Northern Ireland Assembly, 15 February 2011

721 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Before we begin, I wish to advise the House that a valid petition of concern was presented on Thursday 10 February relating to the votes on the clauses and the long title, whether amended or not, of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. The votes on those matters, which will be on a cross-community basis, may take place later today.

Executive Committee Business

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Morning, Mr Speaker. You are looking fresh and well after last night’s long session. However, I see that some other Members have not made it here.

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill 2011 be agreed.

Accelerated passage of the Bill is needed to ensure Royal Assent as early as possible in March and, therefore, legal authority for Departments and other public bodies to draw down and spend the cash and use the resources in the Bill in 2010-11 and to ensure the continuation of public services into 2011-12.

As the House is by now well aware, preparation of the detailed Estimates and the related Budget Bill under consideration today, sandwiched between the December monitoring outcome announced to the Assembly as late as 17 January and the urgent need for Royal Assent of the Bill as quickly as possible to allow drawdown on the additional cash voted, is a difficult task for all concerned. I am, therefore, grateful that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has confirmed, in line with Standing Order 42, that it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals in the Bill and is content that the Bill may proceed by accelerated passage. I welcome and appreciate the assistance of the Committee in the matter.

I will now briefly outline the purpose of the legislation and draw attention to the main provisions of the Bill. The debate follows the Bill’s First Stage yesterday, which, in turn, followed the debate on and approval of the Supply resolutions for the 2010-11 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2011-12 Vote on Account. The Bill’s purpose is to give legislative effect to the 2010-11 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2011-12 Vote on Account, which were laid before the Assembly on 7 February 2011. Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum were made available to Members today.

I do not intend to take up valuable debating time with unnecessary repetition of the detail that I gave Members yesterday. However, in accordance with the nature of a Second Stage debate, as envisaged under Standing Order 32 and for the benefit of Members, I will summarise briefly the main features of the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the issue of £15,345,417,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in 2010-11. That is an additional £695,505,000 since the Main Estimates were presented last year. That cash will be drawn down on a daily basis as needed from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, which is managed by my Department on behalf of the Executive.

The Bill will also authorise the use of resources totalling £16,233,236,000 by Departments and certain other bodies, which is some £631,768,000 more than was approved in the Main Estimates last March and June. Those amounts are detailed in part 2 of each spring Supplementary Estimate for 2010-11.

In addition, the Bill revises the 2010-11 limit on the amount of accruing resources that may be directed by my Department to be used for the purposes that are listed in column 1 of schedule 2. That limit includes operating and non-operating accruing resources or, in other words, current and capital receipts, and amounts to £2,356,226,000. Under section 8 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, a direction on the use of accruing resources will be provided by way of a Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) minute, which will be laid before the Assembly in March, following Royal Assent to the Bill. Therefore, not only will the Bill authorise the use of resources, it will authorise accruing resources, bringing resources for use by Departments and other public bodies to over £18·5 billion. The sums to be issued from the Consolidated Fund are to be appropriated by each Department or public body for services as listed in column 1 of schedule 1 to the Bill. Resources, including the accruing resources, are to be used for the purposes that are specified in column 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill.

The amounts now requested for 2010-11 supersede the Vote on Account in the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2010, which was passed this time last year, and the Main Estimate provision in the Budget (No.2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010, which was passed in March prior to the stage two devolution of policing and justice in the Budget (No.3) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010, which was passed by the Assembly in June.

The Bill will also authorise a 2011-12 Vote on Account for cash of £6,645,663,000 and resources of £7,336,432,000 to allow the flow of cash and resources to continue to public services in the early months of 2011-12 until the Main Estimates and related Budget Bill are approved later this year in June. Again, the cash and resources are to be appropriated and used for services and purposes set out in column 1 of schedules 3 and 4 respectively.

Finally, clause 5 authorises temporary borrowing by the Department of Finance and Personnel at a ceiling of £3,327,331,000 for 2011-12. That is approximately half the sum authorised in clause 4(1) for issue out of the Consolidated Fund for 2011-12, and is a normal safeguard for any temporary deficiency arising in the fund. I stress to the House that clause 5 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund or convey any additional spending power but it enables my Department to run a very efficient cash-management regime.

There is little more that I can usefully add on the detail of the Budget Bill, but I will be happy to deal with any points of principle or detail that Members wish to raise.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Budget Bill provides statutory authority for expenditure as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2010-11. The Bill also includes the Vote on Account, which allows Departments to incur expenditure and use resources in the early part of 2011-12 until the Main Estimates are voted on by the Assembly in early June.

Standing Order 42(2) states that accelerated passage may be granted for a Budget Bill provided that the Committee for Finance and Personnel is satisfied that it has been appropriately consulted on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill. At its meeting on 2 February, departmental officials briefed the Committee and took questions on the Budget Bill being debated today. That evidence session represented the culmination of a process of scrutiny by the Committee of the public expenditure issues of DFP as a Department and at a strategic and cross-departmental level throughout 2010-11. Following that evidence session, the Committee was content to grant accelerated passage, and I wrote to the Speaker informing him of the Committee’s decision.

The forthcoming financial year will be the first year of the 2011-15 Budget, which is yet to be finalised and agreed by the Assembly. In line with convention, the Finance and Personnel Committee will publish a co-ordinated response to the Executive’s draft Budget 2011-15 proposals. To inform its report, the Committee examined a range of strategic and cross-cutting issues. Those include, for example, the budgetary process, the presentation of the draft Budget document, the basis for the proposed allocations, savings delivery plans, longer-term efficiency savings, levers for rebalancing the economy, and preventative spending. In addition, responses to spending and savings plans for each Department have been received from the respective Statutory Committees and submissions have also been received from the Assembly Commission and the Audit Committee.

The Finance Committee expects to finalise its report tomorrow, and urges the Finance Minister to ensure that it is brought to the attention of the Executive at the earliest opportunity. The Executive must take full cognisance of the findings and recommendations contained therein before the draft Budget 2011-15 is finalised and laid before the Assembly.

Speaking from a party point of view, it is worth bearing in mind that the Budget shortage of £4 billion is a direct result of the British Conservatives and their colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party, and their ideological position that deep public cuts somehow make economic sense and the private sector will balance the economy: a concept that I do not agree with. As we know, the cuts are far too deep. We want to see small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and indigenous businesses grow and develop, and we want a healthy balance between indigenous businesses and foreign direct investment (FDI), which will bring highly paid jobs and create more local jobs and more SMEs through the services sector, etc.

That is why concepts such as the devolution of corporation tax are so important. The Minister has expressed some concerns about corporation tax, and I recognise that there are concerns. We need to be careful in how we use those powers. We need to ensure that we adopt a strategy on corporation tax that is balanced and brings in money at the right time and that we present that in such a way that is successful for the local economy.

We also want to see front line public sector jobs being protected. The education budget, in how it was drawn up, is a good example of how to protect front line services. That has been recognised by the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO). The British Government have cut the Budget too deep, and the danger is that, by doing that, the wheels of the economy could grind to a halt. That is why we need to take responsibility for our own economic destiny.

I listened to a bit of ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’ on my way here. There was talk about the Ulster Unionist Party possibly walking away and Michael McGimpsey walking away as the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I wonder whether anybody in the Health Department would notice if he walked away because we need to bear in mind that the Assembly shuts down next month for the elections. At the end of the day, it is about political posturing. If the Ulster Unionists run away from their responsibilities, someone with a backbone should tackle the absolutely obscene salaries that are being paid to consultants and senior managers in that Department and channel such moneys towards front line services. Michael McGimpsey should have done that job for the past four years, but, quite frankly, he has not been at the races.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he also note a certain irony that the Health Minister and, indeed, the Ulster Unionist Party are threatening to walk away from the Executive but that they have waited for four years to walk away? They have pocketed their salaries for four years, but perhaps they will sacrifice their last two days’ salary. Does the Member think that the public will have a certain amount of cynicism about that?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I fully agree with the Member. Last night, when I went home, I caught a repeat of the leadership debate from the Southern elections, in which the five leaders discussed issues such as the need for some of the Ministers down South to return the vast sums of pensions and bonuses that they will receive in the wake of stepping down. If the Ulster Unionist Ministers or Ministers from other parties step down, I think that the public will recognise that as Ministers running away from the job. As such, perhaps they should hand back some of the money because they have not done the job that they have been placed there to do. It is very petty for the Ulster Unionist Party to be playing politics with an issue as significant —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come back to the Bill, as far as possible.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

— as health because it is a vital issue. Health is a big part of this Budget, so it is important that we make those points.

I look forward to the debate ahead. The Executive and the Assembly —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member and his colleague opposite seem to be acting in unison in the DUP/Sinn Féin coalition leadership. As regards salaries in the medical profession, does he accept that there can be difficulties in attracting professionals to places such as Altnagelvin Area Hospital and the west of the Province, and that if salaries in this part of the United Kingdom for jobs that are in short supply were reduced below those in other parts, there would be even more calamity and shortages of essential posts? Is he prepared to accept the responsibility for the delays, such as in reassessing X-rays, which might follow?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I am glad that the Member raised the issue of Altnagelvin and the north-west because we all know of the scare stories that the Health Minister has put out about the cancer centre in the north-west, which will be built but not staffed. There have been other stories about x thousands of jobs being lost, but the Health Minister has not provided any detail to his Committee. To be honest, he has treated the members of his Committee like mushrooms because he has kept them totally in the dark. That is disgraceful.

Yesterday, in the debate on whether to extend the Committee Stage of the pleural plaques Bill, we discussed how Committees relate to the Executive and the Assembly. In this instance, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety needs to be treated with respect and provided with detail of the Health Minister’s draft budget because, if Members look at the detail on the budgets from each Department — for example, there are about 40 or 50 pages worth of detail in the Department for Regional Development’s (DRD) draft budget — there is very little detail in the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) one. The Minister and the Member should reflect on that and ensure that, in future, when Ministers from the Member’s party bring budget details to the House or to their respective Committees, they should provide full details. DHSSPS has around 50% of the entire Budget, so it is absolutely scandalous that the detail —

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

The Chairperson makes a good point about the level of detail and the way in which Ministers present their budgets to the Assembly. Does he agree that we should allow Ministers to scrutinise one another’s budgets and that we should have a budgetary Committee — separate from the Chairperson’s Committee, which, as the Committee for Finance and Personnel, has broader responsibilities — that is capable of scrutinising budgets and exists just to do that? Does he agree that the system is broken and that, unless the DUP and Sinn Féin work to fix it, we will continue to have bad Budgets?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

It is important to recognise that each Department has a Committee to shadow it and that each Committee should have full details of its Department’s budget and be treated with respect by its Minister. In this instance, that has not been the case.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Chairperson for giving way. Although I happen to agree with Conall McDevitt’s comments about the importance of having a proper scrutiny process and, indeed, having a budgetary Committee rather than simply a Committee for Finance and Personnel, does the Chairperson agree that central to making the system work across the board is parties taking seriously their place on the Executive and not playing games?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I absolutely agree with the Member’s comments, because one cannot —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Chairperson give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Let me finish my sentence first. I will give way in a moment.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I just want to know whether it is my party that is playing games. Which party is it?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I will give way. Go ahead.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Who exactly is the Chairperson accusing of playing games? Who is playing games with the Executive? Who is playing games with the lives of the people of Northern Ireland?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

You are — short and simple.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Me personally?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

No, the Tory boys in the corner generally.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members should make their remarks through the Chair. Order. Allow the Chairperson to be heard.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I recognise and agree fully with Mr Farry’s comments. The Executive should act cohesively and coherently. Members from the Ulster Unionist Party and the member from the SDLP cannot continue to go into the Executive and mess about. In Michael McGimpsey’s case, sometimes he does not bother to go in at all.

