Northern Ireland Assembly, 7 October 2014

391 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Before we begin our business, I wish to advise the House that the Speaker's Office has received a letter from Miss Sue Ramsey, giving notice that she intends to resign as a Member of the Assembly with effect from 3 November 2014. The Speaker's Office has notified the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Ministerial Statement

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In compliance with section 52C(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we wish to make the following statement on the eighteenth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in plenary format, which was held in Dublin on Friday 3 October 2014. The Executive Ministers who attended the meeting have agreed that we can make this report on their behalf. Our delegation was led by the First Minister, Peter Robinson MLA, and me. In addition, the following Executive Ministers were in attendance: Minister Farry, Minister Foster, Minister Hamilton, Minister Ní Chuilín, Minister O’Dowd, Minister O’Neill, Minister Wells, junior Minister Bell and junior Minister McCann

The Irish Government delegation was led by the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD, who chaired the meeting. The following Irish Government Ministers were also in attendance: Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Charles Flanagan, Minister Noonan, Minister Donohoe, Minister Humphreys, Minister Reilly, Minister of State English, Minister of State Nash and Minister of State Phelan. Following reshuffles in both Cabinets, a number of new Ministers were welcomed to the Council.

As has been the case in recent times, there was a strong focus on financial and economic matters at the meeting. We had a good discussion on the employment situation in both jurisdictions and measures to encourage job creation. These included discussions on actions to build trade links with developing markets, attracting foreign direct investment and issues relating to banking, in particular lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. Progress locally on the disposal of the portfolio of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) was welcomed by Ministers. We also discussed economic and budgetary challenges facing both administrations and measures aimed at rebalancing our economy. We took the opportunity to recognise and welcome the success of the Giro d’Italia cycling event, which secured widespread global media coverage. We also noted the opportunities for tourism and trade through the hosting of all-island events, and we agreed to continue to cooperate on a joint bid for the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

Discussions then moved on to European matters. We were updated on the current situation with respect to the INTERREG IVa and Peace III programmes. Both programmes are fully committed, and the challenge will be to ensure full expenditure by the end of 2015. Progress on the development of the new INTERREG V and Peace IV programmes for the period 2014–2020 was also discussed. The Council noted that the draft programmes had been submitted to the EU Commission by the deadline of 22 September 2014. We noted several other new European programmes that may present opportunities for cooperation to maximise the drawdown of EU funding to the island, and we agreed that they should be further examined. That is particularly worthwhile; European funding is an important resource, and we should be doing all we can to maximise it. We also reviewed other EU-related developments.

The Council noted that discussions on sectoral priorities have now taken place following the decisions taken at the last NSMC plenary in November 2013 and NSMC institutional in January 2014. The discussions focused on efforts to support economic recovery, job creation, and ensuring the best use of public funds and the most effective delivery of services for citizens. We agreed that it had been useful to review progress and identify opportunities in the existing agreed work programmes, and we noted that a report on other priorities identified during the ministerial discussions will be brought to the next NSMC institutional meeting.

The next item on the agenda was the north-west gateway initiative. We noted the conclusion of the consultation process that had been carried out with regional stakeholders relevant to the north-west gateway initiative. The Council also noted the views of the north-west gateway initiative regional stakeholders on the directions and priorities for the north-west region, including the desire for a renewed and strengthened strategic focus endorsed by both Governments. We agreed that further consultation with relevant Departments should be undertaken on the issues identified during the consultation process. The Council also reaffirmed its commitment to a future meeting of Ministers and officials in the north-west to consider strategic approaches to the development of the region.

The Council then noted the progress report prepared by the NSMC joint secretaries on the work of the North/South bodies and in the other NSMC areas for cooperation. It welcomed the following key developments: cooperation is continuing on strategic transport planning throughout the island; opportunities for further cooperation have been identified in developing the strategic road network of the island; enhancing connections to the north-west of the island; the future enhancement of the Enterprise service; driving a shift to public and more sustainable modes of transport and the potential for shared cross-border public transport services in border areas; and the development of cross-border greenways.

At the NSMC health meeting in April, Ministers were informed that the business planning process for the radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin was progressing, with work almost complete on finalising a memorandum of understanding and a service level agreement for the operation of the unit. Since that meeting, contracts have been finalised, and building work started on site in July. An app to allow smartphone and tablet access to the North/South child protection hub was launched by Childlink in February 2014.

Both Agriculture Departments continue to work closely on the policy options arising from the reform of the CAP. A joint workshop on educational underachievement was held in Armagh on 25 March 2014, and proposals to scope a cross-border pilot in support of leadership development involving existing groups of principals in both jurisdictions was agreed.

The contract for the all-island research study into the issue of airborne pollution from residential solid fuels, particularly smoky coal, has been awarded. Both Enterprise Departments and InterTradeIreland are working to encourage support for research and innovation activities, and they recognise that there is potential for North/South collaboration to increase the drawdown of funding. At their meeting in January, Ministers welcomed the establishment of the Horizon 2020 steering group and the appointment of the NI joint chair to the US-Ireland R&D Partnership, both of which are positive developments in that area.

At the special EU programmes meeting on 30 May 2014, as I have already mentioned, the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) reported that all available funding under Peace III and INTERREG IV had been committed.

The second phase of the multimedia consumer campaign by Safefood to target childhood obesity is focusing on the importance of exercise in tackling overweight and obesity in children.

The Loughs Agency in partnership with Co-operation Ireland has developed the Foyle river ambassadors citizenship scheme. It is a pilot youth leadership project that brings together young people from across Derry city in a personal development and citizenship programme, the theme of which is to promote the recreational and educational activities provided on the river.

