Northern Ireland Assembly, 10 February 2014

292 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order. May I seek some information? Will the standards commissioner's report into Mr Jimmy Spratt's comments about "nutters" now be reopened, given the revelation that the 'News Letter' has a recording that indicates that Mr Spratt denied ever having made the comment, particularly since a cornerstone of Mr Bain's report is that there was no such denial? Will the matter be reopened or will that fatally flawed report now stand? What of Mr Bain, who made such a basic error?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

It is not a point of order, as I am sure the Member is aware. It is a matter for the Committee, and it will be addressed there.

Ministerial Statement

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. It is good to put the Minister of Finance in his proper place.

The statement concerns actions that I have commissioned that are aimed at ensuring the safety and quality of the service that our hospital emergency departments (ED) provide, hence reassuring the public that they can have full confidence in these services. The review's primary focus is the Belfast Trust, but the work will look at emergency departments in the regional context. I am sure that there will be issues and lessons that will be relevant across Northern Ireland.

In recent weeks, there has been a continuing debate, not least in the Assembly, about the pressures that emergency departments face. Questions have been asked, and rightly so, about whether those pressures are routine. Are they caused by a shortage of staff or funding? Are ambulance turnaround times too slow? Are winter pressures more acute than normal this year? Are those pressures and the underlying causes peculiar to Northern Ireland or are we witnessing a national phenomenon that is explained in part by the growing elderly population or by an inability to attract junior doctors to work in emergency medicine? All those are questions that we need to address if we are to sustain and to improve the high standards of emergency care in the Province.

In response to the 28 January Assembly motion, I referred to the wide range of measures that we have put in place to manage the vastly increased workload on Health and Social Care (HSC) so that we can meet and service the needs of our population, which is growing older. I also stated that we are mindful that the performance of our emergency departments falls behind that in some other parts of the United Kingdom. I am keen to learn from the widest range of peers and to benchmark against the best.

In this context, I referred to our involvement with GB expertise in the Northern Trust, for example, and said that I was giving consideration to how we could utilise similar expertise to test whether there are more things that we could do better in our emergency departments, particularly in how they integrate with the rest of the hospital.

I have spoken with members of staff in different specialities and at different levels in the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) in recent weeks. Other staff in the Belfast Trust have made their views heard through correspondence and engagement with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) and the Public Health Agency's (PHA) 10,000 Voices project.

On 29 January, I wrote to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety indicating that I was actively considering a review with external expert input. Following the Adjournment debate on 4 February, I sent a letter to the Committee confirming that I had decided to seek assurance for the public and for myself as Minister that our EDs are providing care of the highest quality and safety, and to identify areas where there may be opportunities to make improvements. I advised that this would take the form of an independent review bringing in expertise from outside Northern Ireland.

Taking account of the advice that I have received from clinicians and professional staff working in our emergency departments, I commissioned the RQIA to do two things to help ensure that the Belfast Trust and the wider health and social care system can act as effectively as possible on the issues arising from recent events and to ensure that there is a full and open process of review.

Firstly, I instructed RQIA to carry out inspections at the RVH site. Over the weekend of 31 January, RQIA assessed the quality of care and dignity that was afforded to patients in the emergency department and the acute medical unit (AMU). Secondly, I decided that rather than having a Health and Social Care Board-led review of the major incident that was declared at the RVH last month, it would be better for there to be a review under RQIA’s role and powers. The RQIA has agreed to carry out this wider review, which will be led by Dr David Stewart, the RQIA's director of reviews and medical director. The other members of the review team will bring expertise from all the essential disciplines that are required in the speciality of emergency care. I do not wish to mention names until final confirmation has been received, but I can advise the Assembly that members will include a national expert in emergency medicine, a senior nurse, an operational manager with a successful track record in unscheduled care and an expert on ambulance-related issues. I have today published the terms of reference for this work.

RQIA has provided immediate feedback on its inspection at the RVH to the Belfast Trust, the Health and Social Care Board, the Public Health Agency and my Department on its preliminary findings. I have been advised that the inspection identified a range of issues, which cause me and my Department to have serious concern about whether the Belfast Trust is consistently performing to the high standards that I require in executing its responsibilities to patients and staff. I recognise, however, that some of these are wider issues that cannot necessarily be addressed by the trust on its own. The emerging findings help to put all the concerns that had been circulated into a clearer context. Nevertheless, this is a disappointing outcome to the inspection and reflects the unacceptable experiences that many of us have had related to us by some patients and staff. I am resolved that this will be fully and comprehensively addressed as a matter of priority. RQIA will provide me with a preliminary report on its findings later this week.

I want to share with the Assembly the aspects of the immediate feedback that have given me cause for concern. These early findings require our immediate attention. The inspectors spoke to more than 100 staff across a range of roles and functions. The inspection has confirmed concerns about staffing levels in key areas, allegations of bullying, staff under intolerable pressure and a system of care that does not function fully as it was set up to do. The concerns relate to the emergency department itself, to the acute medical unit, which is a 60-bed unit for the assessment and treatment of admitted patients, including many admitted through the ED, and to some aspects of the wider hospital and trust functions. There are genuine and heartfelt concerns from clinicians about the impact that this difficult situation is having on patients.

The emerging findings recognised that the model of care and the intended approach to managing the treatment and placement of patients in the hospital is good but that the system has, on occasions, struggled to cope with the large numbers of patients who are awaiting admission. It appears that one root of the problem is as much in the delay in discharging patients who no longer need care in the acute setting as in the flows into and through the hospital. When large numbers are waiting for discharge, it is not always possible for patients to be placed in the correct specialty ward, where their particular conditions can be treated in the best possible way. It is well known that when patients are outliers — that is, that they are in a ward not specialising in the care of their particular condition — it is more difficult to provide the specialist care of the required quality and to do so as safely.

The inspection found that, in some settings and/or at some times, there are not enough doctors and nurses to provide appropriate care to the number of patients in the system. In some cases, this means staff working in areas that ideally they would have more experience to undertake. The pressure on staff limits the time to undertake professional supervision and appraisal. Sickness absence among nursing staff in the AMU is high. I understand that the trust has already taken some steps to address these issues and expects to appoint additional medical and nursing staff quickly.

Any reference to potentially unsafe care needs to be addressed with caution as all HSC organisations and all staff have clear statutory and professional obligations to provide safe care. Consideration of such allegations must be measured and proportionate as these are preliminary findings and we need to assure people facing emergencies that their needs can and will be met safely. Disproportionate or hasty interventions could be very damaging. However, we have to face the fact that concerns about safety have been expressed in the comments that led me to commission the inspection, and some significant points seem to have been confirmed in the inspection. I have no doubt that the Belfast Trust is doing all it can to ensure safety and is already acting on the key findings.

Risks to safety in the emergency department itself arise in the times when its functions are impeded by having too many patients at one time. Physical access to patients can be difficult for staff. There is a lack of space in the resuscitation area. Cubicles in the focused assessment area are being used at times to care for patients while they await transfer to specialist hospital beds. There are often many patients waiting for admission who need nursing care, including administration of drugs. This is difficult to carry out in an open environment. Beyond the ED itself, staffing levels in the AMU need to be sufficient to care for the needs of patients who are, by definition, acutely ill, and the trust also needs to find ways that reduce the risks associated with the care of patients who are outlying in other wards, given that they require the clinical team from another ward to attend to their needs.

The inspection also found concerns about the environment and patient experience. There is insufficient space in the ED for the number of patients waiting. Patients waiting on trolleys are very close to the next patient. The ED can be noisy, draughty and cold as it is not designed to operate as a ward environment. The AMU consists of 60 beds, and the size and layout of the ward are difficult and confusing for families and patients. There is insufficient equipment in the ED and the AMU. The present conditions make the delivery of personal care by the nursing team in the ED difficult. Clinical observations and procedures are carried out in an open environment. The provision of meals and drinks are hampered. All of this points to issues of respect and dignity that are unacceptable. The patient tracking system is identified as not working well, and some patients' discharges are not happening in as timely a manner as staff would wish.

References to a bullying culture cause me particular concern. We have access time targets for unscheduled care, and I make no apology that these have been applied for many years and form part of the performance management function of the HSCB in relation to all trusts. I think that it would be wrong to say that it is acceptable for patients needing emergency care to wait for more than 12 hours for admission or discharge, and that is clearly the view that the public express. However, my message has always been that quality and safety must come first. Also, the access time targets are intended to promote good care and reduce the risk of poor patient experience. It appears that concern about the 12-hour and four-hour targets for emergency care may have led to some unacceptable behaviour by some staff on some occasions.

It is important that we achieve positive change in that culture and approach. My message is, and has been, very clear: patient care comes first, and no one should ever do the wrong thing to meet a target. Front line staff should be able to focus on the quality and safety of care. It is the responsibility of senior managers to ensure that it is possible for front line staff to do that and to meet the targets. That includes the responsibility to ensure that sufficient staff are available and that systems are working effectively. Senior managers know that if a task is impossible for any reason, they have the right and the responsibility to say so, as they are accountable to the Department for the threefold responsibility of providing high-quality, safe services that deliver the ministerial targets within the available resources.

Against that background, I am glad to say that the inspection confirmed that there is an overwhelming desire from staff to be part of the solution, and I want to assure Members that that will happen. In response, the Belfast Trust has acted quickly to address the RQIA's emerging findings. I will say more about that in the days ahead. However, I stress that I have not yet received the considered and full findings even of the immediate inspection. It is important that we await the report on the inspection and the fuller review before reaching considered conclusions.

Although I recognise the gravity of the situation, I wish to reassure the public and the Assembly that the Belfast Trust will continue to provide services in the RVH’s emergency department to meet the needs of its population, as a result of the commitment of all its staff. It is acting to manage the risks to safety that have been highlighted. However, we need to ensure that that is embedded in how care is organised and delivered. The trust’s management team has responded with an open and fully transparent approach to the RQIA’s inspection and is working constructively with the board, the PHA and my Department in moving forward.

It is right to express high appreciation for all staff who provide emergency care in the Belfast Trust for their dedication and commitment to their patients, and, most obviously, to all the front line staff who have kept going with a Blitz-like spirit, and also to the senior managers who are wrestling with highly complex and challenging responsibilities. I urge Members to recognise the great complexity of the situation: if easy solutions were available, they would have already been adopted. I want to thank the staff for their candour in expressing their views to the RQIA. I understand that the staff have welcomed the inspection, and I hope that they now have confidence that their concerns will be fully addressed.

The RQIA’s wider review will report to me by June. Although the focus of the review is on the RVH as the Province’s major trauma centre, undoubtedly there will be learning that can be of benefit more generally across the system. The review will, therefore, identify and recommend opportunities for all parts of the healthcare system to contribute to improving emergency care in Northern Ireland. It will look at how the whole system could remove some of the burden on emergency departments and offer a much improved patient experience.

I hope that the Assembly will appreciate that it is important to make progress in a considered and measured way, listening to the views of front line professionals and patients, mindful of the importance of ensuring at all times that the public retain confidence in our hospitals and continue to use them appropriately, not because I say so, but because the staff make it so.

Occasionally, the system has to respond to extreme pressure, such as that in the RVH on 8 January when the trust activated its major incident plan, or the major incident declared by the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service at the Odyssey Arena last Thursday. In both cases, the system implemented its escalation plans to ensure that patient safety was maintained and that the necessary resources were made available. I should like to take this opportunity to commend the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the Belfast and South Eastern Trusts for their action on Thursday evening in responding to what was a very serious and potentially volatile situation.

I have made it clear from my first day as Minister that the underlying objective for the entire health system is to protect and improve the quality of services that we deliver. The health service must be safe, effective and totally focused on the patient, as they are at the heart of everything that we do. Today, I assure the Assembly of my commitment to continue to work to improve the care provided for all patients, not least those who use our emergency departments.

I look forward to receiving the RQIA’s report in June. It will be an important report, and it will complement the substantial work already being undertaken by HSC to improve emergency care in the short term and in the medium to longer term through Transforming Your Care.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his statement. The initial RQIA findings are quite damning. Your statement referred to speaking to over 100 staff and confirmed concerns about staffing in key areas, allegations of bullying, staff under intolerable pressure and a system of care that does not function fully as it was set up to do. That is nothing new to us in the House or, indeed, the wider community. A year ago next month, a report from the College of Emergency Medicine clearly outlined that procedures in the Belfast Trust were neither safe nor sustainable. There was an earlier A&E improvement group. Given that the Minister is widening the review to look at emergency departments in a regional context, does he now fully accept that there is a crisis in our emergency care?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Waiting times are coming down for emergency care. We are getting better outcomes in our responses to major critical illnesses such as sepsis, stroke, heart attack and major trauma. None of those aspects is experiencing a crisis situation. You are looking at improvement right across the system and at better care than was ever delivered previously.

We have a situation in which staff are working under immense pressure. I identified that, which is why I brought the RQIA in to assist us in speaking to staff and identifying their issues. Consequently, I made today's statement in support of the staff who deliver the service. It is absolutely essential that those staff are working to their optimum and getting the responses that they need from the management system and other parts of the hospital to ensure that delivery of care in emergency departments reaches its optimum output. All that is focused on delivering better working conditions and support for the staff who are at the front line of our hospitals providing front line services.

Emergency departments are always highly pressured places, but staff are feeling under more pressure than usual. Where does that pressure come from? It comes from managers. Where does the pressure on managers come from? It comes from me. Where does the pressure on me come from? It comes from you. It all directly comes back to the House, which is demanding higher and higher standards. We are living within a particular budget and expect staff to deliver for us. We have a growing population, so more and more people require emergency care. That is the essential problem. Can we do it better? I think that we can, which is why I want assistance and expertise from other places that are doing it better. That is what this is about.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Minister referred to the situation at the Odyssey last Thursday night. Will he give the Assembly his initial views on what caused that major issue for A&Es and what he and his Executive colleagues can do to ensure that similar events are not repeated?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

What happened at the Odyssey had a fairly significant impact on our emergency departments. Emergency departments are always prewarned if anything is going to happen. My wife used to work in an emergency department and does not like flying because so many calls came in warning of potential air incidents. Emergency departments are promptly warned that they could have a major incident on their hands, and that was the case on Thursday night with the Odyssey. Some 100 young people required treatment and care. Some of that was carried out by the voluntary sector, much of it was carried out by the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service on site, and 17 people attended emergency departments. From the first reports, it had been anticipated that many more people would need to go to emergency departments. The cause of the problem was alcohol and drugs. The people attending emergency departments were 15-, 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds. None of them should have been drinking alcohol, and the drugs were illegal. Let us be very clear that, as a consequence of taking materials that they should not have taken, young people ended up in our emergency departments.

Let us be also clear that eight out of 10 people who attend emergency departments at weekends are there as a result of taking alcohol. So society has a role to play in ensuring that we deliver care for people who really need it. Very often, actions that people take, and foolish actions that people take, contribute to the pressurised environment that we are talking about. Emergency doctors and nurses, and other staff in the facility, very often operate in an environment where they are under huge pressure as a consequence of people attending and behaving very badly as a result of having taken alcohol. All these things have to be taken into account. There are also things for other Departments and Committees to take on board to ensure a society that has greater respect for the work that is being carried out in our emergency departments.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I remind the Minister of a statement that he made on 13 January in the wake of the situation at the Royal:

"Last week's circumstances were exceptional, and it is important not to confuse an exceptional circumstance with overall performance". — [Official Report, Vol 90, No 5, p41, col 2].

"I just wish that our politicians and, indeed, our media would be more mature in how they assess things." — [Official Report, Vol 90, No 5, p42, col 1].

In that context, and given the announcement today, I offer the Minister the opportunity to apologise to those who rightly raised the issue in the media and on the Floor. Given that position and the apparent position today, I think that I am right to be sceptical. The review may be an assessment of events internal to an emergency department, but we believe that there are external influences. Will the review look at the decisions, which we believe were wrong, that influenced the crisis in the first place?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Let us keep questions to the statement as concise as possible, please.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

The apology should come from the Member and, indeed, those Members who continually castigate a system that delivers for the people of Northern Ireland and ensures the survival of more people who attend hospital with a heart attack, stroke, major trauma or sepsis when, in many other circumstances, they would not survive. I am disappointed that the Member has not apologised for that.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Some weeks after the Belfast Trust's declaration of a major incident at the Royal Victoria Hospital and the diversion of ambulances from Craigavon hospital, the Minister denied that there was a crisis in A&E in Northern Ireland. Why is he only now advising us of a review of A&E, having denied that there was a crisis? Is it a result of tomorrow night's 'Spotlight' programme on A&E and the spotlight that will be shone by the Health Committee later this week?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We will wait and see how maturely that programme handles things and how well it puts the case for the good things that are happening in hospitals, or whether it is just another session of attacking the healthcare system. I had decided, before learning anything of 'Spotlight', to ask the RQIA to look at what was going on in the Royal Victoria Hospital. That was not on the back of any Assembly Members or the media. That was on the back of talking to people on the ground and to staff. That is one of the benefits of having a local Minister who is prepared to go to a hospital immediately after there has been a difficulty to see what is happening on the ground, arrange to meet people thereafter and identify the issues and problems. Staff said that they were operating under immense pressure and did not feel that they were getting the support throughout the hospital that would allow them to ensure that ED output flowed more smoothly. It is about paying attention to the needs of the local community and the people who serve that local community and doing something about it.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Once again, it takes a crisis or major incident to effect an urgent investigation. Let us hope that the review will bring some change.

It appears that we are losing experts in the field to regions outside Northern Ireland where conditions are much more attractive. What consideration will be given to the introduction of incentives to encourage medical staff to specialise in emergency medicine and remain in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister concede that the continued reduction of 3% per annum in the budget makes Transforming Your Care impossible to fulfill, and, as such, ill people will continue to suffer?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If Mr McCarthy wants to do something about the health budget, perhaps he can ensure that we get some money off the Department of Justice, DEL or some other Department that will enable us to spend more.

In spite of the fact that we had the 3% cut that the Member refers to, we have been able to employ 100 more doctors and increase the number of nurses who are employed in the Health and Social Care system. The Member may not understand that. He is on the Health Committee, so he should know and understand that we have spent resources more wisely, sought to reduce waste and employed more staff on the front line. Therefore, I do not accept that implementing Transforming Your Care is an impossibility. It is absolutely essential that we implement it; otherwise, the problems will keep coming at us.

I understand that we are in the middle of the process of implementing Transforming Your Care. One requirement of the additional £30 million that the Minister of Finance was able to allocate to us was to take on more staff to carry out domiciliary care, and the money has enabled us to do that. It is very important that we keep more people in their own home, support them to be in their own home and support our older population.

What some Members fail to recognise is that we are successfully keeping people living longer. Sixty per cent of our hospital beds are taken up by people who are over the age of 65. The more successful that we are, the more work that we will create for ourselves, and more pressures will be applied. If the Assembly wants to take a different view on budgets, it is for the Assembly to take that view. If it wants to identify that health needs greater resources, that is a matter for this Assembly. We are living within the resources that we have, and we are doing it well.

What we have in the hospital at present is a situation in which staff are operating under a lot of pressure. We believe that we can assist them to ensure that we resolve the issues and problems. That is what I am proposing to do today, and that is something that the House should welcome.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement, for his work in trying to make A&Es more efficient and for challenging managers to work more effectively. Does he agree that we should not be seeing adverse incidents in the health service? How does Northern Ireland's handling of such incidents compare with that of other places?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Adverse incidents arise because of a number of circumstances. Sometimes, they can arise in the community. Very often, they will arise before they reach an emergency department. They can be the result of vulnerable adults, children in care, vulnerable children, and so on.

When standardised against hospital mortality rates for the five trusts compared with those of the 146 English acute trusts, the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust is at 99·1% on the index. That is pretty close to the national average. The same applies for serious adverse incidents. Northern Ireland is not falling behind other parts of the United Kingdom in the quality of healthcare and social care that it provides for people.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the fact that he is having a review into the crisis.

He poured scorn on those of us who, he says, castigate the system. We do not castigate the system, rather, we simply want to call into question those who are on world-class salaries yet are unable to run a world-class health system in the North.

On the question of widening the review to look at hospitals such as Downe, can the Minister give assurances that the trust that people have lost in those who govern the health system will be rebuilt throughout the review? Go raibh míle maith agat.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Perhaps the Member has just returned from Wexford — from another country — in the past few hours. If he had fallen ill there, he would have got a lesser standard of treatment than if he had fallen ill here. Perhaps Sinn Féin should recognise that, whilst Northern Ireland, in United Kingdom terms, could do better, it looks pretty good against the Republic of Ireland. That is what you would like to take us into, of course; I recognise that.