Another example is the way in which the SDLP went into the Budget review group, which was set up, collectively, to look at ways of generating revenue to mitigate the impact of the cuts. What did the SDLP do? It left the Budget review group, taking all the good suggestions, which it then put into a nice document that it released in December last year — two months after all the other parties released their respective proposals on the comprehensive spending review.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. Perhaps he was not paying attention during last night’s debate, but is he aware that, in April 2009, the SDLP produced comprehensive proposals on the Budget and how to reform it to protect front line services and to create jobs? I shall quote from the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ at the time:

“The SDLP proposals are most appealing in terms of employment protection, enhanced training schemes, a wage subsidy scheme and support for nursing jobs”.

Will the Chairperson point out which of those useful proposals the Executive actually adopted?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I love how the SDLP refers continually to —

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

Ah.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

How are you doing, Dolores?

I love how the SDLP refers continually to its 2009 document and to how all its great ideas emanated from it. I remember one of its Members saying on the radio that the SDLP came up with the idea of the plastic bag levy — it was in its 2009 document, so everybody else copied the SDLP. When the SDLP’s document was released in 2009, I and other members of Sinn Féin were drafting proposals for a Bill to introduce a plastic bag levy. Therefore, I will not accept anything from that document as fact, because although the SDLP was, at that time, putting forward what it sees as proposals, we were already implementing them, and that is a fact.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Again we are hearing SDLP Members’ suggestions, allegations, assertions or whatever. Does the Member agree that during yesterday’s lengthy debate on the SDLP amendment, not one member of the party who spoke addressed the amendment? It was so lacking in substance that SDLP members could not even address it, so they spent the day criticising everybody else. They told everybody what was wrong. Having tabled an amendment, they did not have the courtesy to address it, or I suppose they were intelligent enough not to do so.

However, on the SDLP’s point that it wants to have a budgetary Committee or other ways of scrutinising the finances, is it not the case that there is an Executive subgroup on the Budget on which the SDLP has a member? Is it not also the case that there is a Finance Committee in the Assembly on which the SDLP has members? Do we not also routinely debate all matters of finance in the Assembly? Will anybody tell me, or can the Minister or the Committee Chairperson tell me, whether there is any opportunity that the SDLP does not have to discuss and scrutinise all matters of finance? It has the same opportunities as everybody else, but the party lacks so much substance that it cannot address even its own amendments.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I fully recognise —

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in a point of order to the Deputy Speaker, our party asked whether you, as Speaker, would confirm that the advice given to our party on how we could bring forward an amendment was based on advice from the Business Committee, and that it was the only opportunity for us to raise —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. We are having a different debate this morning. All that I can say to the House is that the amendment that was tabled was competent. Let us move on.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I agree with what Alex Maskey said. It is clear that although other parties in the Assembly have tried to approach the Budget constructively because of the seriousness of the situation, the party to my left is more concerned about getting PR out of this. I do not know who is behind that party strategy, but it has left the party with egg on its face, as was clearly demonstrated last night. We will not take any lessons on economics from the SDLP. I am addressing the Member for Upper Bann Dolores Kelly. Let us remember that her party has had coffee mornings with Fianna Fáil and Brian Cowen and has canvassed and knocked doors with Fianna Fáil.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

May I once again encourage the Member to come back to the Budget? Let us not discuss tea parties. [Laughter.]

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Of course, the politics of Fianna Fáil and the Dáil and their economic strategies have an impact on economic flow, trade, and so on, on this part of the island. The SDLP should reflect on that. Margaret Ritchie has clearly demonstrated that she is quite close to Fianna Fáil. Indeed, on a recent episode of ‘The Politics Show’, she said that Brian Cowen did a good job. Well, I am sure most people on this island would not agree with you, Ms Ritchie.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I once again say to the Member; as far as possible, let us come back to the Budget.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

In conclusion, the Executive and the Assembly have many challenges ahead. We should approach those head on in a collective and constructive manner, without any messing about by any of the parties. I hope that all parties in the House take cognisance of that, because the British Government, supported by the Ulster Unionist Party, have cut the block grant by £4 billion. They have cut capital funding by some 40%. More recently, they have stolen millions of pounds of end-year flexibility. Actions such as those — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Actions such as those are reason enough — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Actions such as those are reason enough for this Assembly to move to devolve fiscal and taxation powers because the British Government clearly do not act in the best interests of those we represent. That has been made quite clear by their actions over the past year and in many years before it.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Follow that. [Laughter.] One of the key issues to be resolved in relation to the Department of Justice budget for the next financial year and beyond was whether it could continue to be ring-fenced. The Executive’s draft Budget proposes that the Department of Justice budget will remain ring-fenced for the Budget period. The Justice Committee wishes to dispel any misconceptions that, as a result of ring-fencing the Department of Justice budget for this period, the budget will be protected and will not face any reductions. The outcome of the proposals to continue to ring-fence the budget is that it will receive the direct Barnett consequentials arising from changes in the level of funding of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice as a result of the UK spending review settlement for Whitehall Departments. The result of that is that the Department of Justice faces an overall reduction in its cash baseline of some £82 million, which is 7·2%, by 2014-15.

Taking into account the effect of inflation, the real term impact is significantly greater. The Justice Committee notes that ring-fencing the Department’s budget results in it having a slightly worse resource baseline than the average Northern Ireland settlement. However, the Committee welcomes the fact that, as part of the ring-fencing of the budget, the Department of Justice has guaranteed access to underspend generated this year and throughout the Budget 2010 period. That will provide important flexibility for the Department and, as far as the Committee is aware, is not available to any other Department in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. The Committee views the retention of end-year flexibility for the Department of Justice as a distinct advantage. Taking everything into account, the Committee is of the view that ring-fencing is the most appropriate position to take on the Department of Justice’s budget.

I now want to move on to one of the most crucial issues with the proposed budget for the Department of Justice, namely the continued access to the Treasury reserve to fund exceptional security pressures faced by the PSNI. The Chief Constable has indicated a requirement for approximately £250 million over the next four-year period. In the draft Budget, the Executive have allocated an additional £45 million to the Department of Justice, and the Department intends to use that to contribute to meeting the security funding pressures facing the PSNI. A bid for £200 million has been with Treasury for some time, and the Department is waiting for confirmation that the bid has been successful. Those who attended yesterday’s debate will recall that I mentioned that. It is a vital part of the Justice budget, particularly in relation to policing.

The Committee is extremely concerned about the implications for the Department of Justice budget if that bid is not met in full. In response to questions from members, departmental officials indicated that there is no contingency plan in the event that the bid is unsuccessful and admitted that taking £200 million from the rest of the Department’s budget would result in it being in severe difficulties. The Committee believes that, if the bid is unsuccessful or only partially successful, the implications for the Department’s budget in 2011-12 and up to 2012-15 are such that it will not be possible to agree the Department of Justice budget until confirmation of the granting of the bid is received.

The Committee urges the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance and Personnel to press for a decision to be made as a matter of great urgency. Given that we are now debating the Second Stage of the Budget Bill and being asked to approve the Vote on Account that relates to the first year of the four-year Budget period, it is imperative that confirmation is received from Treasury as soon as possible that that security funding bid will be met in full from the reserves.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

Given that, only last Thursday, the Chief Constable again indicated that the dissident threat in Northern Ireland continues to be severe, will the Member agree that meeting the security bid of £200 million is imperative if the level of security in Northern Ireland is to be maintained? Furthermore, given the Home Secretary’s previous comments that the dissidents pose a threat not only to Northern Ireland but to mainland United Kingdom, will he agree that security is an issue for the whole of the United Kingdom?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank my colleague Mr Spratt for his well-made point that funding for security is not only vital to Northern Ireland but has wider implications. If that bid were not made, there would be implications not only for this region of the United Kingdom but for other regions of the United Kingdom.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

As part of the agreements reached at Hillsborough, was it not the understanding that the first £12 million of claims for hearing loss would be met out of Executive funds? Is he surprised to discover that the money is in the budget line for the PSNI this year and that there is considerable concern in the PSNI that it will remain in its budget line for the next four years? Will he agree that such funds detract from the fight against terrorism and that those funds ought to be made up by the Executive?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I heard what the Member said, but he can rely on the Committee for Justice to debate and discuss those issues. We have gone through all of those matters in great detail, and, if his party colleagues who are members of the Committee were in attendance when that happened, I am sure that they will confirm that. I take his point about that £12 million of funding, and, as a Committee, we are extremely concerned. We are keeping a close eye on that, and I assure the Member that it will not go by default.

The Committee welcomes the Executive’s decision to allocate an additional £45 million to the Department of Justice budget. I turn to the key funding priorities for the 2011-15 Budget period and the funding for the next year, which the Vote on Account will support initially at the beginning of the 2011-12 Budget period. The Minister of Justice has identified those priorities: first, protecting front line policing; secondly, protecting other front line areas across the Department with the aim of protecting outcomes for the public; and, thirdly, protecting the voluntary and community sectors as far as possible.

In scrutinising the Department’s draft budget allocations, the Committee notes that the figures provided indicate that funding has been skewed towards the priorities of policing and justice. However, based on the information that has been available to date, the Committee is unable to assess properly and accurately the likely implications of funding reductions on the delivery of front line policing and other services. The Committee is concerned that nearly all of the draft savings plans that have been provided by the Department refer to achieving savings through the suppression of posts, redeployment of headcount, workforce modernisation, observing vacancies, natural wastage, reductions in office equipment, reductions in training costs, reviews of the frequency of research work, etc.

Of particular interest are indications from two justice organisations, the Police Ombudsman’s office and the Probation Board, that redundancies may be needed to achieve the savings that they are being asked to deliver. The Committee has considerable concerns about that. The Committee is also concerned about the likely impact on the ability of those organisations and, indeed, the Department as a whole, to deliver services. The Committee wishes to see detailed impact assessments from each area of the Department of the implications of the proposed savings measures. Until those are available, the Committee is not in a position to make an accurate judgement of the Department’s draft budget. In the meantime, the Committee also wants further consideration to be given to the situation facing the Police Ombudsman’s office and the Probation Board.

Although the Committee welcomes the Minister of Justice’s commitment to protect the voluntary and community sectors as far as possible, we have reservations due to the lack of information available about the level of protection that is being afforded.

In relation to delivering savings, the Committee notes that the Prison Service cash baseline will reduce by £18 million by 2014-15. That is to be achieved through an invest-to-save programme, for which £13 million is being provided in 2011-12, and a strategic efficiency and effectiveness programme. The Committee is concerned about the ability to deliver the savings required and about whether the provision of £13 million is a realistic amount to achieve the possible range of reforms that may be required. The Committee wishes to see the details of the proposed efficiency and effectiveness programme as soon as possible.