Foras na Gaeilge has selected the six new lead organisations, operating on an all-island basis, to take forward the new funding arrangements for delivery of its strategic priorities. The Ulster-Scots Agency recently awarded over £300,000 to organisations to promote and deliver Ulster-Scots music and dance. Plans to restore the Upper Lough Erne to Clones section of the Ulster canal are being pursued by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

Official figures and sentiment showed a positive year of tourism growth in 2013. "The Gathering Ireland 2013" and Derry/Londonderry UK City of Culture 2013 were cited as successes by the vast majority of those in the industry. Trade and industry feedback on 2014 prospects and sentiment are generally positive.

We acknowledged the ongoing work on the reform of the North/South bodies' pension scheme, including recently approved amendments to ensure that the scheme complies with employment legislation and best practice in both jurisdictions and to increase employee contributions. We also noted the current position on a North/South consultative forum.

The Council approved a schedule of NSMC meetings proposed by the joint secretariat, including an NSMC institutional meeting in autumn 2014 and the next NSMC plenary meeting in December 2014.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for the update on the meeting. On financial and economic matters, I ask the Minister about InterTradeIreland and the proposed cut in its budget of, I believe, £1·2 million, £400,000 of which was from the Executive and £800,000 from the Dublin Government. That would represent well over 10% of InterTrade's budget.

My question is twofold. First, why such a big cut when the Executive's commitment is to put the economy first? Secondly, what is the Minister's assessment of the impact on InterTrade's work programme and economic development, North and South?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

InterTradeIreland has, as many people know, been a tremendous success in encouraging all sorts of collaborations and business enterprises on the island.

The whole issue of financing the North/South bodies is obviously critically important against the backdrop of the severe budgetary difficulties that we and Dublin face. The financial memorandum is there as a key document on the financial and accountability framework to which the bodies operate. Therefore, it is important that it remain current and reflect best practice.

The review has been ongoing for some time, but I understand that, with a little bit of effort, it is now at a stage at which it could be completed relatively quickly. It is important that officials, North and South, work together to ensure that working constructively and on a timely basis enables them to progress and complete that important review as quickly as possible.

The Member is right: there are difficulties in how we move forward with the bodies. It is important that each of the North/South bodies, like all other public bodies, delivers its objectives and programmes efficiently, particularly in the current fiscal climate. In that context, and given the pressures on public finances in both jurisdictions, the two Finance Departments agreed a further minimum cash release and efficiency savings programme of 4% in 2014, culminating in 12% over the period 2014-16.

Each body must deliver those minimum savings of 4% per annum, but each could go further if required or if agreed by the sponsor Departments. The resulting proportionality of funding, North and South, linked to the assessed benefit of the activities of the body to each jurisdiction, should also be kept under review.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

At a time of budgetary cuts, many of them due to Sinn Féin's ludicrous position on welfare reform, can the deputy First Minister outline the levels of cuts that he will support in relation to the North/South Ministerial Council?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In the answer that I gave to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, I covered the agreements that have been made by both Finance Departments in relation to the bodies. Given that, no doubt, during the course of this session, people will refer to my party's position on welfare cuts, I just want to quote from a speech made yesterday by a British Government Minister, Vince Cable, who said:

"The Tories are ideologically obsessed by cuts, because they see it as a way of destroying public service and the welfare state, which they detest."

It is a very revealing comment from a British Government Minister about how cuts in Britain, not alone here, are beginning to impact on the most marginalised, disadvantaged and poorest in society.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Can the Minister give us any information on the development of the new INTERREG and Peace programmes?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously, a considerable amount of work has been done on that and agreements have been reached in recent times. The draft Peace IV and INTERREG Va programmes were submitted to the European Commission on 22 September 2014, which is in line with the regulatory deadline. Further negotiation will now take place between DFP, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Commission to agree final programmes. It is expected that negotiation with the Commission will last up to six months.

The NSMC will have the opportunity to consider both programmes before they are approved and open for calls. I know that there is an awful lot of interest in the community about how that is going to affect programmes in the time ahead. It is now clearly with the Commission and that will be an important negotiation, the outcome of which will have to be approved by the NSMC.

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

Given that the biggest issues on the agenda appear to have been financial and economic matters, given the scale of organised crime on the island of Ireland and mindful that the biggest illegal waste dump ever in these islands is two miles outside Derry, and that those responsible have £50 million out of that criminality, will you and the First Minister approach the Dublin Government about having a conversation at the next NSMC meeting about the threat of organised crime and waste crime on the island of Ireland?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have no hesitation whatsoever in accepting that both jurisdictions face real challenges from organised criminals, North and South — people who are involved in all sorts of activities, much of which does enormous environmental damage locally. The Member cited what was a disgraceful practice outside the city of Derry.

In the cross-border movement of waste, the 2013-14 waste repatriation programme has been completed successfully. There is continued joint cooperation between jurisdictions on enforcement action. Of course, we welcome the ongoing work of the NIEA and other authorities, North and South, in their contribution to combating fuel laundering and dealing with the environmental impact of the waste generated as a consequence of that illegal activity in order to protect the environment and human health. A lot of work is being done between Departments and police services, North and South. If more work can be done — I note the comments of the Member — we will certainly take that into consideration at the next meeting of the NSMC.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

The First Minister and deputy First Minister recently received a letter from individuals in America expressing concern that the peace process is losing its power to inspire children with a vision of a shared future.

Therefore, in relation to discussions around the Peace programme at this session, what outcomes of the multimillion-pound EU peace and reconciliation programme III can the deputy First Minister point to in order to encourage us and what are the key aims of the EU peace and reconciliation programme IV?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

First of all, the issue of a letter from America — certainly not that letter from America — did not come up during the NSMC meeting. I always welcome the interest of people who have made contributions to our peace process over many years. Of course, we are all very conscious of the challenges that we face in relation to the issues that are out there, which will hopefully be addressed during what needs to be a very genuine process of negotiation to resolve them and give further momentum to a process that certainly up until now has caught the imagination of the world, including many in the United States of America. I will not dwell much on that.