I understand that recruitment to emergency departments is challenging. It is not just challenging here; it is challenging in other parts of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. Of course, that will be an issue for Downe Hospital. I have identified quite a number of doctors who have chosen to go to other countries, such as Australia. Around one quarter of emergency doctors in Australia come from either the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. I have asked why that is the case. Very often, people talk about better working conditions, managers who are more responsive to the needs of the doctors and so forth. Those are areas that we can do something about and make being an emergency practitioner here more attractive. They also indicated that, within the hospitals, they felt that they got better support from the communities — the people who attended emergency departments — and that it was less abusive.

Perhaps you and everybody should stand with our emergency staff and say that the abuse that they take at times is wholly unacceptable. As a community, we need to ensure that we support our staff in those instances, as opposed to demanding and demanding and demanding more of the staff on behalf of people who abuse the system.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I commend the Minister; whilst others try to grab the headlines, he seeks to grab the difficult issues and tries to resolve them. With regard to assuring himself that he is hearing from front line members of staff who are working in the emergency departments, what efforts is he taking to meet them and speak with them, as opposed to hearing a message that may well be filtered — this is a concern of some of the staff — through senior management? Some of the staff who have contacted me have indicated that the failure of the South Eastern Trust to maintain the services at the Lagan Valley was having a detrimental impact on the Royal Victoria Hospital. What efforts are being taken to resolve that?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member knows that I have sought to meet, and have met, members of staff who are working on the ground. As a consequence of having met the staff directly and identified the issues, we brought in the RQIA and carried out that piece of work. The report will be initiated by others who have expertise on the issue.

We have approached Dr Taj Hassan, for example, who is a vice-president of the College of Emergency Medicine, to participate in the review. The Chair of the Committee referred to the previous review; Dr Hassan was one of the key architects of that review. I am sure that he will want to assure us of the full implementation of that review if he is able to take up the post. Dr Hassan has agreed that he is prepared to do this, but he needs to get the authority of his employers, and that is being sought. There has to be final confirmation of that.

The RQIA has been talking directly to the staff, identifying those issues, on the back of us talking directly to the staff. I am telling the House that, having identified the issues, we want to go further and do something about it. We want to ensure that our staff work in the optimum conditions, because staff working in optimum conditions will provide the best level of service for the people who need it.

Seán Rogers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. We all commend the work of the staff. Minister, do you accept that the closure of the Downe Hospital at weekends and at night has put increased pressure on the Royal and the Ulster Hospital, considering that 40% of the Belfast Trust's patients are treated at the Ulster's accident and emergency? Will you widen this out to look at A&E provision outside the Belfast area and how that affects the Downe and so on?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is not evidence to suggest that the pressures that were identified in the Royal Victoria Hospital were a consequence of the Lagan Valley and Downe circumstance. The Member referred to a large number of people, particularly from east Belfast, who use the Ulster Hospital. I should also refer to a large number of people who live in the South Eastern Trust area, particularly in the Colin area, who use the Royal Victoria Hospital as their base. So, there is a degree of counterbalance to that.

The South Eastern Trust has had trouble attracting the requisite number of doctors that would ensure that the service could continue in the Downe Hospital. I have impressed upon the trust the importance of going out and being more vigorous in its recruitment and to seek to ensure that we get more staff there. That will ensure that we can have as strong a service as possible in the likes of the Downe and the Lagan Valley Hospital and that we can seek to ensure that we treat people outside the key sites.

I make it very clear that the Ulster Hospital and the Royal Victoria Hospital are the acute hospitals in that region. That is where people are best placed for acute care. I think that it is absolutely appropriate that a lot of the people, particularly older people, who go through emergency departments with issues that involve admissions, are admitted directly to the likes of Lagan Valley Hospital and the Downe Hospital. People with many of the minor injuries should not be travelling to the South Eastern Trust to the Ulster Hospital or, indeed, to the Royal. We need to ensure that steps are taken to avoid those circumstances, and I have impressed that need upon the trust.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Minister, thank you for the statement. I am looking at some of the figures, and I see that the performance on four-hour waits at A&Es across Northern Ireland has continued to decline every year since you took over in 2011. That may just be a coincidence. However, the external review at Antrim produced a degree of improvement across a wide range of services. I wonder, on behalf of the constituents of North Down, and, indeed, further afield, when we can expect similar investment in staff levels, improved management and, of course, resources at the Ulster, which you just mentioned.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Perhaps it is also a coincidence that the 12-hour waits have been coming down since I came into office. Nonetheless, we have given investment for each trust to have additional beds and support in the hospitals, particularly over the winter period. So, they have all received finance to assist them through the winter period when the pressures are somewhat higher. That is a course of work that has been carried out.

The Ulster Hospital has also taken on additional consultants over my time. Indeed, we have taken on additional doctors and nurses across the system. So, in spite of the constrained finances that exist across the UK, which have been applied here in Northern Ireland, we have managed to employ more doctors and nurses to deal with people on the front line of services. We are offering more domiciliary care, and we are engaging in offering more social care support to people. In all those measurements, we are doing more than was previously the case.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the Minister's statement. Having previously welcomed the turnaround team that he introduced to Antrim Area Hospital, I certainly welcome what he has decided on with the RQIA. No doubt, that will bring some benefit to aid the healthcare workers in the emergency departments.

The Minister referred to the number of people who come to the A&E departments with alcohol-related problems. As part of signposting people to minor injury units, has the Minister given any consideration to ensuring that the emergency departments are not overused by people who should not be there?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In our hospitals, we need to look at having an emergency department that is purely an emergency department; where the triage takes place and that admits people to an emergency department. Others would remain in an acute services department, minor injuries or something that has another description, because what is an emergency department?

I named the four issues that take most lives: sepsis, stroke, major trauma and cardiac incidents. We provide excellent care for those things, and it really grates on me that Members do not even bother to acknowledge that excellent care and the better standards in all those things. In fact, if you had a stroke in 2012-13, the chances of you dying were 16·8% lower than in 2008-09. We are doing better on those major things, and perhaps people would be decent enough to acknowledge the good care that is being provided. However, in doing that, do we separate at the door of the hospital those kind of treatments from the other treatments that involve admitting people with chronic illnesses, which is acute care? Indeed, should minor injuries be separated as well? We need to look at and address those issues, and I hope that, as the report comes to a conclusion later this year, we will have very clear recommendations on the way forward to ensure that we can provide the best possible care across the board.

It is important that public confidence is not diminished as a result of people carping and seeking to make a headline for themselves. It is important that public confidence is maintained in our health and social care system, and the fact is that people are being seen quicker and are getting better treatment than was the case a number of years ago. We should focus on that at this time as well.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Can I ask the Minister this directly: have any trolley waits or delays led to or contributed to any fatalities? Given the catalogue of failure that has been recited today, does the buck ever stop with the Minister?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

When Ministers learn something, they do something about it, and I am telling the Assembly today that we are doing something about it. The Member knows very well the problems in the Northern Trust area, which is his area, and if he is in contact with his constituents, they will tell him that they are getting a much better service after the intervention of the Minister. I got criticised because I asked someone to step down because I did not think that they were carrying out their job as well as they should have been. Subsequent to that, there has been a dramatic improvement in the Antrim Area Hospital and in the Northern Trust. Mr Allister could have paid tribute to us for the service that we have provided for his constituents.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

The Minister said in response to a previous supplementary question that there was no evidence that the closure of the Downe and Lagan Valley A&Es in the evenings and weekends contributed to the major incident at Lagan Valley Hospital. However, an answer in an AQW that he provided to me shows that approximately 20% of the patients admitted that night were from those areas. Will he give a commitment that, should the review signal that this is a problem and is contributing to the problem, he will seek to solve the problems in recruiting staff for those A&Es rather than simply keeping them closed?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

When he got the answer, the Member obviously did not check the figures for the previous year and the year before that. He may not be aware that the Royal Victoria Hospital is a regional facility. So, it takes people from across Northern Ireland. It is the major trauma facility and the lead hospital for a series of specialisms. So, of course it will serve people from outside Belfast. I do not think that we should discriminate against people outside Belfast for specialisms. And, of course, it also takes a large number of people who migrate to it from the Colin area, naturally, and indeed from the Lisburn area; but there are substantial numbers of others, in the Belfast Trust area, who migrate to the South Eastern area to use the Ulster Hospital facilities, as the Member should know.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

It is clear that confidence in the service is enjoyed by many. However, revelations damaging that confidence are not, I contend, based on lies told by anyone. How competent is the system for dealing with revelations via complaints, and can we all be confident that the system itself is efficient and impartial?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As the Member knows, healthcare is always in a very fluid situation. Millions attend our hospitals during the year and 70,000 staff work in them. We are spending £4·5 billion. That is a massive scale. Does anybody think that you can operate a system like that and not hit problems? I think that the Member asks how we respond to those problems, and that is what is important.

I hope that, at trust level, responses are good and effective. That is not always the case and, sometimes, we have to intervene. That is why I am intervening in this instance, to ensure that the trust gets the support it needs to ensure that it delivers the service that the public desires. That is our aim, our goal and is why we are giving support to the trust in this instance.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With respect to the performance of emergency departments in those genuine life-and-death situations, we have identified that improvements are being carried out. For example, one of the recent innovations is a 24/7 cath lab, which has been installed at the Royal Victoria Hospital and which will be in place later this year at Altnagelvin Area Hospital. That will reduce mortality among people who have heart attacks.

We have already indicated that we have reduced the number of people who die as a result of stroke. We are doing well with regard to sepsis and we are doing better with regard to major traumas. So, in those key areas of life-and-death situations, which is what people really perceive and what EDs should really be about, we are doing better and the public can have confidence that if they fall ill with a major serious illness the appropriate expertise will be able to deal with them and provide the best possible care for them. On some occasions — a very small number — it may fall short, but in the vast majority of incidents, over 99% of cases, people will be well treated.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise for having missed the start of the Minister's statement. I thank him for it. Earlier, he referred to Wexford. Sinn Féin is not yet in Government in the Twenty-six Counties, but you can be sure that, when we are, health will be a priority.

The Minister accepts that a shortage of staff contributes to some of the problems in A&E. You said in your statement that the trust has taken steps to address the problem by recruiting staff. Why was that not done earlier? People have been talking about this long-term problem for at least 18 months.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Additional staff have been recruited. One of the things that we want the report to identify is that the appropriate number of staff is employed and that the shifts are right to allow us to respond to people. All those things can be looked at to see whether improvements can be made. Representatives of the College of Emergency Medicine came over last March to look at the system and reported to us in August. A series of steps have been taken to implement their recommendations, and work is ongoing with regard to full implementation of the recommendations. I trust that the process that I have announced today will hasten that and ensure that those recommendations are fully and more quickly implemented.

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

The report makes stark reading. The SDLP has always been pleased to stand with staff to bring the issue to the Minister's attention. It is a somewhat belated response but is, nonetheless, welcome.

The statement refers to A&E units not being equipped to be wards because they are not the right environment. Is the Minister aware that, to the best of my knowledge, on Saturday night past, no beds were available in the Belfast Trust? The lack of bed availability is having a direct impact on A&E waiting times and trolley waits. Will the review acknowledge that and examine that difficulty, which is leading to the problems being experienced by A&E patients?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Of course I recognise that. That is one reason why I propose to bring in expertise. If the Member had been listening earlier, she would know that one problem in our emergency departments is the whole hospital environment and the ability of other parts of a hospital to take people out of emergency departments at the appropriate times. People are not being discharged quickly enough, and emergency departments have more to do. We believe that there can be further improvement in that regard, which is a key element of what we are doing. We are bringing a team together to look at that to ensure that the whole hospital system works as effectively as it should do, which should lead to a major reduction in the pressures on our emergency departments.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I also apologise for being a little detained in getting to the Chamber this afternoon. Unlike some of the Minister's predecessors, he has clearly been speaking to front line staff in the health service. Will he elaborate on the impact of those who have, either through the media or in the House, used flyaway headline-grabbing descriptions such as "crises" to castigate those in the front line of the health service? What has been the impact on morale, particularly for staff who find themselves in such a situation?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If we look at international news, we will probably see crises. There is probably a crisis in England, where people are having significant problems in accessing services such as healthcare because of flooding. We have had difficult situations to manage. They have been highly pressured situations, but Members wish to drum them up into something else so that they can grab a cheap headline. I am not interested in cheap headlines; I am interested in outcomes. Our hospital outcomes are better than they were a number of years ago. We continue to improve outcomes because we have brilliant front line staff who provide a great service for us. I am proud of them, and I am standing with them. I urge all Members to stand with us.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister's statement. I note his reference to the unfortunate incident at the Odyssey last Thursday night, when 100 young people created an emergency situation because of alcohol and drug misuse. Will the Minister, along with me, acknowledge the many thousands of young people across Northern Ireland who behaved responsibly and maturely and are tarnished by the unfortunate incident last week?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The majority of young people in Northern Ireland are good young people. I was at an event on Saturday night with many young people who are going to Poland to help young people there who are in very needy circumstances. I was in conversation with someone from Mr Ramsey's part of the world who had witnessed some young people getting onto a bus. He said that the amount of alcohol being loaded onto that bus resembled a mini-off-licence. It was wholly irresponsible of the private coach hire company to allow that to happen. It is against the law, and it is the Department of the Environment's responsibility to enforce it. It is my intention to set up a meeting to include people from the PSNI, the DOE, which has a very significant job to do in enforcement, and the Odyssey to identify how we can reduce the risk of things like this happening again.

If you go to the Odyssey or other parts of Belfast on a Saturday night, you will find smaller but significant numbers of young people in similar circumstances, and many will end up in our emergency departments. We cannot continue with this attitude to alcohol. Our young people consume far too much of it. Over the weekend, I got a letter from an emergency department consultant in which she said that she feared that, in 10 years' time, there would be an explosion of young women who had developed liver problems as a consequence of the total abuse of alcohol in their teenage years. The House needs to do something about that.

Executive Committee Business

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 10 February 2014.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 10 February 2014.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The next two motions relate to the Supply resolutions. As usual, there will be a single debate on the two motions. I shall call the Minister to move the first motion, and the debate on both motions will then begin. When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall put the Question on the first motion. The second motion will then be read into the record, and I will call the Minister to move it. The Question will then be put on the second motion.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours and 30 minutes for the debate. The Minister will have up to 60 minutes to allocate at his discretion between proposing and making a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have 10 minutes. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves that a total sum, not exceeding £15,530,883,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2014 and that total resources, not exceeding £16,606,564,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2014 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3(c) and 2(c) of table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates 2013-14 that was laid before the Assembly on 3 February 2014.

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,062,352,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund on account for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2015 and that resources, not exceeding £7,545,788,000, be authorised, on account, for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2015 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4 and 6 of table 1 in the Vote on Account 2014-15 document that was laid before the Assembly on 3 February 2014.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

We then move to the debate proper. I call Mr Daithí McKay, the Chairperson of the Finance Committee. Sorry, the Minister wishes to make a statement.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Supply resolutions debate is a critical step in the legislative process that governs our finances. The debate covers the final spending plans for 2013-14. In the first Supply motion, I seek the Assembly’s legislative approval of the Executive’s final spending plans for 2013-14 as detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSE) that have been laid before the House. Through the second motion, I request interim legislative cover for resources and funding for the first few months of 2014-15 in the form of a Vote on Account.

I request the levels of Supply set out in the motions under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make recommendations to the Assembly leading to cash appropriations from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.

The amounts that I ask the House to vote in Supply for 2013-14 are substantial: over £15 billion of cash, over £16 billion of resources and over £2 billion of accruing resources for spend and use by Departments and other public bodies in Northern Ireland. The first Supply motion sums up the spring Supplementary Estimates that are before us today. I take the opportunity to remind Members that the spring Supplementary Estimates reflect all in-year changes made since the Main Estimates were approved by the Assembly last June; that is, they reflect the departmental expenditure limit (DEL) changes agreed by the Executive at the June, October and January monitoring rounds as well as the annually managed expenditure (AME) funding agreed by the Treasury since the approval of the 2013-14 Main Estimates in June.

Before going into some of the detail of the spending plans for 2013-14, I want to make some important points. Over the next few weeks, we will progress a significant tranche of business through the House relating to the Supply resolutions and the Budget Bills. Those are important pieces of legislation, but it is critical and crucial that Members appreciate that today's debate is not an opportunity to redistribute funds for particular issues. Rather, it is about giving legislative authority to the decisions already taken by the Executive on public expenditure for 2013-14. In addition, it is about ensuring that departmental spending for 2014-15 can go ahead with legislative cover from the start of the next financial year. In effect, the legislative process today and over the next few weeks simply gives form to budgets agreed by the Executive in January monitoring and in previous Budget exercises for 2014-15.

Therefore, it is my hope, perhaps optimistically, that Members will not use the opportunity to seek a debate on what project should be funded and where but instead will focus on the specifics of what the budgets have achieved over the 2013-14 financial year. That, in essence, is what today’s debate is all about, but I suspect that the call to focus on the specifics of the spring Supplementary Estimates may fall on deaf ears.

With that in mind, let me turn to a topic that has a bearing on the Estimates, and that is welfare reform. I again express my concern that the public expenditure consequences of welfare reform non-delivery have not been taken as seriously as they should. I confirmed in January monitoring that £15 million will be lost to the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit in the 2013-14 financial year. That is not some theoretical accounting adjustment but money that could have been allocated to local schools, hospitals, roads or other public services. The 2013-14 Estimates before you could, and should, contain an additional £15 million for services. However, that could not happen, because, without progress on welfare reform, Her Majesty's Treasury will now take that funding off us. Losing £15 million in that manner is simply inexcusable. Looking to the scale of the Northern Ireland DEL adjustments that lie ahead because of non-delivery of welfare reform, it is ever more unacceptable that progress is stalled.

Turning to the 2014-15 financial year, which the motion on Vote on Account covers, the forecast penalty for not progressing welfare reform is now £105 million. That simply cannot be met through the reduced requirements that usually materialise in the three monitoring rounds. It will therefore require cuts to all Departments, equivalent to 1% across all resource DEL baselines. To give some perspective as to what the £105 million cut will mean for public services, Members should note that the quantum represents the annual costs of providing around 2,500 nurses or 2,100 teachers.

If we do not implement welfare reform, I could be standing here in a few years' time telling the House that we have lost over £300 million in a single financial year as a result. Indeed, the forecast cost for failure to progress welfare reform is now over £1 billion over the next five years. In failing to proceed and allowing increasing millions of pounds of public spending to be foregone and not spent where it should be — on providing key and critical services to people across Northern Ireland — those who resist the inevitability of welfare reform are being utterly negligent in their duties and are exhibiting an abject absence of leadership.

In addition to the direct financial penalties, there are other adverse impacts on public service delivery and the wider economy that cannot be ignored. There are 1,410 people employed by the Department for Social Development in providing child maintenance and social security services to people in England on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. Those jobs are located in two service centres, one in Belfast and one at Lisahally, Londonderry.

The Department for Social Development is able to retain those jobs because it is able to staff the service centres with experienced staff who understand the existing benefits and the supporting IT systems. The Department for Work and Pensions is clear that, should Northern Ireland not maintain parity in the social security system and, consequently, no longer have staff experienced in using the supporting IT systems, it will have no option but to relocate the work to service centres elsewhere. The loss of those jobs to Northern Ireland would be a huge blow and would have a seriously detrimental impact on the local economy.

I agree that we must do as much as we can to protect those in our society who rely on the benefits system. My colleague the Minister for Social Development has negotiated a package of measures that will ameliorate the worst impacts of welfare reform. We are not best serving those people by removing millions of pounds from our overall departmental expenditure limit budget. That simply makes our public services poorer for all, including those who need them most. Those resisting welfare reform because they think they are protecting the vulnerable are only serving to harm those same people and potentially create more vulnerable people by depriving funding for essential public services such as health, education and housing.

The Social Development Minister has put in place a package of concessions that provides a unique opportunity to implement welfare reform here while helping those most affected by that change. It is a Northern Ireland solution for Northern Ireland people. It is an opportunity that we must grasp, and it is one that I, as Finance Minister, believe we simply cannot afford to miss.

Having had my say on that issue, I turn to the detail of today’s business. This financial year has been one in which we have finally started to see some meaningful recovery in our economy. The most recent Northern Ireland composite economic index showed growth in the Northern Ireland economy of 1·2% in the 12 months from September 2012. Unemployment has fallen for 11 consecutive months. The latest Ulster Bank purchasing managers' index, published this morning, shows our recovery gaining momentum, with firms experiencing their fastest rate of growth in 10 years. Growth here is faster than in the UK as a whole.

