AQO 1401/10)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Department faces in-year pressures of £16 million, a large proportion of which, £6·4 million, relates to a projected shortfall in planning receipts. That scale of financial pressure in one year is unprecedented in the Department of the Environment or in any other Northern Ireland Department, and it follows a difficult position last year in which we had to absorb financial pressures of £9 million.

In specific terms, the shortfall in planning receipts arises from a 45% reduction in the number of planning applications received since a high of 36,593 in 2004-05. I estimate that a total of 20,000 planning applications will be received during 2010-11, which is much the same number as was received in 2008-09 and in 2009-2010. However, the live caseload in the system for 2009-2010 is 11,000 planning applications, which is down considerably from 18,500 applications in 2007-08 and almost 13,000 applications in 2008-09.

Whereas planning application numbers have been declining, staffing resources have remained static and costs have risen. A contingency report has been prepared on how the Planning Service can live within its opening budget allocation, and it identifies 271 posts considered surplus in terms of affordability. In light of the much reduced volume of planning applications, and the reduced income for the Planning Service, redeployment of staff is now necessary to align staffing levels and costs more closely with work demands and revenue.

The Planning Service will reorganise to live within its budget, and it will reprioritise resources to ensure that key services to customers can be maintained and impact from the reduction in staff is minimised.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. How many staff have been redeployed since the Minister made his stark announcement more than six weeks ago, and how long will it take for staff to know what job will be available to them?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We are engaging in a consultation process to seek to identify those who are prepared to redeploy voluntarily. Considerable numbers have expressed an interest, but there is a considerable shortfall. We will probably be in a better position after the June monitoring round, when we identify whether additional funding will come to the Department to help with that problem, to decide whether to proceed with the full redeployment or a smaller redeployment as required, and we will go back to our staff to report on that.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

A great many of those facing potential redeployment want to know whether their grades will be maintained when redeployment takes place. Can the Minister answer that question?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The answer is very simple: yes.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

What lessons have been learned from the time when new staff were recruited without any real assessment of future demands? Has the Minister had any discussions with the head of human resources, who directed that miscalculation?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Staff were recruited on the basis of the market requiring that number. A number of years ago, Assembly Members were complaining about the time that it was taking to deal with applications. At one point, there were almost 19,000 live applications in the system. That is down to 11,000, which, in reality, is about 9,500, because a lot of people are not providing full information because they are not particularly keen on having their applications processed.

The recruitment of a couple of years ago was to deal with the number of applications that were coming in. The collapse in the market was not unexpected for some, but it was unprecedented in its scale, and no one anticipated that it would be so harsh or so long. Looking into the future is very difficult for anyone, and no one knows what the future holds. We have to respond to our current circumstances, which are that we have more staff than we can afford — perhaps not more staff than we need, but more staff than we can afford — and we have to respond to that.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question 7 has been grouped.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

8. asked the Minister of the Environment what action has been taken by his Department to address the issue of litter in coastal areas. (AQO 1403/10)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Under the Litter (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, district councils are under a duty to ensure, so far as is practicable, that land for which they are responsible is kept clean of litter. Such lands include coastal areas and beaches. The statutory code of practice on litter advises district councils as to the minimum standards of cleanliness for beaches that should apply between 1 May and 30 September inclusive.

The code applies the standard to items or material originating from discharges directly into the marine environment, as well as litter left by beach users. I am aware of the good work carried out by Tidy Northern Ireland in its Clean Coast programme, which brings people together to care for their local coastal environment. My Department is providing core funding of £77,000 to Tidy Northern Ireland in the 2010-11 financial year to help it deliver a range of programmes, some elements of which impact on coastal areas.

The best way to deal with litter is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Stronger laws and bigger fines for offenders have a role to play. That is why reducing litter and making Northern Ireland a cleaner and tidier place for residents and our increasing number of tourists is at the heart of my plans to bring forward the clean neighbourhoods and environment (Northern Ireland) Bill. That Bill will be designed to help district councils to deal with litter more effectively by providing them with better and stronger powers.

Finance and Personnel

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what action he proposes to take in light of the fine of £63 million imposed by the European Commission on the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; and whether the cost will be borne from the DARD budget. (AQO 1410/10)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I was delayed getting to my seat because I was impeded.

My officials continue to monitor the situation closely and are working with officials in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) to ensure the best resolution for the Executive. However, I understand that the impact on the Northern Ireland Budget will be considerably less than the £63 million that was quoted in the press. Any disallowance that was imposed by the European Commission will fall to the Agriculture Minister, and she has the right, of course, to seek Executive intervention through the Budget and monitoring process.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Has the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) established how the EU arrived at the figure of £63 million? In what ways will the £4·8 million that was allocated to DARD be used to help it improve its processes? Furthermore, is DFP helping DARD to have the apparently arbitrary fine reduced?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, not the Department of Finance and Personnel, will be involved in the negotiations about the exact level of the fine. However, a number of measures have been taken. First, some provision was made: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) will be responsible for £11 million of the first £30 million of the fine. Technical and budgetary adjustments mean that the impact on the Northern Ireland block grant will amount to £3·3 million. Of course, there will then be a second fine.

As to what the Executive have done to try to ensure that it does not happen again, the Member will be aware that I introduced the invest to save fund in the Budget for this year. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development successfully applied for £4·8 million from that fund to improve mapping and so on. That really should be the way forward to ensure that what happened does not happen again and we avoid fines in the future.

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

Coming on the back of the £190 million error in respect of the true value of the lands at Crossnacreevy, the proposed £60 million fine, should it come about, will have devastating consequences for our agriculture industry. Given that the proposed fine is essentially a loss of income for DARD — I heard what the Minister said about DEFRA — will additional money from the block grant need to be diverted to DARD to help to offset that serious loss of income?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I said, that is basically a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development; I am simply trying to answer it from a financial point of view.

First, the first fine of £33 million will have a net impact on the block grant of £3·3 million. Allowance has been made for that. Secondly, the second fine is, of course, still under negotiation with the European Commission. I do not know what the outcome of that is likely to be. Thirdly, where it has been identified that, for whatever reason, incorrect payments were made to farmers, that money should be recouped. I think that the Executive will say that to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. My under­standing is that the level of incorrect payments was identified at about £500,000 a year.

I should emphasise that it is not the case that £63 million had been paid out incorrectly: the fine is a multiple — in fact, a double multiple — of the actual amount that was paid out incorrectly by DARD to farmers.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I understand that, last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development indicated on the radio that some £30 million had been set aside in her Department. Has the Minister had any discussions with her to ensure that the services delivered by her Department will not be impaired because of the money that will come out of her budget?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have already dealt with the £30 million. The technical adjustment of £11 million, which is paid by DEFRA, means that the net impact on the block grant is £3·3 million. The Agriculture Minister has not, to date, made any representations to have that paid for centrally, nor has she made a bid for it centrally. I am not sure whether such a bid will be made in a future monitoring round. The further fine is still under negotiation.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether there is a mechanism by which the Executive can access the cash reserves of the Belfast Harbour Commission to fund infrastructure projects. (AQO 1411/10)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There is a mechanism by which the cash reserves of the Belfast port can be accessed to fund infrastructure projects. The port, which is managed by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, is a public corporation sponsored by DRD. It is entitled, at any time, to make an equity withdrawal from the reserves. If that happened, DRD would then surrender that equity withdrawal as a reduced requirement in the subsequent in-year monitoring exercise.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is there a precedent for making such an equity withdrawal? Would the sale or privatisation of the Belfast port be an option for funding infrastructure projects?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, there was such a precedent in the 2008-09 financial year in the form of an equity withdrawal of £10 million from the Driver and Vehicle Agency, which is also a public corporation. The Member’s second question or the second part of her question — I know that she meant to ask only one — was whether the sale of the port, rather than the withdrawal of equity, would release money. We could sell the port, but it is clear that any receipts from such a sale would go to Her Majesty’s Treasury.