The Justice Committee welcomes the Executive’s decision to allocate an additional £57 million capital funding to the Department of Justice budget, £30 million of which is for the Desertcreat training college.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

The honourable Member will be aware of the frustration felt by those who are dealing with the Desertcreat training college. For some time, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety held back on announcing any capital funding for the Fire and Rescue Service aspect of the project. Does it surprise the Chairperson to know that, at a meeting of the Policing Board last Thursday, members of the PSNI senior management team indicated that the latest stalling tactic of the Minister of Health is to say that if the college were built and up and running, he would not have the funding to pay for his part of it. I would have thought that the Minister of Health already had the running costs for training for the Fire and Rescue Service factored into his budget to carry out that training. It is another stalling tactic by the Minister of Health to frustrate that project.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I was coming to the point that my honourable friend made. The Department of Health’s stance, particularly the Minister’s, to the project has been regrettable. He could have been much more constructive and forthcoming.

The Committee is very pleased with the Executive’s decision to allocate £30 million to the Department of Justice to fund the fire and rescue aspect of the Desertcreat training college. That major scheme can now move ahead in the coming financial year. However, the Committee is very concerned about reports in the media that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has indicated that he may not have the recurrent funding for the running of the fire and rescue part of the college. The Committee wants clarification of the position and confirmation that recurrent funding will be available for the Fire and Rescue Service so that Desertcreat training college can be fully operational.

The Department of Justice made no provision in its budget proposals in 2011-12 or thereafter for any requirements that may arise from the implementation of the Bamford review findings. The Committee has been advised by departmental officials that the principle on which they are working is that the lead Department, in this case the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, will make bids for any changes that are proposed as a result of new legislation. Although the Committee is not yet in a position to make decisions on whether it supports the detailed breakdown of the Department of Justice budget, it supports the overall approach to the budget.

Finally, in relation to the legal aid bill, there is some confusion and considerable disappointment in the Committee that the figure that the Committee understood was available as part of the Hillsborough agreement was £79 million.

We are now being told in the draft Budget proposals that the figure that is allocated to the Legal Services Commission for 2014-15 could be £75 million. The Committee has covered that in its submission on the Department’s budget. We wait with apprehension to hear the final outcome on what that figure will be. Certainly, we always understood that it would be £79 million and not £75 million as we are now being told.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

First, I want to address some issues that relate to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I serve as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. From the outset, the lack of information has concerned me and, indeed, the Committee. I will give examples. During the past week, a couple of issues emerged outside the Committee. We were unaware and did not see that a proposal was hidden in the budget to remove funding for the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster entirely. I declare an interest as a former member, many years ago. My daughter was a recent member, although she is not a member at present. I am, therefore, aware of how a relatively small amount of seed funding results in the co-ordination of many volunteers who carry out vital youth work in the rural community.

Another example that I noticed in the farming press at the weekend is that funding to support agricultural shows has been reduced. Again, the Committee did not see that proposal. I have reread the Minister’s statement, and no issue of that nature became apparent to me.

Last week, the Committee queried officials about the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster. They said that it is not a priority funding area and that the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster did not teach recognised qualifications such as NVQs. I argue that those clubs are a feeder unit to the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE). We are already aware of the need for younger farmers, and the clubs act as a feeder unit for future farmers. With increasingly fewer full-time farmers, that is an area of opportunity. With the increase in world agricultural food prices and value added to the economy by food processing, there is a huge opportunity.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I declare an interest as I am still a member of the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster. [Laughter.] I will probably have to leave when I turn 30. I have a good four or five years yet.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate that Mr McCallister would willingly mislead the House about his age?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I was just seeing whether anyone was stupid enough to believe me. [Laughter.]

On a serious note, I agree entirely with the Member’s points about the contribution that the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster have made to the well-being of rural youth in Northern Ireland. During the past 80 years, that contribution has been immense. The one growth sector in the economy has been the agrifood sector. It is the one light on the horizon in the economy. Those proposals will feed into that and impact on training and skills throughout the rural community. It is vital that we maintain that training and provide leaders for the agriculture industry. I am sure that when the Minister of Finance and Personnel meets leaders in the agrifood sector, many of them will have been through the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster. We must fight to get a fair outcome on that issue

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I will illustrate that with examples of what the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster deliver, which, I believe, is important. They deliver stock judging competitions. Young farmers and people in rural communities are trained how to assess good qualities in animals such as cattle, sheep and pigs. If that did not happen, that type of detailed training would not be provided by the Department.

That happens at a very early age. There are other activities, such as silage assessment and fencing competitions. I am not aware of what happens elsewhere. Those who end up going to the agricultural colleges may not learn those skills until later. Not all will reach agricultural colleges, but, at the very least, the clubs are part of the feeder process of encouraging young people into agriculture, to specialise in it and to learn the best technical systems and values to take back from college to their home farms.

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

It is not only the young people in the agriculture and rural sector who are adversely affected. Does the Member agree that young people and children right across the North will be adversely impacted? The Children’s Commissioner produced her response to the draft Budget today. Does the Member agree with the Commissioner’s remark that she finds the lack of equality-proofing and due regard for the equality of opportunity in the Budget proposals extremely alarming? She also said that the spending proposals demonstrate that very little account was taken to minimise or mitigate the potential adverse impact on children and young people.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The influence of the young farmers’ clubs extends beyond the farming community. Many people in the rural community link into the young farmers’ clubs, many of which are located in areas where there are no youth clubs or other activities. As the activities are run entirely by volunteers, they are provided in an efficient manner.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Will the Member try to come back to the subject of the Budget?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

It is important funding for an activity that is similar to that offered by a preschool facility. Would anyone dream of cutting preschool funding? The young farmers’ activity is an early farming activity for young people and trains them for the future. I view it as essential in that regard. In the past, its funding has involved the relatively small sum of £75,000 a year. However, when I look through the detailed Budget, I see £16 million listed against anti-poverty measures. As there is no detail, I do not know how it is proposed that it will be spent. Young farmers’ clubs feed into that area as well, because they provide social activities in rural communities in which young people can become involved and learn good techniques for farming in the future.

I was also alarmed to see a £16 million commitment for a new DARD headquarters. When we discussed the issue with officials, however, we discovered that the value was £32 million. That was hidden in the written submission that we received from the Minister. She committed to £16 million, but, in fact, £32 million is required towards that capital expenditure over a longer period. It is much better if everything is open and transparent so that people understand what is happening.

Under recurrent capital expenditure for the four years, the Minister indicates that there is £2·3 million for the Department; £2·8 million for new equipment, etc, for the Forest Service; £4·1 million for the Rivers Agency; and £3·3 million for CAFRE and AFBI. That is a total of £12·5 million. However, there is a sting in the tail: the Minister says that that is only 50% of what those services need during the period. She is, however, prepared to commit £16 million to a new structural building as headquarters for her civil servants. Meanwhile, those who deliver essential services, such as the Forest Service, the Rivers Agency, CAFRE and AFBI, will receive only 50% of what they need. I question the wisdom of the Civil Service feeding money into itself through building new headquarters. There must be other means of delivering that so that we can prioritise delivering services on the ground. I question the commitment of that £16 million.

I will move on to wider issues. I am alarmed about the A5 road. Over the four years, some £675 million, which is 60% of Roads Service’s capital budget for that period, is earmarked for that project. However, it does not even have planning permission. The level of road usage is about 10,000 vehicles a day, which is not high. Another important factor is that the funding is in the at-risk category, because the leader of the Irish Labour Party clearly indicated that the supposed 50% funding from the Republic of Ireland was in doubt.

One can examine what some of the trade bodies have been saying. I understand that the Road Haulage Association is saying that the A5 does not hit the top of its priority list of roads, bottlenecks and delays to industry. It is not the priority, yet the Budget proposes committing 60% and cutting lots of smaller schemes that can have a much bigger effect on the economy. We must invest our money carefully to get the best results from it. The A5 does not do that.

As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am also aware of concern among the local farming community. The Committee hopes to go to the area later this week to view some of the issues ourselves. I fully accept that there are areas of that road that need improvement and overtaking opportunities, but would it not be better, at the very least, to investigate a sectional approach if that has to happen to improve road safety on that road?

I am minded of the experience of the A2 in my constituency, which was in the headlines today. That road is a bottleneck. It has gone through the entire planning process. Blighted property has to be bought by the Department, though vesting has not yet started. Because £4 million has been spent on the planning process and in developing the scheme, which has been granted planning permission, a further £12 million had to be committed to buying properties that have been blighted. Almost one third of the cost of that scheme has been committed, and it is now proposed to put the scheme on hold. It is apparent from the Budget that one reason for that is that the money will be put into this one big basket, which, frankly, has lots of holes in it — the A5. I argue that it would be much wiser to complete the many smaller projects throughout the Province that are more advanced and will have a bigger effect on our economy and on reducing congestion.

The A2 in my own constituency is certainly one such project. The accident and emergency department at Whiteabbey Hospital has closed and people have to travel further. Ambulances have to come through that congested route, and delays are occurring. The local police response officers have actually been moved from Carrickfergus to Whiteabbey. Again, there are delays. I do not understand why that issue has been wiped from the planned programme. It was identified in the Belfast metropolitan area plan as one of the top five priority areas but, with the stroke of a pen, the Minister proposes to put it into cyberspace, leave all those blighted properties and neighbours dangling there, uncertain of their future, and disrupt those communities without finishing the job. I strongly argue that that route should be finished.

Having seen what happened in my own constituency with the A2, I would take a look at the A5. I would not want to cause similar blight up there. Huge disruption could potentially occur to communities there. We have already learned of disruptions to farmers. What is the point in causing all that disruption, causing blighting, and causing a requirement to invest money in properties that have been blighted — the statutory process if we reach that stage — if perhaps the money will not be available to complete the route? Surely it would be much wiser to look at taking a sectional approach to deal with overtaking opportunities or accident black spots, rather than to commit to what would be the biggest capital roads investment that I have ever been aware of in Northern Ireland for a road with 10,000 vehicles a day. I understand that the A2 in my constituency has about 30,000 vehicles a day.

That is not a good use of public money. In fact, it may even endanger more public funding in a scheme that may never be delivered should funding not be available, never mind within Northern Ireland, but within the Republic of Ireland, which has been linked up in partnership with it.

Another issue that is important is our transport infrastructure. The east Antrim railway line is the only one that is largely reliant on the older train sets. Thankfully, 20 new train sets were ordered and are due for delivery from this month onwards.

Wonderful, but those new trains will have to be commissioned, and additional trains will mean that additional funding will be required for their running costs. Will we have ordered trains to the value of hundreds of millions of pounds and will they be on the road or will they be parked in the garage? [Interruption.] That is, will they be on the railway line or will they be parked in the garage?

It is important when we make investment that we think it through and ensure that we are able to deliver on it. Mention was made about not building buildings when you cannot staff them. Potentially, there is a similar situation with public transport, so I seek reassurance that that will not be the case. We must make careful use of our money so that our investment can be delivered and improve things on the ground.

Another issue in my constituency involves the health sector. For Members’ information, East Antrim has no accident and emergency or minor injury units. What we have in Taylors Avenue, Carrickfergus is an ageing, overflowing health centre that is not fit for modern standards and needs significant improvement. We have a building of a similar age in Gloucester Avenue, Larne, which has disability access issues. They put buckets out at times of rain because the roof leaks. There are lots of problems with its layout and it needs to be renewed.