Rising workloads and fuller order books are also translating into an increase in employment. Our construction sector, which suffered severely during the downturn, is also returning to growth, with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reporting in October that the sector had exited recession.

We cannot and must not be complacent. The positive indicators in our economy mean nothing to the person who has lost their job. Every job loss in our economy is one job loss too many. There is much, much more to be done, and it is within that context that the Executive have gone about their business of reallocating budgets this financial year. That job has not been easy.

The positive economic growth has not translated into an improving public expenditure purse. The public expenditure position remains constrained as the UK Government seek to deal with the legacy of debt. That public expenditure austerity at a UK level has worked its way into our budget from Her Majesty's Treasury. The Executive have had to make difficult decisions about the allocation of that funding to best equip our economy and protect our citizens.

In 2013-14, we began the financial year with an overcommitment. An extra £58·9 million of resource funding had been allocated to Departments, with the expectation that, during the course of the year, the Executive would be able to recoup that through reduced requirements being surrendered in the monitoring rounds. I can confirm that that approach has not only allowed additional funding to be appropriately planned for but has been effectively managed through the three monitoring rounds. In addition to reducing that planned overcommitment, the Executive were able to allocate further funding throughout the year to high-priority and emerging issues.

I will take a moment to look at the overall public spending picture for 2013-14. The Departments surrendered £90·7 million non-ring-fenced resource funding for redistribution in the three monitoring rounds. That compares with equivalent reduced requirements of £66·7 million, £65·7 million and £54·9 million for the preceding three years. Taking into account the Executive’s Delivering Social Change funding, a capital to resource transfer and funding to manage the overcommitment and ring-fenced resources, it meant that the Executive were able to allocate some £132 million of resource to emerging issues in 2013-14.

On the capital side, Departments gave back some £181·6 million for redistribution during in-year monitoring. That included some £108 million as a result of the ongoing delay to the A5 road scheme. Again, taking into account the surplus position at the start of the year, technical adjustments and additional allocations from Her Majesty's Treasury, the Executive were able to meet capital pressures of some £249·6 million in 2013-14.

The Executive have delivered throughout 2013-14. We hosted the G8 in June and the 2013 UK City of Culture in Londonderry, which showcased to the world what Northern Ireland has to offer in hospitality and potential to invest. We held an exceptionally successful World Police and Fire Games over the summer, again highlighting to the world a Northern Ireland that is a world-class tourist attraction. I am personally particularly pleased that Ulster Rugby will host a quarter final of the Heineken Cup at the 18,000 capacity Ravenhill ground in April. That will be funded in part by the Executive. There have been plenty of positives as a result of Executive intervention.

Let me turn to the detail of some of the resource and capital allocations that the Executive made this year. Some of the major allocations include £57 million to the Department of Health for a range of pressures, including elective care and the Transforming Your Care programme; £49·6 million to DRD for a range of areas, including road repairs and street lighting improvements; £11 million to the Department of Justice to support the policing operation for the G8 summit; £8·5 million to DETI for Invest NI initiatives and funding to support our Tourist Board in the promotion of major events; and £8·3 million to DARD for a hardship scheme and a TB compensation programme.

On the capital side, the Executive allocated just over £80 million to DRD for improvements to our region's infrastructure, including improvements to our road network and replacement buses for our transport network; £44 million to the Department of Health for a range of infrastructure and medical equipment investments; £27·2 million to the Department for Social Development for co-ownership and first-time buyer initiatives to help to get people on to the property ladder and to create movement in our housing sector; £26 million to DETI for an access-to-finance fund run by Invest NI and the buy-out of the Invest NI HQ PFI lease; and £25 million of financial transactions capital to be issued to the University of Ulster as a loan to assist its move to the city centre.

That is just a snapshot of some of the departmental expenditure limit allocations in the monitoring rounds. However, Members must not forget that provision was also made in the annually managed expenditure exercises and in the 2013-14 spring Supplementary Estimates for almost £3 billion of income-related social security benefits to the most vulnerable. That funding goes a long way to protect those who are most in need and provides mainly for expenditure on disability benefits, income support, pension credit, jobseeker’s benefits and housing benefits.

Before leaving the detail of the spring Supplementary Estimates, I can inform the House that some additional headroom has been built in over and above the January monitoring position. Headroom has been included for the Department of Health and the Department of Justice to ensure that, should other Departments have underspends before the end of the financial year, there is sufficient legislative cover to allow unspent resources to be redirected to those Departments. That will help the Executive to maximise expenditure and should ensure that no resources are lost to Northern Ireland under the Budget exchange scheme.

In addition, some headroom has been built in for the Department for Employment and Learning to cover a technical change in the way that the Treasury accounts for student loans. That does not represent an increase in spending power for the Department; rather, it is a prudent step to provide sufficient legislative cover for student loan provision. It is critical to emphasise to the House that such headroom has been included on the condition that if — I emphasise if — the resources become available, they must be used only for the agreed purpose, effectively ring-fencing the areas that I outlined.

I am sure that Members will also endorse the actions that have been taken. The actions will ensure that we maximise the funding that is available to Northern Ireland and utilise it for areas that will provide a real benefit to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that I speak for all in the House when I say that the last thing that I want to see is scarce funding being surrendered to Treasury at the year end.

Turning from the 2013-14 financial year and looking ahead to 2014-15, the second motion before the Assembly seeks approval for the issue of a cash and resource Vote on Account to ensure the continuation of services into the next financial year. The amounts of cash and resources that are proposed are an advance of around 45% of the final 2013-14 provision and have no direct correlation to the Budget allocations for 2014-15. That advance is necessary to enable services to continue into 2014-15 until the Main Estimates are prepared and presented to the Assembly for approval.

I commend to Members the motions on the 2013-14 spring Supplementary Estimates, the 2014-15 Vote on Account and the Supply resolution. At the end of today’s debate, I will endeavour to deal with as many of the issues that Members raise over the next few hours as I can.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Senior DFP officials briefed the Committee for Finance and Personnel on 5 February on the SSE and the Budget Bill. The Committee approved accelerated passage for the Budget Bill, which the Minister will introduce later today. That decision was on the basis that there has been appropriate consultation with the Committee, as provided for by Standing Order 42(2). I have written to the Speaker to provide confirmation of that.

As has been pointed out, the spring Supplementary Estimates reflect the changes that have been made to the opening Budget position for 2013-14 as a result of the monitoring rounds in June, October and January respectively. Additionally, the Department has explained to the Committee that headroom has been built in to the SSE to give the Executive ability to spend any last-minute underspends on priority areas to ensure that no resources are lost to Treasury under the Budget exchange scheme. I will return to that issue in a moment.

During our evidence session with departmental officials, the Committee received helpful clarification on a number of significant allocations, easements and technical adjustments that have occurred through each of the three monitoring rounds. The officials helpfully ran through the detail of these when explaining the reconciliation of the Estimates with the original budgets of Departments.

This reconciliation exercise highlighted the scale of the movement of moneys between Departments during the year. In fact, from a quick calculation, the total resource allocations amounted to over £180 million, while the total capital allocations amounted to almost £250 million. This was against total easements of almost £133 million in resource and £182 million in capital. In some instances, the figures involved were substantial, including for Health and Regional Development in particular.

The scale of the cumulative changes resulting from the nominal reallocations through monitoring rounds, combined with the in-year technical changes, will, in some cases, have resulted in significant differences between the opening and closing resource and capital allocations of Departments. In that regard, it will be important that all Statutory Committees have satisfied themselves as to the reasons for, and timing of, any significant levels of easements or return of moneys during the in-year monitoring process, and that the necessary assurances have been received on any concerns raised with Departments in minimising year-end underspend. I expect that other Members will address these issues in their contributions to today’s debate.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel has undertaken an active role in scrutinising the quarterly monitoring rounds, at a strategic and departmental level, throughout the 2013-14 financial year and has received timely briefings on the Department's position prior to each monitoring round.

As regards its own expenditure, DFP had no significant allocations, but it reported easements totalling £5·9 million in resource and £1·5 million in capital, which is significant given DFP’s relatively small budget. This might indicate further scope for achieving savings in the Department of Finance and Personnel budget; a point that was acknowledged by senior departmental officials during separate oral evidence on 15 January. No doubt, this will be an area that the Committee will wish to explore as part of its input to the 2015-16 Budget process.

As regards the quality of the briefing provided by DFP on its Estimates, I wish to commend the officials on their paper providing a reconciliation with the Budget. Indeed, the Committee has circulated this paper to the other Statutory Committees as a potential model for the other Departments to follow in future.

Returning to the strategic and cross-cutting issues, during the session on 5 February, members queried how DFP ensures that the Executive’s main priorities are still to the fore and that value for money is being achieved in the context of the significant movement of moneys in-year. On this point, officials have sought to assure the Committee that Departments are required to make clear how their bids fit in with the Executive’s priorities.

As regards the headroom issue that I mentioned earlier, the Committee has previously recognised that limited use of this facility offers flexibility to minimise year-end underspend and so avoid the handing back of money to Treasury, which nobody wants to do. However, during last week’s evidence session, members probed the DFP officials on the rationale and justification for the significant amounts provided for Health at £35 million, Justice at £14 million, and Employment and Learning at £8·7million. Some unease was expressed that an increased reliance on headroom might hinder an accurate assessment of the standards of financial management and forecasting of Departments. In sharing the DFP briefing paper with the other Statutory Committees, the Committee for Finance and Personnel, therefore, highlighted the significant headroom provision and whether Committees have been fully briefed by their respective Departments.

Finally, arising from last week’s evidence from DFP, the Committee has sought advice from the Department on the feasibility of a composite final out-turn report being prepared and laid in the Assembly annually in future in order to address an apparent gap in the budget and financial reporting process. Although the Finance Minister provides the Assembly with a cross-departmental picture of the provisional out-turn figures in June or July each year, no similar report is provided on the finalised position and the separate end-year accounts for individual Departments provide only a disjointed picture. This is important also in light of the point made in the Minister’s January monitoring round statement about the Budget exchange position being finalised only once the final out-turn for the year is known. For completeness and transparency, perhaps, a composite final out-turn report could also include confirmation to the Assembly of the finalised Budget exchange position.

I turn now to the motion relating to the Vote on Account for 2014-15. This is a practical measure that provides interim resources at approximately 45% of the 2013-14 provision. This enables departments, as the Minister has said, to ensure that public services continue during the early part of the financial year until the Main Estimates for 2014-15 and the associated Budget Bill are debated by the Assembly before the summer.

To conclude, therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I support the motions.

I now wish to speak briefly in an individual capacity. The Minister has already mentioned some of the allocations in the previous year. Some £3 million went to the G8, the City of Culture, the World Police and Fire Games, all of which were important for our international reputation and for tourism.

For the year ahead, and tying into the Vote on Account for 2014-15, I want to see that same flexibility applied, if need be, into significant events such as the Giro d'Italia, which will make its way from Belfast through north Antrim and all the way down to Dublin. It is important to recognise that some DSD moneys have gone to some of the towns along that route but the amount is rather minuscule and we have to bear in mind the scale of this event — which not many people seem to have caught on to yet — which will take place in just a matter of weeks up and down the eastern seaboard of Ireland. It is important that, if moneys are needed in Departments such as DETI and DCAL for the Giro d'Italia and for building a legacy after the event, the same flexibility that has been applied in this financial year is applied in the next one.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, Alex Maskey, may touch on the next issue later. The past year has been quite difficult for a number of glazing firms. I should declare an interest as a number of these firms are located in north Antrim. A great deal of money was to be spent on the double-glazing project, but that was important not just for those companies but for a lot of families who should have been provided with double glazing and would have had the ability to heat their homes and save money going into the winter. That has not been the case. In my view, there has been meddling in that scheme and it has put firms and jobs at risk in my constituency. We need to ensure that DSD's budget handling capabilities are such that construction work in all our Departments is upheld and also in terms of employment and suitable insulation for families.

Similarly, there have clearly been easements in relation to the Maze/Long Kesh project, which also would have brought construction, tourism and jobs. That was shelved because of party politics and the politics of the past. That, in my opinion, is shameful. [Interruption.] Mitchel McLaughlin mentioned the headroom issue in last week's Committee meeting. He described it as preparing for bad financial management. That is clearly true.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is almost up.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

To conclude, I support the motions on behalf of the Committee and my party.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Before I call Mr Givan, I remind Members not to make remarks from a sedentary position. I am sure that no Member cherishes more the right to be able to speak without interruption.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak today as Chair of the Committee for Justice. As Members will know, we scrutinise the Department in respect of its delivery plans, its savings plans and all the financial matters that are related to it.

Given that over 60% of the Department's budget relates to the Police Service spend, the Chief Constable attended a Committee meeting in September last year to discuss the police budget and the pressures and challenges that he faces. I will focus on that area first. Although the cost of the huge police operation for the G8 summit was high, there has been no resultant pressure on the police budget because the Executive provided £14·5 million in resource and capital funding, with the rest coming from Her Majesty's Treasury's reserve. The operation itself was also managed very efficiently and effectively, resulting in virtually no trouble or arrests.

During the year, however, the police indicated financial pressures in a range of areas, including the Historical Enquiries Team (HET), overtime costs and mutual aid costs. The Department has asked the police to absorb the costs, including that of the HET pressures, this year and next year of approximately £12·6 million. Although that has been achieved this year, it is a challenge to absorb the additional pressures while continuing to meet the required savings targets, given that over 80% of overall police costs are salary-related.

The PSNI also faces a very challenging situation with the delivery of its savings targets this year and next year. To address the problem, as well as its original planned savings from back office and areas such as estates, supplies and transport, it has initiated an efficiency programme called Service First, which aims to achieve efficiency from all parts of the organisation, especially operational activity, to gain the most from existing resources and deliver up to £45 million of efficiency savings over the next two years. No doubt, the Committee and, in particular, the Policing Board will wish to keep a very close eye on the outworkings of this project to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on front line services.

It is clear that the PSNI faces some major budget and resilience challenges currently and going forward. The medium-term resource plan highlights the fact that sustaining the level of resources that the police believe they need — a minimum of almost 7,000 warranted officers who can be used in a variety of ways, as indicated in their review of resilience and capability — will create a significant budget gap. According to the Chief Constable, 500 to 600 officers will leave through natural procedures over the next couple of years, and the PSNI can at this stage recruit only an initial tranche of about 100 officers because of budget funding uncertainty. This issue needs to be addressed over the coming months to ensure that the potential resilience issue is satisfactorily resolved.

Before moving on to other areas of the budget, let me touch briefly on the Desertcreat training college capital project. The Committee has questioned officials, including the Deputy Chief Constable, who heads up the project, on a number of occasions. As we are all aware of the issues and difficulties that have arisen, it is vital that none of the capital funding that has been made available for this project is lost due to the delays. Hopefully, substantial progress can be made in the coming months.

I turn now to the Prison Service. I very much welcome the efforts made by the Finance Minister in establishing this headroom provision, of which £14 million has been earmarked that could go to fund the voluntary service exit scheme. The funding is required to complete a voluntary scheme that would enable the final eight governor grades and 20 senior officers in the service to leave. I particularly welcome the decision by the Executive to make this a priority issue.

It is important that all staff who opted to leave under the scheme can be facilitated to do so. Approximately 500 officers have left under the scheme. Let me declare an interest: a family member was one such individual. The scheme was designed to allow older members of the service who had served during some of the most difficult periods of our Troubles to leave with dignity. I know that they have been very upset at the long protracted period that it has now taken to bring the scheme to a conclusion. If funds become available and other Departments are unable to spend them, I think that it is prudent of the Executive to have made this provision rather than send the money back to Westminster. It is a welcome move to be able to facilitate these individuals to leave the service.

Let me also take this opportunity to welcome the announcement that the Prison Service has identified the resources needed to fund the payment of a supplementary environmental risk allowance to post-2002 operational prison grade staff this year, which was recommended by the Prison Service pay review body. Staff should receive the payment this month. Again, this issue has been ongoing for some time.

Members will know that, on the back of the tragic murder of prison officer David Black, the personal security of prison officers and prison grade staff came into sharp focus and, rightly, this issue was brought to the fore. It has taken some time to get the Minister of Justice to this point. The matter was referred back to the pay review body, which made the recommendation, and I want to thank the Prison Service management, who have been able to identify the funding and make it available within their current resources. It is right that we support officers living under a threat. As they protect us, it is right that we support them.

Let me turn briefly to legal aid, which continues to generate the biggest pressure on the Department, despite the implementation of a number of changes to funding arrangements and the level of fees paid for criminal legal aid work. As early as June, the Legal Services Commission was forecasting a pressure of £27 million. The Department allocated an additional £15 million to ease the pressure. However, by October, the forecast pressure had increased to £41·7 million, or a net £26·7 million, taking into account the extra £15 million funding already provided.

In the January monitoring round, the forecast pressure now sits at around £25·8 million. The fact that the cost of legal aid is still so far above the available budget is unacceptable and unsustainable. Other areas of the Department cannot continually be expected to fund the additional cost, nor can the Department of Justice expect to receive additional money through the monitoring rounds that could be used to fund more important services and projects in other Departments.

The key cause of the pressures continues to be civil legal aid, with higher volumes and higher average case costs. There has also been an initiative by the judiciary to clear a backlog of Crown Court cases, which has led to an increase in criminal legal aid costs this year. The initiative is welcome from the point of view of speeding up cases through the justice system, but the Committee is concerned not only about the legal aid bill, which still far exceeds the available budget, but about the apparent inability of the Legal Services Commission to forecast with any accuracy the likely cost of legal aid.

An example of that is the initiative in the Crown Court, which would affect legal aid costs to be paid this year, yet no account appears to have been taken of it until the pressure emerged. Even then, the forecast was not accurate. A robust model capable of accurately forecasting legal aid costs must be developed as a matter of urgency. Otherwise, the ability of the Department to deliver the legal aid reform programme will be undermined.

The Committee will continue to scrutinise further reforms that the Minister intends to bring forward, particularly in civil legal aid, to ensure that value for money within the available budget is achieved. Bringing legal aid spending within budget is important, but also of importance to the Committee is protecting access to justice. Therefore, we are looking at possible ways of assessing the impact of changes, especially on civil legal aid for family cases. The Deputy Chairman and I will meet the chief inspector of Criminal Justice Inspection tomorrow to discuss the matter further.

Finally, on the Department's budget allocations and savings delivery plans, the Committee pays particular attention to the likely impact on the delivery of front line services. Previously, there had been indications of possible impacts on front line services in the Probation Board, the Office of the Police Ombudsman and the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust. The Committee will continue to scrutinise closely the outworkings of the delivery of the savings targets in those areas and across the Department as a whole during the 2014-15 financial year.

I welcome the Minister's motion. Personally speaking, I concur with the Member for North Antrim Mr McKay, who said that he wanted flexibility to continue next year to address emerging pressures that could materialise. I say to Members opposite that, in the continued absence of leadership on their part to deal with welfare reform, they will not have the type of flexibility that they want. So step up to the mark, provide leadership and recognise reality, and then we will be able to allow our Finance Minister, who has been doing a superb job since his appointment, to continue to meet emerging pressures going into the next financial year.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leat as an deis cainte seo a thabhairt domh sa díospóireacht ar Mheastúcháin Fhorlíontacha an earraigh agus ar an Vóta Creidmheasa. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account.

As already outlined, the spring Supplementary Estimates are, in effect, a way of summarising and tidying up the financial situation for the current financial year, and the Vote on Account is a resolution to allow initial spending into the next financial year. The SDLP will not be opposing the motions.

I begin by reminding the House that the Department reviewed the financial process, and a number of options were proposed to create a single, coherent financial framework. It was to be efficient, effective and transparent, and it was to enhance and ensure scrutiny and accountability to the Assembly. There was to be a Budget calendar for future processes, and that was to be outlined in advance to allow for adequate consultation. The Budget process was to include a strategic phase, perhaps in the spring, to precede the production of a draft Budget. That was all to allow the Assembly the opportunity to debate revenue measures and spending priorities.

Another important recommendation was that future Budget processes should include a formal stage for the reconsideration of the Budget in the light of emerging spending pressures or policy reorientation. Its aim was to inform in-year reallocations and to consider developments that might affect those reallocations. Future budgetary documents were to include a more detailed breakdown of the expenditure plans and the linkages between expenditure and performance outcomes.

The framework for a budgetary process was to be set out clearly in legislation, with additional details, where necessary, contained in the Assembly's Standing Orders. We have been told in the past that the implementation of the reforms is being halted by the Minister of Education. I do not think that that situation is acceptable. I ask the Minister this: can any of the reforms be implemented, or is it the case that the Minister of Education can hold the whole process to ransom? I am interested to hear the Minister's response to that at the end of the debate.