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

I note the Minister’s comments and Miss McIlveen’s supplementary question about the sale or privatisation of the Belfast port. Will the Minister give the reassurance that it has been the view of the House and successive Executives that there should be no sale of the port of Belfast and that it should not be privatised? Indeed, in the early days of the Assembly, strenuous efforts were made by Assembly Members, including his good self, to oppose the sale of the port by the British Government. Such a sale, if it had taken place, would have removed from our community a valuable resource that protects our industry and provides a pathway for commerce into Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member knows — I was lectured by his party leader in the earlier debate — that, as circumstances and the shape of the economy change, we must consider different approaches to the way in which we address certain issues. In the earlier debate, Members continually said — no doubt it will happen after Question Time as well — that we must consider new ways of raising revenue. Where we have saleable assets for which we can get a good market value, we cannot rule that out. That is not to say that now is the best time to consider the sale of trust ports. However, there are certain advantages in selling trust ports, not least of which is that their sale would free them from the public expenditure system and enable them to borrow money that they cannot currently borrow to develop their infrastructure. The answer is not clear-cut; there are many aspects to the issue, and, as economic circumstances change, we must consider all the possibilities.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I inform Members that question 6 has been withdrawn. I apologise for not mentioning that earlier.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, given the levels of income and employment deprivation within the West Belfast constituency as detailed in the recent NISRA report, if he will recommend to his Executive colleagues that areas of deprivation should be given priority in any future Budget planning. (AQO 1412/10)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Recently, I presented a paper on the forthcoming 2010 Budget process to my Executive colleagues. That paper states that the financial environment is likely to be highly constrained over the next spending period. Therefore, it is critical that the Executive allocate their scarce resources in a manner that maximises economic growth and development.

As the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) report shows, deprivation does not occur only in West Belfast. We must create employment opportunities for all if we are to address deprivation. I understand that the report shows that West Belfast scores badly across the factors that underlie deprivation. However, to address that problem, it is my firm belief that we must take action on economic activity, enhance skills and promote employment opportunities. Employment opportunities should not simply be promoted in one geographical location but be promoted generally so that people can benefit from them.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel, surely he can recommend that areas of deprivation be given priority. My question may mention West Belfast, but it also mentions other areas of deprivation. My question is about areas of deprivation in general. Will the Minister see fit to try to make recommendations to his Executive colleagues to ensure that areas of deprivation are prioritised? There are areas where people have suffered for many generations, and they need a bit of assistance and a hand-up to lift them out of deprivation.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I agree. One of the tests for the Assembly will be how we improve life for people across Northern Ireland and across all the economic levels within. As I said, three actions must be taken. The Executive have put the growth of the economy at the head of their list of priorities; that is the first thing that had to be done. Secondly, we need to drill down from that and ask what prevents some people from engaging in the economy, when they could have a regular wage coming in, lift their self-esteem and improve the area in which they live. We identified a lack of skill and sometimes a level of economic inactivity as reasons why people do not take up the opportunities available to them. I do not know whether that is for inbuilt, inert or historical reasons. Thirdly, we must find ways in which to direct our resources towards improving and enhancing people’s skills, not to mention towards giving skills to people who find themselves in the position that the Member describes. That is the whole approach of the independent economic review. We must ensure that those people at least have the ability to take up opportunities in the economic market when they become available.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

West Belfast has been named as one of the constituencies that has high rates of unemployment and deprivation, but does the Minister accept that other constituencies have begun to go up the unemployment league table recently because of closures, demographic changes and the outward flow of labour? That should not be ignored as we look at how to deploy resources in those areas.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Income and employment are at the top of the criteria that NISRA examined. Health, education, skills, proximity to services, living environment and crime and disorder are other factors that feed into the indices. We must be aware of changing circumstances and of the problems that are emerging in other areas. The policy that I outlined and that the Executive have espoused will help to deal with the areas that the Member describes, as well as the problems that were highlighted in Mr Maskey’s question.

The Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment take those responsibilities seriously. We discuss the issue at every Executive meeting. They consider what can be done to lift those areas and individuals out of their current situation in order to enhance their prospects of employment, thus lifting them out of deprivation.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister confirm that any prioritisation of deprived individuals should be done according to their need rather than according to the area in which they reside? Does he also agree that some apparently affluent areas mask pockets of deprivation within them? He will know exactly where I am talking about in East Antrim.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There are obviously some areas with higher concentrations of people with individual needs, and those are registered on the NISRA indices. Of course economic policy should be designed in such a way that it picks up individuals or small pockets of individuals who, as the result of a factory closure, for example, as the Member for East Londonderry mentioned, happen to find themselves in that situation. It is important that the programmes that we devise are flexible, fleet-footed and able to deal with problems as they arise.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline his Department’s priorities in the current economic climate. (AQO 1413/10)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

My Department’s priorities are set out in the departmental ‘Operational Plan 2010-11’, which was published on 1 April. The plan outlines our remaining commitments made in the Programme for Government. During 2010-11, DFP, in its lead role with responsibility for finance, will continue to support the Executive by ensuring that financial resources are available to Northern Ireland, allocated effectively to Northern Ireland Depart­ments and provide the maximum value for money in services to citizens in Northern Ireland.

Secondly, we will support the Executive in setting out spending plans for the local Departments for the next three years. Thirdly, we want to maximise the rates that are collected, which, in Northern Ireland, are almost £1 billion and, therefore, can contribute substantially to public spending in Northern Ireland. Lastly, over recent years, we have tried to promote efficiency through shared services, whether that is HR Connect or the range of other shared services that the Department oversees.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he assure the House that the efficient collection of rates will remain a priority for his Department? Will he also assure us that rates relief will be provided in an accurate and timely way and that those who default on rates will be pursued according to due process?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have made it my priority that Land and Property Services (LPS) should see its primary job as collecting revenue for people in Northern Ireland. LPS does other things, but, in my opinion, the role of LPS is to ensure that we maximise the amount of money that is brought in and ensure that people pay their rate bills legitimately. The record of LPS has received criticism in the Assembly; it has not met its targets in the past. There is an improvement, but in the current economic situation it becomes that much more difficult. However, we do not go easy on those who do not pay their way in society. Nearly 43,000 court proceedings were issued in 2009-2010, which was 7,000 more than in the previous year.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the public spending constraints that the Executive will face in future and the fact that they need all potential financial resources at their disposal, will the Minister give us an update on why his Department is delaying bringing forward the priorities through which the dormant accounts scheme can be allocated?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There are two reasons. The first reason is that we do not yet even know the amount of money that we will have for the dormant accounts scheme because the Treasury has not finalised the release of the money or, indeed, how it ascertains whether an account is dormant. That is disappointing, but it is beyond our control.

The second reason is that I am having discussions with the Big Lottery Fund, which will administer the scheme, albeit under a separate heading for Northern Ireland. The Big Lottery Fund has questioned the criteria that I wish to use and, indeed, that reflect the public consultation. However, given that the dormant accounts scheme is being administered for people in Northern Ireland to reflect consultation with people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the Assembly, I think that I am entitled to ensure that the views of the people in Northern Ireland are reflected more than the views of the Big Lottery Fund.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Now that we know the extent of the Finance Minister’s priorities, does he agree that there is merit in all Ministers reviewing their budgets to see how many jobs they could help to create and protect by refocusing their departmental spending on specific priorities?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do indeed, and I have been encouraging Ministers to look ahead and to do some planning. I want to emphasise that I encourage Ministers not to be afraid of their Committee — that is something that was raised in the debate this morning and will, no doubt, be raised again this afternoon. They should go to them with their proposals and be transparent with information so that there can be a corporate approach to how Departments can best deliver opportunities, jobs and services in Northern Ireland’s constrained financial situation. Ministers should not be afraid of Committee scrutiny; in fact, they should welcome Committee co-operation.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Minister clarify his current position on a regional economic strategy? There is a gap between the high-level commitments in the Programme for Government and, although it is quite broad, those in the Barnett review that DETI recently sponsored. Arising from that, has he taken any action to follow up on his recent keynote speech in Dundalk, in which he talked about trying to rebalance the economy by moving away from purely demand-side initiatives towards supply-side initiatives?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, the implementation and work of the independent economic review are being taken forward by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister. That review is moving towards identifying what is required to grow the economy, including research and development and emphasis on STEM subjects, training and enhancing skills and, of course, improving infrastructure. That will require a rebalancing of some of the spending that we are discussing, which relates to my answer to Mr McNarry’s question. Ministers must look at their role across Departments not just in their own silo. The Assembly and Committees have roles to play in achieving that. As we look forward to the 2010 Budget, we are preparing spending plans for the next three years in constrained economic circumstances, so now is the time to have that debate. That will mean tough choices, and the Member outlined that point very well earlier today. It will mean that we must decide what we will not do in order to ensure that we put money into the things that we should do.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the 2011 census form will include specific questions regarding disability, including visual impairment and blindness. (AQO 1414/10)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Census Order (Northern Ireland) 2010, which was approved by the Assembly on 1 June 2010, indicates that there will be a question on whether or not a person has any conditions which have lasted or are expected to last at least 12 months and on the nature of such a condition. The census questionnaire will list 10 specific conditions, one of which will be partial blindness or partial loss of sight.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer and his assurance that visual impairment will be specifically mentioned in the census form in 2011. Will the Minister use information collected about the number of people who are either visually impaired or blind to determine the level of support services made available to those who require them? Will the census inform his Department and others on funding allocations to campaigns such as the Right to Read campaign?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that the Member must have listened to some of the arguments that I had with his party colleagues over why the whole process of getting the Census Order to the Assembly was being delayed by Sinn Féin. At the time, I argued that this information was vital to ensure that we quantified the problems in Northern Ireland so that we could do exactly what he said: direct resources towards issues that we saw emerging as problems. I am glad that there has been that conversion, and I hope that the Member had the same argument within his party, thus helping me in my job of persuading his party to bring forward the Census Order in June.