The 2007-2013 Peace III programme has a total budget of €333 million and is fully committed. Peace III has achieved its entire EU spending targets to date. The total programme expenditure to the end of August 2014 was €247 million against an EU target of €250 million by the end of December 2014. The 2015 target will represent the full programme budget. It is vital that EU income is maximised. The SEUPB must now manage the portfolio of projects to successful conclusion within the eligible programme time frame.

INTERREG IVa has a budget of €256 million. Eighty-eight projects have been issued with a letter of offer. That programme is now fully committed. INTERREG IVa has exceeded all of its annual expenditure targets to date. Meeting spending targets for 2014-15 will be challenging, but DFP is monitoring the situation closely and working with the SEUPB to manage the risk and ensure that no EU income is lost.

There will also be a process of developing the new Peace and INTERREG programmes for 2014 to 2020. They have been submitted, as I have said, in line with regulatory practice. Negotiation is ongoing.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

In relation to the North/South bodies pension scheme and the ongoing work on that, can the deputy First Minister tell the House when that work is likely to end and when best practice of both jurisdictions in employment and increase to pension contributions by employees will take place?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We obviously welcome the agreement at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on 30 May 2014 to increase employee contributions with effect from 1 July 2014. Those increases apply only to members in the North pending the decision of the Labour Court in the South. The changes will help to ensure the sustainability of the pension scheme. We note that the wider reforms are on track for implementation in April 2015. We encourage the finance Departments and the bodies to work together to ensure that the changes are implemented on schedule.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat. Can the Minister give us any detail of the discussions regarding Horizon 2020?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

An ambitious and challenging target of €145 million for the North under Horizon 2020 has been agreed by the Executive as part of the new innovation strategy. All the Northern contact points have now been put in place, meaning that there are now seven thematic experts housed in Queen's University and the University of Ulster with a regional remit for support under Horizon 2020. Invest NI continues the role as our contact point for SMEs given the continued focus of both the Commission and our Executive on encouraging SME participation in competitive EU funding programmes. A specific contact point for the agrifood area has also been put in place in the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). DETI is currently developing a new Horizon 2020 strategy that will identify our priorities in future areas for action. There is an ambitious and challenging target of £145 million for us under Horizon 2020, and that has been agreed by the Executive as part of the innovation strategy.

It is important to say that, at the meeting, it was recognised that Horizon 2020 offers huge potential for us to collaborate on a North/South basis to improve success rates in accessing this funding stream. InterTradeIreland is currently developing a strategic action plan for Horizon 2020. That is being prepared with the support and agreement of the all-island steering group for Horizon 2020. The strategic action plan sets out past performance under FP7, North/South, and maps that across onto Horizon 2020 for areas of greatest potential success.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an LeasChéad Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. Will he give us some more detail on the development of the north-west gateway initiative?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We noted at the meeting the conclusion of consultations with regional stakeholders in the north-west on the current relevance of the north-west gateway initiative to the needs of the region. That was a useful exercise that provided a great deal of information and insight into the needs and aspirations of stakeholders in the north-west. Taking account of the views expressed by regional stakeholders, we have asked that further consultation now be undertaken with the relevant Departments on the issues identified in the course of the consultation. Thereafter, we remain committed to a meeting of relevant Ministers and officials in the north-west to consider the future strategic approach to the development of the region. Just recently, I was privileged to officially open the new regional North West Science Park at Fort George. That is a very important development on that site and will, along with Ebrington, in the time ahead be an area where new jobs, which are badly needed in that area, are created. The linkages to the Letterkenny Institute of Technology are also important in the development of the science park. That is an example of how we can successfully work very positively and constructively together.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement and his answers thus far. He talked about the north-west gateway initiative and mentioned the links with Letterkenny IT. Will he expand on what discussions were had around the very necessary expansion of Magee university in order to meet some of the difficulty around the unemployment crisis?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The One Plan sees the expansion of higher education in Derry as key to the city's regeneration. The number of undergraduate places in our two universities has increased by 1,210 during this Assembly period. An additional 377 higher education places have been created in our further education colleges. The University of Ulster received 652 places and has undertaken to deploy those at Magee. Due to budgetary pressures, financial support to the higher education institutions has been reduced by 3·95% in the current academic year. The strategy board in Derry has commissioned an economic appraisal for the expansion of Magee. Should the appraisal make the case that the campus should be expanded, the Employment and Learning Minister has undertaken to submit a bid for the expansion in the next comprehensive spending review. We understand that, at present, the University of Ulster is working on an economic appraisal for a new teaching block at Magee. Once that is completed and approved, it will be eligible to receive capital funding.

The future of Magee is of major importance and significance for the people of the north-west. Recently, I met a number of very important stakeholders, many of whom believe that Magee will only really flourish when it becomes, at some stage in the future, an independent university. We have not got to that point yet, but I certainly think that there is a strong argument that DEL and the university authorities recognise the responsibility that they have to contribute to the development of a university that will make a major contribution to the lifestyle of people in that area.

A number of years ago, in the company of the university authorities, I was part of an announcement for a major expansion of the university, which did not come to pass. That was disappointing, and I have to say that I have been very critical of the university authorities over that.

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

I thank the Minister for the dialogue and discussion so far. I will stick with the north-west gateway initiative: what action can the deputy First Minister take to ensure that the commitments reached will be implemented speedily, including strengthening the strategic focus on the north-west, and to ensure that there will be an early meeting with Ministers and officials? I am specifically concerned about the A5, which is vital to that area. Is the plan to develop the A5 properly still afloat or has it sunk?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In an earlier answer, I made it clear that there is a commitment to a meeting of relevant Ministers and officials in the north-west to tackle all the issues that clearly relate to the north-west gateway initiative. Minister Kennedy was not at the meeting, so the A5 project was not discussed in detail, but it was raised. In the context of that initiative, we advised the Irish Government on the current position with the project. We are all very familiar with the present difficulties that arose out of the judicial review, which dealt with 12 points of objection, 11 of which were overruled and one of which was upheld.