My colleagues will set out in today's debate and that tomorrow some of the areas in which they see a necessity for budgetary change. I will refer to some of the areas of concern as I see them, and I hope that I do not step on any of my colleagues' toes in doing so.

The ongoing failure to bring the Education and Skills Authority Bill back to the Assembly is leading to a crisis in the delivery of the £180 million capital programme for schools. The education boards and the sectoral organisations tell us that, owing to a moratorium on recruitment, they simply do not have the personnel to process the projects that await funding. The problem has the potential to impact severely on the delivery of the whole programme. I ask the Minister to give the House his views on that issue. Does he agree that there is a problem around the delivery of the programme and that it may have a negative impact on the financial situation, not to mention on the building and construction industry, which depends on the projects coming to fruition?

There are also a number of projects that seem to be locked in OFMDFM. I mention the Maze/Long Kesh development, the childcare strategy, the poverty and exclusion strategy, and the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy. The moneys tied up in those projects are of concern. Once again, I ask the Minister for his views on the financial implications of the continued delays. Those delays have an impact in the community; that is the most worrying aspect of it.

Looking back, we will remember that variance and special terms were agreed for the Department of Health at the beginning of the Budget period back in 2011. However, given the monitoring performance outcomes, it seems that we have moved away from that position. In the run-in to the 2011 Budget period, the Department was allowed to keep its reduced requirements, and the quid pro quo for that was that it would not bid in the monitoring rounds except where it could demonstrate exceptional need. That arrangement seems to have been relaxed, and that has been done rather informally.

We have now reached the stage where the Department of Health is bidding along with everyone else, presumably as well as keeping its reduced requirements. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that situation. Does he think that our health service is properly funded, or is it the case that it will constantly be in need of bailouts until the end of the budgetary period and, indeed, beyond that? I ask the Minister to outline the amount of extra money that is going to Health and for what reasons it is needed, because annex A in the book of Estimates does not explain the situation in full.

The Minister mentioned the headroom afforded to the Departments of Justice, Health, and Employment and Learning. He explained the rationale behind that: he is seeking to avoid underspend. Certainly, all of us would welcome that situation. However, as the Chair of the Committee remarked — I find myself agreeing with him — we need to be careful that such generous headroom does not contribute to the encouragement of poor financial management across Departments.

The SDLP is working responsibly for change through the democratic processes of the House. We showed that in our approach to the Public Service Pensions Bill. We have achieved changes there that are of benefit to our people, although obviously you will remember that we believe that more could have and should have been done. I hope that, today and tomorrow, we will get a chance to discuss welfare reform in more detail in response to some of the points that the Minister has made today.

In conclusion, it is obviously —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is almost up.

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

— the case that we have few economic levers here. Public spending is one of the few that we do have, and we must use it to stimulate —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

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

— the economy. I ask the Minister to tell us —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

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

— what is in the Budget that will foster and grow our economy.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Order. The Member's time is up.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I am pleased to speak on the two Supply resolutions, which I understand will be debated together.

Following on from Mr Bradley's point, last year I referred to the review of the financial process as well. That was, as you know, promoted by the Committee for Finance and Personnel and agreed by the Minister at that time and the Department. We had a debate in the House, and the House also agreed it. This matter has been under discussion for several years, and it is a great disappointment to me that it is not being progressed by the Executive.

Everyone agrees that the existing process is inadequate and does not provide direct read-across. It is well past its sell-by date and needs to be clearer and more user-friendly. I ask the Minister, and I know that he will try to tell us, why such an issue, which cannot be contentious, has not been agreed by the Executive.

There are two motions before us. The Supply motion seeks the Assembly's approval of the Executive's final spending plans for the year 2013-14, as detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates that have been laid before the House. The second motion requires interim resources and funding for the first few months of 2014-15 in the form of a Vote on Account. The spring Supplementary Estimates are technical and tidy up the loose ends that have been dealt with in the three monitoring rounds.

I will now highlight concerns that I have with the current situation. First, in DARD, there is an easement of £1·2 million, which equates to £0·5 million for the forestry fund. I wonder why it was not possible to carry the work out as planned — that much needed and sought-after increase in forestry provision. Perhaps the Minister can advise me or perhaps he will need to check it out. Some £2·7 million was also declared as an easement in the Department of Education. Is that a capital realisation? If so, what happens to it? In the Department for Employment and Learning, an easement of £9·2 million is surrendered, which, I understand, relates to colleges' end-of-year flexibility. Is that money at risk or can it be ring-fenced for future use?

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment appears to have invested in one of its own headquarters during the year. It seems that, no time ago, we were talking about the very opposite: selling them off and leasing them back. However, it purchased the Invest Northern Ireland building for £17 million. I wonder whether the Minister can advise what the resultant savings in rent or lease payments will be. It also appears that £5 million came back through a reduced requirement from the economy and jobs initiative. Will that sum be reallocated or will it be available to the Department next year?

Turning to the Minister's own Department, perhaps he could comment on the easement of £1·6 million for staff costs. The Department for Social Development has shown a reduced requirement of £66·3 million, which appears to come from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Further clarification would be appreciated. Incidentally, some figures on the spring Supplementary Estimates for that Department have, strangely, not appeared in the volume dated February 2014. I do not know whether I got a specially printed edition, but there are some virtually blank pages.

The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister received both resource and capital allocations through in-year monitoring. The resource amounted to £10·625 million. I understand that £3·8 million was for the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry and £2 million was for Delivering Social Change. On what is the balance of some £5 million intended to be expended?

Finally, there appears to be £300,000 of annually managed expenditure for the current year in respect of the settlement for the Northern Ireland Civil Service pay claim. As that has not been resolved in full, will the balance be ring-fenced or protected in any way for the next financial year?

I am sure that the Minister will be able to answer my questions satisfactorily in due course. On that basis, I am prepared to support, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, the Supply resolution and the Vote on Account that are before the House.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.54 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the social investment fund. (AQO 5482/11-15)

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the social investment fund. (AQO 5483/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 2 together. I am pleased that we have announced, today, the first 23 successful projects that will be funded from the social investment fund (SIF). These projects amount to more than £33 million and are from across all nine zones. The list of 23 projects is available from the OFMDFM website, and officials will be communicating directly with the organisations involved. The remaining projects that are within the funding allocations are in the economic appraisal process, and, over the next few weeks and months, we anticipate making the remaining announcements, fully committing the £80 million fund.

Considerable work has been completed in developing the policy and structures, establishing the steering groups and supporting them in the development of their 10 projects for each zone and in getting those projects through the economic appraisal process to this final stage. Most of the individual projects have many elements within them, some with up to 15 different capital elements.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Before calling Michaela Boyle for a supplementary question, I inform Members that question 5 has been withdrawn.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for the good news story that the 23 projects are to be announced. I am sure that the letters of offer will be going out to those other groups within the coming weeks. Given the delay in getting funding to those groups, will the Minister's office extend the timelines for spend to ensure that we get the maximum outcome from the projects?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I am happy to do that. The deputy First Minister and I have consistently indicated that we are ring-fencing the £80 million. Each of the groups is aware of its allocation. I think that it is worthwhile pointing out at this stage that some of the zones will have fewer schemes in this tranche than others, which means that they will have more than others when it comes to the next and later allocations. So, rather than holding until we have the last schemes out from the appraisals being carried out by the economists, we now have a sufficient batch through the economists to make this announcement and, hopefully, in the next number of weeks, we will be able to make further announcements.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for his responses thus far. I, too, welcome the good news story that has been announced today. First Minister, of the projects announced, can you outline what projects will be funded in my area in the southern zone?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

All politics is local. I had looked at the southern zone for the withdrawn question. Six projects will be funded across the zone that incorporates the Upper Bann constituency. Amongst those are two revenue projects, which will operate on a zone-wide basis with the objective of increasing employment. They include £2·7 million for an employment work-it project. In addition, there will be four capital projects, three of which are cluster projects encompassing a number of smaller capital works. They will result in 11 capital schemes specifically within the Upper Bann constituency, including projects to sustain local infrastructure with £1·25 million.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister. I have been checking the home page of the departmental website and clicking on the social investment fund. I see no record of the announcement, as yet. So, I apologise if this scheme is across the line, but I am not aware whether it is. The First Minister will be aware that there was a proposal for a sports facility to be put in place in the Glen Estate in Newtownards in conjunction with work ongoing on developing Londonderry Primary School, which would have been a very cost-effective use of SIF funds. Can he estimate the number of similar missed opportunities if, indeed, this proposal is not going ahead?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I assume that the first part of his question was, "Congratulations, we are delighted to see the announcement today and we hope that the scheme will build capacity in the local area and allow local people to determine what is best for their area". His criticism of the people in Strangford will no doubt be heard by them.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

It is not a criticism.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is entirely a criticism of the people in Strangford. The Member is criticising his constituents. We did not choose the schemes. They are locally chosen schemes. They were chosen by the people in the zone after consultation around his constituency. If he is unhappy with that, rather than perhaps the constituents being unhappy with him, which might be the norm, he can now be unhappy with them. [Laughter.]

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

I will nail my colours to the mast and say that projects that are good and not so good will be funded, and we will see where all that goes over the next period. Given that the First Minister said that, over the next weeks and months, the funds will be fully committed, is he saying that all those funds will be committed and spent by the end of the 2015-16 financial year or will we have a situation where spend will go into the next mandate, which will see the £80 million spend in SIF go over a timeline of five or six years? Is that the outcome? Is that satisfactory?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is a bit sanctimonious of the Member to stand and say that, although we set up local organisations representative of the political parties here, including his own, we do not like what they believe is best for their area. That is effectively what the Member is saying. We may all have judgments about what might have been the best or worst schemes in any area. That is why, rather than big government consistently taking the position that it will decide for people, this project allowed local communities to decide for themselves what was most needed in their area. His criticism is not a criticism of the scheme or the Executive but is a criticism of people in his local area.

As far as the timescales are concerned, the funding is allocated and ring-fenced. Some schemes, particularly the capital schemes, will take longer to roll out than others. The money is there for when the bills come forward, and the letters of offer will stipulate the conditions that apply.

We really cannot have it both ways. There has been criticism in the past about the delay, but you cannot criticise the delay on the one hand and then, on the other hand, fault us for putting robust procedures in place, which required more time. However, whether it is in this Programme for Government period, the comprehensive spending review period or it flows over into the next, the money is ring-fenced. As soon as the projects are completed, they will be funded.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the announcement, even though we have not seen it, and I ask the First Minister not to keep me in suspense and to relay to the Assembly for my constituency of Strangford exactly the same details as he did for Upper Bann.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am delighted that I will not need to do so because I have just been informed that the SIF press release is now out. I hope that everybody does not vacate the Chamber at the one time to go and read it. It will be available. This is only the first tranche and the allocations are a minimum of £8 million for each zone. That money is ring-fenced for the zones, and, as soon as the remaining projects have been assessed by the economists, we will make those announcements and a letter of offer will go out.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the drawdown of EU competitive funding in relation to the Programme for Government target. (AQO 5484/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Departments continue to make good progress towards meeting the 20% target. In 2011-12, year one, we drew down £23 million, and in 2012-13, year two, we drew down £18·3 million. I can confirm, therefore, that at the halfway point in the full Budget period 2011-15, £41·3 million has been drawn down, which represents 64% of the target, so we are on track to realise the total drawdown of £64·4 million by the end of March 2015. Figures for 2013-14 will be available after the end of this financial year. We will continue to monitor progress through the all-party ministerial Budget review group, which I co-chair with the deputy First Minister, and the junior Ministers will also continue to encourage Departments to deliver against this target through the Barroso task force working group.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. According to some research, the framework programme for research and technological development — framework programme 7 (FP7) — indicates that Northern Ireland has drawn down only €35·33 per head whereas, in the Republic, the same figure is €590·26 per head. What steps are being put in place to rectify that discrepancy?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If I can decode the Member, I assume that he was saying congratulations. It is good that we are not only on target but ahead of it in meeting the PFG figure of a 20% increase. You do it in precisely the way in which the Executive have set it out. You encourage officials to stretch themselves and work with the arm's-length bodies and third parties to enhance the amount of drawdown. In addition to that, through our North/South ministerial meetings, we spoke with the Irish Government on ways in which we can collaborate with them to increase both our drawdowns. Do not forget that we have just come out of a period during which we were an objective 1 area. We did not have the same level of competing under objective 1 criteria. So we are on a learning curve and are already finding ourselves ahead of the targets that we set, and we will continue to stretch officials to meet even higher targets.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go nuige. I thank the First Minister for his answers until now. Specifically with regard to research and development, it is widely acknowledged and known that the drawdown under FP7 was quite pathetic by comparison with other EU regions. The Irish Government have set themselves a drawdown target of €1·25 billion for Horizon 2020. Has the First Minister any ambition, or has his Department set a target, for a drawdown of Horizon 2020 funding for research and innovation?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes. The Irish Government's target takes them through to 2020. We are awaiting a paper from DETI setting our targets. I hope that they will be ambitious. If they are not, the Executive will want to look at them. We recognise that, in many cases, when talking about research and development, we usually mean collaboration between universities and business. We have two universities that are now working very hard. They have learned how to use the system and are submitting applications that will bear fruit in the future. Obviously, the Executive have an interest in that and will do everything they can to assist in collaborating with those who submit applications, but they are effectively led by those outside of government.

We want to increase significantly our drawdown from Europe. At the beginning, I thought that we were setting ourselves a very challenging target at 20%, and I am delighted that we are well on track to reach it. However, that does not mean that we stop as soon as we reach the 20% mark. We will continue to push officials, and those who are collaborating with third parties and arm's-length bodies, to increase the percentage. We are coming up to the halfway stage — the mid-term review — and we will look at the targets at that stage to see whether they should be increased.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail the companies responsible for promoting 1,180 jobs in the Derry City Council area in 2012-13. (AQO 5485/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I ask my colleague, Assembly Member and junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer this question.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Job creation is one of the key priorities contained in the One Plan for the city's regeneration. I emphasise the very challenging economic climate during that period. The 1,180 jobs promoted in 2012-13 are from a range of sectors, including construction, information technology, engineering and hospitality. As the Member would expect, there are commercial sensitivities regarding the information for some of the organisations and smaller businesses in the city. I can provide the details of some of the organisations and sectors behind the job figures. They include 26 construction jobs during 2012-13 on the Ebrington site through H&J Martin. In addition, the Executive backed the UK City of Culture project, which resulted in 213 jobs. Invest Northern Ireland promoted 453 jobs, including 200 in the US-owned technology firm Allstate, 20 in Allpipe Engineering and 11 in MetaCompliance Limited. Firstsource announced the creation of 100 new posts. Sixty new IT jobs were announced by Kainos. The opening of the Premier Inn created 60 jobs, and the new Iceland store created 28 jobs.

Some of the jobs were promoted and created through small business start-ups and expansions. I think that we would all want to commend the small businesses that created jobs in the city during what was a very difficult economic period. Although the economy remains fragile, we are seeing some signs of improvement. There have been a number of very significant events, such as the announcement of 190 jobs in Fujitsu last December following the First Minister and deputy First Minister's visit to Japan.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the junior Minister for his answer. It is useful to have that information. Will he tell me why his Department refused to give me the information in response to my previous questions for written answer?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I happen to have a copy of the answers that were given to your questions for written answer. If you want, I will read them out. They show that the sector stated that 1,180 jobs were promoted in 2012-13. That information was given to Mr Eastwood on 17 December 2013. Either he is not getting the letters or his researcher is not telling him. That was given to you in December 2013.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the junior Minister give a commitment that the promotion of the north-west will continue to be a priority during investment visits by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, particularly in light of the very welcome result arising from the Japanese visit to the north-west?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes. We are very much committed. I have undertaken a number of visits to the area, as have the First Minister and deputy First Minister. In the margins of some of those meetings, I met the Londonderry Chamber of Commerce, city council officials and economic development officials. I am very encouraged by the can-do attitude of many. The list of jobs includes 20 in Allpipe Engineering, 200 in Allstate Northern Ireland Limited, 10 in Fleming Agri-Products Limited, 11 in MetaCompliance Limited, Season Harvest Limited, Crystal Clear e-learning organisation, right down to childcare jobs in Muddy Puddles. It is very clear that, right across the range of sectors, there is an entrepreneurial spirit in the region. We will do all that we can to encourage that.

I notice that today's 'Financial Times' records that the monthly rate of Northern Ireland business activity is at one of its all-time highs. We want business activity to increase, and we want to see some of what appear to be green shoots of a recovery delivering for areas right across Northern Ireland: north, south, east and west.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

6. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they have had any discussions with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on bringing forward a cross-departmental policy on the exploitation of shale gas. (AQO 5487/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer this question, too.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has had no discussions with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on bringing forward a cross-departmental policy on the exploitation of shale gas. DETI officials continue to liaise with Department of the Environment officials as part of the work of the shale gas regulators' forum. In addition, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment officials, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment's Planning Service and Northern Ireland Environment Agency officials, provided the Northern Ireland input to the 'Onshore oil and gas exploration in the UK: regulation and best practice' road map that was published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change on 17 December 2013.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Given the energy problems that we face in Northern Ireland, I am disappointed that the issue has not been addressed cross-departmentally. However, given that at least two Executive Ministers have vociferously opposed the exploitation of shale gas in Northern Ireland — something that the 42% of consumers who experience fuel poverty and the businesses that are struggling with fuel bills will find bewildering — can the junior Minister assure us that there will be serious discussions of energy policy, investment policy, planning policy, environmental policy and mineral exploitation policy to ensure that we do not lose out on the opportunity that has transformed the American economy and that has the potential to transform the Northern Ireland economy?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

When two Departments work together, that is cross-departmental.

It is important that we always follow the evidence and best practice. We all have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment and the earth. As the Member rightly points out, we also have a responsibility to look at international best practice and at the successes in energy security, in jobs created and in businesses driving their energy costs down so that they can appear more competitive on the international market.

Ultimately, this will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and I think that they will be judicious in looking at it. It will be important to take account of all the implications if we proceed, and, equally, those if we do not proceed, with exploiting what is a natural resource. The Member made a number of important points towards the end of his question that should undoubtedly form part of the considerations. We should be aware of the best practice in the United States of America and look towards best practice in the rest of our United Kingdom. We have to weigh up the evidence in a judicious and measured way that allows us to be good stewards of the earth that we have inherited and want to pass on to our children and grandchildren. However, we also have to make sure that we do not miss out on the huge opportunities that are available to deliver jobs and investment to the people whom we serve.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the questions from the Member who spoke previously, will the junior Minister give us his assessment of whether climate change exists?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I have a science degree, but it is in psychology, and some would debate whether that is a science or a social science.

In all seriousness, we have to look at what there is. We have to look at the best scientific evidence available and at shale gas exploration in other parts of the world. We all live in an international marketplace, and the cost of jobs and energy will affect the employment that we can provide for our young people and citizens.

There are obviously concerns around climate change, and we all have a responsibility to ensure that we pass on the environment in a responsible manner. We also have to take a balanced approach to looking at international best practice, international science, the difficulties that exist and, equally, the opportunities. If opportunities exist to significantly drive down energy costs and thereby allow our people to have more jobs and investment in their area and more money coming into the economy, we would be foolish to ignore that on an emotional basis. We have to look at it in a measured way — scientifically — and see what we can do for the next generation. We have examples. We can look to the rest of the United Kingdom and the United States, and where there is best practice and success, we would be very foolish not to copy the United States in driving down energy costs. The European Union is looking at energy security as one of its primary aims. We would do well not to ignore those concerns.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the junior Minister so far. Have there been any agreements or even discussions about specific benefits, such as rate reductions, for communities where fracking would take place?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

As it stands, preparation for that possible unconventional oil and gas development in Northern Ireland and its regulation requires input from several Departments and other bodies. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has the initial role in the licensing and regulation of petroleum exploration. The Department of the Environment is the principal regulator for shale gas development through its environmental and planning responsibilities. The Department of Finance and Personnel, if it is a direct question in relation to rates, is the best Department to answer your specific question.