We have suffered as a result of decisions on capital investment priorities, in that Whiteabbey Hospital’s accident and emergency unit has closed, as has the unit at Mid Ulster Hospital. The Whiteabbey unit not being available is affecting my constituency by increasing pressure on Antrim Area Hospital. I understand that improvements to the accident and emergency unit there are planned or proposed.

If investment also went into local health and care centres in my constituency, which were just missed in the previous spending period, the delivery of health services in my constituency could be improved. On top of that, many people with minor ailments who go to major hospitals, such as Antrim Area Hospital or further afield, may well be able to be assessed and dealt with in the local community, with pressure being taken off the already burdened Antrim Area Hospital. I am arguing for joined-up thinking so that we prioritise our capital expenditure and improvements can occur in some very outdated areas of the health estate to improve the health of the people of East Antrim, who have been badly dealt with over many decades.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

What discussions has the Member had with the Health Minister about those issues?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I raised those issues with the Health Minister on a number of occasions. I am aware that in deciding the overall capital budget, the Assembly has choices to make. We can choose where we put our capital budget. Are health centres our priority, or is it roads or headquarters for civil servants? There are choices to be made and I vote that we should put money into improving basic, essential services for the people. For the people of East Antrim, that means improvements to our health centres in Larne and Carrickfergus.

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

Good morning, Mr Speaker. The SDLP understands that the Budget Bill is largely the application of what has been handed down by the coalition Government. However, trying to abdicate all responsibility shows a lack of leadership.

Cuts of £4 billion were envisaged for Northern Ireland in the Chancellor’s comprehensive spending review settlement. When we leave out receipts and a rates increase, the draft Budget plans cuts of more than £3·2 billion. In other words, the Executive have succeeded in uncovering new revenue equal to the cancellation of only a single road-building project. That shows a lack of imagination and a lack of a fight for the people of this region.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel has withdrawn from the Chamber. The Finance Minister would never withdraw from a debate on finance in the House and he does put in his hours here. It is regrettable that his Committee Chairperson is unavailable to participate fully in the debate.

Sinn Féin saying that it is fighting Tory cuts is about as credible as Gerry Adams’s denial that he was ever in the IRA; it just does not stack up. Unfortunately, nor does this Budget.

The SDLP will not be part of a cosy DUP/Sinn Féin and, since yesterday, Alliance Party consensus on cuts. Much more can be done to raise funds that can be spent on job creation, job protection and front line services.

In December, we published a detailed Budget plan, ‘Partnership and Economic Recovery’, which we submitted to the Executive in the hope of influencing the draft Budget. As colleagues have said, that was not our first attempt at influencing the public finance debate in this region. It built on a previous attempt in April 2009. We are not going to stop attempting to influence public finances in this region. Our mandate is big enough to give us a seat, if not two, at the Executive table by right, and Members should reflect on that. We will continue to exercise our mandate on behalf of the people who have voted for us and the many thousands —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

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

Of course I will give way. [Laughter.]

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That was a wee bit of a surprise, I must say.

I was interested to hear the Member state all the contortions and distortions that his party has gone through to provide this wonderful document, which seems to be the cure of all ills. It is a wonderful document, but I must be truthful: I have not got round to reading it. I will make a point of reading it.

The Member said that the SDLP sent the document to the Executive. Will the Member clarify, for those of us who are not as close to this as he is, how it was delivered? Was it delivered by the Minister or by post? Does he accept that his party has a Minister in the Executive, and did that Minister not deliver for them?

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

I commend the document to Lord Morrow. I know Lord Morrow from working with him on the Justice Committee, and he is a very fine Chairperson of that Committee and represents us very well in this House. Lord Morrow will know that I am very committed to sustainability. In fact, I am one of the people who have put themselves up for the paperless Committee system. I clarify that we e-mailed the document to colleagues.

The ‘Partnership and Economic Recovery’ document includes detailed proposals for new revenue streams and receipts and for cash-releasing efficiency savings. We are pleased to see that the Executive have taken some of our suggestions on board, many of which we have been highlighting, as I said earlier, for nearly two years. Our document contains many more good ideas that the Executive should consider, and we hope to continue a constructive engagement through the Assembly and the Executive during the budgetary process.

However, the draft Budget is simply not joined-up. Each Department has had cuts imposed, and there has been little evidence of thinking outside of departmental silos. The result is a Budget that has been generated by the DUP and Sinn Féin in private negotiation, rather than being collectively agreed. It is a Budget that the Alliance Party seems willing to sign up to pretty blindly. The SDLP believes that the experience gained —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. It would be helpful if the Member clarified something. There seems to be two different arguments going on. One argument is that the Budget is the product of a DUP/Sinn Féin carve-up, whereby the two parties went off, within the Budget review committee, by themselves and presented a fait accompli to the other Ministers. On the other hand, even though it published its document at the eleventh hour — two months later than every other party — the SDLP is saying that its fingerprints are on the draft Budget, because all the good ideas in the document have been included in the Budget. So, which version is it to be?

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

I am grateful to Mr Farry for giving me the opportunity to remind the House that the document that we published last December was the second one that we published in two years. I have a copy of the first here that I am happy to pass around the Chamber, and we can refer to it during the course of the day. [Laughter.] I know that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has enjoyed referring to it in the past, but he may wish to refresh his memory.

The document that we published in April 2009 includes many of the provisions in this year’s Budget that we are able to welcome. However, there is no getting away from the simple fact that the draft Budget before the House is a carve-up, and a carve-up for political reasons. Fair play to the DUP and Sinn Féin, because those parties have the numbers to get the Budget through the House, and I wish them good luck with that mission. What I cannot understand —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Perhaps the Member will explain where he gets the idea of there being a carve-up, because there is as much fantasy in that assertion as there is in some of the stuff that is in his document. The budgets that were most generously treated in the draft Budget were those for DHSSPS and DEL, neither of which are DUP or Sinn Féin Departments. Indeed, the Member’s colleague Mr O’Loan, who is sitting behind him and who will probably put his head down in a minute or two, complained last night that the budget for DCAL, which is a DUP-controlled Ministry, was one of the worst hit. Where is the evidence of a carve-up?

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

I had the opportunity to listen to the radio this morning. I shall not mention the broadcaster’s name, because it is mentioned too many times in the House. On that programme, John Simpson, who is a senior economist and who, for the record, I do not believe votes for the SDLP, pointed out that DHSSPS is a loser in the draft Budget and DEL a major loser. It is not my job as an SDLP MLA to defend colleagues and another party’s Ministers, but that was in evidence in what Mr Simpson said, in the report that was published by Queen’s University last week and in the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) report. With the indulgence of the Speaker, the Minister and the House, I will return to that issue a little later.

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

Does the Member agree that the reason why the SDLP is so angry about the draft Budget is not on behalf of the Department for which its Minister has the portfolio but because those who are most vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised will remain so if the Budget is carried through as it stands?

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

The great tragedy of today’s debate is that those who are suffering are not in the House. Those people are working families and are the most marginalised in our community. At the end of my remarks, I will take some time to try to evidence that to the House.

There are also problems with the process. The SDLP believes that the experience gained from the outworking of the current Budget, and the serious impact of many outside factors over the four-year period, highlights the need for the flexibility of a full annual Budget process, combined with a long-term strategic economic plan. In order to best manage our finances, provide sound planning and allow for transparency and accountability, we cannot rely on a Budget document that is years out of date. That will prove to be the case again, as there is a marked absence of medium- and long-term thinking in the four-year draft Budget, for which there is no accompanying Programme for Government.

Now that we have relative stability in government, we must move on from short-fix, short-term politics and, I must add, the politics of the peace process. I am sick and tired of hearing Members, who are my colleagues, try to excuse every failing of regional government as a consequence of our transitional status. My generation do not consider themselves to have transitional status; rather, they feel that they are part of a region with a devolved Government, and they want that Government to work for them.

It is difficult to assess the objectives of the draft Budget, as it is not based on an up-to-date Programme for Government. Although it has been touted as a great four-year plan, without a strategic Programme for Government, it is a short-term fix. Any argument that the 2008 Programme for Government is an acceptable strategy on which to build the draft Budget is totally flawed. We need a new Programme for Government on which to base a proper four-year Budget.

In response —

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for giving way. I think that he has mentioned the absence of a new Programme for Government three times in the past couple of minutes. Does he not accept the point that was made yesterday that we are discussing a Budget in the final few weeks of the current mandate and that the time for the consideration of a new Programme for Government will be in around 10 weeks, not at the end of this mandate?

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

Mr Campbell makes a very good point. However, it was his colleague the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Sammy Wilson MP MLA, who, in answer to a question for written answer to my party leader, Margaret Ritchie, a couple of weeks ago said, and I quote — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must be heard.

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

Mr Wilson wrote:

“The ideal situation would be to have the draft Programme for Government published at the same time as, or in advance of, the draft Budget.”

The 2008 Programme for Government was published before the economic downturn. Although we accept the fact that it makes the economy the number one priority, the outlook has changed so radically that businesses and jobseekers have different needs now than in 2008.

In a recent speech to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Business Trust (NIABT) — a speech that I was able to listen to personally — Mr Wilson said that we will not really know the impact of this Budget until we are well into year 4. That admission proves that the Budget is not a precise document and Northern Ireland needs a Programme for Government to accompany it, otherwise we are being asked to put a few pounds on at fairly long odds. Those of us in the House who are betting men and women would never do such a thing.

It begs an important question: how can the public have confidence in the Budget when the Finance Minister is unable to predict its impact? It is not just us who are saying that. The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action’s (NICVA) response to the budgetary process raised serious questions about the process and the Budget itself. NICVA’s budget submission concludes:

“At present this is not a balanced Budget. At this stage, and with reference to the published information, it is not clear how two major spending Departments — certainly DHSSPS and possibly DEL — will balance the books. The outcome of this may hold important implications for other Departments.

While some revenue raising is proposed, more imaginative funding mechanisms, savings and revenue-raising programmes and projects might have been suggested.

It is less than ideal that a Budget is to be agreed before a new Programme for Government is in place.

The indications in this Budget do not tell us if the Executive has an adequate response to many of the challenges facing Northern Ireland, e.g. rising unemployment and a rebalancing of energy use and the economy towards renewables”.

I know that that is a difficult one for the Minister. However, it is still part of the Programme for Government — the old one.

The Budget can also be measured against its potential impact on the economy, yet all the economic commentators recognise the need to balance the Northern Ireland economy. That means growing our private sector and getting a more efficient public sector. It means focusing on job creation and investing scarce capital in the right areas. A Budget is one of the key levers available to the Northern Ireland Executive in enabling that change, yet the draft Budget and the Budget Bill fail to do so.

The draft Budget fails to prioritise economic development and contains little economic stimulus to generate jobs in the short term and to get the economy moving. It provides no proposals to move assets and activities from the public sector to the private sector, and it provides no serious aspirations for public sector reform. In large part, that is because the Executive are working to a Programme for Government that is now three years out of date. The only proposal for economic stimulus in the draft Budget — the green new deal — lacks ambition and the funding to match. In the SDLP’s ‘Partnership and Economic Recovery’, we begin to tackle those issues, and we will continue to encourage others to do so as well.