At present, the Minister for Regional Development is processing, through others, an approach to satisfy the courts on the habitat objection that found favour with the judge. There is a lot of confusion in the north-west on the reasons why the A5 people are making the case that there is no commitment from the Executive. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council are absolutely committed to the A5. It was stopped not by the Executive but by the courts. An additional complication was the fact that the Irish Government, during the process of trying to move the project forward, told us that they had to take a decision to withdraw substantial funds from the project. So, the difficulties with the A5 were not presented by this Executive.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I suspect that the deputy First Minister will not be much interested in this point, but maybe the First Minister will take it up. When this jamboree of self-congratulation about the worth of North/South cooperation was going on in Dublin on Friday, back in Belfast, not for the first time, the chief coroner of Northern Ireland was protesting the lack of cooperation from the gardaí on the inquest into the Kingsmills massacre.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Did anyone think to raise that on the fringes of the conference with the Taoiseach —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. Will the Member direct his question —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Or is that something that is just —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I ask the Member to take his seat.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— to be swept under the carpet?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I ask the Member to take his seat.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What is your problem, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That question was clearly not related to the statement.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

My apologies that I was a little late into the Chamber this morning. The deputy First Minister mentioned small and medium-sized enterprises. One of the primary issues that SMEs raise about the drawdown of funds is that it is so cumbersome that it nearly prohibits them from applying. The deputy First Minister mentioned a specific contact for the agrifood industry, which we welcome. However, when it comes to other small and medium-sized enterprises, such as manufacturing and engineering companies, what does he propose that they can do to receive support from the Department in drawing down such vital funds?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member raises an important issue, which the First Minister and I addressed during our previous visit to Brussels when we met Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. She, on foot of that conversation, held a number of meetings in the North specifically for the purpose of advising small and medium-sized enterprises how they could more readily access funds from Europe and make what was a complicated system much more straightforward.

We now have a new Commission in place and will have to continue to do that work with the commissioner who replaced Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. It is certainly an issue, and we think that we can increase the drawdown of funds if we can ensure that our small and medium-sized enterprises have an ongoing relationship with the European Union. We hope that we can continue with that work, which is a process of education vís-a-vìs the knowledge base that small and medium-sized enterprises need to have to access Europe. That can frighten a lot of people off, but, when explained, we have seen over the last while an increased desire among small and medium-sized enterprises to engage with Brussels.

Executive Committee Business

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to introduce the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill [NIA39/11-15], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to insolvency; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Mitchel McLaughlin] in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes with concern the failure of the Department for Regional Development to adequately fund the roads infrastructure maintenance budget; further notes that this lack of funding will result in job losses or reduced working hours for contractors and suppliers; calls on the Minister for Regional Development to assess forensically his departmental budgets to highlight areas of non-essential spending where savings can be made; and further calls on the Minister for Regional Development to work with his Executive colleagues to institute a comprehensive annual budget process that provides a more transparent breakdown of the allocation of resources.

I am pleased to present this motion to the Assembly today. I am particularly pleased that the Minister for Regional Development is present and look forward to hearing his response and, of course, the contributions of other Members.

Members may be interested to know that it is almost five years to the day since Professor Martin Snaith, a leading authority in the field of structural maintenance and road condition assessment, presented a report of his findings on the state of the 25,000 kilometres of roads in Northern Ireland. The roads Minister of the day, Conor Murphy — you may remember him — welcomed the report, claiming:

"The condition of the North’s roads is of vital importance to the economy and it is essential therefore that the road network is properly maintained to provide a safe and efficient road network."

Professor Snaith's report highlighted the case for significantly enhanced investment to carry out much-needed maintenance repair work across the roads of Northern Ireland.

In its findings, the report recommended that the overall structural maintenance budget should be increased to around £108 million per annum, which was considerably lower than that in England or Wales and about the same as in the Republic. In the intervening years, the road maintenance budget has relied on monthly monitoring rounds to a great extent to squeeze money out of the Executive to shore up what is, without doubt, a deteriorating situation when, clearly, the findings of Professor Snaith are long forgotten.

On the last day of July, our present Minister, Danny Kennedy, hit us with the bombshell that his budget was under considerable strain and that that would have an impact on the delivery of front line services to the public. This, according to the Minister, would include such services as street lighting repairs, road maintenance, grass cutting, gully cleaning and the maintenance of traffic signs and road markings. He went on to say:

"Naturally this will have a detrimental impact on external contractors who provide these services across Northern Ireland."

Mr Kennedy concluded by warning us that he could not rule out curtailing winter services later this year. Certainly, Danny Kennedy was telling us that hundreds, even thousands, of people working in the various divisions of road maintenance and improvement would lose their job and that the companies that employed them would face potential bankruptcy because they would not have the regular income to make repayments on the new plant and machinery acquired in the expectation that they would have continuous work in the foreseeable future.

I will be surprised if there is no mention of welfare reform, but, before anyone gets carried away with that, I need to remind Members that our approach to road maintenance was fatally flawed long before the current Tory Government decided to rob the poor. In doing my research for the debate, I decided to go back in time to find out if things were done any better before the establishment of the Assembly, and my focus dwelled on the period of the Roman empire. Regrettably, the Romans did not get as far as this country to build their roads, which, in other parts of the world, have lasted for thousands of years. Yes, Principal Deputy Speaker, we had other visitors in the meantime: William and James came here, but they are remembered for crossing rivers, certainly not for building roads. Following the period of the Roman empire, many of the brilliant roads that they built disappeared during what some people might call the Dark Ages, when little or nothing was achieved; indeed, some roads were actually dug up. I seriously ask myself this question: are we now in another dark age when the current network of roads has been allowed to fall into disrepair to such an extent that some of them will become too dangerous to use? Anyone who reads Professor Snaith's report, which I referred to earlier, can reach no conclusion other than that we are sleepwalking into a future in which we will create a legacy of neglect that puts us on a par with those who allowed the wonderful Roman roads to become a legacy that no longer exists.