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

Will the Minister assure the House that the necessary resources will be put in place to ensure that census data from hard-to-reach groups, people with disabilities and others who are on the margins of society will be collected and that it will not become the subject of a cutback, thus reducing the potential impact of the census data?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The total cost of the census is estimated at £13·3 million. That will be one of the pressures. I think that we have set aside about £4·5 million of that so far. There will be an emerging pressure this year on the DFP budget for the census, but we are obliged to do the census and collect the data. Hopefully, with the co-operation of people when they get the questionnaires and with the resources that we are putting into the process, we will be able to deliver exactly what the Member has asked.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Would it be possible to include in the census a question on former residences and addresses, as well as one on date of birth, so that significant movement of population into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom, the EU and beyond can be traced?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not au fait with all the questions in the census. There is quite a range; I think that there are 66. I will check whether the information that the Member has asked for is being sought. If it is not, any change to the questionnaire, which has been agreed right across the United Kingdom, would be extremely costly and would not be possible. The cost of the census is already quite high. I suspect that there may be some questions that allow for the kind of information for which the Member has asked. However, I will write to him and let him know the answer.

Kieran Deeny (Independent, West Tyrone)

Has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety about the special needs of our disabled, including those with hearing or visual impairments, in relation to, for example, access to health services? I am talking about primary care and out-of-hours care. Have any discussions taken place about that vital area?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Health Minister and I always have discussions about his budget. Usually, he tells me that he cannot afford to have a penny cut from it, and I ask him to look at whether the budget is being used effectively. The Health Minister has not raised that specific issue. Our discussions are usually about the generality of the pressures on his budget and why he needs more money for this, that or the other.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, given the current financial restrictions, what levers he has at his disposal to raise additional revenue for the Executive. (AQO 1416/10)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The primary source of locally generated funding for the Executive is regional rates, which are planned to contribute £542 million or 6% of the funding that is available to Northern Ireland Departments in the current year. If we were to try to raise the £128 million that is being imposed on us as a cut this year, we would have to put up regional rates by 20%. I do not think that the Member would wish that to happen. One of the other ways in which we can raise revenue — I discussed this earlier with Alban Maginness during this Question Time — is to look at the disposal of assets.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that there is about £500 million in cuts and that there may well be more next year to the block grant, does the Minister believe that he will be able to hold the line on the deferral of water charges, as that may mean that cuts have to be made elsewhere?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Water charges or other charges are ways in which the Executive could raise revenue. The decision on water charges has to be made by the Minister for Regional Development because it is his responsibility.

When he makes a decision, he will have to bring it to the Executive for ratification, after which, of course, the relevant legislation will have to come before the Assembly, where all Members will have a say on the issue.

Given that the full level of water charges is likely to be about £400 per household, even if it were decided to introduce them, rather than having a huge bill landing on people’s laps in one year, charges will have to be phased in over time. Therefore, the ability to use water charges to deal with the kind of deficit that the Member mentioned in one year is very limited.

Executive Committee Business

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Since 25 May 2010, the Committee has been heavily involved in a series of meetings lasting more than two weeks with the Minister, senior officials and the chief executives of the Health and Social Care Board and the Public Health Agency. During that time, we explored in some depth the financial challenges facing the Health Department, which come not only from the revised budgets that the Finance Minister announced this year, but from the operating deficits incurred by two trusts and an increased demand for services.

We believe that we have gone some way towards getting to the bottom of how the Department will spend its revenue in 2010-11. However, we are still unclear about the capital aspect of the budget. With respect to revenue, in the revised spending plans, the Department was asked to make additional savings of £105 million. On top of that, the Department has had to meet the deficit incurred by the two trusts in 2009-10, and all trusts have experienced an increased demand for services as well as the continuing need to make efficiency savings in the current comprehensive spending review (CSR).

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

In evidence to the Committee, the Health and Social Care Board estimated that the Department will have to find £204 million of savings in 2010-11. By any stretch of the imagination, that is a very large sum, and the Minister has had to make some difficult decisions on how to move forward. The Committee wanted to know how he proposed to do that. Our concern was the protection of front line services and the most vulnerable members of our society.

On financial issues, the Committee has been critical of the Minister. However, this time, our main concern and criticisms have been about the lack of information from him and the fact that he appeared not to give the Committee its place. Frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, getting financial information from the Minister has been like pulling hen’s teeth. Eventually, long after every other Department made public how they would make their cuts, after a difficult meeting with the Minister, and two months into the financial year, the information was forthcoming.

I speak for the entire Committee when I acknowledge the difficult task that the Minister faced. No one underestimates the complexities of our health and social care system, and we all value the unstinting work of health and social care workers. However, cuts had to be made, and the Committee has a right to explore where and how they took place. In the Committee’s opinion, the Minister has made some difficult decisions and brought forward a delicately balanced programme. On the whole, the Committee believes that he appears to have made the best of what he was given. However, there is one caveat: the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and it will be several months before we will be able to judge that.

Through access to a number of documents, the decision on how funding will be allocated is now in the public domain. Those documents include ‘Priorities for Action 2010/11’, the Commissioning Plan Direction (Northern Ireland) 2010 and the various Hansard reports of Committee meetings in the past few weeks. The Committee has had a number of opportunities, in open and closed session, to discuss finances and the budget. We learned that the Minister based ‘Priorities for Action 2010/11’ on his budget for those priorities, and that provided the strategic direction to the Health and Social Care Board and the Public Health Agency, which, for the first time, developed a regional plan for commissioning health and social care services for all of Northern Ireland. Obviously, a single document that covers all of Northern Ireland is a major step forward, and we welcome that.

Both ‘Priorities for Action 2010/11’ and the Commissioning Plan Direction (Northern Ireland) 2010 were underlined by the need to deliver what the Department calls a “balanced budget”. One of the main elements of that balanced budget is the continued delivery of the CSR efficiency savings for 2010-11, which amount to £40 million. The delivery of fewer new services than anticipated is the second main branch, and savings of £40 million are expected from that.

The final big saving is from additional efficiencies from family health services, with particular emphasis on generic drugs, which should release up to £46 million. I am particularly keen on making savings through the use of generic drugs. We all know that a branded drug product can cost, on average, £26 to £30, and its generic equivalent can cost from £1 to £1·50. It seems a no-brainer to me to pluck the low-hanging fruit in the form of generic drugs. That is one area where we can obtain greater efficiencies without it having any impact on the needs of patients.

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

I listened carefully to what the Member said, and I agree that the use of generic drugs is a no-brainer. Have we heard anything from the Minister yet on the banning of bonuses at senior staff level, or are any of them prepared to take a pay cut at this stage? There are some fairly high flyers in and around the health and social services trusts and in the public services.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The honourable Member for Upper Bann has a crystal ball: I wish to raise that point later in my contribution. Indeed, I understand that I have been struck off the Christmas card list of several leading consultants in Northern Ireland for suggesting that someone on an average salary of £152,000 a year may need a bonus to incentivise him or her to work harder. If the honourable Member for East Belfast, the First Minister, were to pay me £152,000 a year, I would not need much to be incentivised to do anything. The issue needs to be dealt with, because, in the present economic situation, I do not believe that we can possibly justify paying £11·7 million in bonuses to consultants who, by any standards, are extremely well paid members of the health and social care team.