The draft Budget is hugely ambitious, and there are questions over how robust the claims are around additional finance being raised. Initial suggestions were that we would get £1·5 billion new money — new revenue — from the Budget. Those suggestions came from the Minister for Regional Development in a briefing about 48 hours before the draft Budget was proposed. However, they disappeared like snow off a ditch, and we are now talking of a figure of £800 million, but that cannot be quantified either. The SDLP is concerned about the low level of new revenue that will be raised in the draft Budget. When normal receipts are stripped away, there is little new money: less than 1% of the total Budget. The Minister may have described this Budget as a:

“good Christmas present for the people of Northern Ireland” —

and it may have nice wrapping, but the box is pretty empty.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. He has clearly articulated what Stephen Farry has suggested: the Budget is full of holes. Is that a description with which the Member agrees?

Unlike the SDLP, the Alliance Party has given the Budget its full support. Mr Farry argued that any party that does not support the carve-ups arrived at by the DUP and Sinn Féin should leave the Executive. However, since the Alliance Party does not support another DUP/Sinn Féin carve up, namely the cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI) strategy, will it leave the Executive? Members will recall that the only reason why the Alliance Party condescended to take the Justice Ministry was on the basis that a cohesion, sharing and integration strategy would be published. Now that strategy has been rubbished; it will not now appear in this mandate. Should the Alliance Party not consider its position in the Executive?

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

The question stands.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way, and I am grateful to him for facilitating the debate. Is Dolores Kelly asking the Alliance Party to jump out of the Executive before the SDLP, if that is what the SDLP intends to do?

Let us be clear. The devolution of policing and justice has been an outstanding success over the past year. An extremely difficult political issue that almost brought down the Assembly has been stabilised. We are now seeing delivery, and I would not belittle that for one moment.

We have had more progress on cohesion, sharing and integration over the past year than we have ever had during any previous mandate, including when the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP were allegedly running this place. As for any carve-up, we have been clear that this Budget was negotiated by five parties, including the SDLP. That party cannot point the finger at the Executive because the Executive is the SDLP inasmuch as it is any of the five parties in this Chamber. The Executive is a collective effort.

The question stands for the SDLP: when Alex Attwood votes against the Budget at the Executive, but is then bound by collective responsibility to defend that Budget, will the SDLP have one version of the party in the Executive saying one thing, and another version outside saying another?

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

I am tempted, Mr Speaker, to depart from the Bill to go back to the question of the CSI strategy. However, I am sure that you would pull me up.

It is interesting that, in these islands, liberal parties seem to be making a habit of doing a bad deal as they enter government. Colleagues in Mr Farry’s sister party sold themselves into government for a referendum that they will lose, and the Alliance Party sold itself into government for a cohesion, sharing and integration strategy that is the laughing stock of the community relations sector.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Talking of sister parties, why is this nation in the mess that it is in, with respect to economic and fiscal policy? It is because of the sister party that the SDLP props up at Westminster. The SDLP sits on the Labour Party Benches.

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

So do you.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

The SDLP supported the Labour Party through thick and thin, and that party left this country in the economic mess that it is now in.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Please address all remarks through the Chair.

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

I am always curious to know why the DUP is unable to get a sister party anywhere. Maybe that is the way that it prefers it. I will return to the Bill, but I will give way first.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am refreshed to hear DUP Members laying the blame where it belongs, with the Labour Party.

I will return the Member to the Bill. Is he not a little unfair about revenue raising? He may have forgotten about Daithí’s plastic bag tax.

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

Serendipity, Mr Speaker. I was about to review the holes in the Budget that Mrs Kelly referred to on the revenue-raising side. The draft Budget anticipates £146 million in rates increases over four years, yet Minister Wilson championed a rates freeze. It expects us to realise £442 million in capital receipts over four years. Let us face it: this is not new money; it has been accounted for in previous departmental budgets. It is funny money, Mr Speaker. I know that the Minister likes to be a comedian at times, but he is a serious man when it comes to being a Minister, and he knows that, too.

The draft Budget anticipates £100 million in receipts from the central asset management unit (CAMU). However, CAMU failed to raise any funds in the past four years. The draft Budget expects £23 million this year in capital carried over from 2010-11 to 2011-12. That was announced in the December monitoring round. However, that money is carried over; it is not new. There is £4 million in the plastic bag levy that Mr McCallister mentioned. I put that question to the Minister of the Environment in the House last week. Surely the point of the plastic bag levy is to reduce reliance on plastic bags, and, therefore, its success will raise no money.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I will try to move the debate on to revenue raising. I would be grateful if the Member could clarify when the SDLP will come off the fence and be clear about the need to introduce water charges in Northern Ireland. Water charges are being paid everywhere else in the UK, and we cannot sustain levels of public services here without generating the same levels of revenue that are generated elsewhere.

I note, in particular, that the SDLP has now called publicly for the mutualisation of Northern Ireland Water. I agree with him, and I am glad that we have found some common ground on the issue. However, the SDLP is not being fully honest in accepting the logic of its arguments, because the mutualisation of Northern Ireland Water means that it becomes, essentially, self-financing. That means that a separate charge has to be raised from the public. Therefore, calling for mutualisation means calling for separate water charges. That is the right way to go, but the SDLP should be brave and say that, in doing so, we will bring in £200 million a year that will transform the situation that we are in.

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

I am grateful to Mr Farry, because I was going to return to that matter later, and I will do so. Mutualisation does not equal water charges. I do not want to have to explain the concept of mutualisation. However, Mr O’Dowd suggested that mutualisation was privatisation, but it is actually the opposite. My advice to Mr O’Dowd is to look it up in the dictionary. A mutual company is owned by its customers. The customers of Northern Ireland Water are the people of this region. Mutualisation would be the model that would guarantee public ownership of that utility, not privatise it.

Mutualisation requires that there be a certain and steady income stream. It does not mean that we have to raise that income through water charges. We could continue to subsidise Northern Ireland Water, as we do today, out of the block grant, and we could mutualise it. We could do lots of other things. My party will not be going to the people to surrender on an issue on which we have stood fast, which is that people should not pay a separate water charge in this region as things stand today. We are not going to resile from that position.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Clearly, the Member is totally confused about the way in which Northern Ireland Water could raise money. If the idea behind mutualisation is to ensure that Northern Ireland Water can borrow money to pay for the infrastructure, it can do that only against a guaranteed income stream. If the borrowing is against a guaranteed income stream from the public sector, the Member knows well — or, at least, he would know well if he has done his homework — that once that guarantee becomes a Government guarantee, any borrowing is measured against our block grant and we lose it. The only source of income that would not allow the Treasury to take borrowing from our block grant would be from a source that is independent of Government guarantee. As Mr Farry and others pointed out, that is why mutualisation will require some charging of the customer if we are to raise money against it.

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

I will continue the point, and I am grateful to the Minister for raising it. In the Chamber last night — it was late — the Minister questioned a lot of the SDLP’s borrowing proposals. He basically said that, if we seek to borrow, we hit the block. This is another example of the view that Treasury rules do not allow us to borrow because there are Barnett consequentials and block consequentials. However, that is not quite true. We borrow £200 million a year from the block under RRI. We can get Treasury to agree to exceptions. In fact, in the past three months, we proposed to borrow £175 million for the Presbyterian Mutual Society, which will not score against our block. The Minister is, of course, technically correct that, if we were to try to do it without seeking an exception, we would subject ourselves to a bit of a problem.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

No, hold on a second. Let me finish the point.

There is nothing to say that we could not go back to Treasury with a properly costed, properly proposed scheme that, in the same way as with the RRI or the Presbyterian Mutual Society, would allow us to raise revenue and guarantee an income stream for a mutual without breaching Treasury guidelines. The guidelines could be changed, as they have been changed often.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member clarify for the House how many special exemptions Northern Ireland will go to the Treasury to appeal? We are in a very difficult financial situation. The coalition Government want to normalise politics across the UK as far as possible. We have negotiated the PMS settlement. We are negotiating for special exemptions on corporation tax. There is also an ongoing battle regarding end-year flexibility. How on earth will we go to the Treasury and say that we want flexibility in the governance arrangements for Northern Ireland Water? Everyone else in the UK pays for their water through a separate charge, but we, in Northern Ireland, will opt out.

While I am on my feet, may I also ask the Member to clarify why, as a so-called social democratic party, the SDLP is playing a right-wing, populist card by refusing to bite the bullet on progressive revenue raising to properly fund public services? The SDLP is trying to have it both ways.

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

We have got used to Mr Farry propping up the consensus on the cuts coalition of Sinn Féin and the DUP, but he is now a surrender monkey to the Con-Dem coalition in London. This Assembly should except itself from United Kingdom arrangements every bleeding week. We cannot have too many exceptions for our region. We cannot do enough our own way. We will make no apology for seeking further exemptions if it is in the best interests of the people of this region, the finances of the Executive and the Assembly and our major investment needs. Our answer to everything does not have to be, “Och, we could not do that. Sure, the rules do not allow it”. It just beggars belief.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the position outlined by Mr Farry and the Minister, which effectively implies that people here do not contribute to the revenue stream of Northern Ireland Water at the minute, is exactly the same lie as is pedalled by the British Treasury? That has to be dispelled and resisted. All householders here know that they contribute to a revenue stream for water every year through their rates bill.

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

Many colleagues, particularly those in office in the House, will know that the SDLP has made that argument inside and outside the Executive for heading on for a decade.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Given that the Member was a special adviser at the time, he may well recall that, in the past, there was a formal link between the regional rate and water, which was broken by the then SDLP Finance Minister. People now pay for an element of their water through the regional rate. I think that that has been assessed at £160 a household. However, that does not cover the full cost of providing a water service. Although people pay for an element, they do not pay the full cost of what is required to run Northern Ireland Water. It is important that people understand the sums on this matter.

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

I will indulge the House with a clarification on that matter because, in a previous role, I was party to some of the decisions taken in the Executive at that time. I assure Mr Farry that Mr Mark Durkan did not break the link when he was Finance Minister. In fact, that is the problem. The breaking of the link and the change took place after the Assembly had been suspended. That is why the SDLP continues to believe that we can deliver on our RRI commitments and the other major capital investment programmes through a rateable process.

I return to the holes in the Budget. Some £20 million a year has been identified as coming from housing association reserves. However, there is no ability to recoup that money from the associations. The total new revenue claimed in the draft Budget is £807 million. However, the true potential is only £262 million. It is not me saying that; a senior official from the Department of Finance and Personnel said so, on 12 January 2011, to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. As colleagues can see, the supposed £842 million in new revenue is questionable to say the least, as is, in particular, the £442 million already planned by Departments. In fact, the majority of it comes from DSD and is merely the repayment of Housing Executive debt. It is not a new source of money.

In our document, we found many additional revenue-raising opportunities that we have not seen incorporated into the draft Budget. That means that we have less money to spend. In fact, the SDLP’s ideas bridge the entire funding gap in the draft Budget. Our fully costed document ‘Partnership and Economic Recovery’ — it is available, although some Members last night seemed to think that it was not — provides detailed figures for our proposals. It is available in the Library and online, and I will send Members a link to it on Twitter if that will make it easier for them. It is not exactly a secret document.