The motion is not simply about criticism of the shortfall in funding in road maintenance; it calls for a comprehensive annual budget process that provides for a more transparent breakdown of the allocation of resources. The point I wish to make is this: whether there are issues relating to welfare reform or not, there is an urgent need to reform how road maintenance is planned and budgeted for. It is my wish that that is where the focus of this debate is concentrated, because we cannot go on depending on monitoring rounds to fund critical road maintenance. That is failing and building only a legacy of neglect that a future generation will have to pick up some time. That is very wrong.

Recently, our Minister said that it takes 20 years from inception to the completion of a new capital project. I know that the people of Dungiven will immediately reject that claim, given that they have been waiting 40 years for a bypass. Anyway, let us say that it takes on average 20 years to put the finishing touches of tarmacadam on a new road. I wonder, seriously, how long it takes to destroy a road through lack of maintenance. You do not have to take my word for it. The Department, from its own findings, will tell you that there are already serious problems building up that will eventually result in massive amounts of money being needed to be spent shoring up roads that are already undermined through lack of routine maintenance. Of course, money is not the whole issue. Yes, I know that most road deaths are caused by human error, but there is no doubt that poorly maintained roads contribute to death and serious injury, particularly during the winter months, when, as our Minister has already warned us, he may have to curtail expenditure.

Getting to a conclusion, I wish to return briefly to the Romans to clarify a point. The Romans were not the first race to build good roads. Much of the expertise was copied from previous races, and I ask this question: are we going to learn from the past, or will we be part of a new Dark Ages that allows good roads to decline to such a state that they cease to exist and are no more? Will a new generation at some time in the future rediscover them, just as the Roman roads were rediscovered and, indeed, built over? The current Minister deserves the support of the Assembly to put in place a system that avoids the stops and starts that contractors and workers have had to live with. It is fast getting to a situation where some of the contractors may well go to the wall. No one expects the Minister to have the wisdom of Claudius, who conquered Britain — we certainly do not want him poisoned — but he needs the support of the Assembly to fundamentally change the way that we conduct our road maintenance.

Cutting corners on road maintenance to balance the books is only stacking up trouble for the future. As it stands, every road can expect to be resurfaced every 102 years on average. That is from departmental figures. Many roads are already undermined due to poor drainage. There is a massive bill every year for compensation for personal injuries and damage to vehicles. Road deaths are again on the up and up. People who did this work are on notice as we speak that they will be joining the unemployment register. We must not sit on our hands while our roads crumble under our feet.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion in my role as the Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. It was timely that, at my first meeting as Chair, the Committee received a briefing on the October monitoring round. This was the first time formally that the outcome of the June monitoring round was presented to the Committee. Of course, members will have been aware of the outcomes because the Minister had previously detailed them through the press through the use of, quite frankly, very emotive pronouncements during the summer and in the House. I will not use this ploy; rather, I will support the thrust of the motion by stating the facts as they are.

First, the overall annual budgetary requirement for just maintaining our roads is, as I think has been said, £133 million. That £133 million is to keep our roads as they are and to keep them in a condition where it was reported that, in 2009, 46% of the trunks roads were below the UK skidding resistance investigatory level. Almost half of the roads were assessed as being unsafe. On top of this, there was a substantial backlog in respect of the structural maintenance programme that currently stands at approximately £830 million. In a meeting that I had with the departmental permanent secretary and his senior management team last week, I was advised that for every pound below the £133 million required to maintain the network another £1·60 would be added to the backlog. On the basis that the starting budget for roads maintenance this financial year was £56 million, with £20 million or so being allocated in June, we currently have a deficit of £57 million, and this adds another £90 million to that backlog. Again, the condition of our roads is starting to decline.

At this point, I hasten to add that, between June 2011 and January 2014, the Minister and his Department made 72 bids in the monitoring rounds and the Executive honoured almost 62% of those bids. The Minister is on the record as saying that, in the past three years, the Department has been very successful in funding road maintenance. Of course, this success has coincided with funding being available, which we all know now is not necessarily the case.

The welfare penalties have impacted on all Departments. DRD differs slightly in the way that its budget is allocated, with the in-year monitoring rounds being used to top up the departmental budget rather than allocations being provided at the beginning of the year. That process, of course, was collectively agreed at the Executive, of which the Minister is a member, and, indeed, in his departmental business plan, he described that approach as strategic and a valuable opportunity to secure additional funding. As stated, the Minister and his departmental officials agreed that with the full knowledge of the audit report on structural maintenance in 2000 and despite the comments of the then chief executive on the 2009 annual report:

"I am concerned that the level of funding made available to Roads Service for structural maintenance is insufficient to maintain the network in a satisfactory condition on an ongoing basis."

The Department has recognised in its business plan that less funding being made available during the in-year monitoring process might have an impact on its ambitions as set out in the plan. It is difficult, therefore, to reach any conclusion other than that the Minister and his departmental officials went for the soft touches when applying for his portion of the welfare penalties.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I will.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member agree with me that the cut to the maintenance budget is quite serious and that maybe the Minister's Department could have looked at other avenues to try to find funding through his Department such as savings to the £3,000 worth of taxis that his Department uses or looking at reducing the fuel costs of £2·4 million for the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and, indeed, the Translink reserves of £25 million? Surely there is room for savings there that could have helped without making these cuts.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you. I will cover some of those points as I speak on.