Perhaps the most difficult path chosen by the Minister is the 2% reduction in total trust payroll costs, which will generate almost £40 million of the required savings. Reducing the number of posts in health and social care was always a key component of the RPA process. Therefore, the Committee was disappointed to find that some trusts had fallen behind in achieving the agreed targets in that area. In autumn 2009, the Committee explored that issue with the trusts, and it was aware that some were doing better than others. This is not just about cutting jobs for the sake of making cuts. Every penny saved is ploughed back into new and additional services. To deliver those services, trusts need to step up to the mark, and we will continue to keep a close eye on that aspect as the year progresses.

The Committee has been lobbied extensively over the past 12 months on workforce reform. In response, it has examined the use of agency nursing in detail. We know that the shift in culture from agency nursing, overtime and locums to bank nurses has been difficult. It has been an extremely painful transition for the trusts and, indeed, for health and social care workers. However, it has to be done. Given the number of people who are employed in health and social care in Northern Ireland, I expect that the Committee, its individual members and every MLA in the Assembly will hear from constituents on that aspect. I can guarantee that some people will feel very unhappy about that element of payroll costs.

Another area of concern is the scrutiny that each trust is expected to make in the recruitment to posts. When a post falls vacant, it will be filled only if the trust can establish that it is an essential post. That will be on top of the reduction in agency, bank or locum staff. The Committee has some concerns with that element because, from talking to staff, it knows the pressure that they are under. Nurses and front line staff tell us that they are literally run off their feet. There is great anxiety among staff that recruitment freezes, because that is what they are, will create further strain on what are already highly pressurised jobs, and the Deputy Chairperson has particular concerns about that.

The Minister has made it clear that he can undertake that 2% cut in the payroll without any compulsory redundancies, which the Committee welcomes. He has also made it clear to the Committee that any further cuts to his budget may not be so easily found.

The Committee also noted with interest that the Health and Social Care Board will be keeping a close eye on the amount spent by each trust on management costs. The Committee had previously explored that area with the trusts and the Department in autumn 2009. During that time, we noted that some trusts managed to keep their management costs quite low, while one or two others were above average. The Committee is reassured to see that one of its major concerns is now a target in the commissioning plan. Trusts must keep their management costs to 4·1% of the total resource costs, and they can be held to account by the Health and Social Care Board if that is not done. We are looking forward to following progress on that issue.

On workforce control, one issue of particular concern is the excellence award paid to consultants, with over £11 million being paid in Northern Ireland each year. Whether it is called an excellence award or a bonus, it is £11 million that could be spent elsewhere or, indeed, spread out across all staff from cleaners and handymen to nurses and office staff.

I am glad to hear that there may be a review of those awards, and I await its outcome. However, if consultants were to volunteer to forgo their award for 2010-11, I would be delighted, because the resultant £11 million saving would go some way to meeting the deficit in what will be an extremely difficult financial year.

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

Does the Member have any idea how that review will proceed? Surely consultants will not be employed to take it forward.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

At a recent Committee meeting, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety announced that his Department is reviewing that issue.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Apparently, the UK-wide agreement does not compel us to pay those bonuses. Frankly, the £11·7 million could be much better spent elsewhere.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to outline the views of the Committee for the Environment on the Supply resolutions for the 2008-09 Excess Votes and to comment on the Main Estimates for 2010-11.

All Members will be aware of pressure on Departments to provide services with less and less income. The Committee for the Environment has been particularly exposed to those pressures, because one of the more immediate impacts of the economic downturn was a decline in planning applications. Given the Department’s dependence on planning fees as a major source of income, that decline has a huge impact on jobs and, potentially, on services, not only in the Planning Service, but in the Department as a whole. One key way in which the Department delivers services is by funding external bodies that provide practical expertise, but the Department is increasingly withdrawing funding from those organisations. The Committee is concerned that that will lead to job losses in those bodies and to a loss of expertise from the environmental sector and the North. It will also increase the risk of our not being able to achieve the environmental standards that are demanded by Europe and that make life better for all of us who live here. Over the past few months, the Committee has urged the Department to demonstrate that it has strategically realigned its services, kept sight of its key priorities and ensured that its front line services remain uncompromised.

At the beginning of June, the Committee for Finance and Personnel drew our attention to the Department of the Environment’s (DOE) involvement in the Supply resolution for the 2008-09 Excess Votes. Further information was obtained from the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) report, which stated that the Department’s £500,000 breach of its net cash requirement was due in particular to the payment of creditors earlier than had been forecast. It appears that the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s directive to pay invoices within 10 days of receipt generated a reduction in creditors, which was not foreseen when the spring Supplementary Estimates were finalised. That reduction was particularly pronounced in the early payment of grants and of legal costs associated with judicial reviews that had not been anticipated.

In March 2010, the Committee was advised that the Department’s record for making payments within the 10-day period was below the Civil Service average. Indeed, it was making only 50% of its payments within the 10-day time frame, compared with the average of 55% across the Civil Service. No other Department appears to have been affected to the extent of being in breach of their net cash requirements as a result of making payments within 10 days. Other Departments also seemed to make more rapid payments more successfully and consistently than DOE.

At the time, the Committee expressed its disappointment at the Department’s performance. However, I am pleased to report that last month’s update shows that its performance is, at 61%, now on a par with the rest of the Civil Service. However, I hope that that will not lead to another Excess Vote. We must hope that PAC’s reassurance will be borne out. It states that the Department seems:

“to have taken the necessary steps to address the issues”

Accordingly, and on behalf of the Committee, I support the Department’s Excess Vote.

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

I have listened carefully to the debate, primarily in my office. It has been an interesting debate that has oscillated between Members who wish to defend front line services robustly — I put that in parentheses — and those who see the need for robust cutting of public expenditure. The debate has also been interesting because of the enthusiasm expressed for cutting public expenditure. I would like Members to pause and think about that proposition, because the Assembly should want to make a positive difference to the lives of people in Northern Ireland.

We should not be a conduit for the desire of any Tory or Tory/Liberal Democrat Government to implement severe public expenditure cuts. It is unnecessary to introduce the savage cuts that I am afraid that the Westminster Government have in mind. We should be protective of our public services, and we should zealously try to protect our people. That said, there is a need for some restraint in public expenditure. The Minister, for whom I have great sympathy, must proceed on the basis of balance, and he must seek to protect the things that are important to society and to governmental operations.

Invest Northern Ireland, for example, gets a substantial amount of money for a purpose: to attract investment into Northern Ireland, and it has done that successfully in recent years, despite difficulties. Even marginal cuts to that budget could restrain its performance in attracting inward investment to Northern Ireland. We need inward investment to create a step change in our economy so that we can produce wealth and employment and raise people’s standards of living. Therefore, the Finance Minister must tread warily in considering any proposition to limit the funding to Invest Northern Ireland and, indeed, other agencies.

To achieve a step change in the economy, a change in the fiscal powers that are available here is required. Mr McLaughlin referred to that, and we should have the right to vary some taxation. For example, and importantly, we should have the right to vary corporation tax. The Economic Reform Group has presented the case well that reducing corporation tax would have a radical impact on how this economy operates and how we attract investment into the economy to create wealth and employment. A reform along those lines would go a long way to bringing about a step change in the economy.

Despite my comments on the Conservative Government, in one respect at least they are proposing something that is important for our economy: they are looking at ways and means of varying corporation tax so that we can effect a step change in our economy.

We need investment in the economy and in the private sector, and we need to use our tremendous resources to develop our renewable energy sector. We have wind, sea and natural organic production from farms such as those that produce grass and so forth, which can be used to create additional resources of renewable energy. If we can attract investment in those sectors, we can regenerate our economy.

We have expertise in our universities and in our engineering base, which Mr Shannon referred to. Our engineering base should be a rich vein for investment in our economy. Therefore, we will have several opportunities in the next number of years to improve our economy and to change its direction radically.

I accept that there are serious difficulties. Dr Farry referred to the problems that have been created as a result of the European Union’s imposing a fine as a result of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s (DARD) performance. That should be deeply regretted. One must ask why the deficiencies in DARD were not recognised long before EU officials inspected the way in which funding is distributed here in Northern Ireland, thus avoiding the imposition of a swingeing fine. That has come at a very bad and difficult time for all of us here, and it adds to the problems with our public finances.

Dr Farry referred to the introduction of water charges. Are we serious about introducing water charges, especially now, of all times, given that they will impose a very serious burden on many people throughout Northern Ireland? I do not believe that it is appropriate to introduce those charges now, and my party is of the same view. We should be mindful that the introduction of water charges will impose an onerous burden on many people. We are in a serious situation, where people who are in work are also on the margins of poverty. We must support them in every way to ensure that they do not become impoverished. Therefore, imposing water charges on people at this time would be sufficient to drive them out of employment and into a situation where they need to receive benefits and, in that way, avoid water charges. Therefore, one must consider very carefully the introduction of additional charges, whether it be water charges or otherwise, on people in our society, because doing so could drive them over the edge.