The shale gas regulators' forum was established in 2012. It was a joint initiative by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister and the then Environment Minister, Alex Attwood MLA. It continues to keep under review the legislative and regulatory requirements needed to support possible development. Where possible, it will coordinate the functions and facilitate the cooperation. There has been no direct discussion as yet between the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on the development of shale gas in Northern Ireland. However, DETI officials are continuing to liaise with Department of the Environment officials as part of the work that lies within the shale gas regulators' forum. DETI officials, in conjunction with DOE Planning Service and Northern Ireland Environment Agency officials, are going to provide the Northern Ireland input to the 'Onshore oil and gas exploration in the UK: regulation and best practice' road map.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I welcome the junior Minister's statement that we should be looking at the evidence because all the evidence is that exploiting shale gas in Northern Ireland will not bring down gas prices. Where I do agree with Mr Wilson is that this is a cross-departmental issue. Does the junior Minister then agree that it is a bit anomalous that we have this situation whereby the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister can issue a licence without any consultation?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I cannot agree with the Member. Anybody looking at this situation dispassionately and objectively could not concur in a reasonable way that all the evidence is against, because it quite clearly is not. I am not sure that that sort of zero-sum game that he proposes is in the best interests of the environment, energy security, fuel poverty or job creation.

The tenor of the Member's question indicates exactly why we need independent and objective evidence. Any progress that has been made scientifically has always been met with fears. I do not dismiss the fears, but they have to be forensically analysed. There is best practice in other parts of the world. We have to look at what occurs there. We are facing a situation in Europe of energy security.

All of us in this House want to pass on best practice in the environment and use best practice in making our decisions.

What is necessary is a measured, judicious response that dispassionately analyses the evidence for science and asks first, how we can we pass on, as good stewards of the earth, a better environment and use best practice from what we inherited. And secondly, how can we ensure that we follow international best practice, including that which allows us to create jobs, make energy prices cheaper, bring investment into our areas and make our businesses competitive on the international stage?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what help they can give areas that are not receiving natural gas, including in East Antrim from Larne to the glens. (AQT 681/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I await his supplementary to hear his proposal. His question indicates the need to use natural resources where they are available. I therefore expect that he will be teaming up with the Member for East Antrim Mr Wilson in calling for the use of shale gas over the next number of weeks and months.

Of course, where facilities are available, they need to be used. In the Larne area, there is particular potential for the storage of gas and electricity — two fantastic opportunities are available — and I hope that that will be supported around the House. I look forward to hearing the Member's proposals for what should happen in his area.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that. If we do nothing for areas that will not get natural gas, we will create areas that are black spots for industry. Nobody will come into them if we cannot compete with areas that can offer alternative energy. Doing nothing will also create more fuel poverty. That is why I am asking what can be done by the Assembly to look at that. Larne has the gas storage etc, but only last week one firm pulled out of gas storage under Larne Lough. Go raibh maith agat.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I agree with the premise upon which the Member asked his question. There are risks, not just to business and commerce but to residential use if we have too high a reliance on very few sources of energy. There is a good cause, and I hope that the ETI Minister and Committee will consider whether they can assist in the further expansion of that project.

However, we cannot on the one hand say that it is essential that we exploit opportunities and on the other, with our eyes closed, say no and that we are not going even to look at the opportunities for shale gas.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their view on the recent sectarian intimidation of the young schoolteacher from the Boys’ Model School, Catherine Seeley. (AQT 682/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I have already spoken on this issue, and my view has not changed. I deplore intimidation in the workplace, no matter where it takes place or against whom it is directed. People should get jobs on merit and should be allowed to carry out their employment in a peaceful and dignified way.

Of course, there are issues about education; there are also issues about fairness of employment in education. However, none of those touches on the issue or justifies the intimidation of anybody in the workplace.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCéad-Aire as an bhfreagra sin. I thank the First Minister for that answer. When I was in the Department, that was one of the schools for which we approved a newbuild. I welcome the work that is going on in the school and particularly pay tribute to the young boys who stood up and were counted in tackling sectarianism.

As a supplementary question, I will say that there have been other attacks, including one at Ahoghill GAA club and in Bangor, so would the Minister like to give his view on those?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that it is right that we publicly take the opportunity to express our condemnation of any attack on persons and property. We have had a long history of people trying to threaten and to intimidate. Indeed, a schoolteacher in Newry was killed over past years. There is a long history, which has to be deplored, of people trying to intimidate and impose their way on others. Let there be a very clear message from this Executive that intimidation, whether by verbal means, threat of violence or by actual violence, is to be deplored — past, present and future.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether there has been any indication of the potential of the Ballykelly site, given that the closing date for expressions of interest has passed. (AQT 683/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I took the trouble to go down to that site, and I have to say that we were both substantially impressed by the opportunities that we saw in the facility. We therefore gave a direction that the site was not to be sold, because it was to be for a use that would not have developed it to the potential that the area would have wanted. I think that, as a result, we have been vindicated by the level of expressions of interest.

Over 40 expressions of interest have been created. They include those from people who want to employ only one or two people on the site to those who want to employ thousands. In terms of finance, they range from those who want to rent the site to those who want to buy the site, some at very significant amounts of money, to some who want joint ventures and some who want trusts and community organisations to have a role. So, those 40-plus expressions will have to be considered very carefully to see whether more than one of those uses could be on the site at the same time, because some of them are requesting use of only part of the site. I think that a massive opportunity for the north-west area could be drawn out of the site, and it could become a regional hub with very significant employment opportunities.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I welcome the First Minister's very positive announcement of the number of expressions of interest. Can he outline what criteria will be used to maximise the site's very positive potential?

On the subject of positivity, I also welcome the positive approach that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have taken to the site. It is much more positive than walking around the corridors of Stormont counting the number of people who do and do not speak to you, which makes you look and sound like a real loser.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will respond to the first part of that question, if the Member is content. I assume that he is recognising that decisions will have to be taken on the balance between whether we look at that site as one to create jobs, irrespective of what the income generation might be to government, or whether we want to maximise the amount of money that we get for the sale of the site. I think that the balance that we have had in other sites is in recognising their local importance, recognising the potential that they can have and seeing how they can change a local area's economy. I am pretty sure that, when it comes to looking at the criteria, a major factor will be how we can develop that site to be an economic hub for the area as a whole.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether we will achieve the targets in the Child Poverty Act. (AQT 684/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that all that any Executive can do is continue to push as hard as they can. Obviously, the targets became much more difficult because of the economic recession. Targets for child poverty are related directly to the ability of their parents and that very much comes down to whether people can get jobs. It is obviously a much more challenging factor as result of the increase in unemployment since the days when we had 4% unemployment in Northern Ireland. However, as my colleague indicated earlier, the trends in the economy are with us. It is very clear that unemployment is coming down. The claimant count is coming down. That all indicates that more people are getting into work. Prosperity will, therefore, increase.

I have some problems with child poverty statistics in that we base them on median incomes and, therefore, will never get rid of child poverty. Poverty will always be with us if we base it on that. In fact, if you use that criterion, poverty in Northern Ireland is the same as poverty in India. Anybody who has seen the slums in India that the deputy First Minister and I saw on a recent visit will know that we are dealing with two entirely different situations. We are not dealing with world-recognised criteria for poverty. We are operating on the basis of relative poverty in Northern Ireland.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. In light of the findings in the OFMDFM-commissioned Institute for Fiscal Studies report, does he accept that the Delivering Social Change agenda needs to be mainstreamed in all Departments if we are really going to tackle child poverty?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am very proud of the Delivering Social Change agenda and the steps that we have taken in it. It requires the participation of all Departments to achieve its outcomes. In the Delivering Social Change agenda, we had a number of initiatives. When we bring out new proposals, they very often require new infrastructure to be put in place within the government system. That can take some time. I have high hopes that, as we move forward, the Delivering Social Change programme will flow out and we can build upon it.

The Member and I are in total agreement that, when young people grow up in this society, they should all have an equal opportunity to be able to progress and move forward. It must be in the interests of the Assembly to do everything that it can to use that human resource to the best possible advantage and to make sure that every child has the same opportunity.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given Enda Kenny’s recent announcement about a formal application for a North/South interconnector, to confirm whether their office has received representation from groups opposed to it and to update the House on their thinking about the proposal. (AQT 685/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I remember discussing the issue with the Taoiseach along with the deputy First Minister. My understanding was that most of the problem was in the South rather than in Northern Ireland and that most of it related to whether there was overhead or underground cabling. I will write to the Member to clarify whether the Department has received any objections. All that I can say to him is that I am not aware of them.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the conflicting views on the issue, does the Minister believe that there should be a proper assessment of whether or not the project is needed to address the energy issues on the island?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not think that there is any question about the need for the project. That was the one thing that we were all very clear about. How it is implemented is an issue of cost. I understand that the cost of underground cabling would be so high that it would make the project unfeasible. From that point of view, it is very clear what needs to happen. I recognise the rights of people to object because not everybody wants to have the kind of overhead cables that would be necessary going through their land or close to their property. However, as I understand it, it is absolutely essential that the project goes ahead.

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

6. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the implementation of the childcare strategy. (AQT 686/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I have already made our statement announcing the childcare strategy. Perhaps the Member should go along with the Member for Strangford and visit the OFMDFM website. It is a project that delivers thousands of places in Northern Ireland, which, I hope, will be welcomed throughout the community. I am not sure whether the Member had any specific question or whether he doubted that we had the project under way, but it is now up and running.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Order. We will start with the listed questions to the Minister for Employment and Learning. Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

1. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning how the level of economic inactivity locally compares with other regions of the UK. (AQO 5497/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I was going to group questions 1 and 5 together and ask for an additional minute for the answer.

The current rate of economic inactivity in Northern Ireland, measured as a percentage of the 16-64 working-age population, for the third quarter of 2013 is 27·1%. This equates to more than 315,000 people who are neither in work nor actively seeking employment. It compares with 21·5% in England, 20·9% in Scotland, 23% in Wales and a UK average of 21·7%. Within the overall rate for Northern Ireland, 27% are students, 28·4% are categorised as long-term sick and disabled, 25·7% are categorised as having family commitments, 12·4% are early retirees and the remaining 6·5% are categorised as "other", for reasons such as a short-term illness or injury.

For several decades, Northern Ireland has consistently had the highest rate of economic inactivity in the UK. Economic inactivity has not historically been influenced by economic cycles and it is right that we now focus on tackling this long-term problem in a progressive and sustainable way. It is for that reason that the Northern Ireland Executive have made the unprecedented commitment to develop a strategy to tackle the difficult issue of economic inactivity. My Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment have jointly developed a strategic framework document in conjunction with several other key Departments and have recently launched a 12-week public consultation exercise on the proposals, which will inform the development of the final strategy. This process will be complemented by a series of forthcoming public consultation events across Northern Ireland.

The final strategy will be the only dedicated government strategy in the UK that is targeted specifically at addressing the major socio-economic issue of economic inactivity. I should emphasise that this is a Northern Ireland Executive initiative; it is not about welfare reform, nor is it being driven from Westminster or elsewhere. It is a local initiative that is focused on finding real solutions to help people who are inactive because of health issues or caring responsibilities to go back to work when they are ready. Students or early retirees are not a focus for the strategy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

This is not a new issue. It is one that has persisted over 30 years through boom periods and periods of depression, so it is clearly nothing to do with a lack of jobs. Even during boom times, the issue was not addressed.

Given that it has been a long-term issue and it is clear that there is a whole group of people who either cannot work or will not work, is it time not for more consultation but for some action? Will the Minister tell us what specific proposals he has at the moment for contemplation that will address this problem and get these resources back into productive work in the economy?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question and his interest in the matter. He is right to say that this has been a major long-term issue for our economy. It is a structural issue that we have to come to terms with. As a former Minister, the Member will appreciate the reality that we have to go through a public consultation on these issues. However, it is to the Executive's credit — and this was an Executive-wide initiative that was part of the Programme for Government — that they have realised that they have to address this issue. I stress that we are the only part of the UK that is currently developing such a strategy.

This will be a 10-year commitment across a number of Departments. We will need to look for additional resources in due course to make this a reality, but we hope to take the initiative forward through what we call a series of competitive pilots. We want to see proposals coming forward from the community and organisations so that they can put in place a number of different initiatives, whether on a Northern Ireland-wide or a local basis, test what is effective or less effective, and seek to scale those initiatives up across the board. That is an innovative way to address the issue, and there is a desire for a lot more innovation in Northern Ireland under devolution.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers so far. How does he intend to develop measures and tackle areas of high unemployment such as in my constituency of West Belfast.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member is right to say that inactivity levels will vary across Northern Ireland, and there will be parts of our region where there are considerable concentrations. Economic inactivity is a different category to unemployment, although there will be a correlation between patterns of higher unemployment levels and levels of inactivity. Again, I stress that it is about the community coming forward with innovative projects. We will, no doubt, see a greater volume of those from areas where levels of inactivity are most acute. On the back of the consultation, some organisations in the community are already beginning to give thought to different types of initiatives that could be taken forward.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is most welcome that the Minister is coming forward with his strategy. Following on from Fra McCann's question, there is clearly historical economic inactivity in Northern Ireland, but there is much more cultural historical economic inactivity in certain areas, the north-west being one in particular. How will the Minister encourage and motivate to try to ensure that business or community groups come forward with realistic programmes to make a difference?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member's question is on a similar theme to the previous question. There are some local angles in the north-west, and I can tell the Member that a specific public consultation event will be held in Derry on 13 March. That will complement events that are being held in Dungannon on 19 March and in Belfast on 26 March. I encourage Members and, indeed, any of their constituents and organisations in their areas also to attend those events. We will want to talk to those organisations to try to encourage proposals. We also have a skills and employability adviser in the north-west, and part of her role can be extended to encourage organisations to come up with ideas. We have the infrastructure in place to try to encourage proposals, particularly from the most vulnerable areas such as the north-west.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Recent labour figures show that the over-45s are more likely to be economically inactive here than in the rest of the UK. Does the Minister intend to take specific steps to address that trend?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

In spring 2013, we published a baseline study that set out the overall context behind our economic inactivity figures. There is a whole host of variations compared with the situation elsewhere in these islands that relates to our particular circumstances. I stress that, to make a difference, we need to relate the type of projects that we take forward as part of the strategy to the particular characteristics of the economically inactive population. Hopefully, that fits in with the thrust of the Member's question.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

2. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what assistance his Department is providing for the employees of Mivan, Antrim. (AQO 5498/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I understand the deep impact of the loss of Mivan on its employees. My Department has been proactive in determining what steps we can take to assist employees facing redundancy to provide them with advice and guidance regarding upskilling and alternative employment. To this end, my officials have worked closely with Mivan since the initial redundancy statement was announced.

My Department’s redundancy advice service has already started to deliver a tailored package of support to Mivan staff. It is working in partnership with a range of organisations, including the Social Security Agency, Antrim Enterprise Agency, Citizens Advice and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to deliver the redundancy clinics, which took place at the Mivan offices on 22 and 29 January. Through this service, advice has been provided on alternative job opportunities and mentoring, access to training courses, entrepreneurship and careers, as well as advice on benefits and taxation. The service was delivered free of charge to all employees facing redundancy. My officials have received expressions of interest from a number of companies about exploring the possibility of redeploying affected staff. There has been liaison with Invest Northern Ireland and Mivan to ensure that those opportunities are brought to the attention of the redundant workers.

Finally, my staff in the jobs and benefits offices will continue to engage closely with those workers affected by redundancy. This is an approach that we have already successfully deployed to address other significant redundancies. Notwithstanding the job losses in relation to Mivan, our economy is growing and unemployment is falling. The prospects for our economy are strong.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I appreciate the help and assistance that has been given, albeit that quite a bit of it is looking at redundancy and access to unemployment benefits. I wonder what contact has been made on an interdepartmental basis between DETI and his Department to try to move forward with new initiatives to deal with these types of problems when they arise.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member is right to highlight the importance of Departments working in collaboration around this issue. I believe that that has been the case in relation to Mivan and similar tragic situations that have arisen in the past number of years.

Obviously, Invest Northern Ireland is an important partner in this regard in terms of looking to other opportunities that may arise. We have the potential in relation to MGM, though that situation still has to be clarified with regard to any opportunities that may arise for existing staff to be able to apply for jobs that may well be created. We can also look to the resource of our local training colleges. If the demand is there, we can put in place some specific courses to help with retraining opportunities.

Often, when we come to these situations, we find staff who are very highly skilled. The difficulty has been that, in the past, they might not have gone through the process of having their skills formally accredited. Often, what is required is actually putting in place those procedures to get people the qualifications to allow them to sell themselves to other companies and employers. That is something that we are more than happy to look at.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I, too, thank the Minister for the help with the Mivan employees. When he is talking to other Departments, has he looked at helping DSD's jobs and benefits and other organisations to have more resources to actually be able to help the people? That is one of the difficulties that has arisen.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I cannot comment directly about the resourcing available through the Social Security Agency, but I am aware that my employment service's current resource base is overstretched. We are essentially resourced to deal with a jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) live load of around 35,000. The claimant count is falling, but it is still just below the 60,000 mark. So there is considerable pressure on the front line, and I pay tribute to the work of our staff in helping people by giving them advice and signposting them to other opportunities. However, as and when these situations arise — and, hopefully, they will be a lot fewer over the coming months and years — we will be quite clear in our commitment to follow through and to put in place the type of redundancy service that we have put in place in relation to Mivan.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Minister have any concern about how the Mivan situation was handled to result in the fact that none of the workers have any transfer of undertakings and protection of employment (TUPE) rights, because the redundancies were allowed to fall into place, and then, immediately, a new company came in to take over the premises and the buildings but gave no TUPE rights to the existing workers? Is that not an abuse of the arrangements that should be in place?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

We have had a public consultation on TUPE arrangements over the past number of months, and it is my intention to bring forward a paper to the Executive in relation to the future of TUPE in Northern Ireland. That is very much in line with a similar exercise — and, indeed, we were part of the consultation that was conducted — by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) for Great Britain.

I understand the Member's concerns, but, if there are concerns around how TUPE is being applied in any particular situation, those who are affected have rights and the ability to challenge decisions that have been made.

I cannot take a view on that particular situation, except to clarify once again that people do have recourse in the event that they feel that TUPE has not been properly applied.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

3. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what steps he is taking to facilitate the early transfer of his Department's functions to match training provision and apprenticeships to job opportunities to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. (AQO 5499/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Matching training to jobs is addressed through a number of measures. In January, I made a statement to the Assembly to announce the findings of the review of apprenticeships. The review’s interim report sets out the blueprint for Northern Ireland’s future apprenticeship programme. It is a model that puts employers at its very heart and matches better supply with demand. In parallel with that review, a review of youth training is being undertaken to ensure that provision meets the future needs of business by developing a highly skilled workforce.

This year, the careers review will consider how young people are encouraged to align their education, training and apprenticeships with current and future job opportunities. I am keen to expand higher and further education places in Northern Ireland and, to date, have been able to negotiate funding for an additional 1,350 places. All the additional places are in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subject areas, as I believe that they are key for the future of our economy. My Department has worked closely with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in the production and implementation of the Success through STEM strategy. I also chair a series of working groups on ICT, advanced manufacturing and food and drink manufacturing. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is also represented on those bodies.

The Executive are committed to an overarching review of Departments, and the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have indicated that they are content to await the outcome of that review before taking any decisions on the future of the Department for Employment and Learning. That may well see a consolidation of economic functions across a number of current Departments within a new Department of the economy.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer, but, if we can cut to the chase, will he accept that a Department responsible for training that has resulted in 5,000 unemployed teachers simply cannot continue to manage teacher training?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am afraid that the Member is ill informed. My Department does not set the teacher training numbers. We simply resource the teacher training colleges. The number of teachers allocated to teacher training is solely a matter for the Minister of Education.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answers. In my role as an MLA, I, like many others, regularly engage with businesspeople, and the message that I hear from them, particularly those in medium-sized businesses, is that they have a large number of positions that they want to fill. I then speak to highly skilled, highly qualified people who cannot find a job. How does the Minister propose to bring the two problems together to find a solution?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for putting his finger on what is a constant source of frustration in our economy and, indeed, many other economies around the world. There is a certain mismatch between supply and demand, and that happens also in areas in which we are investing in training and upskilling. We need to be much more efficient if we are to ensure that our economy grows to its maximum and our young people find themselves lucrative careers and sustainable jobs. We can be much more efficient in what we are doing to address that particular problem through a number of measures that I outlined in the principal answer. In particular, I highlight the review of apprenticeships. Apprenticeships are perhaps the purest way of matching training to employers' needs. As the Member knows, we are out to consultation on the findings of the review of apprenticeships.

We are also working on the review of youth training, which will support interventions at that level. In particular, we need to look at what we do in the universities and encourage people to study subject areas that are more likely to lead to secure jobs in the economy. That is why we place such a focus on STEM subjects. I am pleased that we are making progress in all those areas, but we need to keep the work going.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Will he give us an update on the review of apprenticeships and the role that he sees them playing in upskilling the Northern Ireland workforce and leading to high-value, sustainable employment?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. As the Member will know, last month, we announced the outcome of the review of apprenticeships, which is out for public consultation. I am pleased with the response that we have received to date from a number of stakeholders. This provides a very exciting new platform for training in Northern Ireland and should radically transform our skills infrastructure. We are taking forward a number of other initiatives on apprenticeships while the public consultation is under way. They include work on the funding model to ensure that we are gathering the resources available to us to have the greatest impact on delivering results.