Nowhere in his business plan is there a suggestion that footway and carriage maintenance, cutting grass on verges, gully emptying, road marking, traffic light maintenance or the suspension of external contractors for street lighting are departmental ambitions. They are not, but they are easy and emotive and that is why they were chosen. There was no forensic analysis of the departmental budget lines and no assessment of the severity of the risk, and I think that Members will appreciate that those points were all raised when we had the briefing two weeks ago. The Department would easily have seen the cost increase in public liability claims and payouts that result from not cutting the budget but removing these essential services. They will have also seen that, for every million they have removed, between 13 and 22 specialist jobs will be lost to the sector, and that will hinder the recovery should the budgets become available in future.

My colleague referred to Translink. One of the interesting things that turned up in that monitoring round when we talked to the Department was that the accounts showed a cash balance of £56 million. Of course, that was reported in Hansard on 2 July 2014. My predecessor, Mr Spratt, had suggested in the past that there was a cosiness in the Translink/DRD relationship, and I have to say that I saw that during the October monitoring briefing. Yes, they need £15 million for in-year payments and are projecting a £9 million loss, but that still leaves a £33 million cash balance.

In closing, I will maybe make a few remarks as a member of the DUP —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Sorry, your time is up.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

OK.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. As the proposer said, the condition of the roads in the North is of vital importance to the economy, and, therefore, it is essential that the road network is properly maintained to provide a safer network. That is what all our constituents expect. As an elected representative from a rural area, I find that roads are one of the key issues that come to our attention on a daily basis. I have a continual list of roads needing upgrade and repair in Fermanagh, and, when a network is complete, other roads become priorities. I must acknowledge that quite a lot of money has been spent on the county over the last number of years, because there has been sizeable success in the monitoring rounds for the Department. I must add that they have been done to a high standard by the local Clarke's group. However, that is in the past, and we find ourselves in a different funding environment with budget constraints today.

I do not want to wade into the debate on how this has come about. The reality is that the block grant has been reduced. As a result, we had the Minister's statement at the end of July when we were in recess. It stated that there would be a:

"severe impact on the delivery of frontline services to the public. This will include services such as street lighting repairs, road maintenance, grass cutting, gully cleaning and maintenance of traffic signs and road markings."

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member acknowledge that policy decisions that he and his party have taken have contributed to that?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you. I said that I was not getting into the debate on why the budget was reduced.

The Minister went on to say that that would:

"have a detrimental impact on external contractors who provide these services".

The question is this: did the Minister simply take the soft option — I think that the soft option came up a number of times in Committee — and cut front line services and target the external contractors who provide those services across the North of Ireland?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I know that the Member does not want to get into the depth of the argument on this — I acknowledge that they were a soft touch — but does he not accept that his party's position on welfare reform has left this Department and other Departments in a very difficult position in trying to find the £87 million? Yes, as I said, those may have been a soft touch, but, if your party would face up to the reality of welfare reform, that would be £87 million that Departments would not have to find.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, I am not getting into that debate, but you cannot conflate the issue of welfare cuts and the reduction in the overall block grant.

When the monitoring round was discussed at the Committee a number of weeks ago, officials told us that the Minister had no option but to make the decision that he did. When I asked them to detail the risk assessment process that the Department undertook in prioritising and drawing together the proposed bids, the answer was that the Department took all the money that it could out of other areas before it got to the contractors. Will the Minister take this opportunity to elaborate on what that process involved before they reached the contractors?

The Department was aware that funding restrictions and pressures were coming down the track, yet the contractors were not advised or engaged with before the Minister made his decision. I have spoken to some of the employees who have been put on notice and to the contractors, who said that, if the Minister had engaged, outlined the funding difficulties and reached an agreed reduction — that is, a percentage reduction — they could have planned a way forward for their staff and plant hire. The fact that the Minister totally ceased funding does not make sense. Why did the Minister not take that approach? The contractors are reasonable people who recognise that there are funding pressures. The recurring theme during the Committee meeting was that he took the easy option, as I said at the outset. Minister, your officials said that other options were considered, although little detail was forthcoming. You may want to respond to that and elaborate on what those options were. I spoke to people who will be paid off as a result of the Minister's decision, and they are people with real livelihoods and families.

The resource budget for small maintenance works is a small percentage of the Department's overall budget. I have no doubt that, if a thorough trawl had been undertaken, the savings could have been found elsewhere without job losses and without causing safety issues for the public.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

There is a fatal flaw in the motion, in that it is targeted at DRD rather than at DFP and the whole budgetary process. I must admit that I welcome the comment made by the proposer of the motion, who said that he recognised that failings in the Budget process have contributed to this.

Planned road maintenance minimises the risk of accidents and the long-term cost of the upkeep of our roads. Expensive, repetitive temporary patching can often result in increased costs as opposed to the regular, planned resurfacing of roads. As others have indicated, there is also the problem of potholes and the increased risk of compensation claims against the Department.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I have just started.

In a recent answer, the Minister indicated that the structural maintenance budget needed to maintain the current roads standard and prevent deterioration is £133 million a year. Looking at previous figures, you will see that in 2008-09, and again in 2010-11, the funding was between £63 million and £88 million. In 2011-12, it increased to £120 million, and, in the following year, it was £110 million. In the last financial year, £130 million was spent on structural roads maintenance. I commend the Minister and the Executive for that significant increase in funding up until the current year.