We have an opportunity to strike a balance and to make efficiencies and savings. However, they should not be so severe as to damage our chances of attracting investment and improving people’s lives. We are here to make a positive, not a negative, change for people in Northern Ireland, and I encourage everyone in the Chamber to look positively at what they are doing today.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee in the debate, specifically on the Excess Vote required by the Department for Employment and Learning — a sum totalling just under £15·8 million.

As Members will be aware, an Excess Vote is presented when a Department has exceeded its budget provision in the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates approved by the Assembly and authorised through the Budget Acts. One imagines that in cases where an Excess Vote is sought, it is simply a case of a Department not sticking to its budget and requiring to be bailed out. However, as with so many budget issues, nothing is as straightforward as it may seem.

In the case of the excess declared by the Department for Employment and Learning, £10·1 million was for interest receivable on student loans, which was not forecast in accordance with the correct budgetary treatment. Some £5·6 million was paid to the Student Loans Company on 31 March 2009, when it should have been processed on 1 April 2009, which was the beginning of the next financial year. Therefore, it was not the clear-cut lack of careful budgeting on the part of the Department that was involved. In fact, it was only after clarification from the Department of Finance and Personnel as to how interest receivable on student loans should be forecast that the issue of the £10·1 million was sorted out. It is vital that the Departments have all the information they need to ensure that they make the appropriate payments at the appropriate time. It also seems that the Finance Department had that information, and we must assume that there was a breakdown in communication that led to the Department for Employment and Learning not acting correctly on that occasion.

The £5·6 million that was paid early to the Student Loans Company appears to have been the fault of Account NI, which is the centralised payments system for the Departments. One would have hoped that there would have been sufficient expertise at Account NI to understand the impact of paying funds at the end of one financial year rather than at the beginning of the next. Who is to blame for that? It does not appear to be the fault of the Minister for Employment and Learning and his Department, but seems to be an error by Account NI — another to add to the many — which falls under the control of the Finance Minister. The Department of Finance has made much of Committees encouraging Departments to make prompt payments, but it is going a bit far when the payment is being made in the previous financial year.

The Public Accounts Committee has examined the issue and is satisfied that the excess required by DEL is not just a case of careless budgeting or reckless expenditure on the part of the Department. The Department now has Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) guidance on the correct procedures for forecasting the interest receivable on student loans and has undertaken to benchmark its procedures against those of the other Departments and other comparators.

I urge the Finance Minister to undertake to sort out the Account NI issue. In this case, a payment was processed early and had considerable consequences. However, we constantly hear across the Departments that payments miss the 10-day turnaround because of issues and failures around Account NI. I understand that the Department for Employment and Learning is one of the higher performing Departments in making the 10-day payment, at 60 plus days. However, for those who are owed money, it is not a high enough outcome as many would like to see. The Committee accepts that the Department has learnt from that episode. It is, after all, the Department for Employment and Learning, and Members understand the requirement for the excess. Therefore, the Committee supports the motion on the Excess Vote.

I will use some of the remaining time available to speak from a personal perspective on a range of matters. Has the Minister given any guidance or instruction to his Executive colleagues in relation to the payment of bonuses and consultants? We heard from the Chairperson of the Health Committee about payments of more than £11 million being made to consultants, that is, “consultants” in the sense that most people understand the word — medical consultants. Is there an expectation about whether those people, who, in many cases, are paid more than the First Minister, will take the bonuses? I will let the Minister speak.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am more than happy to give the Member an assurance at this point. First, I took a decision as far as Northern Ireland senior civil servants were concerned. Their bonuses stopped last year, and the same thing will happen this year. The Executive then adopted a position whereby Ministers who wished to pay bonuses to people at senior grades could make application to the Department to have those cleared.

The only exceptions applied in instances in which it was deemed that there was a contractual obligation and that failure to meet that obligation would have put public funds in jeopardy. I am not sure whether the bonuses that the Member has been speaking about are contractual bonuses or bonuses for which the Minister should have sought permission. I know that, on occasion, the Health Minister has applied for the payment of bonuses even though they were not contractual.

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

I thank the Minister for that. I understand the difficulties that Ministers will face with regard to contractual arrangements, and I hope that that will be under the microscope when people look to renew contracts. There is an issue around consultants and bonuses, and for the greater good of society, people who are paid such amounts of money should take a responsible attitude and lead the way on the issue.

In his previous portfolio as Minister of the Environment, I know that the Minister had concerns about planning processes being speeded up to allow the economy to seize economic investment opportunities. I know that planning appeals fall to OFMDFM, but I am aware of the lodgement of planning appeals in my constituency and of one, if not more, bid for investment that is being held up under the planning appeals system. Given that the Executive have made the economy a key priority, is there any legal impediment to moving those forward, out of chronological order?

I have spoken to a number of INTERREG groups, and I declare an interest as a member of the East Border Region. I do not know whether the difficulties have been resolved around DETI, SEUPB and decision-making. We are already two years delayed. We have only two and a half years in which to spend the money, and during that time, the planning permission, for instance, has to be granted. SEUPB falls under the Minister’s portfolio.

During a visit to Brussels with the OFMDFM Committee last week, it was clear that although the structural funds are very much pertinent to Northern Ireland, there are many opportunities for funding and investment under other EU measures. I would like to know whether the Department is fully taking account of those.

I hope that when the Minister looks to give guidance to different Departments, the issue of consultants, in their broadest sense, comes up. A couple of years ago, a review was carried out on the capacity of civil servants and the public sector to drive forward infrastructural projects, and there was found to be a lack of capacity. I hope that those gaps are being addressed, if they have not been already, so that we will see fewer consultants coming in from the private sector to make decisions or to help civil servants to cover their backs in making decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response on those matters.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will try to get through as many of the points that have been raised as possible. It has been a fairly predictable debate, because we have had the debate on this year’s Budget on a number of occasions since January. I think that the Member for North Down Mr Weir described it as reheated meals. I think that some of this debate has been through the political microwave a few times.

We have had the predictable responses. The SDLP will always bring up its alternative budget, albeit that it was raised by a different individual on this occasion, because Mr O’Loan seems to have got himself out of favour. However, I noticed that there was a little thawing today when the party leader gave some acknowledgement of Mr O’Loan’s part in the alternative budget.

Mr McNarry returned with his black hole. We had not heard of his black hole for a long time, but it seemed to re-emerge in the debate today. Mr McLaughlin, who, of course, always tries to be the acceptable face of Sinn Féin, mentioned the usual stuff about tax-raising powers. I will deal with that issue in a minute. Then we had a number of Members who we can always be sure will raise a plethora of their own constituency issues.

Mr Farry did not disappoint. When Mr Ford became a member of the Executive, I feared that we would see Mr Farry go native, he would cease to be an independent thinker and he would keep his head well under the parapet, but he has not done that, and I appreciate that. Of course, as usual in these debates, members of the Committee for Education line up to have a good kick at the Minister; they have done so from all sides of the House today. Therefore, the debate has been fairly predictable from that point of view.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the Committee’s role in getting the debate to the Chamber today. Ms McCann said on behalf of the Committee that she believes that there had been appropriate consultation on the public expenditure proposals, the Main Estimates, the Statement of Excess, the related Supply resolutions, and the Budget Bill. I want to put on record my appreciation for the constructive way in which the Committee has dealt with its important role with regard to the Budget. I say that genuinely, not just as a matter of form. The Committee for Finance and Personnel plays a constructive role without being a pushover. As a result of the Committee’s agreement, the Budget (No. 3) Bill, which I plan to introduce shortly, will proceed under accelerated passage, which will exclude Committee Stage. Again, I appreciate the Committee’s assistance to the Assembly and to me in that manner.

A number of Members, including the Committee Chairperson, raised the need for engagement with Committees and asked what had been done to take that forward. I have listened to the remarks of Committee Chairpersons during other debates on the Budget. I have written to Ministers. I have reminded Ministers in Executive meetings. On more than one occasion, I have named and shamed Ministers in the Assembly, including some from my party, who have not given the relevant Committee the requisite information.