We need to work with small businesses in particular. As Members know, a disproportionate share of our economy is linked to small businesses, and it is important that we try to address the barriers to recruiting apprentices that they may face in the future. We are developing a number of different models to see how we can provide a mechanism to allow small businesses to engage with our model. It is a problem that is uniform across the world. However, hopefully, with good innovation under devolution, we can find the means to crack it. Bear in mind that it is a new start for Northern Ireland. We are changing the apprenticeships model from a level 2 and level 3 intervention to level 3 up to level 8 and expanding it to a range of new occupations. I strongly recommend it as a major plank of our future skills offerings.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

4. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to outline the role that regional colleges will have in the delivery of his Department's Further Education Means Business strategy. (AQO 5500/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Our further education sector is a major asset to the Northern Ireland economy and wider society. The Department's role is to set the strategic direction for the sector in Northern Ireland, fund colleges to deliver my strategic priorities for the sector and monitor the extent to which colleges meet the targets they are set. Following a major process of evidence gathering and consultation, the current Further Education Means Business strategy was agreed in 2004. The strategy confirmed the role of further education as being to strengthen economic and workforce development, to enhance social cohesion and to advance individuals' skills and learning. The objectives of FE Means Business included raising the skills and qualification levels to meet the needs of employers and the wider economy; ensuring that colleges provided an economically focused curriculum; providing support to employers; developing flexible approaches to learning; and ensuring quality in keeping with best international practice. The main achievements of the strategy include the rationalisation from 16 to six colleges, increased enrolments, increased levels of learner achievement, which are now at 87%, and strong support to employers.

We are committed to a new strategy for further education. That is at the early stages of development. However, building on successes in recent years, the vision is that colleges will have a detailed understanding of the changing needs of employers and learners, that they will develop and deliver services and curriculum in an innovative and inspirational manner, and that they will have a strong ethos of self-improvement. I can confirm that the Department will work closely with the further education sector and other key stakeholders in the development and implementation of the new strategy.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he tell the House how he sees the strategy being different in delivery from all the other strategies already in the system?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. It is important that the House understands the full remit of my Department and the areas that we cover. The most important strategy that we have is the skills strategy, which was agreed by the Executive in 2011 and sets the overall skills requirements that we need to meet in Northern Ireland over the course of the decade. That will be supported by a number of different strategies. We have, for example, the higher education strategy, which looks at higher education issues; we are working on a review of apprenticeships; and we have a widening participation strategy to ensure that we bring more people into higher and further education. Within that spectrum of strategies, FE Means Business, which is our further education strategy, is now 10 years old, and it is time that we refresh and renew that and look to put in place a strategy that will take us forward over the next 10 years. I know that the Member is very aware of the potential of further education, and I stress that it is a sector that is likely to grow over the next 10 years. As we look to develop our new model of apprenticeships and increase the number of people taking foundation degrees, the role of further education will be critical in ensuring that we match the needs of employers with the areas in which we are investing in training and education.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Can the Minister state whether the regional colleges have enough resources and the ability to provide STEM courses within the remit of the strategy that he outlined?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is probably fair to say that the simple answer is no. At present, all six colleges are stretched in what they are doing, and what we can do to assist them is very much foremost in my mind. In the current round of efficiency savings during this CSR period, the colleges were less affected than other aspects of my Department's work and, indeed, than other aspects of the public sector. Nonetheless, they are in a challenging situation. As we look to the future of the economy, and bearing in mind what I just said to Mr Buchanan, we will need to be mindful of making sure that we put in place adequate resources for the FE sector to ensure that we all live up to our potential and seize opportunities for the future.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

What engagement has the Minister had with small and medium-sized enterprises on FE Means Business, particularly directly or through intermediary bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)? How will he assure businesses that training will be provided locally and therefore minimise the associated pressures on staff time and travel?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

First of all, FE Means Business was developed back in 2004, so I cannot comment specifically on the nature of engagement with the small and medium-sized enterprises sector, although there is no doubt that it was considerable. What I can answer for is what happens today. We work very closely with the representative bodies of small and medium-sized enterprises, including FSB and the Northern Ireland Retail Trade Association, to take forward and evolve strategies and action plans. They have been represented, for example, in our review of apprenticeships and in the review of youth training. Indeed, as we take forward our review of the FE strategy, they will be closely involved.

Beyond the formal process of devising policy, there is ongoing engagement with FSB, particularly on further education. Indeed, it is more than happy to sponsor different types of awards. I know that a number of Members have been to some of those events and have seen at first hand how closely small and medium-sized enterprises engage with colleges. We are, in fact, trying to encourage the FE sector to be the first point of call for advice for businesses, particularly on some research and development activity.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

6. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to outline the employment opportunities available to people with learning disabilities who are leaving school at 16 years old. (AQO 5502/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

My Department provides a range of programmes and services that help young people with learning disabilities to move towards their employment goals. The provision covers support in adult education, careers advice and guidance, training and skills development and employment support.

Through its provision of careers advice and guidance, the Careers Service is the first point of contact for young people. In particular, during transition planning meetings, advisers support the young person and their parents or guardians by offering independent advice on their options, such as training or supported employment opportunities.

My Department's disability employment service delivers tailored support to people with learning disabilities through a range of specialist services and programmes to help them to achieve their employment goals. That provision can include local disability organisations, some of which specialise in support for people with learning disabilities.

The Department is developing a new disability employment strategy in conjunction with the local disability sector. An emerging theme is a renewed focus on young people with disabilities and the implementation of a more employment-focused transition service. The Department's adult education and skills provision gives people with learning disabilities additional support to help them to overcome specific difficulties. That can include more flexible entry criteria, specialist equipment, specialist support providers or additional financial help.

Under the European social fund programme and the Pathways to Success strategy, a number of projects are being delivered to help people to achieve sustainable employment. The projects support a range of individuals who experience disadvantage, including those with learning disabilities.

Finally, my Department works with the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership, which is a regional cross-sector strategic group of key agencies from health, social services, education, policing, housing and the voluntary and community sectors. The partnership has a transitions subgroup, which is addressing the issue of transitions across front line providers.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Apologies, Mr Hilditch; we are out of time. We must now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for the current status of Queen’s University and Stranmillis, following his statement to the House on 13 May 2013 in which he effectively brought the proposed merger to an end. (AQT 691/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. He will appreciate that we are going through a two-stage review of the future training infrastructure in Northern Ireland. We are in phase 2, and the panel that has been appointed is working with the different providers. We have received a number of submissions from a range of different individuals and organisations. The issue of the specific merger between Queen's and Stranmillis is something that I inherited when I assumed office in May 2011. It quickly became clear that there was not the necessary support in the Assembly to take forward that merger and it was essentially subsumed into the two-stage review of teacher training. The official position of the Department is that we would still like to see the merger proceed. Stranmillis's response to the two-stage review has superseded its support for the merger, though, of course, it remains one of many scenarios that may emerge on the back of the report that I am expecting in the spring of this year.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer but I am still not quite sure whether he is in support or not. He said that there was not sufficient support in the Assembly for him to proceed down that road. Bearing that in mind, I suspect — maybe he does not — that the position is as it was then, which is that there is still not the support for that. Do you intend to resurrect the merger or what line do you intend to take, bearing in mind that you said that you felt that there was not the support for it?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

In November 2011, I made it clear that the Department and I believed that the merger had significant merit and should proceed, but there was not the support to take it forward. I respect that, and Members are entitled to have their opinion. However, we are now looking at a much bigger issue than simply the future of Queen's and Stranmillis as it pertains to teacher education, and we need to have a holistic view of the entire teacher training infrastructure. That is what the current review is seeking to do. It is possible to imagine a whole range of different options that may emerge from the current expert panel that is taking forward the issue. I cannot predict whether it will recommend the Queen's/Stranmillis issue on a stand-alone basis or as part of a wider series of options or, indeed, as a subsection of a much bigger option. That remains an open question. We will see where we go on the back of that report. However, I will be taking forward discussions with the different providers during the later half of this year, and that will be a discussion without prejudice to whatever particular scenarios we wish to discuss.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning the current cost to his Department of providing free education for students from the Republic of Ireland in our further education colleges. (AQT 692/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

If the Member can be patient for two seconds, I will hop forward to question 15, which we did not quite get to as part of the formal session, and give him the precise figure.

For the 2012-13 academic year, the figure was £7,120,887. Hopefully, that is accurate enough for the Member.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Can the Minister give any indication to the House of whether there have been or will be any efforts to recoup any of that money from the Republic of Ireland, bearing in mind that there is also a figure of £4 million or £5 million for the cost of educating Republic of Ireland students in our universities?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member is quite right to draw attention to the issue. It is important that we encourage a natural flow of students in both directions on the island of Ireland. At present, the flow is predominantly in one direction, which is from South to North, and it is an issue in further and higher education. As a former Member of the European Parliament, the Member knows well that we do not have any legal basis on which to seek to recoup these funds from the Government of the Republic of Ireland —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That is why we would be better off out.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am not sure whether the Member gets a third go. Let me continue with the answer I was giving.

We have to bear in mind that there are some underlying causes as to why we have these discrepancies. A 2011 report on higher education from the Irish Business and Employers Confederation and the Confederation of British Industry sets out the issue well and points to a number of barriers that are being addressed, particularly in relation to the recognition of A-level grades in Northern Ireland. We have now seen some very small but welcome progress, with the announcement, last week, by Trinity and Dublin City University. We want to see that across the board. We need to do more in careers advice and ensuring that people are aware of the opportunities to study in the Republic of Ireland.

When we look at further education, we see that there is a particular problem in the north-west of the island. This reflects a lack of equivalent level 2 and level 3 provision in County Donegal. Around three quarters of the flow is in that corridor. We are having discussions with our counterparts in the Republic of Ireland on how we can encourage them to better invest in their vocational training opportunities in that geographical area, which, in the long term, will address the issue. It is also an issue that has been raised as part of the North/South Ministerial Council.

May I stress for the benefit of Mr Allister that we benefit massively from Northern Ireland's membership of the European Union. The sums we receive by way of the European social fund, the European regional development fund and Horizon 2020 dwarf any distortion that we happen to see, as bad as it may be, in the medium term in relation to student flows.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

3. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning whether he realises or finds it acceptable that the North West Regional College improvement team has not met, given that it is almost 12 months since the Harry McConnell report on industrial relations. (AQT 693/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

In some ways, I am pleased that Mr Ramsey has raised the issue of the North West Regional College, as it is becoming a source of frustration to me that we have not seen the action plan being fully implemented. I feel obliged to draw attention to where I believe the main source of the problem lies at this stage: the actions of the regional branch of the University and College Union (UCU), which, despite numerous attempts and offers, has not formally engaged with staff in taking forward the action plan.

I stress that the North West Regional College should be looking to have a bright new future. There have been serious industrial relations problems in the past, and they have been documented well in the McConnell report. It is important that we move past those as quickly as we can because, as the Member knows, the economy in the north-west needs particular revitalisation, and the college has to be a key partner in that regard. It is my concern that, the longer this goes on, it will become a distraction from what should be the real job for the college, which is to support young people and employers in the north-west.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is a subject that I was hoping not to raise again, but I accept some of the points that the Minister makes in going forward. The Minister's information from the board of governors is one-way traffic. The board unilaterally changed the college's action plan without any discussion with any other membership body or trade union movement within the college. Does the Minister find that acceptable? Is it not the case that he should be intervening once again in the college's industrial relations?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is important to stress that it is the job of the governing body to run the college. I have confidence in the governing body, and, as the Member knows, we are going through a transition in relation to the chairperson. I am meeting the acting chairperson this Friday to discuss the college and, in particular, the issues that the Member will be aware of. I reiterate this: fundamental to moving the college forward is the local UCU branch engaging with the staff on the delivery and implementation of the action plan.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

4. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning, given his role in teacher training, to outline his stance on the requirement that teachers can be appointed to Catholic maintained nursery or primary schools only if they hold a Catholic certificate in RE, bearing in mind the unfortunate situation with the teacher Catherine Seeley and the Boys’ Model School, which highlights the reality that, if we are moving to a more normal society, there will be new “norms”, including members of one traditional community becoming embedded in another. (AQT 694/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for her question. It barely relates to my direct responsibilities as Minister because the matters that she outlined are primarily responsibilities of the Minister of Education. I want a situation in which any teacher who is professionally trained is capable of teaching in any type of school, irrespective of his or her background, whether that be political, religious, gender, sexual orientation, disability or any other type. That should be the norm in a healthy modern society.

As part of the current review of teacher training, I want to look at some of the entry requirements to the colleges and, in particular, to try to address the anomaly that St Mary's is not using the UCAS system for admitting its students whereas Stranmillis and the others are. That almost gives some students a second bite at the cherry in trying to access a precious teacher training place. We also need to look at the anomalies in fair access to the certificate in religious education. There is a wider issue of whether that should be a requirement for employment, which should be considered by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister alongside the Minister of Education as an equality issue. However, under my responsibilities, I want a level playing field in access to the certificate.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

In April 2013, the Assembly passed an Ulster Unionist motion calling for an end to an exception to fair employment law that allowed discrimination on the grounds of religious belief when appointing teachers. The Minister mentioned some of the ideals that he wants to see. What progress does he hope to achieve before the end of his term?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I reiterate my personal support for that motion, and hopefully that will come to fruition through other channels in the near future. As part of stage 2 of the review of the teacher training infrastructure, I want those equality issues to be addressed. We have acknowledged them in the past, and they are ongoing issues of concern. Indeed, there is a sense of grievance, and I believe that they need to be overcome in some manner. I will put them on the agenda for our future discussions with the different providers.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

5. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning whether he is aware of the lack of provision to train or to upskill welders to European standards, such as the ISO 9606-1 approval system for coded welders, to meet the growing opportunities for welding jobs offshore and in Northern Ireland. (AQT 695/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. I appreciate the concern that has been voiced about some perceived opportunities that have been missed in the past number of months. We are moving to a situation in which our training programmes are much more demand-led than has been the case in the past, and, in particular, our reviews of apprenticeships and youth training are designed to ensure a much purer form of demand-led provision. We may see requirements for more investment in particular welding skills. Within welding, there will be different standards that people can be trained to and different situations, particularly offshore welding, where different types of training are required. I give the Member a commitment that our infrastructure will respond to the needs of industry, and we are happy to have further discussions with him or, indeed, anyone who wants a meeting to raise his or her concerns so that we can work through a way to address that.

I would signpost anyone to our skills solutions service as the first point of call for having a discussion at employer level.

Executive Committee Business

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I welcome the opportunity to outline the Environment Committee’s views on the motion.

In comparison with other Departments, DOE's budget is one of the smallest, but the services that it provides are no less important to the people who live in this region. The Committee gave its support to DOE’s proposed budget at the start of the year and will welcome the net increase in resources to be allocated to it.

Of particular interest to the Committee is the significant increase in funding available to the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). During the past year, the agency has faced increased pressure on its resources from a number of directions. The Committee heard recently from the Department of its role in providing support and guidance to the management trusts, which administer areas of outstanding natural beauty, as well as addressing poor water quality in our rivers and lakes.

NIEA also has a vital role to play in fighting environmental crime. The Committee agreed that it was appropriate for staffing levels to be increased in the environmental crime unit to deal with illegal waste, particularly when it is on the scale of the recent incident at Mobuoy, where more than 0.5 million tons of illegal waste has been dumped. The Mills report estimates that £250 million may be required to clean up the sites and states:

"Waste crime is not just damaging the environment; it is damaging the economy in Northern Ireland."

I therefore hope that extra money will be made available in future bids, if DOE needs financial assistance in that respect.

The Committee also supports the additional allocation of resources to local government. Members are very much aware of the widespread changes to be introduced over the next year as shadow councils begin the review of public administration (RPA) process for local councils and realise how vital the provision of adequate resourcing will be to the success of the new roles and structures. However, it is concerning that the provision for planning, both policy divisions and services, is to be significantly reduced by more than £2·5 million at a time when preparation is under way for the transfer of those functions to local government.

The Committee also places great emphasis on the provision of road safety services and will be concerned to note that this area, too, has had a cut in its resources. The Department recently provided a comprehensive update on its work on road safety, but the Committee is very conscious that adequate funding is vital to the ongoing support of this work.

The Committee has largely been supportive of DOE’s bids during the past year and, in considering the Vote on Account, stresses the importance of making sure that the necessary funds continue to be made available to DOE so that it can continue to deliver its programmes and conduct its functions effectively. On behalf of the Environment Committee, I support the motion.

I will now make some comments as an Alliance MLA. The maintenance of designated sites is funded from a combination of the DOE's budget for the management of sensitive sites and DARD's agrienvironment scheme moneys from the rural development programme pillar 2 budget. The next rural development programme will not be funded to the same level because of the zero percent transfer from pillar 1 to pillar 2.

DARD is preparing an agrienvironment scheme that will have two strands: a wider area scheme for all farmers; and a targeted one for those whose land contains designated sites. Without adequate co-funding, they will not be effective. In any case, there is a risk that the wider scheme will detract from the targeted one and that the NIEA will have to make up the shortfall.

DOE operates a centralised education and outreach programme that has to cover everything from road safety to conservation. Funding aimed at explaining the importance of our natural environment, including the cause and effect of climate change, is very limited. It merits an increase.

As the Alliance Party spokesperson on culture, arts and leisure, I want to raise the issue of the resource allocation to National Museums NI (NMNI), which received a budget of £12·9 million, including £10·6 million for staffing costs, in the 2013-14 financial year. National Museums NI recognises that its curatorial base has reached low levels, and it has identified a number of key posts that it should prioritise for recruitment. Given that the number of curators fell from 28 in 2008 to 16 in April 2013 — that number is even lower today, as there is no plan to replace the curator at the Ulster American Folk Park — there is real concern about how DCAL and NMNI will meet their statutory obligations to improve the standard of collections care and management in Northern Ireland's museums.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will cover the work that the Committee has done on scrutinising the DARD capital and resource budgets. I will mention some of the budgetary and financial issues and constraints that have been debated in Committee and in the Chamber over the past few weeks.

The Agriculture Committee takes regular briefings on budgetary and financial matters as part of its ongoing remit to scrutinise its Department. We last did so just before the Christmas recess, when we heard about DARD's plans for the January monitoring round. In the financial year 2012-13, DARD achieved an out-turn of 99·8% on resource and 98·9% on capital. DARD hopes to achieve the same level of performance in this financial year, and we as a Committee will scrutinise and call the Department to account if it does not.

We heard that, during the year, it had to give up moneys to ensure that it met those targets. It gave up money that it cannot spend this year on the proposed new IT system for animals and food products, to be called the Northern Ireland food animal information system (NIFAIS). It is the replacement for the current animal and public health information system (APHIS). The Committee is concerned about that because APHIS and its replacement are essential to the agrifood industry, enabling traceability and, thus, trade in Northern Ireland and internationally.

One of the main financial issues exercising the Committee and that I wish to cover is that of the budget for the new rural development programme 2014-2020. All here are aware that the Agriculture Minister's decision to transfer 7% of funding from CAP pillar 1 to pillar 2 was successfully challenged in the courts. That decision means that €137·5 million is retained in the pillar 1 budget over the 2014–2020 period, and that goes directly to the farming community. The Minister indicated that she will now go to the Executive on the issue. The Committee took oral evidence recently from a range of organisations. In discussions, it indicated that it is content and indeed supports the call for Minister O'Neill to go to the Executive. However, the Committee will need to see the detail of any proposals before it can endorse them.

People are linking the issue of funding for the rural development programme to the Agri-Food Strategy Board's document 'Going for Growth'. It was published in May 2013 and has a stated request of £400 million from central government. As the Chamber will be aware, agrifood and that strategy are key targets in the Programme for Government which fall jointly to DARD and DETI. It should not be linked exclusively to the rural development programme (RDP), but there will be some important overlap that I will elaborate on.

The agrifood industry is very important to Northern Ireland. It has substantial potential to create jobs and wealth. It employs 27,000 in the food and drink processing sector and another 47,000 in farming. There is real potential to grow the industry even further with an estimated extra 15,000 jobs and a growth in sales to £7 billion. Those jobs and that wealth can be spread across Northern Ireland, and, with the right financial incentives, that growth could soon happen. The industry has told us that the opportunities are there now, ready to be acted on. We have been told that an immediate three-year commitment of £400 million could yield immediate results in jobs and wealth creation. It could also lever in investment of over £1·3 billion from the industry.