When considering the motion today, I think it is important that we recognise how the current and previous Finance Ministers have largely allocated the funding to roads maintenance on the capital and resource sides. The increased funding was delivered largely as a result of increased in-year monitoring, money that was passed to Roads Service for structural roads maintenance as a result of failures to spend by others. The Department, working closely with contractors, could react quickly to make use of that funding and improve our roads infrastructure; and therein lies one of the current problems that contributes to the significant reduction in maintenance being carried out and to the funding of contractors. The June monitoring round was, of course, delivered late, at the end of July, limiting the time and ability to react to those decisions. While the bidding was for £77 million, capital funding of only £12 million was received. On the resource side, the DRD indicated that it could probably spend an additional £48 million, yet only £5 million was received.

Why do I highlight this? It is clear that, with tighter budgets in these current times, less funding from in-year monitoring can be expected in future. This approach can no longer continue if we wish to maintain our roads. The Budget approach of 2011 has clearly failed to account for this change, and other pressures have emerged in other Departments such as Health. However, the Finance Minister and the DUP and Sinn Féin, who lead the Executive, have refused to reprofile such issues in an annual Budget process.

We then, of course, have welfare reform, which is costing £87 million this year and will cost £114 million next year. When the proposers of the motion and Sinn Féin decide to oppose welfare reform, they are deciding to apply cuts to a wide range of issues including Roads Service and including the very contractors that they indicate they wish to support. Those cuts can be traced back to that.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way on that particular point. The previous Member who spoke said that people are losing their jobs because of these cuts, but what they are not recognising is the number of jobs that will be lost because of the non-implementation of welfare reform, which will have a much greater impact. While this situation is bad, it impacts on a small number of jobs. The impact of welfare reform will be much greater through jobs lost. The party opposite fails to recognise that.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Thank you. I concur with much that the Member said.

As a result of that £87 million cut and the reduction in in-year monitoring, we did not receive any additional money that had previously been expected. In fact, the Finance Minister announced a 2·1% in-year reduction across a broad range of Departments, with a further 2·3% to come. That is the worst possible way to manage any Budget: to distribute money, plan resources and then, at the last minute, four months into the financial year, change direction. At that time, many contracts will have been signed, employment levels will have been determined and, I suspect, there would be very few options available. That is the worst possible way to run a Budget and it is something that we must not repeat in the forthcoming year. We should be sorting out the Budget for next April now by taking decisions. If Members wish us to adopt their views on welfare reform, they ought to reflect that in policy and expenditure decisions.

In cutting Roads Service expenditure, the subcontractors have borne the burnt. One aspect of the motion that I can agree with is that the Executive need to have a more transparent annual Budget process. Of course, it is Sinn Féin that stopped that. It was their Minister — the Education Minister — who refused to go with it. So, the reason why we do not have a transparent and easily understood Budget process is Sinn Féin. That is further evidence of voodoo economics and further meaningless motions that they appear to be backing. What we need is a timetable when these —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Your time is almost up.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

— transparent processes will be put in place so that we can make better use of our limited funds.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I, first, thank Mr Dallat, Mr Byrne and Mr McGlone for bringing this very important issue to the Floor. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the motion. I welcome the Minister's presence in the House. I sincerely hope that he and his Department will be able to secure the funding to provide a decent roads maintenance programme. That, in turn, will assist contractors to do the work and, thus, prevent the loss of jobs.

I want to pay tribute to all those who are engaged in providing better and safer roads throughout Northern Ireland. It can be a pretty tough job being out there in all weathers. They do very necessary work, not always with the blessing of the travelling public. Repairing roads can be a dangerous profession, with traffic whizzing past and always in a hurry, without regard for the safety of staff who are engaged in that essential work.

Like all other Members, I was disappointed a few weeks ago when Minister Kennedy informed the public that his reduced budget would result in potholes on our roads network not being repaired and, of course, street lights not being repaired because of a lack of money for replacement light bulbs. What has this place come to? Northern Ireland cannot afford to keep our streets lit, as we cannot afford a few bulbs here and there. If it were not so serious, it would almost be a joke.

As a former member of the Committee for Regional Development, I attended a meeting a couple of weeks ago at which senior officials painted a very gloomy picture about funding shortages. That was despite the fact that DRD got some extra £12 million from the June monitoring round.

Our roads simply have to be maintained. The last thing any Member wants is to see further road deaths as a result of lack of maintenance or, indeed, whatever else. At this point, I am sure that Members will join with me in offering our deepest sympathy to the latest victim of our roads, a young man from Bangor called Mr Barbour, who lost his life on the road between Greyabbey and Ballywalter only last weekend. We are all too aware of the increased number of fatalities on our roads, and those simply cannot continue. We must always seek to make improvements where necessary.

At the Committee meeting I referred to, the senior officials went over the consequences of the Department not benefiting from the October monitoring round. All the Committee members were disappointed at the decision not to renew the contracts of contractors, who, as Mr Dallat informed the Assembly, are engaged in work on footway and carriageway maintenance, grass cutting, environmental works, gully emptying, road marking and traffic signals. Those are the basics that keep the roads at least half safe, and all that work is vital to ensuring road safety in all our areas.

Another important aspect of keeping our footways and roads safe is the gritting schemes that are carried out during the winter. Even those operations may now be cancelled. We all know of the outcry, some years ago, when the main streets in our towns were not gritted during the heavy snow.

Much depends on the outcome of the October monitoring round. We know of the huge demands on all the Departments, but let us hope that there is a fair distribution of whatever funds are available. We also have concerns about the annual Budget process, but, as we are now into the last year of that, we can accept it and a more transparent breakdown of the allocation of resources.

I thank Mr Kennedy and Stanley Lamb and Stephen Duffy from the Roads Service section offices for the new works that have been completed in the Strangford constituency, particularly in the Ards peninsula, where the roads had been neglected for so long. There is, however, one thing that I must express disappointment at. The Minister and Mr Lamb did not invite me or my Alliance colleagues to a photo shoot at the recent start of work on a footway on the Old Shore Road in Newtownards. We have campaigned for that footpath for years. We are delighted that it has gone ahead, but we might at least have had an invite from the Minister when he went to cut the first sod.