As Finance Minister, I take the issue seriously. If departmental budgets are to be scrutinised properly, Ministers must supply proper information in good time in a form that is understood so that it can be queried by Committees. To that end, proposals are coming forward on the Budget process, and guidance will be issued to indicate the nature and form of departmental consultation with Committees. Ultimately, however, it is up to Committees to hold Ministers to account and to insist that information that is required to carry out proper scrutiny be provided to them.

The second point that the Committee Chairperson raised was the £128 million reduction and when the June monitoring round would be brought to the Assembly. The Executive will consider the June monitoring round at their next meeting when we will decide what to do with the £128 million. Of course, we could defer all or part of that reduction until 2011, although there would be grave risks in doing so. We still need information from the Treasury on the capital/current split of the £128 million. We also await a response from the Treasury on our request for access to the end-year flexibility stock and some other technical issues. Only when we have that information will we be able to decide how to deal with the £128 million reduction. There will, of course, be a statement to the Assembly on the June monitoring round and on that particular issue.

Mr Hamilton raised the issue of Social Security Agency staff reductions and the protection of front line services. Of course, the Minister for Social Development is responsible for how staff reductions are managed while protecting front line services. I am addressing all those issues, but I notice that none of the Members who raised them are in attendance. I should put my responses on record anyway.

Mr Hamilton also raised the economic downturn, the response to it, and the key objective of growing the economy. I agree with Members that one of our priorities must be the impact of the downturn on the economy and what can be done to deal with it. The four primary areas for what can be done were identified by the Economic Development Forum, which has been central to addressing the impact of the credit crunch, boosting the construction sector, financing SMEs and assisting businesses in difficulties while enhancing workforce skills.

The First Minister and deputy First Minister set up the cross-sector advisory forum, and it has reported with 107 recommendations on measures that can and should be taken. One of the subgroups of the cross-sector advisory forum dealt with banking and lending. Through that, we tried to identify the scale and nature of the problem, and the Institute of Directors was very helpful in providing information through surveys of its members. A lot of that information was then taken to the Treasury. I have spoken to the Finance Minister in the Republic about the banks that are based there and the whole issue of NAMA.

At Treasury level, we now have access to the bank lending panel, where we can bring some of those issues to the attention of the Exchequer. There is also to be a report on lending by banks that are based in the Irish Republic: the Mazars report. Brian Lenihan has agreed that there should be a section on Northern Ireland in that.

I now come to the contribution of Mr McNarry, who is not in his place. He said that we should have a mature debate. Unfortunately, what we got from him was a self-serving, cheap, party political whinge. I wish that he had been here to hear that, but he is not. I listened to what he said, and I agree that we need to have a mature debate about the issues. However, that has to go beyond infantile finger pointing. He said that others were at fault and did not listen to his warnings. Then, of course, he threw a lot of misinformation into the pot to try to justify that.

Allow me to address some of the nonsense that we heard. First, because of the black hole in the economy, we had £370 million in cuts this year. We did not have £370 million in cuts at all. We had a redirection of spending, because of decisions that Mr McNarry and his party, including the Ministers from his party, supported, as well as everybody else in the Assembly. We deferred water charges, so we had to redirect money to cover that part of the Budget. We decided that we were going to spend money on helping hard-pressed ratepayers, so we had a number of deferral schemes for businesses and individuals. We froze the regional rate, and that meant redirecting money towards that. There was no cut. The total reduction was 0·1% of current spending and 0·1% of capital spending.

We redirected money on account of decisions that the Assembly took. There was no black hole, and the re-emergence of the “Cromac Street economists” in the Ulster Unionist Party, looking into the great big hole that they say exists, is a sad reflection on them at a time when we are called upon to have a mature debate.

Mr McNarry tried to say that his party was divorced from any consideration of the Budget. The Executive debated the Budget on 25 March 2010, and from what I can remember, part of the resolution, at that stage, included a paragraph that I negotiated with his party leader. Although the Budget did not go through on that day, the only issue outstanding was the finance for Northern Ireland Water.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Further to the Minister’s points, given that the Ulster Unionist Party, together with the Tories, championed the quicker repayment of debt more than any other party in these islands, surely the logical position for the UUP, rather than duck any sense of collective responsibility among the parties for what must happen, would be to advocate quicker, deeper cuts in our Budget than those advocated by the Executive.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I sometimes wonder whether logic comes into the debate; it is usually just rhetoric.

The rest of us did not turn our backs on the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party when we were having that debate, so they were not totally divorced from the decision-making process. In fact, they were fully engaged in the debate. Therefore, for them to run away from any involvement or association with it is, to use Mr McNarry’s words, disingenuous.

Mr McNarry made the usual comments about waste in the public sector. He said that we wasted around £12 million on the Maze site. In fact, most of the money spent on the Maze site was for decontamination, which had to be carried out if the site is to be developed.

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

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way in a moment or two. I wish to finish my point about waste.

Mr McNarry also said that we wasted money on RPA. So far, £9 million has been spent on RPA, which, I understand, was started by the previous Executive to reduce the cost of government. Had we not planned for such an event, we would have been criticised. Is it waste to spend money on planning for something? It was also said that the Crossnacreevy project put a big whole in the Budget. What does Mr McNarry want us to do? Does he want us sell the site at a reduced price in the middle of an economic recession? That is something for which we would be criticised. The one bit of waste that Mr McNarry did not mention was the money that was spent tackling swine flu. His Minister made a bid that took money off every other Department in Northern Ireland. However, £23 million of the £27 million that was given over from other Departments was never spent. Perhaps, he conveniently forgot about that.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. I listened carefully to what he said about how others define waste. Surely, if no decision is made, money is wasted. The opportunities presented by a preferred bidder almost two years ago for the Maze site were wasted by indecision and lack of decision-making at Executive level, particularly by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. We know that because it was the Minister’s ministerial colleague Mr Poots who said that the deputy First Minister was holding out and was refusing to put some items on the table. Of course, opportunities were also wasted when the Executive did not meet for several months. It will be a real waste if decisions are not made.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The real waste will be if we do not realise the value of the site when there is an eventual opportunity to develop it. We still have the site, and valuable and necessary work has been done on it, and there will be future opportunities to develop it. We must view the situation in that context. Eventually, I hope that we will get to the point where we can have a mature debate about those issues because we need to have that debate.

I now come to the SDLP leader’s contribution. To be fair to her, she did not accuse me of engaging in a smash-and grab-on her budget. However, she accused my predecessors of doing just that, and I will defend them valiantly.

The smash-and-grab on the DSD budget, the Department for which she was, of course, Minister, involved reduced requirements being declared, as should be the case, and the Executive making a decision as to how that money should be reallocated. I do not think that any Member would wish that process to be any different. Say, for example, a Department bids for £100 million at the beginning of a year to do something and then finds halfway through that year that it cannot do that something. In those circumstances, would the Assembly prefer that the Minister decided just to keep the £100 million and to use it for something different? I suspect that the SDLP would not be too happy if a DUP Minister, or any other Minister, did that. If taking money off a Minister in those circumstances is smash-and-grab, that is a very strange definition. There was no smash-and-grab on DSD’s budget.

If Members look at what happened to the housing aspect of the DSD budget, they will see that I made extra money available for housing maintenance and grants in two monitoring rounds last year. Last year’s newbuild programme for over 1,800 houses was the biggest that there has been for many years. Therefore, one can hardly say that that budget has not been dealt with.

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

The Minister valiantly defended his predecessors, and I, too, will valiantly defend our previous Minister for Social Development. The Social Development Minister made social and public housing a priority and delivered on that. Success has many authors, and we have no difficulty with that. However, surely the Minister will acknowledge that in December 2008, money that could have gone to DSD to deliver on public housing was allocated to slurry tanks and slurry housing. Surely the point was to get work back into the construction industry, which is a priority. The Social Development Minister delivered on the SDLP’s commitment not only to those who are most marginalised and vulnerable in our society but to the tradespeople and suppliers who needed the construction industry to get back on its feet.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We are becoming too esoteric in this debate. Whether somebody is building a house or a slurry tank, I imagine that that is all part of the construction industry. Therefore, there can be no loss for the construction industry in that situation. However, it would be different if the money had been allocated for something other than that for which the Minister intended to use it and there was then a reduced requirement. I do not know whether the Member was listening. However, I do not think that anybody in the Assembly, Members of which vote to allocate money to Ministers for a certain purpose, would endorse any action that allows a Minister to say, willy-nilly, that they are not going to spend money on that which it was allocated for. It would undermine the authority of the Assembly if Ministers made up their own minds as to what to do with the money that they are allocated.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member who made the previous intervention mentioned money that was reallocated in December 2008. That money was moved across from DSD’s capital build programme, yet the construction industry was hit because it did not go ahead with the build.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have answered that question and am not going to labour the point. When Departments have reduced requirements, the process is that the money comes back to the centre and is reallocated on the basis of collectively made decisions. That is the right way to do that.