The report provides detailed figures for the following SDLP proposals, none of which is in the draft Budget: the resizing of the Executive information service; the scrapping of departmental management boards; car park charging for the Senior Civil Service; the establishment of the Education and Skills Authority; the increase in public sector productivity; reductions in public service expenses and overseas travel; the leasing of Forest Service lands; the abolition of junior ministerial posts — I am sorry if any of the junior Ministers are in the Chamber at the moment; reforming the Northern Ireland Prison Service; a public service pay cut of 5%; procurement savings; a single economic policy unit; restructuring quangos; reviewing university costs; cutting public sector advertising; a supermarket off-licence levy; scrapping the Focus Farms scheme; reducing legal aid costs; a rates increase for banks and ATMs; a levy on telephone masts; an MOT charge increase; fast-track planning charges; Northern Ireland Housing Executive interest reprofiling; a shared future investment bond —I think that I have dealt with the points that the Minister raised in the House last night about borrowing in this region, which we can come back to if he wishes; the sale and leaseback of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive headquarters; the agricultural college receipt and — I apologise, Mr Speaker — the sale of your house on this estate too; the sale of allotments; the privatisation of the Rate Collection Agency; the deferral of non-priority projects; the planning gain developer contribution to local government borrowing; the long-term borrowing; other capital realisation asset sales; the sale of Derry port and airport; and the privatisation of Belfast port, to mention just a few.

The initial delay in publishing the draft Budget has had the knock-on effect of limiting the ability of outside organisations to give a considered response.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member read, at some rate, a fairly long list —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

He did not want us to think too much about it.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

That is the point, exactly. Does the Member accept that the glaring omissions from that long list are measures that would realise monetary efficiencies and deliver much more effective government in Northern Ireland? They would involve dismantling what his former party leader called the ugly scaffolding of Stormont: doing away with Departments and saving money in the process; encouraging more efficient working within the new Departments; and getting rid of a considerable number of MLAs and saving money, never mind about getting rid of the Speaker’s house or the junior Minister posts. Will he concede that those are glaring omissions from his lengthy list of measures, or is he more concerned about the effect that they might have on the SDLP?

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

I am grateful for the Member’s intervention. It is like the story of the bad tradesman who blames his tools; if only he had better tools, he could do a better job. It is not the system that is broken around here, it is the politics. Bad politics, not a bad system, has given us a bad Budget.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in a second.

We could have delivered this draft Budget through good politics months ago, and it could have led to a great consultation and proper scrutiny by Committees, not the accelerated passage of an important Bill. But, no; what are we doing? We are playing bad politics in a system that would, if we chose to work it, be capable of transforming this region.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Is the Member seriously trying to convince the House that this system of government is effective, given that, in many respects, it is the same system that was there between 1999 and 2002-03, when his party and the UUP were in lead positions, and the First Minister David Trimble and the Deputy First Minister Mark Durkan did not even speak to each other? Is he trying to tell us that that was an effective system? Admittedly, David Trimble’s party colleagues would not even speak to him at that time. However, is the Member seriously trying to say that the system of government that was in place then and is in place now was effective at that time simply because different people headed it up? The system is wrong, and it prevents us —

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

You were in it.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member who is commenting from a sedentary position is right. I did not speak to him because of all the stuff that he was up to.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Is the Member seriously trying to say that this cumbersome five-party mandatory coalition is the best system of government for Northern Ireland and the one that the people of Northern Ireland deserve?

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

It is the system that an overwhelming majority of people voted for. I accept that —

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

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

Let me just finish. I accept that the DUP rejected that system, and I respect it for that. I understand why DUP colleagues find it difficult to be at the helm of a system that the DUP actively opposes. However, the truth of the matter is that it is its system, too. If done right, the system would be capable of transforming this region. What signal does it send out to the outside world when we spend our time blaming our tools instead of looking to ourselves, to our politics, to our culture, to our attitude and to the fact that we could have produced a draft Budget in September, if not in early October? We could have done this right. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

The issue is not a broken system; the issue is broken politics in the big two parties. Mr Speaker, if it is OK with you and colleagues, I would not mind finishing my contribution before lunch. I have only — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

I have only 18 minutes left so, with Members’ indulgence, I will plough on for a little bit, and then I will happily engage in a few interventions. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

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

The issue that goes to the heart of Mr Hamilton’s point is the transparency of the system and the politics at the heart of it.

The initial delay in publishing the draft Budget has had the knock-on effect of limiting the ability of outside organisations to provide considered responses. That delay has also had a further detrimental effect on departmental planning, resulting in an even shorter timescale for departmental consultations and a lack of detail in the departmental spending plans we have seen. Moreover, we are left with this ridiculous scenario where the Vote on Account, the first stage of the Budget process in the Assembly, and the Second Stage of the Bill come before the end of the consultation period. It is bizarre. The lack of detail in spending plans further limits the process’s transparency and creates further difficulty and confusion for those wishing to respond properly.

There are four ways in which we could improve transparency in the Budget process. First, we could change the Budget to highlight specific spending on front line services. Secondly, we could require each Minister to make a statement to the Assembly on their budget proposals. Thirdly, we could ask all Ministers to open their individual departmental budget plans to Executive colleagues for collective scrutiny. I note that the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel has yet to respond to my intervention about his opinion on that matter. Fourthly, as I said, we could establish an Assembly Budget review group to interrogate the cost of government in a similar vein to the Executive Budget review group.

The SDLP has significant concerns that the Budget will lead to a reduction in the scrutiny of government. The huge cuts to the Northern Ireland Assembly secretariat and the Audit Office and the scrapping of the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland will have significant implications for the ability of independent bodies to provide options and alternatives and to counterbalance the Executive. A reduction in the funds available means that there is a greater need for scrutiny of spending performance and delivery.

Given that the SDLP has shown, through its fully costed Budget document, that there are further sources of funding available, we believe that there is still scope to provide additional funds in specific areas in order to create jobs, to defend vulnerable people and to protect front line services. The cuts being dealt by the Executive Budget will create up to 9,000 job losses. That is not my figure; it is the opinion of outside bodies. Figures from the Regional Health and Social Care Board chief executive, John Compton, suggest the possibility of 4,000 jobs going in the Health Service. INTO, the teachers’ organisation, suggests that as many as 4,500 jobs could go in the education sector. Already, 213 firm redundancies are planned at Belfast Metropolitan College. The Department of the Environment is predicting 300 job losses over four years. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is predicting that 80 jobs will have to go in the next four years. The SDLP believes that, if the Budget was well managed, there should be no need for compulsory redundancies.

The Budget will also have serious implications for the future provision of health services. Alongside potential job losses, predictions are being made that the cuts will limit patient access to new drugs, have a hugely negative effect on social care provision, effect hospital closures and mean that a lack of finance will be available to finalise new projects such as the Altnagelvin cancer unit. There is no point building a cancer unit if we cannot staff it. What signal does that send to the people in the north-west of our region and to colleagues and neighbours in Donegal and the border counties?

The SDLP understands the inflationary nature of the health budget due to an ageing population, demographic changes and the cost of new drugs and technologies. We accept that there are opportunities for reform and savings within the health budget. However, we believe that the Health Minister and Finance Minister must work with their Executive colleagues to ensure that significant changes are made to the Budget to end uncertainty and guarantee the protection of front line services.

The draft Budget fails to provide clarity on student finance, student fees or the education maintenance allowance. Worryingly, however, the draft Budget includes a 21% cut in funding for the Department for Employment and Learning in 2012-13, the year in which the new university charging regime, as voted for in Westminster, is due to come into force. Maybe, during his winding-up speech, the Minister of Finance and Personnel will clarify his personal position on student fees. I read the Hansard report from the House of Commons on 10 December. I give the Minister full credit: he stood up and made a fine contribution, expressing his opposition to increased student fees.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Just in case I forget, I want to remind —

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

I would rather that you waited until your winding-up speech. However, as you were generous to me, I will give way.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Given that the Member has read the Hansard report, I am sure that he will be absolutely clear on my position, and I know that the Member who spoke from his own party made exactly the same point. I believe that we should not have a system that rules out people who could benefit from higher education from having that opportunity because of their inability to pay and fear of student debt. However, I made it very clear that, given the Barnett consequential that had been handed down to the Executive before the House of Commons had even made its decision, our room for manoeuvre and that of the Scottish representatives was severely limited by a financial decision that had been made at Westminster. Therefore, if the student fees decision went through the House of Commons and there was to be a financial consequence for devolved Administrations, it would have to be factored in to any decision and was bound to be a limiting factor in any freedom of movement and choice when it came to making decisions here. That was the position that I stated, and that is why I voted against the increase in fees in the House of Commons. I believed that that was the place to stop it. However, once that decision went through, there was a financial consequence for us. The Member’s party, as well as my party, the Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party, will have to work out how we address those financial consequences.

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

I appreciate the Minister’s clarification on that matter. However, let him never again come to the House and say that he opposes Tory cuts. He has just said that he accepts them and that, having lost the vote in the House of Commons, he is now happy as a devolved Minister to deliver them. Let him nail that lie this afternoon, tonight or whenever he gets a chance to do so.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not know whether the Member is having difficulty. I cannot speak Spanish, and perhaps he does not understand my English. Let me make it clear to him again that, if there is a financial consequence, this House as a whole has to decide how to live with that. I have not heard any credible explanation of how we live with the impact of something that we voted against but which is imposed on us and, therefore, limits our freedom of action. I have not yet heard the SDLP explain how it would live with that.

I remind the Member that a similar situation was faced when his party had the employment and learning Ministry. That was exactly the point that it made: we have to live with the Budget that we have and must impose a £3,000 fee on students. Let us not forget — he seems to have done so — that fees for students in Northern Ireland were introduced by the SDLP and not by the Minister who now heads the Department for Employment and Learning.

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

I appreciate the Minister’s comments.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

This is the second time in two days that we have heard erroneous claims from the DUP Benches about what a previous SDLP Minister did when responsible for higher education. It is not the case that an SDLP Minister introduced fees, and even the figures that are being suggested about what applied at the time, the previously imposed figures, are inaccurate. I think that Members on the DUP Benches should —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Who introduced them?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The DUP should consult the history books. Look on Google, Minister, and you will find out. [Interruption.] I am not in a position to give way.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

There is a bigger issue here. The Minister let the cat out of the bag about the flaw in the DUP and Sinn Féin approach to the Budget process when he said that the House had to live with the cuts imposed by the Tory-Lib Dem coalition. We do not have to live with it; the real question is how we deal with it. We have put forward proposals to deal with it and bridge the gap, and it is time that the Minister and others on the Executive met that ambitious challenge.

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

I thank Mr Callaghan for that intervention. I think that he addressed the Minister’s points, Mr Speaker.

The Executive have not honestly reprioritised the capital programme in housing either. Instead —

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

No. Instead, they have just spread the pain around. There is no capital spending programme — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

No capital spending programme does more to stimulate jobs, reduce poverty and meet important social policy objectives than investment in social housing, but the Executive have overseen a 40% cut in the newbuild housing budget without any attempt to find money elsewhere. On top of that, the draft Budget proposals would take an overly ambitious £80 million from housing association reserves.

It is incredible that the Department of Education has been allowed to become one of the biggest losers in this Budget process. Alongside the potential for up to 4,500 job losses, as many as 100 schools face the prospect of having building works cancelled. Again, the Budget provides little clarity, and it is not yet certain which schools will be affected.