Many of the proposals in 'Going for Growth' sit very well with the proposals in the RDP. There is near-perfect alignment with the farm business investment scheme, but we need to know what is happening and how the funding required for the rural development programme and 'Going for Growth' will be realised.

We know that some movement has been made with the recent announcement by the ETI Minister of the agrifood loan scheme. I wish to congratulate the ETI Minister and the Finance and Personnel Minister on that initiative. Many local farmers have shown an interest in the scheme, and we hope to see a rapid development in capital investment for poultry houses in the near future. Alongside that are the recent announcements on a coordinated approach to, and ease around, planning issues. That proves that, when we put our minds to it, a joined-up approach can and does work well for our industry. On behalf of the ARD Committee, I would welcome any indication from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that those issues have been discussed at the Executive and are beginning to impact on the financial planning and budget of the Executive.

Another financial issue concerning the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee is the budget and eventual cost of the proposed trap, vaccinate and release (TVR) exercise to combat bovine TB. DARD has been preparing for some time — too long, I believe — to undertake pilots of TVR of badgers. We are aware that the scheme could be costly, and have been asking for some time for indicative costs and timetables. There is no doubt that bovine TB is costly to the Northern Ireland economy and purse, but it is also costly to individual farms, farmers and the industry in general.

Every monitoring round, departmental officials come to the Committee and indicate that they will be seeking additional millions of pounds from the Executive to help pay the costs associated with this disease. We had a little bit of good news in the last monitoring round with the receipt of £3 million of additional EU vet funds. After consulting with DFP, the Department has been allowed to use that to offset the additional costs of TB compensation. That underlines why we need to ensure that any scheme to tackle bovine TB is cost-effective, represents an efficient use of resources and is capable of being delivered in a timely manner. We expect that the cost of TVR will be in the 2014-15 budget, and we look forward to hearing from DARD on that aspect.

The Committee has also been briefed on the capital funding DARD will need to deliver flood alleviation measures over the next four financial years. In 2014-15, it will require £2·8 million. In the period to 2017-18, that will rise to around £18 million. Flooding is on the mind of everyone at the moment. We have all seen the destruction that the winter storms have brought to our shores. Over the past few years, every MLA has been all too familiar with flooding and the devastation and misery it brings to families, so we are pleased that DARD and the Rivers Agency are taking it seriously and that the finance will be available to carry on this important work in 2014-15.

The Committee has also taken a keen interest in tree disease, and we are pleased to note that it has been a while since any new cases of ash dieback were discovered here. It is, therefore, more disappointing when we hear that there have been further and substantial outbreaks of larch tree disease. We are also pleased to note that DARD and the Forest Service took the advice offered by the Committee and offered a restocking grant to those landowners who were affected by ash dieback. However, we are still concerned about the lack of legislation on pre-notification for five other tree species that are at serious threat.

Throughout Europe and, indeed, the world, tree disease is on the rise, and the cost of tackling it is rising also. DARD and Forest Service tell the Committee that they are handling this with their current allocation of resources. There has also been a transfer of plant health functions from DARD to Forest Service, which will apparently help. However, the Committee still has doubts about whether the cost of tackling tree disease in Northern Ireland has been properly costed and is correctly resourced.

Finally, another major financial issue for the Committee is the DARD headquarters relocation. Although we are still awaiting the business case for the main relocation of the DARD headquarters to Ballykelly, the Committee has not lost sight of the fact that many DARD functions will move to other locations. For example, fisheries will move to the east coast, forestry to Fermanagh and the Rivers Agency to Desertcreat. All that will come at a cost. DARD officials told the Committee that it will cost an estimated £18 million in capital over the next four financial years. Although the expenditure in 2014-15 will be minimal, as a Committee, we want to make sure that the costs that are associated with the proposed DARD headquarter relocations are correctly estimated and, importantly, adhered to. That is the big task for DARD in this incoming financial year.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the spring Supplementary Estimates. As a new member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I welcomed the opportunity of a briefing to the Committee from departmental officials from the central expenditure division. Speaking as an individual MLA, I can say that, since that briefing, a number of significant allocations and easements have been made over the three monitoring rounds. I just want to pay a wee bit of attention to DARD's allocation of £17 million of resource and £4·6 million in capital.

One of the main modules is a £3 million allocation for the common agricultural policy and the £5·3 million that the Executive allocated for the hardship scheme. Given that the Chair of that Committee has just spoken, I will not labour the other aspects of the funding in that budget. However, I want to pay some attention to the hardship scheme and to the much-needed funding that has been allocated to it to assist farmers who were affected by adverse weather recently and in March 2013 for such things as fodder and the disposal of fallen animals. All the funding that was given to farmers arose out of the snowstorms in 2013 and was much needed. I commend the Executive and Department for acting swiftly on the hardship scheme, and I also commend the Minister for visiting all the affected areas.

Given that, as recently as lunchtime today, we were given a yellow warning for severe weather over the next week, that payment should be available immediately if we are faced with the extreme weather conditions that we faced last year.

I also briefly want to major on the A5 and the £108 million that was handed back and reallocated to capital projects in the Department of Health and DRD. Given that the Executive gave a commitment to the A5 and that the Minister has continually repeated in the House that the A5 is deferred and not shelved, I am concerned that that construction should start soon because of the impact that would have right across the west.

Although DE is providing the money in the education budget for the campus at Lisanelly, with an estimated budget of £120 million that will cater for almost 4,000 pupils, we have been given reassurances and a commitment from the Minister that funding for the campus will be ring-fenced. Such is the importance of the project in my area, the Executive have included a specific target in their Programme for Government to progress work on the site. Indeed, the project will enhance the facilities that we have there.

I particularly commend Departments for continuing to work in a sensible way on their budgets. Although I am not speaking as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), I commend the work of that Committee in highlighting best and worst practice in departmental spend. The PAC, from time to time, will make recommendations on how best Departments can manage their budgets in a sensible and mature way.

I do not think that Members will have any difficulty with supporting the Estimates resolution, and on that basis I support the motion.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Members will recall that we have all made contributions to this debate over the past number of years of this mandate. Last year, I contributed to a similar debate. On that occasion, I indicated that the Committee for Education had received the monitoring round information and questioned the Department throughout the financial year on its spend. I also advised the House that the Committee had endeavoured to track the changes in spending that had manifested themselves in the spring Supplementary Estimates.

As I said then, this is not an easy process for any Member or Committee to be involved in. In the first place, the Estimates can be very difficult to navigate. As other Members have mentioned, the format of the document makes it hard to sometimes identify the key changes in budget spend. For example, the increase in the net resource requirement for the Department of Education is a worrying £52 million. However, after some inquiries, it becomes clear that that is largely due to the misalignment between the 2010 opening budget and the present position. That, however, is not explained in the Estimates.

There is also an almost equally worrying increase in the net resource requirement for the teachers’ pension scheme of some £10 million. Again after making some inquiries, I understand that that is a consequence of the re-evaluation of pension liabilities. The basis of that is also not explained in the Estimates document. So, there are issues that arise that make it challenging for Committees and Members to scrutinise and ensure that they have a proper understanding of the process that is before them.

The Committee will, of course, continue to ask the right questions of the Department of Education in respect of its spending. However, I suggest that, as part of the ongoing review of the financial process, consideration is given by the Minister and his Department to the simplification of the Estimates documents. I put my hands up as someone who probably needs as much assistance and help on that issue as anyone in this House.

In the Education Committee, we have a particular problem with financial scrutiny. The Department of Education does not participate in the DFP-sponsored monitoring of savings delivery plans and operates a large contingency fund, which at the start of the financial year had around £30 million in it. That is a reasonably good, healthy slush fund for any Department to have at its beck and call. That is despite the fact that in previous correspondence the Finance Minister had raised concerns about the use of such a contingency fund and that the current and previous Finance Ministers have raised concerns about the Department of Education not participating in the savings delivery plan process.

The Department indicates that it aims to have the contingency fund fully spent before the end of the year. To be fair, against a resource budget of nearly £2 billion, it is worthy of note that the Department had no resource Estimates and successfully bid for only £2 million in 2013-14. Overall, the Department has previously done quite well in respect of its total resource spending targets.

Repeatedly, the Department tells us that it has been good at balancing the books. However, I suspect that, if you were to ask some schools that face particular challenges and problems in relation to either capital or resource, they would question that comment. The use of contingency funds makes scrutiny by a statutory Committee such as the Education Committee more difficult. Indeed, the Education Minister’s recent announcement that he is to establish another contingency fund for the common funding scheme will present another scrutiny challenge for the Committee in the next financial year.

The absence of information on the savings delivery plans also makes it difficult for the Committee to determine the extent of cost savings and their impact on front line services. Of particular concern is the reduction in the Curriculum and Advisory Support Service (CASS). The details of that are difficult to pin down, but the reality and the impact are not so difficult to locate. One only has to speak to many of the professional teachers and staff in our schools and those in the education and library boards. They will concur with the challenges that that has created.

In respect of the Department of Education’s capital budget, which is around £110 million, £2·7 million of Estimates were linked to asset sales and a successful bid of £5 million in 2013-14. The scrutiny of DE’s capital presents another problem. The monthly summary report on capital build progress appears to include a lot of what can only be described as out-of-date information. Indeed, well over half the projects in the report have actually been concluded. I find it more than a little difficult to reconcile that information with the ongoing departmental press releases on new school builds, which could give a distortion as to the reality of delivery on the ground as regards capital. The Committee will continue to scrutinise the important aspects of DE’s spend. I suggest, however, that this should not be as difficult as it is currently. Surely, there has to be a better way.

In concluding my remarks as Chairperson, I would like to pass on the Committee’s thanks to the Finance Minister for the allocations received by the Department of Education this year, including the £3·5 million for the Delivering Social Change programme.

I will now make a few comments as a Member of the House before time runs out. I wish to raise the serious ongoing issue of the common funding formula scheme. I want this clearly on the record; I was accused — and the words, if you check Hansard, are correct — of "telling lies" about figures used when the Department of Education produced information on the common funding formula that stated that 76% of Catholic primary schools in the Western Education and Library Board would lose money. Despite the comments made by Members opposite, those figures have now been substantiated and those figures are correct.

Despite Members opposite trying to hide, cause diversion and find a way whereby they could ensure that their blushes were in some way concealed, the situation this week is that the responses to the common funding formula at the Education Committee will prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that there was huge concern in the community about the proposals being brought forward by the Education Minister on the continued funding of the common funding formula scheme. It is now well past the time for the Minister to come to the House and tell the schools, which are being asked to have a three-year financial plan and planning process, what he is doing about the budgets of our schools. What is happening in relation to the common funding formula scheme? After Wednesday, when they will have access to the papers that have been presented to the Education Committee today, Members will see that this scheme, proposed by the Education Minister, is financially not fit for purpose.

I will conclude on another issue. The Member who spoke previously referred to the Lisanelly project. For that project to work, it requires not only finance but faith — faith in the delivery of the model that is on the table. Everybody — I underscore the word "everybody" — and every school in Omagh, not just some schools, needs to have confidence that what is proposed is something that they are buying into.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is almost up.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

If that is the case, the money that is allocated will be money well spent.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Members will probably have read the Hansard report of the Finance and Personnel Committee’s meeting on the spring Supplementary Estimates and will, therefore, be aware of DSD's current budget position.

The Committee welcomes the allocations that DSD has achieved — for example, some £15 million has been allocated to Co-ownership. This will undoubtedly help the construction industry and will certainly be welcomed by those aiming to get on the housing ladder. However, although some have realistic aspirations to get on the housing ladder, there are many more for whom it will remain an aspiration and who simply need access to social housing. The reality is that we are not building enough social housing to meet the need. It is, therefore, unacceptable and quite unbelievable, in some respects, that, on the basis of the last three monitoring rounds, DSD now has a reduced requirement of over £66 million. The Committee recognises that much of that relates to the non-release of money in respect of planned maintenance contracts, but that is another day's discussion. We all hope that that situation can be resolved sooner rather than later. However, the Committee has been amazed and unanimously expressed its concerns, with varying degrees of stridency across the membership, at the sheer inability of the Housing Executive, the Department and the housing associations to get to grips with the barriers that prevent more social housing being built.

The Department is sending out a dangerous message that it cannot spend the money it has been allocated. That means the surrender of almost £40 million of Northern Ireland Housing Executive housing grant. People on the waiting list and those in need of maintenance work on their home will see handing back that amount of money as a dereliction of duty and responsibility. Generally speaking, people are not interested in whether the money is defined as capital or resource, what the nature of the bids is or what the Supplementary Estimates indicate; they are more interested in receiving services that they need and having the basic need for a roof over their head met.

The Department’s surrender of money, monitoring round after monitoring round, has regrettably become a recurring issue and one of great concern to the Committee. As I said, members have expressed their concerns with varying degrees of strength and opposition. What we tend to see, monitoring round after monitoring round, therefore, is a scrabbling around to find areas for which the Department can bid for funds — such as the ill-conceived and ultimately failed buy-back scheme of former Housing Executive-owned houses — rather than appropriate budgeting and spending in the first place.

As I said, the Committee broadly supports the co-ownership scheme. However, in the October monitoring round, some concern was expressed that £15 million was allocated to Co-ownership, with a bid for an additional £10 million, while there were no bids relating to social housing. A key and enduring concern in the Committee has been the Department’s continued failure to spend the budget that it has been allocated for the building of social housing. This is at a time when demand is high and the construction industry is just about on its knees. One would think that building more social housing was a win-win situation. Building more housing would see more people in homes while creating much-needed employment. Although the Department has spent some of the budget on very worthwhile schemes, such as the boiler replacement scheme that we all welcome, it is the reduced requirements and subsequent handing back of moneys to build social housing that really stands out. In the June and October monitoring rounds, the Committee expressed grave concerns about handing back money that is vital for social housing; yet, the money continues to be handed back.

The bottom line for members is that the Department hands back tens of millions of pounds when it desperately needs to be spent. The Committee finds it difficult to accept that such a failure persists. The Committee for Finance and Personnel has made clear its concerns that Departments do not appear to be on top of their budget. As far as the Committee for Social Development is concerned, that certainly appears to the case for DSD.

The Committee emphasises that it does not expect to see a continuation of the recent trend of surrendering money and will treat any proposals to do so in future monitoring rounds with the detailed examination that they deserve. As Chair, I thank the Committee for its diligent work in trying to maintain a focus on the problems with the budget, particularly the social housing budget. It will remain a key focus for the Committee in the time ahead. I also thank the Committee officials for their due diligence in supporting the Committee in trying to monitor these developments.

I will now speak as a Member and not as Chair of the Committee. I just want to make a couple of points. The Minister referred to welfare reform and said that these matters were not being taken seriously. I suggest that my party certainly takes these matters very seriously. Sinn Féin cannot and will not ignore the serious and negative impact of many of the key elements of the Welfare Reform Bill. I remind the Minister that his party was initially prepared to say that, because the Bill is parity legislation, we have to have it as it is. I am very pleased to say that, despite the fact that some in the Chamber resisted any attempt to secure changes to the Bill, we have managed to agree some that will be very important in due course for mitigating measures. Nevertheless, my party believes that much more can be done. We take the Welfare Reform Bill and the issues involved very seriously, and we are particularly concerned about the impact that it will have on many people whom all the parties in the Chamber represent. If implemented unchanged, the Welfare Reform Bill, which we call a cuts agenda from London, would take a considerable amount of money out of the pockets of people whom we represent and therefore out of the local economy.

It is unfortunate that the Minister began his announcement today in a fantasy area, making up figures as he went along. That does not help, and his party would be better committing itself to working with us and others who have serious concerns about the Bill. I know that his party has concerns about the Bill, so let us work together to secure the further changes that, I believe, can still be secured for all the people whom we represent. We take the matter seriously, as I believe most people do. All the parties here would do well to work together to make sure that we make the necessary changes to the Bill, which we can do, if we put our shoulders to the wheel.

I mentioned the social housing programme in my remarks as Chair. My party and the Committee members whom I represent believe that DSD's treatment of the social housing development programme is nothing less than shameful. It is absolutely shameful that we hand back tens of millions of pounds when people are crying out for a roof over their head or trying to get maintenance carried out on their home or when contractors are virtually going to the wall because they cannot get contracts released to do the necessary work, despite the fact that the money is there in the budget. This is not even a case of people trying to get or secure a budget; the budget is there to build more homes and maintain people's homes to a proper standard.

The failure of the Department is becoming almost legendary, and, on behalf of my party, I repeat that that is absolutely unacceptable. It tells me that the Department completely lacks the capacity to take these matters forward and, perhaps, even the will to deliver a social housing programme that is fit for purpose and meets needs, particularly in light of the additional pressures that will come to bear on people through the introduction of the Bill from Westminster. More people will need access to social housing, and the people who require those houses will need different tenures. The Department is sitting on its hands and not tackling the problems.

I accept entirely that there are barriers to liberating the social housing programme. Indeed, the housing association movement came to the Committee and presented a range of barriers — I do not have to agree with all of them — to the social housing build programme, including land acquisition, procurement, planning and even local objections to particular initiatives and projects. Notwithstanding that, the Department gave us a commitment that, month on month, it will sit with the housing association movement and work to remove all those necessary barriers. To date, we have heard nothing about how those barriers have been tackled, and, again, that tells me that the Department does not have the capacity or perhaps even the will to take the social housing programme forward. As far as my party is concerned, our focus in the time ahead will be on ensuring that the moneys that have been allocated by the Executive, including the DUP members, will provide support for the social housing development programme to go ahead and go ahead much better than it has done until now.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Initially, I will speak as Chair of the Committee.

A couple of issues came up in Committee that the Minister may wish to address. In the October monitoring round, the Committee sought clarification and further explanation of the £17·1 million capital spend for the Invest NI headquarters. The Department responded:

"an opportunity had arisen to acquire the shared capital of BSDL",

which stands for "Bedford Street Developments Ltd". The Department said that the building was under a PFI contract between Invest NI and BSDL. It continued:

"Invest NI was able to buy the shares of BSDL at a competitive price and it is estimated that the transaction will result in savings to the NI Block of around £7m versus the original arrangements ... the public sector will retain ownership of the building, whereas it would have reverted to the private sector under the previous arrangements."

During January monitoring, the Committee was concerned that there was a £250,000 reduction in administration costs due to unfilled posts at the Health and Safety Executive NI (HSENI), especially given the importance of health and safety. It is not, relatively speaking, a lot of money, but the consequences of not fulfilling its role adequately could be dire. I have but to point out many of the major and catastrophic accidents that there have been, particularly on farms, over this past wee while. Such incidents have drawn a lot of media attention and, for families, brought deep, deep loss. Members sought information on the posts that remained unfilled, the duration of the vacancies, the reason for not filling posts and how succession planning had not been undertaken. The Department responded that 60% of the budget released related to unfilled trainee inspector posts. It said in its response:

"Eight Trainee Inspectors were appointed to HSENI in November 2013, taking the inspectorate staff to full complement. The HSENI has sufficient staff to fulfil its role, including its role in relation to the Farm Safety Campaign."

Other underspend related to normal staff movements in the Northern Ireland Civil Service on promotion or transfer. There has also been a vacancy at senior medical officer level, following a retirement in June 2013. Attempts to fill the post have been unsuccessful, and interim arrangements are in place with the Occupational Health Service.

The Committee sought clarification on a reduced requirement regarding £30,000 ring-fenced funding for small business research initiative (SBRI) costs for nitrates that cannot be utilised in the financial year. The Department responded that the SBRI competition for the development of solutions for the sustainable utilisation of poultry litter opened in December 2012. Following an competition in which 39 bids were received, nine phase-one contracts were awarded at a total cost of £648,000. The contracts for those projects completed in November 2013. Contractors have submitted end-of-phase-one reports, which are currently being assessed by the SBRI project team. That is of vital importance to our agriculture sector and, particularly, our agrifood farmers. The House may also wish to note that a total of £10 million was ring-fenced in the 2012-13 DETI budget in the expectation that the issue of the EU nitrates directive and the disposal of chicken litter would have to be addressed. Most of the allocation was surrendered in the October monitoring round in 2012.

The Committee noted that INTERREG IVa projects have not drawn down the amounts previously forecast by the Special EU Programmes Body. That is a deferral of expenditure to future years, and the Committee wrote to the SEUPB on the matter. It responded that the situation resulted from lead partners being overly optimistic about project implementation timetables. The SEUPB must strike a balance and work largely on the basis of information provided by lead partners on potential requirements. In addition, the capital tourism projects in particular have presented significant problems. The Committee contacted the Department and is awaiting a response regarding any projects relating to the Department where there may have been a delay.