Another point was raised, which I really cannot pass over. Every so often, the SDLP wrings its hands and says that if only the whole Budget had been reviewed, that would have helped, because, after all, it produced a review. However, the SDLP produced a review that amounted to £200 million, much of which was money that could not have been reallocated anyway. Some of that money was from capital receipts or sales of assets that were already considered to be disposals. Some of it was a reprofiling of Northern Ireland Housing Executive debt, which, due to certain Treasury restrictions, could not be done, and, oddly enough, although that was within the remit of the Social Development Minister, was not done by her. During the year, more than £200 million was reallocated in the Budget anyway through the monitoring rounds. Therefore, rather than being some radical Budget change in response to the changing economic circumstances, it was really a very small part of total spending in Northern Ireland. When one looked at the detail, it certainly did not represent a huge reallocation or reprioritisation of the Budget, yet we get that argument pumped out all the time.

As I said already, I am glad to see that Mr Farry has not lost his independent streak or his willingness to take political risks. He stressed that a greater emphasis should be placed on taking tough decisions. At least when he used that rhetoric, he talked about some of those tough decisions. I am not so sure that some of them will make him all that popular among the middle class in North Down. Perhaps they will; I do not know.

He spoke about the way in which public service cuts fall on the poorest, while revenue-raising measures are more likely to hit the better-off. That is a very blunt and crude equation, because much public sector spending is, of course, directed towards the middle class as well. Indeed, many would argue that middle-class families probably get more out of education spending than working-class families do, and so on and so forth. It must also be accepted that many middle-class and lower-middle-class families that would be hit by the increased charges that the Member mentioned are also struggling with bills. Therefore, there will be an economic impact on people who although they may be described as better-off, are not well-off. Any progressive system will start to work at that level and work its way up.

However, at least Mr Farry spoke about some of the tough decisions that will have to be made, although it worries me a wee bit that all the issues that he talked about tended to be revenue-raising ones. Some of the tough decisions will require our looking at some of our spending programmes, too.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

That was only part 1; I am keeping part 2 for tomorrow. With all Mr McNarry’s interventions, I ran out of time before I could get on to the second part of my speech.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I look forward to part 2 tomorrow. At least Mr McNarry has guaranteed us that we will not get a reheated meal tomorrow but something that is fresh, and I look forward to that.

Mr Farry also raised the issue of capital allowance. I dealt with that matter during Question Time. The fine is disproportionate. The payments were around £2 million above what they should have been, yet we had a potential fine of £63 million, which is 5% of the total disallowance. Of course, that is disproportionate, and negotiations are ongoing.

The Member asked why the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development was not answering questions on that issue. He knows full well that there are ways in which to get the Minister to the Assembly to answer questions, whether they be through tabling a motion or a question for urgent oral answer. I am sure that if Members want to question the Minister on that issue, there are ways in which that can be done.

Mr Storey spoke about Committee engagement, which I have dealt with, and savings in the Department of Education. Education spending went up by 1·9% for this year, on top of a 5·8% increase on the previous year. The Minister of Education accepted that. It is useful to put some of the myths to bed when it comes to cuts in education spending or cuts in health spending. There have been increases in spending in those two major Departments.

Mr McLaughlin raised the issue of fiscal powers. He said that we are really debating only the allocation of the existing Budget, not how we will raise money.

We do have limited revenue-raising powers. However, he decided not to mention those because his party has problems with the one revenue-raising power that we could have in this House; namely, water charges. Therefore, he chose to talk fairly ambivalently — I hope that I am not being unfair to him — about the need for tax-varying powers. I am not sure which taxes he was referring to, because it did not come through in his speech. Everyone must recognise that tax-varying powers of any nature will hit some sector of the economy. Of course, if we call for full tax-varying powers, we will immediately run into the problem of the Treasury saying that we are on our own. Given the deficit that exists in Northern Ireland, I am not sure that anyone would wish to move in that direction.

Mr Shannon talked about efficiencies in the Health Service. I note that the Health Minister has confirmed that his Department is committed to achieving savings, and it has published plans for doing so on its website. However, as Mr Wells said, there is scope for more savings in the Health Service.

Mr Dominic Bradley raised the issue of investment in education. Again, an impression was given that there is no investment in education or that it has been reduced. Capital funding for the Department of Education for this year is 28% greater than the level of spend at the beginning of this mandate or in 2006-07, the last year of direct rule.

The £700 million that has been spent during the period of devolution has led to more than 100 major school projects being taken forward. Of that 100, 25 have been completed, 15 are on site and there are nine PPP schemes. I visited two of them in north Belfast last Thursday at the Boys’ Model and Girls’ Model schools. Anyone who wants to see first-class educational facilities should go to those schools, because they are good examples of how the capital spending that is voted for in this Assembly benefits young people on the ground and their school environment. That is a smart way to spend money, because there is great potential for those facilities, which include fantastic indoor sports halls, keep fit studios, dance studios and theatres, all of which are inside the schools.

Looking across the Chamber at a member of Belfast City Council leads me to ask whether there is a way in which, by smarter working between councils and schools, we could avoid burdening ratepayers with bills for building more leisure centres or maintaining existing ones. Some schools have better facilities than some leisure centres, so why are the schools closed from 4.00 pm? Why are they not open to the public to allow for dual provision for some areas? That is the smarter way forward for public investment.

Mr Weir spoke about public spending projections. We do not yet know the projections for the next three-year period. Hopefully, we will have greater insight after the Budget of 22 June. We do know that the Prime Minister has been preparing us for the reductions that we are going to face. He has talked about the painful times ahead, the cuts that could affect our way of life and the fact that the overall scale of the problem is even worse than he had thought. Therefore, its potential consequences are more critical than we feared. We are going to have to live in that environment. That will be the background to Budget 2010. As Finance Minister, I will seek clarification about the implications for Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.

Mr Gallagher raised the issue of Quinn Insurance and a number of other detailed constituency issues. I assure him that every effort is being made to address the issue in Fermanagh. I know that Mr Gallagher likes to give the impression that the people at the end of the M1 and west of the Bann are forgotten about. That is not the case. Indeed, at every Executive meeting, we have had an update on what Ministers — there are at least four — are doing about the economic situation that the collapse of the Quinn Group in Fermanagh caused.

It would seem now that compulsory redundancies, at least, are unlikely in Enniskillen. Invest Northern Ireland and the Department for Employment and Learning have held information sessions with employees at which they outlined the details of benefit entitlements and offered advice on how people might consider self-employment as an alternative. Mr Leslie Ross has been appointed to co-ordinate the interagency approach for those facing redundancy in Fermanagh. I have also spoken to Martin Mansergh, a Minister of State in the Irish Republic, and we are looking at what can be done with INTERREG money, for example, which may be available for helping to promote schemes to deal with the issues that have arisen as a result of the collapse of the Quinn Group.

Mr Gallagher also raised the issue of the more fundamental reprioritisation of departmental budgets. I agree with him on that. The Executive have, through in-year monitoring, sought to deal with particular issues as they have arisen. In addition, when we conducted the review of the 2010-11 spending plans, we wanted to ensure that public services remained on a more secure basis. The priorities that we set in the Budget were aimed at reflecting those changing priorities and on emphasising some of the priorities that we wanted to keep.

Mr O’Dowd talked about the block grant and how we seem to concentrate our discussions on how it was allocated. The point of this debate is that we have reached the end of the process and have established the Budget. There is not a great deal else that we can talk about. There is no point in talking now about whether we should have done this, that or the other, because the Budget process is over. We have had the Committee scrutiny, the conversations with departmental officials and the discussions on the draft Budget, which led to the final Budget. One of the reasons why I wanted to begin the discussion on the Budget 2010 is that that is where we will have the kind of discussion that Mr O’Dowd lamented that we are not having today.