Research from the Trades Union Congress shows that low- and middle-income families will be an average of £2,700 a year worse off by 2013. In addition, in 2013, the coalition Government in London will replace tax credits and benefits with the universal credit system, which will mean further hardship. The Executive cannot mitigate these changes, but the Budget does not do nearly enough. The social protection fund that the SDLP proposed to ensure that the most vulnerable members of our society could be protected from Westminster welfare cuts has been adopted for only one year. That is hugely disappointing and means that, by 2012, thousands of vulnerable people, many of them with disabilities, will face benefit cuts. It is imperative that the social protection fund is extended over the lifetime of this Budget if it is to be credible as a progressive measure to tackle poverty in this region.

The SDLP is also dismayed that the Executive see fit to impose a pay freeze on over 10,000 low- and lower-middle-income civil servants, approximately 7,400 of whom can be classed as earning below the average industrial wage. I ask colleagues in Sinn Féin to reflect on that. They are asking 7,400 people who earn less than the wage they take home to take a pay freeze. That is not just. They are asking the lowest to pay for the sins of the few.

The social investment fund causes us much concern. Despite such shortfalls in funding for health, education, student finance and housing, the draft Budget provides £80 million for a new Sinn Féin-DUP community fund to be targeted at their selected and preferred groups. OFMDFM’s social investment fund for interface communities is politically driven and was not discussed by the full Executive before it was announced. The proposal lacks definition. If it were truly aimed at tackling disadvantage, such money would be better spent on enhancing the delivery of existing Department for Social Development programmes.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat. I thank the Member for giving way. Those most deprived communities may happen to be in west Belfast or the Shankill. Does the Member not realise that what we hear from the SDLP about the social investment fund and the social protection fund is almost a repetition of what the SDLP said many years ago when it supported political vetting? That resulted in groups like Conway Mill in west Belfast and Dove House in Derry being adversely affected.

The social investment fund is crucial. Had you listened to the First Minister and deputy First Minister when they explained to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister how the social investment fund would be targeted at the most deprived areas and how the social protection fund would be targeted at people who needed it most, you would see that, on the basis of objective need, such a fund is absolutely crucial. Trying to describe it in the manner in which you and your SDLP colleagues have done does an absolute disservice to the people in our community, particularly those in the most deprived communities, who need those resources to assist them. Your analysis is wrong to arrive at that conclusion. The people in Dove House and Conway Mill have long memories of your position on political vetting and where it affected people most, which was in the most deprived republican areas.

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

That was an amazing contribution from Ms Anderson. I agree with a tiny bit of what she said: those most on the margins of our community need most support. However, there is no logic whatsoever in the point made. If, in the past, there were failed British Government schemes that were politically driven — schemes that the SDLP had no part in, spent a lot of time opposing and has no truck with defending — why would Sinn Féin try to manufacture its own politically motivated centralised scheme? If it were seriously a scheme to tackle deprivation and marginalisation, why would we not have discussed it around the Executive table properly and in advance, and why would you not give it to the Department for Social Development for delivery?

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the neighbourhood renewal scheme is there precisely to fulfil the purpose of targeting disadvantage in the most impoverished areas of the North of Ireland? I was flabbergasted at my Foyle colleague’s contribution. She specified who should be the potential beneficiaries of the scheme when nobody knows what the scheme’s criteria are. Everything is a total mystery. What she said only adds weight to suspicions among many groups, including those in what she would probably describe as republican areas, that the scheme is a crony list in waiting that was set up by Sinn Féin and bowed down to by the DUP and its new allies in the Alliance Party, which, previously, was the moral guardian of fiscal rectitude but now seems happy to sign up to anything at all for the sake of one ministerial seat.

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

I thank Mr Callaghan for that point.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Did Mr Callaghan give an example of political vetting by suggesting that there are Sinn Féin crony organisations somewhere?

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

The point that is being made is that we know that, when there has been political interference — alleged or actual, on this island and in other places — in community programmes, their delivery has been bad.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

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

Let me just finish this point, Mr McCartney.

We know that, and our history is littered with examples of it. Indeed, our party was founded to campaign against it, and, I suggest, our party has the proudest record in the House of doing just that. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past in this Budget. I am putting down a marker to say that, if it walks like and looks like a big mistake, it could be a big mistake.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Does the Member agree that the British Government stopped the funding for Conway Mill as a direct result of a call from a former member of the SDLP who, at the time, was a serving Belfast city councillor?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the Member, because we are coming up to lunchtime, and, as most Members know, the Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately on the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when it will be Question Time. After Question Time, we will come back to the Second Stage of the Budget Bill, when Mr Conall McDevitt will, once again, be on his feet.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.31 pm.

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

Employment and Learning

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

1. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what plans he has to increase participation in apprenticeship schemes. (AQO 1050/11)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Apprenticeships are key to developing workforce skills in Northern Ireland now and in the future. Therefore, I am determined to protect the provision for young people in the 16-year-old to 24-year-old category, despite the difficult economic context. Apprenticeships depend on an employer employing a person and encouraging them to undertake the training that is laid out in apprenticeship frameworks. My Department meets the full cost of apprentice-directed training. That can range from £2,600 to £10,800 per person, depending on the level of study, the occupational area and the progression of the individual through the apprenticeship framework. On completion, an incentive ranging from £500 to £1,500 is also paid to the employer.

In considered funding for apprenticeships, I had a difficult choice to make regarding the 16-to-24 and 25-plus categories. Apprenticeships are an important career path for individuals and strengthen the regional economy. However, the potential withdrawal of funding for those over 25 will protect those career paths for the young people who have been most affected by the economic recession. It is worth noting that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have limited the places available for adult apprenticeships, and that England applies a reduced funding rate. In those jurisdictions, an adult apprentice is defined as being over 20.

Pending the outcome of the draft Budget, it is important to note that my Department will honour its commitments to those adults already on the programme. Although there may be no funding available from my Department for adult apprenticeships, employers can still train adults using the ApprenticeshipsNI model.

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

The Minister’s answer is coming up to two minutes.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Moreover, employers can upskill their staff through the skills solution service that I have established, which works with employers to develop a tailored programme of training.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is becoming more and more an issue that apprentices are finding it difficult to complete their training due to employment circumstances, such as redundancy etc? Will the Department look at other options or measures to assist apprentices in completing their training?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. I accept the point that he made and undertake to look at whatever options we have to improve the situation.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In my constituency, there is a deep worry and concern that the Northern Ireland apprenticeship programme is under direct threat as a result of the Budget. Since 2007, 500 adults have gone through the programme to achieve education to level 2. Lord Empey came forward with a plan to upskill people which is out to tender at present. I hope that the Minister and the Department will honour the existing tender because that programme is making a difference, particularly in an economic climate in which so many adults need to be upskilled to meet the demands of industry.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for the interest that he has shown over a long period on this matter. I largely agree with him about the importance that has been attached to adult apprenticeships. Certainly, in an ideal economic world and with a Budget other that the one that I face, I would not want to impact on adult apprenticeships. However, the harsh realities are that I must make efficiency savings across my Department. I have attempted to do so in a careful and responsible manner. I re-emphasise that anyone in an existing adult apprenticeship will not lose their place; it will continue to be funded. We are talking about new adult apprenticeship schemes.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers thus far; it is useful to get a bit of background on the impact. The Minister keeps saying, and I agree with him, that there is a need for DEL to be central to kick-starting the economy and to be the engine room for that. Taking on board the Minister’s answer to Pat Ramsey on the issue of adult apprenticeships and reskilling and upskilling in light of some of the job losses, has the Minister or his officials had any discussions with other Departments, possibly DETI, to halve the burden of reskilling and upskilling through the adult apprenticeship scheme?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question. In dealing with training and skills, I enjoy a very good relationship with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and her officials. It is necessary to keep that training in place not only during the period of economic downturn but particularly as we prepare for the upturn. I know that there are significant pressures on the DETI budget too, but where there are ways to co-operate and collaborate, I am happy to do so and will continue to do so.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I also thank the Minister for his answers thus far. How important is it for businesses to work with the Department to upskill employees, particularly in the current economic context?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Member makes a particularly important point. I want to encourage all businesses to, where possible, continue providing training and upskilling opportunities for their employees, because they will find that, ultimately, that investment is worth the money. Of course, my Department remains open to assisting them in every possible way, but we have to realise the difficult economic circumstances that we find ourselves in and take account of that. However, my Department is happy, willing and eager to co-operate fully with businesses at all levels.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

2. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning how much funding he intends to allocate for the implementation of the recommendations in the report on the inquiry into young people not in education, employment or training. (AQO 1051/11)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I should stress at the outset that the funding of the recommendations of the inquiry into young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs) is not simply a matter for the Department for Employment and Learning. Although my Department has a role to play in offering support to those who have been failed largely by the education system, others, not least the Department of Education, which has responsibility for early intervention, have a significant contribution to make.

As Members will no doubt recall, the recently published report, which I very much welcome, contains 41 recommendations, many of which are targeted at individual Departments. We are carefully considering those recommendations in the context of providing a cross-departmental strategic approach to the issue, and I hope to bring that to the Executive in March to seek agreement to go to public consultation. Therefore, although at this stage it is not possible to tell what the funding implications of any specific changes that flow from the Committee inquiry report might be, it is important to note that substantial funding is already being allocated to relevant programmes and services across Departments.

For example, my Department has in place a wide range of initiatives, programmes and strategies that are relevant to the issue, such as the essential skills strategy and Training for Success, which is primarily aimed at 16- and 17-year-old school leavers. In combination, those two schemes have already input over £50 million in 2009-2010. My Department bid for additional resources in the spending review. However, unfortunately, the outcome of the draft Budget did not provide additional resources for those purposes. Consequently, on foot of the Committee report and the proposed strategy, we will also examine the possibility of bidding against the Executive social investment fund when the criteria become clearer.

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

The Minister’s two minutes are up.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that extensive answer. I am still trying to figure out whether he will allocate additional funding on foot of the report. Is he indicating that he intends to make a bid for additional funding either directly through the Budget or, for example, through the invest to save initiative?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. In the latter part of my answer, I indicated that there could be an opportunity to bid for funds from the Executive’s social investment fund, which is a new pot of money. We are still waiting to see the criteria for how we can apply for that. That would be a sensible way forward for some of the funding initiatives that we could use.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister will be aware of the very good work of some training skills programmes and of the end product that they deliver. Will he ensure that he analyses vigorously the results that many of those projects have delivered when he looks at the level of funding for the next year?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. I am happy to give that undertaking. When relatively vast sums of money are being expended, it is important that we analyse the results in detail to ensure that we are getting value for money. I know of and note the Member’s interest in particular areas and schemes that are working.

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

I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer. I am sure that he will put me right if I have picked him up wrongly, but it appears clear to me that he does not know the terms of reference for the social investment fund. Has he had any discussions with OFMDFM or had any input into the social investment fund? Given that there is no Executive fund for children and young people and that, recently, in the final outworkings of this year’s round of funding allocations, the Finance Minister refused his bid for money to NEETs —

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

Question, please.