Those are the views that I have been asked to relay on behalf of the Committee. That takes me neatly into an area that I will divide between potential and disappeared. I will deal with the disappeared first: funds that have been announced and have just disappeared. This does not relate specifically to the Minister, so he will have to bear with me. I know that he is fresh in post, so I cannot lay this at his table. The Emerging Europe fund was announced to provide investment in Northern Ireland, and it was announced by OFMDFM on a trip to New York in March 2009. It was established by the then New York comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli. Of a total of $100 million, $30 million was said to be earmarked for projects in the North. We have raised this, and we have sought clarification from OFMDFM. To date, of the $30 million that had been earmarked, apparently, five years later there is no mention of it. Some $30 million of funding has disappeared. Like the Emerald Fund before it, this appears to have been yet another short-term PR gimmick for OFMDFM that has delivered nothing. Announcements made and repeated; money allocated, allegedly; money sought from overseas; and money disappeared, not spent. It is important to put that on record, because we have enough smoke and mirrors around this place and enough gimmicks and stunts. People who are finding it difficult enough to put food on the table for them and their family look towards that investment for them and for the future sustainability of the North's economy.

That brings me on to something that was touched on by Mr Swann: the drawdown of EU funds in regard to what has to be one of the key elements of any form of recovery of the North here as an economy, and that is research and innovation. Specifically, I refer to framework programme 7 (FP7), now latterly merged and evolved into Horizon 2020 EU funds. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the drawdown of FP7 here in the North amounted to €35 per capita, and, just a few miles down the road in the rest of the island, it amounted to €590 per capita. FP7 is acknowledged to have been a difficult enough programme because of its bureaucratic nature.

We are missing out on serious opportunities to help develop the economy. I know that the Minister has an interest in a lot of these matters and takes it very seriously, but I had an experience last week where we sought information from a major stakeholder — the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce — and asked if there had been any formal engagement with it around Horizon 2020. To my surprise and disappointment, the answer was no. There had been no engagement with a major stakeholder representing 500 businesses across the North to see what opportunities could be availed of.

I mentioned that the Government in the Republic had set a target of €1·25 billion or €1·4 billion, depending on what you read. They have the ambition to do that. What has been set here — the First Minister referred to it earlier — was a target of £100 million. That is twice the previous drawdown, which was £50 million. By comparison, it is not a very ambitious target to set. Opportunities have to be availed of. Those opportunities are out there. Others just down the road can draw down those funds, avail themselves of those opportunities, get out there and search for the moneys and revitalise their economy, with their help because of the nature of the programme. We can draw down and be much more ambitious and proactive. Departments right across have to really step up to the mark.

There are other issues. I am also chair of the all-party working group on construction. I seriously do not know how many times we will have announcements made of capital projects — and announced again and announced again. We had a presentation recently where I met CCMS. They told me that, in capital works on new schools that were announced in January 2012, not a brick had been laid. I genuinely want to see the construction industry move, but those capital schemes must be seen to develop and to actually happen on the ground in the interests of that construction sector and its service and related sectors. Minister, it is not immediately your brief, but contractors have been in touch with me. The work is clearly there and the money is there, yet the contracts are not happening on the ground. I refer to the window suppliers, and hopefully we will hear more from the Housing Executive tomorrow. Some sort of impetus has to be injected into it to make sure that the work happens on the ground.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

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

People look to us and to the Executive.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

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

It can be done, it should be done, and it must be done.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

My first remarks will be as Chair, and then I will address some points in my capacity as a Member. In-year, the Department briefed the Committee on its monitoring round returns and proposals. I am glad to say that the Committee was broadly satisfied with the Department’s approach to the matter.

The Committee noted the easements in relation to capital spend at the Maze/Long Kesh site, with some £3·5 million returned in January monitoring. The Committee hopes that agreement is reached on a way ahead at the site in the coming weeks so that the site's full economic benefit will be achieved. The Committee is mindful of a commitment in the 2011-15 Programme for Government for the Maze/Long Kesh site for this financial year — 2013-14 — on the commencement of site infrastructure. It appears to the Committee that, in the absence of further knowledge, the £3·5 million that was returned in January monitoring was for site infrastructure that did not take place this year.

The Committee also welcomed the bid of £1·6 million in the October monitoring round that allows the Victims and Survivors Service to meet the demands for the financial assistance regular allowance scheme and some other work streams. However, the Committee had some concerns that the financial assistance regular allowance scheme was effectively closed in June last year. The Committee hopes that the current review of the Victims and Survivors Service by the commissioner will address how funding is applied for and granted. I commend Committee members for the scrutiny that they brought to bear on this area. It is an interest that has yielded positive change and some worthwhile and significant improvements for victims and survivors.

In relation to additional allocations through the year, the Committee welcomes the progress that has been made on the inquiry into historical institutional abuse. The additional funding required to progress it is to be welcomed. The Committee looks forward to a briefing from the Department on the scoping paper on options for victims of institutional abuse and Magdalene laundry-type institutions who currently fall outside the remit of the inquiry chaired by Sir Anthony Hart.

Looking at the allocations made throughout the year, we can see that there are discrepancies with what the Committee was advised of during the monitoring rounds. There seems to be around £26 million extra in capital allocations. I am led to believe that that is in relation to Department for Employment and Learning funding for the University of Ulster. The Committee has not been formally notified of that allocation, and my information comes from last week's briefing to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister of Finance and Personnel could shed some light on that issue.

I will also highlight some Members' concern about scrutiny of the Executive’s ring-fenced Delivering Social Change fund. It includes the social investment fund, which we heard about from the First Minister earlier, the childcare fund and the Delivering Social Change signature programme fund. The Committee encourages greater transparency on how those Executive funds are allocated and spent, as it seems that OFMDFM has accessed some £2 million of that funding and there has been no information from the Department on what it is intended for. I thank Committee members and staff for their attention over the year to financial scrutiny.

I now move on to make some personal comments on the spring Supplementary Estimates. It is a matter of regret that should be shared throughout the House that the development of the Maze/Long Kesh site appears to be on hold and we have no certainty about what is happening today or what is planned for tomorrow. We have Members, including the First Minister, who seem to believe that Sinn Féin holds a veto on the development of the entire site in the absence of the peace-building and conflict resolution centre, while others — Members of the House and elected representatives from elsewhere, such as Sammy Wilson and Jeffrey Donaldson — argue that they see no reason why the development of the site should not go ahead. In its forward work programme, the Committee had a briefing scheduled for this Wednesday from the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It is my understanding that that will not go ahead. Officials will tell us about the development of some of the other sites under the control of OFMDFM but not about the plans for the Maze/Long Kesh.

Mr Maskey, as Chair of the Social Development Committee, made clear the anger in his community at money not being spent, perhaps being wasted and perhaps being returned to the Treasury. Here is £3·5 million that was allocated for the development of the Maze/Long Kesh site, money that is not being used in this financial year. That is £3·5 million that could be spent on infrastructure. Indeed, a portion of it could be spent on delisting and demolishing the retained prison buildings, and, perhaps, then we could move on.

The Committee has, as I said, done a great deal of scrutiny of the Victims and Survivors Service that has led to the exposure of issues that needed to be addressed. One example was a victim in a wheelchair who required a replacement wheelchair but was told that she had to source three quotes, pay for the chair and keep the receipt so that she could claim the money back. That is no longer the case, and I give credit to the Committee and the individual Members for highlighting that issue and making sure that it was addressed by the Department. The commissioner is currently conducting a review of the Victims and Survivors Service that may have resource implications. I would very much welcome that resource being made available, not least to deal with the call from victims for a fixed point of reference with the Victims and Survivors Service so that, at all times, they know that they have a champion in that institution.

The historical institutional abuse inquiry began without a budget line determined, so it is welcome that a line has been found for Sir Anthony Hart. The Committee has asked for a briefing from the senior official who was appointed by the Department to scope out what could be done for victims who were subject to institutional abuse in institutions not covered by the inquiry, particularly Magdalene laundry-type institutions. Many victims of clerical abuse were not abused within institutions, and I say frankly that it is not good enough to say that they should have recourse to either the PSNI or social services. If there is an inquiry for one group of victims, surely there should be inquiries for all. It is not good enough to say that we will let this process run out before considering the next process. Time is the enemy. I will quote Christine Smith QC, counsel to the HIA inquiry. On the first day of the public sessions in Banbridge she remarked:

"Unfortunately some of those individuals who might have taken part in the Inquiry are no longer with us".

Poignantly, she went on to say:

"some who have spoken to the Inquiry about their experiences in preparation for the public hearings have not lived to see this day."

Even in the period between the announcement of the HIA inquiry and the first public hearing, some of the victims of institutional abuse have passed on to another place.

Those are the concerns coming forward from the Committee and me.

The Committee would like some clarity on the £26 million in capital allocations and the £2 million as previously stated. I will also say that the Committee has some well-rehearsed issues with the Department to do with liaison and information sharing, but we are working those through. I am convinced that everybody has the will to make this better going forward. It is a critical Department in the Northern Ireland Executive. Once again, let me praise Committee members for their scrutiny of financial matters over the past 12 months.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and do so as the Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. I will start by thanking my colleague the Finance Minister for bringing the motion to the House. Like his predecessor, the Minister has been very generous to the Department for Regional Development throughout the monitoring rounds in a number of areas. I also recognise the work that has been done by the Minister for Regional Development and his staff and their efforts to allocate money, on the whole, to the best uses possible.

The introduction to the Supplementary Estimates states that, overall, there was an increase in the net resource requirement of £22·5 million and a decrease in the net cash requirement of £102 million. Officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel briefed the Committee on 5 February 2014. During that briefing, they provided further detail on the allocations and easements in respect of the Department. They quite rightly described them as being significant. I would therefore like to spend a little time on those issues.

Northern Ireland has over 15,500 miles of roads, making them one of its biggest assets. Over the year, the Department for Regional Development has successfully bid for over £80 million for capital investment, the overwhelming majority of which, some £53 million, is directed towards roads structural maintenance. That should allow for a total of £119 million to be spent this year on maintaining roads.

It has been independently assessed that the Department needs some £129 million a year just to maintain the existing road network. We currently have a backlog of £830 million in respect of roads structural maintenance. The Northern Ireland branch of the Institution of Civil Engineers has called for the provision of a secure road-maintenance budget and prioritisation of existing strategic road schemes. In its 'State of the Nation' report on transport, it identified what it believed would be the consequences of not delivering appropriate levels of investment in the roads and transport infrastructure. They include increasing levels of pollution in towns; decreasing economic and social alliance between communities; decreasing levels of health arising from reliance on private cars; decreasing performance of Northern Ireland's largest asset, namely its road network; and Northern Ireland's becoming a less attractive place to invest.

In addressing the Committee on January monitoring, Department for Regional Development officials advised of the consequences of bids for the structural maintenance programme's not being met. They said that failure to meet that bid would mean that maintenance priority would focus on repairing safety defects and only the highest priority remedial sites would receive resurfacing treatment. They said that that is likely to attract significant criticism from elected representatives and the construction industry as a whole, and that the cost of reactive patching is likely to increase, drawing further funding away from good-value maintenance activities, such as resurfacing and surface dressing. They also said that numbers and cost of public-liability claims is also likely to increase.

In the absence of a secure budget given the economic environment that we have been operating in, it is therefore imperative that DRD can bid in-year for additional money to address that deficit and that it is successful in doing so, not just because of the need to maintain our infrastructure. The benefits that accrue from maintaining our network are more than physical; for every £1 million invested in our roads, 28 jobs are sustained. The economic knock-on effect that these works have on our construction industry and the suppliers in the industry is immense; every £1 invested in construction generates £2·84 in total economic activity. The impact that the infrastructure has on tourism, driving our exports and imports and linking our communities is colossal. I again congratulate the Executive as a whole for the strategic approach they adopted when they considered the in-year bids for roads structural maintenance.

The Department has declared some significant reduced requirements. A total of £36 million is a reduced requirement for roads depreciation. This is in respect of land that the Department had been revaluing, which has not depreciated as significantly as it had assumed it would. It is a non-cash item and is ring-fenced.

The second easement was in respect of the A5 project and amounted to £108 million. That money has been reallocated, principally to the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Health. I do not intend to open a debate on the A5; the Minister for Regional Development has been very effective in keeping the House up to date on the matter.

I will return to the increased capital allocations and deal with the £7 million that has been gifted to the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, or Translink as it is more commonly referred to. The Committee is not opposed to investment in Translink per se. The Committee remains vociferously in support of the Belfast rapid transit project and the principle of the Belfast transport hub, which is now starting to formulate. However, the Committee is opposed to the automatic awarding of long-term and lucrative contracts to Translink without proper testing of the market — testing similar to that in the Republic of Ireland, which is putting 10% of its network out to tender and is, in the process, creating more jobs. The Committee believes that it reduces the incentive for Translink to be efficient, and it brings about incentives.

We are opposed to the chief executive of Translink coming to the Committee and brazenly declaring that Translink has £60 million in the bank while consistently running cap in hand to the Department for handouts. There is scope in existing legislation for the Minister for Regional Development to recoup such profits, and the Committee has called on the Minister to ease the burden on the public purse by doing so. Northern Ireland Water pays the Department a dividend of nearly £30 million each year. Why should Translink not do something similar? These issues were raised recently when the House debated the transport issue.

As the Committee sees it, Northern Ireland Water has very successfully come from its position under the previous chief executive, Mr Trevor Haslett CBE, to a company that is very much upfront and doing a pretty excellent job.

I urge the Finance Minister to continue to look at end-year flexibility. I know that he has been doing that with Northern Ireland Water. The benefits of such an arrangement to allow Northern Ireland Water the ability to undertake strategic infrastructural programmes are enormous and, again, would be of enormous benefit to the construction industry, constituents plagued by flooding and to our environment generally. I ask the Minister to look at those areas —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is almost up.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

— and to consider the issues with the Treasury in end-year flexibility.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the opportunity to address the House as Chair of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. This year, the Department of Health had to find £139 million of savings. By September 2013, it was able to make £20 million of those savings. The latest correspondence that the Committee has received via the Department of Finance and Personnel is that the Department is still on track to make the £139 million of savings by the end of this financial year. However, given the pressures that the Department is facing, there are, in my view, some very serious questions around how those savings will actually be made.

I note that £35 million of headroom has been built into the spring Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Health. There is certainly a view that that is a sensible move, given the pressures that the Department is under.

In December, the Committee held an evidence session with departmental officials on the financial position for 2013-14, and we are due to receive a further update directly from the Minister at our meeting this week. In December, officials told us that the Department still has a funding gap for 2013-14. Given the extent of that gap, the Department submitted a bid of £67 million under the January monitoring round. That comprised £20 million for clinical negligence settlements; £12 million for elective care; £10 million for winter pressures; £7 million for safety of services; £7 million for Transforming Your Care (TYC) transitional funding; £5 million for domiciliary care; and £5 million for children’s services.

The Department advised the Committee that it prioritised those bids for submission to DFP. The highest priority bid was £20 million for clinical negligence settlements. Three bids were classified at the next tier of importance, because they would have an impact on safety. Those were the bids for quality and safety of services, winter pressures and children’s services.

The outcome of the January monitoring round was announced on 21 January. The Assembly was advised that the Department of Health would receive £30 million. However, there were no precise details about how the £30 million would be allocated across the range of bids that were submitted. The Committee, therefore, wrote to the Department to seek clarification. In addition, the Department originally bid for £67 million, which means that £37 million of the bid was not met. Again, the Committee wrote to the Department to ask how it intended to meet that gap. Unfortunately, we have not yet received answers to those questions.

We are concerned, therefore, about whether money will be made available out of the £30 million received in the January monitoring round to drive forward the changes set out in Transforming Your Care. It was originally estimated that £70 million would be needed over three years to implement TYC. The Department received £19 million from the Executive in 2012-13 to fund TYC transitional costs and a further £9·4 million in the June monitoring round this year. However, further money is required in 2013-14 to keep things moving forward. This is long-term work. If the funds are not made available to implement it, a lot of hard work may come to very little.

The Department of Health also made bids in the June and October monitoring rounds for 2013-14. In the October monitoring round, the Department submitted a bid of £64 million: £26 million for elective care, £20 million for clinical negligence and £18 million for Transforming Your Care. It received £14 million to address elective care waiting lists. Although the Committee welcomed that money coming into the Department of Health, it is fair to say that we are concerned that a substantial proportion of it is being spent on the private sector. In our view, that is not a sustainable solution, does not represent best value for money and is not getting to the root of the problem.

The Committee also noted that the Department has, since October 2011, been making bids in the monitoring rounds to address waiting lists. Under DFP rules, bids are supposed to be only for major and unforeseen circumstances. Given that the Department has been aware of the issue for years, there is a question over whether the problems with the waiting lists are really unforeseen. The Committee is doing a review of waiting times, and we will present our recommendations to the Minister in due course.

I will make my final comments in my capacity as an individual MLA. Concerns are rife that Transforming Your Care transitional funding is at risk. However, in return for additional in-year flexibilities, the Executive had stipulated that the Department of Health should not table current expenditure bids except in the event of "major and unforeseeable circumstances". This year, the Department of Health has received £56 million in resource and £43 million in capital through monitoring rounds. Many will challenge that £20 million for clinical negligence is major and unforeseeable.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motions, which seek our approval for the Executive's final spending plans for 2013-14 and for interim resources and funding for the first few months of 2014-15 in the form of a Vote on Account.

As a member of the Finance and Personnel Committee, I have had the opportunity to examine the reconciliation between the figures in the Main Estimates, which were agreed last June, and the spring Supplementary Estimates before us today. As already stated, the amounts are significant, and this process gives legal form to the financial decisions made by the Executive in the monitoring rounds during this financial year. The monitoring rounds have allowed the Executive to redistribute reduced requirements from various Departments to emerging issues, and today is an opportunity to debate the changes that happened and the allocations made during this financial year.

This financial year continued to be a difficult one for the local economy. However, there are indications that the economic climate is improving. Indeed, just this morning, we heard that, in January, local businesses experienced their fastest rate of growth in almost 10 years. The Northern Ireland growth rate was also faster than that across the UK as a whole. So it is certainly not all doom and gloom, and we should take the opportunity to be positive about some things that we have achieved in the past year.

The Minister, in his opening remarks, outlined a number of those things and mentioned that, thanks to funding in part by the Executive, we can host a Heineken Cup quarter-final at the newly expanded capacity Ravenhill ground. I just hope that the weather on 5 April is kinder to us than it was last Friday night. The recent news of increasing employment is also to be welcomed and no doubt is, in some part, due to the continuing good work of Invest NI, which has benefited from monitoring round allocations on the resource and capital sides to enable it to continue to assist businesses here to realise their maximum potential in our economy.

The Department of Health also benefited significantly through an additional resource allocation of £57 million for a range of measures, including elective care and Transforming Your Care, and £44 million of capital for a range of infrastructure and medical equipment investments. I welcome those allocations, but, given the issues that have arisen when progressing Transforming Your Care, does the Minister believe that the financial resources available for its implementation are adequate?

The Department for Regional Development received almost £50 million for a range of areas including road repairs and street lighting improvements, and that, too, should be welcomed. Indeed, I have noticed a much improved can-do attitude from it in recent months in response to many requests.

Another positive allocation was the £5 million in capital to the Department of Education for minor works. Having taken the Education Minister to visit Strandtown Primary School this time last year so that he could see at first hand the challenges that the current building poses to staff and pupils, I am delighted that it is now benefiting during this financial year and undergoing a programme of minor works. However, there is still much pressure on our schools estate and a long way to go in addressing all the maintenance issues and newbuild requirements.

The Vote on Account for the 2014-15 financial year will ensure the continuation of services into that year. As we go into 2014-15, we must recognise that we do so with a significant overcommitment on both resource expenditure and capital investment. It is therefore important that we maximise the amount that we can carry forward under the Budget exchange scheme. We must also consider the burden that the failure to implement welfare reform will place on our Budget and, although I have concerns about some aspects of the Welfare Reform Bill, reductions of over £100 million in the next financial year are simply not affordable and will have a major impact on our public services.

Before I finish, I wish to raise again the issue of the review of the financial process. If we are to be able to scrutinise ministerial decisions effectively, we need to have better read-across between the various financial documents that are before us. I understand that the Education Minister still has some outstanding concerns about the proposed changes, and I am interested to know whether the Finance Minister believes that he can make any more headway than his predecessor in resolving that so that we can have enhance transparency and improved Assembly scrutiny. I support both motions.