I will point out three things to Mr O’Dowd. First, the block grant makes up 90% of the funding available to the Executive. Secondly, although I understand that he and Sinn Féin in particular like to think about the all-Ireland economy, most of our trade, investment and money come from our links with the United Kingdom. I am not one for sticking my head in the sand: no one can accuse me of pretending that nothing exists over the border, that we do not have contact with Ministers over the border or that we cannot work with Ministers over the border. Thirdly and equally, Sinn Féin has to realise that the main focus of our economic activity is with the rest of the United Kingdom. There must be some recognition of that. Whenever it comes to people sticking their head in the sand, they are more likely to take the approach that Sinn Féin sometimes takes on the issue, rather than the approach that unionists adopt.

I do not know how I got on to Mr O’Dowd, because I am back to Mr Gallagher. I have got them all mixed up — it does not matter. Mr Gallagher talked about structural maintenance of the roads in Fermanagh and the way in which they were crumbling. The impression that sometimes comes out of these debates is that we no longer spend money on education, health or roads. If I was listening to the debates as a member of the public, I would be wondering, “What do those boys spend money on?”

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Boys?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Sorry — and ladies. I would wonder what the money is spent on. There are a lot of things going on. I have mentioned schools and hospitals. The maintenance budget for roads for 2009-2010 was £85 million; that is a 35% increase on the previous year.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

They did not come near Strangford.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not know where the money is spent. I am not responsible for what the Minister for Regional Development spends the money on. I have responsibility for taking part in a debate around how the money is allocated, but I am sure that, if there were good constituency representatives in Strangford, they could get the roads fixed. I will leave that with Mr McNarry.

The maintenance budget for this year is £70 million. I understand that rural roads will receive resurfacing treatment as far as budget allocation permits. The roads around my house have been beautifully resurfaced recently, and I did not even have to talk to DRD.

Mr Gallagher mentioned the health capital programme. The Executive have given priority to health spending, contrary to some of the comments that have been made. Of all the budget adjustments this year, the lowest adjustment was in the Department of Health. When a claim was made for help to deal with the swine flu epidemic, Ministers immediately responded by top-slicing their budgets. They then found, to their anger, that the vast proportion of the money that was allocated was never even used. That money was offered back to them with around three weeks left in the financial year. The Department of Health is not the pauper in this; health spending has been protected by the Executive, and Ministers recognise the importance of that.

Mr Wilson also said that the Executive were not providing sufficient or adequate funding for health. I have made the point about the amount of money being spent on health, the way in which the budget has been protected and what has been done when emergencies have arisen. He also raised the important issue of the Bamford review of mental health. The Health Minister plans new investment for mental health and learning disability services in support of Bamford. That will amount to £87 million over the next three years. There will be £44 million of additional investment in this year’s budget.

I would like to see more detailed information given to Committees in the Budget process in future, rather than the global figures that Ministers produce. Sometimes, things happen without people realising because the money is just put into a huge pot and line-by-line commentary on it is not available to Members.

Mr Dallat raised the issue of the ombudsman’s budget. I was not clear if he was talking about the ombudsman’s budget or his powers. The ombudsman is independent, but he is free to apply for additional resources through in-year monitoring, which is considered by the Executive. Mr Dallat also mentioned the Dungiven bypass and rail funding. The Executive’s capital plans for the next four years will set out the priorities for road and rail funding in the Budget 2010 process. In the short term, the Member will want to be aware that capital funding available for roads and transport is due to increase by 23% to over £350 million.

I am sure that you will be glad to hear, Mr Speaker, that I have a couple more points to make. Mr Wells and Mrs Kelly raised the issue of senior public service pay in the Health Service. Public sector pay accounts for about half of the total DEL resource. The control of pay growth will, therefore, be crucial over the next number of years, although much of that is outside our control because it is agreed nationally. We negotiate with the Civil Service and on some other local pay awards, but it is important to note that our ability to impose a blanket pay freeze is constrained by the agreements on nationally determined pay settlements that apply to many local groups. We cannot introduce pay freezes in that way, but we have been given a fair indication that the national Government may take a more robust attitude to public sector pay, which would be reflected in cuts to pay in Northern Ireland.

Mr Maginness raised the issue of public spending cuts. I was a bit disappointed in Mr Maginness’s speech because it started off well, when he talked about the need to proceed on the basis of balance. However, he went on to list things on which we should spend money. As I said at the start of my contribution, I do not mind Members’ outlining issues that are a high priority for them and on which they think that money should be spent. However, if we are to have the kind of debate that is required, rather than simply playing to the gallery, it is incumbent on Members to outline lesser priorities on which less money should be spent. Even at Question Time today, Mr Maginness told me that we should close our eyes to raising revenue through the sale of assets. We are not to put up water charges or sell assets, but we are to spend more money on the range of issues that Mr Maginness mentioned. We would not get far with that approach, and the public would regard us as a laughing stock.

Ordinary people in the street recognise that any reduction in the amount of money coming in every week requires them to make certain decisions, such as whether they stop going out for meals. People who want to go on holiday may decide not to buy a new car or something for the house. That elementary concept seems continually to escape Members. Sometimes, they simply want to list their favourite things on which money should be spent, even adding those to what we spend on at present. If we were to go down that route, our only choice would be to raise the taxes that are available to us in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Kelly raised the issue of student loans and excess funds. I refute the allegations that my Department was responsible for DEL’s Excess Vote. Although the budgeting for student loans is complex, the treatment is set out by HM Treasury in its consolidated budgeting guidance, and that did not change during the year. DEL sought clarification from the Treasury on some issues, but that did not change the substance of the guidance. As the Department with responsibility for the management of student loans, DEL must take full responsibility for forecasting the level of interest and ensuring that the budget guidance is followed.

I am concerned about the Member’s view that an Excess Vote is not a serious breach of the controls of the Assembly. It is, and Departments must adhere to the controls of the Assembly. It is right that such breaches are reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Assembly because, if we overspend on budgets, all of Northern Ireland will bear the penalty. It is not a matter to be taken lightly, and DEL should have been aware of it. At the end of the day, it is DEL’s responsibility to adhere to Treasury guidance.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

My time to speak is almost up. In conclusion, I thank everybody who spoke in the debate, including Members with whom I was cross and barged a wee bit. I look forward to a repeat performance from them tomorrow. No doubt some of them are listening to my winding-up speech and saying that they will get me back tomorrow. I will be happy for that to happen. I thank the Committee Chairpersons, Deputy Chairpersons and all Members for their contributions. Those who did not speak today will, no doubt, speak tomorrow, and some of those who spoke today will, no doubt, speak again tomorrow.

I appreciate that Members have reflected the genuine concern that members of the public feel when they look into the economic unknown that we face in the next three or four years. People are worried about their jobs, the services on which they rely, their economic future and so on. Therefore, it is good that Members have taken the opportunity to express those concerns. The Executive acknowledge that there are financial challenges ahead as we seek to manage prudently the reduced resources available.

Various pleas were made during the debate, but no Department can be immune from the reductions in public finances during the remainder of this year or for the foreseeable future. However, I am confident that, as we complete the last financial year of this mandate, the Assembly will not be found wanting. The people of Northern Ireland expect that; therefore, we must deliver. The importance of this stage of the public expenditure cycle — the Assembly approval of the Supply resolutions today and the associated expenditure plans that are laid out for 2010-11 in the Main Estimates — cannot be overestimated. Failure to pass the resolution would have serious consequences: Departments would run out of cash, and public services would grind to a halt. For that reason, I commend the Supply resolutions to the House and seek their endorsement.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,019,163,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2011 and that resources, not exceeding £7,569,483,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2011 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3 (b) and 3 (a) of table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2010-11 that was laid before the Assembly on 7 June 2010.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £16,272,049.74, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of the Environment, for the year ending 31 March 2009 as summarised for each Department in Part II of the 2008-09 Statement of Excesses that was laid before the Assembly on 7 June 2010. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr S Wilson).]

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to introduce the Budget (No.3) Bill [NIA 26/09], which is a Bill to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of the year ending 31st March 2011; to appropriate those sums for specified purposes; to authorise the Department of Finance and Personnel to borrow on the credit of the appropriated sums; to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources (including accruing resources) for the year ending 31st March 2011; to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of excess cash sums for the service of the year ending 31st March 2009; and to repeal certain spent provisions.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I inform Members that written notification has been received from the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, confirming that the Committee is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill, in accordance with Standing Order 42(2), and that the Bill can, therefore, proceed under the accelerated passage procedure. The Second Stage of the Bill will be brought before the House tomorrow, Tuesday 15 June 2010.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call the Minister for Social Development, Mr Alex Attwood, to move the Consideration Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Moved. — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]