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

— has the Minister any confidence that money will come from elsewhere?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question. I am concentrating on the next step, which is the cross-departmental strategy. That will involve other Departments such as the Department of Education and OFMDFM as well as my Department, and, with those responsibilities, there will be a financial consequence. Therefore, we will seek to implement some of the recommendations contained in the Member’s Committee’s important and useful contribution to the debate. I will seek the co-operation of all Departments as we move forward.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

The House has discussed the importance of connecting further and higher education to the business community to ensure that employees are trained in the necessary skills. One of the key points that was set out in the NEETs inquiry was the need for improved careers advice. Despite creating a robust model of careers planning for the schools to use, the uptake seems to vary. How much of a problem is that in ensuring that young people have sound careers planning?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. As Minister for Employment and Learning, I remain concerned, to some extent, about some of the careers advice that is available to young people. In conjunction with the Department of Education and other agencies, I am seeking to improve careers advice, particularly when it comes to business and how we can encourage young people to take up the opportunities that are available to them through education or through higher and further education. That is an important aspect of the work that needs to be carried forward. I am not always convinced that the quality of careers advice is as good as it should be.

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

3. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what discussions he, or his Department, has had with the Minister of Education in relation to violence against education and university workers. (AQO 1052/11)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Neither my officials nor I have held any discussions with the Minister of Education or her Department in relation to violence against education and university workers. If, however, there is a particular case, I am happy for the Member to write to me.

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

We give a lot of attention at times to violence against healthcare workers, but I am aware of a small trickle of threats of violence against education workers. Does the Minister feel that it would be appropriate to have a policy or strategy to deal with it?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

It is important that we keep an eye on things as they happen. I am pleased to say that there does not seem to be a significant pattern of violent behaviour in higher education. In the past five years, Queen’s University Belfast recorded one incident in which a member of staff was attacked by a student. That happened in 2007. The University of Ulster recorded two incidents last year. In one incident, a student attacked a member of staff, and, in another separate incident, a staff member was attacked by a friend of a student. There have been no recorded incidents of students attacking staff at St Mary’s University College or at Stranmillis University College in that period. However, if a pattern were to emerge, it would be a matter of concern, and we would seek to take action.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Minister is right that there is no evidence of attacks against university or further education college workers, but there has been a problem with violence and antisocial behaviour in the Holylands around St Patrick’s Day. Has the Minister had discussions with the universities and with Belfast Metropolitan College on this year’s action plan?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question and for her interest, along with that of other Members for that area. The four local higher education institutions and Belfast Metropolitan College have been working closely with partners on the Holylands interagency group on planning and preparations for the forthcoming St Patrick’s Day. Those partners include the students’ unions, Belfast City Council, the PSNI and other Departments, including mine. The preparations will build on the measures already in place, which helped to ensure a relatively peaceful Hallowe’en celebration. Residents’ groups have been invited to attend the Holylands interagency group meetings and have been provided with an update on the latest preparations.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister may be aware of a campaign that was launched in this Building, prior to his appointment as Minister, the aim of which was to stop violence against women. It related more to higher education and to universities. The Minister referred to the lack of statistics, but will he join me in encouraging people, especially women, to report any violence against them to the police to ensure that there is a true and proper reading of the statistics and to ensure that things are dealt with accordingly?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I agree strongly with him and condemn any act of violence against any individual. I encourage anyone, male or female, who is in the unfortunate position of having been attacked to report it so that assistance can be given and so that we can help to eradicate, not simply alleviate, such instances.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

4. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the future of the education maintenance allowance (EMA). (AQO 1053/11)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I want to say, entirely for the avoidance of doubt, that I have no plans to abolish the education maintenance allowance in Northern Ireland. Both my Department and the Department of Education received the findings of the jointly commissioned review of the education maintenance allowance scheme in Northern Ireland in December 2010. Officials from both Departments are assessing the findings of the report; therefore, no decisions have yet been made on the future of the scheme.

The review found that, in the majority of cases, an allowance makes no difference to young people’s decision to remain at school or college; however, in some cases, it makes a real difference. I am determined that young people from lower-income families, to whom those allowances make a real difference, continue to be assisted to stay on at school or college. The Committee recommended that the allowances could be better targeted. I can further advise that the report has been shared with the Employment and Learning Committee.

Any proposals to change the provision of the EMA scheme in Northern Ireland will be subject to a public consultation and appropriate equality considerations. They will also take account of the very difficult budgetary position that faces my Department.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer; particularly, his assurance that he has no plans to cut the education maintenance allowance. There is huge public support for retaining it. I am sure that the Minister is aware that a number of councils have passed motions to that end, with particular emphasis on lower-income families. Can he re-emphasise that lower-income families in particular will not be affected by his future plans?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. Indeed, I am pleased to reaffirm what I have said at the Dispatch Box: I have no plans to abolish the education maintenance allowance in Northern Ireland. There had perhaps been an unfortunate campaign or a suggestion that my Department and I were embarking on that course of action. We have never indicated that. We have simply agreed with the views that are expressed by recommendation 41 of the Committee for Employment and Learning’s report, which indicates that EMA could be better targeted, and by better targetting we mean assisting low-income families in particular. England has, in effect, abolished EMA payments, and Scotland and Wales are reforming theirs. However, I am happy to indicate my position and that of my Department with regard to Northern Ireland.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers. Does he agree with the Committee for Employment and Learning that the criteria for receiving EMA should focus more on those for whom it provides a significant incentive to re-engage?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. Indeed, I do agree. There is a significant difference in my saying that I have no plans to abolish the EMA and agreeing with the Committee’s report that recommended that it should be better targetted. The scheme costs my Department £26 million a year; it is therefore vital that those resources be properly targetted at the point of greatest need. I envisage that that work will need to be done. I am glad that members from all parties played a part in producing the Committee report and recommendation 41. Most people accept that better targetting of those needed resources is a good thing.

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

I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to making EMA a continued success. Will the Minister assure the House that he will widen the net to ensure that those from marginalised communities who are currently excluded from EMA will be included in the future? Will he also give a commitment that the budgetary restraints that he will have on the new scheme will be minimal and that, going forward, we will be able to enjoy a level of funding that is the same, if not better focused, as that to date?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question and for the ongoing and never-ending commitments that he urges me to give. For all that, however, I said what I said. We have no plan to abolish EMA. Members of all parties in the House, and I hope, the Member, share the strong belief and agree that the better targeting of this measure could be an effective assistance to some, particularly lower income families. That is what we are about, and we will seek to get co-operation as we move forward on that.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

5. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to outline the potential impact that reductions in his departmental spending might have on night class provision. (AQO 1054/11)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I have no proposals to reduce spending on night class provision. In the overall strategic framework, colleges and universities are best placed to make decisions on the type and timing of their provision as they seek to meet the needs of their local communities and local businesses. In making those decisions, they will be very much aware that night class provision represents a flexible, responsive way of delivering the training and educational needs of people who work. However, Members will also be aware that, in any spending plans, after delivering savings of 5% year on year, I will still have the problem of a deficit of £40 million in 2011-12 and £31 million in the following year. If that is not resolved through additional funding, colleges and universities will have to look at further options to reduce expenditure. Those could impact on day and night provision.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

What assessment has the Minister made of the efficiency and effectiveness of the current night class provision across the Province? Does he see scope for improvement in the way in which it is delivered?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I agree with the thrust of what he said. There are always ways in which we can, perhaps, be more inventive and use money more wisely. I am generally satisfied with the provision that my further education division provides. The budget for further education is in the region of £150 million a year. Included in that amount is a spend on what are called hobby and leisure courses. All those decisions are taken, quite rightly, by the colleges, which can identify the programmes and courses that best suit the needs of their local communities. I am very satisfied that those courses are in place, as are the opportunities for the people who live in the areas that the colleges serve. I hope that we can continue to fund those courses at that significant level of public expenditure.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am glad to hear that the Minister agrees with the night class provision. Have there been discussions with any of the FE colleges? Does the Minister intend to utilise the FE colleges for night classes?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question. Perhaps the Member is confusing night classes with hobby and leisure opportunities or, more generally, night classes that involve courses for everyone, young and old included. I am reasonably satisfied that the FE colleges have that fairly well under control. I am always happy to take advice on any area where the Member feels we are failing. If she wants to highlight a particular circumstance, I will happily take it on board.

Regional Development

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

Question 2 has been withdrawn, and a written answer has been requested.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of the impact on the A5 and the A8 road schemes if the next Government of the Republic of Ireland renege on their £400 million contribution. (AQO 1064/11)

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

12. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the A5 road scheme and the Irish Government’s commitment to this scheme. (AQO 1075/11)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

With your permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will answer questions 1 and 12 together, as they relate to progress on the A5 scheme and the impact on the A5 and the A8 schemes if the Southern Government renege on their £400 million contribution.

Projects to provide dual carriageways on the A5 between Derry and Aughnacloy and on the A8 between Belfast and Larne are being taken forward as a result of an agreement in 2007 between the Dublin Government and the Executive. Reflecting that agreement, the draft Budget provides my Department with sufficient funds to continue the development of both schemes and to carry out substantial construction works within the Budget period.

At a plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council on 21 January this year, the Dublin Government reaffirmed their commitment to make a contribution of £400 million to the A5 and A8 dualling projects. If a future Government were to reconsider their commitment, my Executive colleague the Minister of Finance would have to assess the implications.

The A5 western transport corridor scheme is progressing well and the third key milestone for the scheme was achieved on target, with the publication of the draft statutory Orders and the environmental statement in November 2010. That was followed by the formal public consultation period, which ended on 21 January 2011. Given the interest in the project and the level of objection raised, I have decided that a public inquiry will be held to consider the objections.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

We have learnt this morning of the huge cost to the Minister’s Department of property getting blighted, yet he is not considering going ahead with building on those sites. I am referring to the A2. Apparently over £12 million has been spent on property, yet that scheme is on hold. Does the Minister accept that the A5 has not been prioritised by engineers or the road haulage industry as a problem area and that, in continuing with that scheme, which requires 60% of his entire capital budget over the next four years, many other, more advanced schemes in other areas will be blighted —

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

Question, please.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

It should really be rethought to ensure that other priority schemes that are more important to the economy, such as the A8 and the A2, can proceed.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I can assure the Member that there is significant support for the A5 scheme to go ahead. I am sure that he, as an East Antrim representative, realises that the funding arrangements for the two schemes have been linked together. I am sure that he would not want to see the scheme for the A8, which connects Larne to Belfast, jeopardised either. Both schemes, the contributions to them, the cost of them and the need for them have been a matter of agreement by the Executive as a whole and the Dublin Government. There has been recurring agreement over the past number of years at each North/South plenary meeting when the matter has been raised.

Support for the A5 scheme is substantial, and I invite the Member to engage with chambers of commerce and businesspeople in the north-west, and with people in Derry, Donegal and Tyrone who feel isolated from the rest of the island because of their infrastructure connection. He will see a very strong desire for the Derry to Aughnacloy scheme to go ahead. As I said, no later than last month, the contribution from the Dublin Government was reaffirmed at the North/South plenary meeting, and the commitment to go ahead with both schemes was reaffirmed by the Executive and the Dublin Government.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response. I represent West Tyrone, and the A5, if it goes ahead — as we hope it will — will go through a large part of my constituency. Can the Minister give an assurance to people in my area who are very much in favour of the A5 but who might have some concerns about exactly where the route will go? Will he give those people some assurances about what might come out of the public inquiry? Exactly what stage is all of that at?

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

One question, please.