When other things are happening in our constituency in future, he might take a minute or two to invite those who have been campaigning for years for them. It seems from the local press that other people jump in and take the credit.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Your time is up.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Throughout Northern Ireland, the population is learning about the real-life impact of irresponsible decision-making by some parties, as we face having only urgent road repairs and limited street-light maintenance, which are absolute necessities, particularly at this time of year. I thank all the Roads Service staff and contractors who do a sterling job in the maintenance of our roads and street lighting. The impact will be severe and could cost the Department for Regional Development extra legal fees for claims due to the restriction in road repairs. I hope that those who have created some of the financial uncertainty by refusing to agree to welfare reform will be mindful of the consequences of their action. It is a disgrace, when Northern Ireland is putting forward all its good and positive points to attract new employment opportunities, to see our road infrastructure being denied the investment it so greatly needs to ensure that improvement and repair works are carried out. We must always remember that our incoming investors look for a good road infrastructure, so it is not a positive image for Northern Ireland.

Another concern that has been expressed to me has been the financial position when it comes to road gritting and snow clearing. Those are life-saving requirements and are therefore essential. We can all hope for a milder winter so that the roads budget is protected from that point of view.

The Minister has talked of how much stress his budget is under, and, I believe, he has already assessed forensically his budget to see where savings can be made. Does he have any reserves that he could use to offset some of the roads pressure or return to the central pot for redistribution to other needy Departments during October monitoring?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member acknowledge that having in-year, last-minute cuts is the worst possible way to run a budget? It should be planned in advance, issues should be resolved, and this should not be repeated. Otherwise there is a possibility of similar issues occurring in this Department and other Departments.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

That is a matter for the Executive. The Executive, in the main, do a good job.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The Member who made the last intervention made a point about how bad in-year monitoring rounds were. However, does it not sound a bit hypocritical for the Member to defend his Minister, given that the Minister has already defended the good use of in-year monitoring and the valuable contribution that it makes? He is on record as saying that.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I agree entirely.

The Minister is having to reduce front line services to keep within his budget. Are the sponsors of the motion suggesting that the Minister should make people unemployed to meet budget targets? Let us sort the entire Budget problem out maturely, once and for all and on behalf of all our electorate.

When it comes to instituting a comprehensive annual budget process by DRD, is the party of the signatories to the motion aware that, due to the Budget crisis they have helped to create, all Executive Ministers are having to make savings in their Department? I have some sympathy with the Regional Development Minister and find this debate distasteful, as it could be seen as political posturing rather than as a serious attempt to break the deadlock and ease the financial pressures on Departments. Despite my reservations, I support the motion.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin seo inniu. I welcome the opportunity to address the motion and to speak in its favour. Unlike others, I do not believe it to be meaningless, nor do those who work in the industry.

When Professor Martin Snaith, in October 2009, presented his independent report to the Committee for Regional Development, it was widely welcomed, including by the then Minister, Conor Murphy. He recognised the centrality of the road infrastructure and its upkeep to the North's economy. The professor recommended an increase of £108 million to bring expenditure up to a level comparable with the rest of Ireland to some £4,300 per carriageway kilometre, which is still somewhat short of what is spent in England and Wales. However, by June 2012, it was still estimated that the budget for maintenance was some £50 million short of what was required to maintain the structural integrity of the road network in its current condition.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Yes.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member explain whose fault it is that the budget is £50 million short of achieving the target to maintain our roads?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

If the Member looks at the withdrawal of the block grant, he might find some answers there.

By July of this year, Minister Kennedy warned about the impact that a reduction in the budget would have on services such as street lighting repairs, road maintenance, grass cutting, gully cleaning and the maintenance of traffic signs and road markings. Since then, many of us have been lobbied by many in the industry, including the Quarry Products Association (QPA), contractors and others. I commend them for that lobbying. They work on short-term contracts, often delivered at times of the year when a quick turnaround on the spend is required, and not necessarily in the best weather for the job. The industry works on low profit margins and often requires a large and flexible workforce to carry out the maintenance.

One thing that we are sure of is that maintenance of the road network is vital to the safety of commuters and travellers. Unfortunately, as of yesterday, we have seen a dramatic increase in deaths on the roads over the same period last year. Indeed, even on our best-maintained roads, we still see seemingly unexplainable and unimaginable accidents and carnage. I came on such a scene as I travelled on the M2 yesterday evening and was shocked at the extent of that accident.

A reduction in investment will have an economic impact, locally and regionally. Indeed, I recall the huge impact earlier this year that the demise of KPL had in my town, the wider County Derry area and further afield. Luckily, at that time, other contractors were able to take up the slack, and many subcontractors were relieved that their work could continue. No such slack exists at this time.

The motion rightly calls on the Minister:

"to assess forensically his departmental budgets to highlight areas of non-essential spending".

The identification of those cuts, as per the July statement and since, however, outlines making savings on items that are essential for safety on the roads infrastructure. That is not a prudent or wise move. As well as the human cost, many more millions will be spent on personal injuries compensation and damage to vehicles. Indeed, in answer to a recent question that I put, I was told that 15,000 claims had been made in the last five years, 55% of which were successful. I support the motion and ask this: what price safety?

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. As an MLA, I listen daily to genuine concerns about DRD road issues. Road maintenance, footpaths, weeds and street lights are amongst the most common issues raised with me throughout my many years as an elected representative for North Down. Ratepayers, who are also taxpayers, expect those services to be maintained to proper standards and to have safe and serviceable roads in our constituencies.

Since the June monitoring round, when Minister Kennedy confirmed an additional £12 million for the structural maintenance of roads and funding that, I understand, was for the development of the Belfast transport hub, there seems to have been a significant shortfall in the resources budget. The decision influenced many external contractors who were carrying out much of the DRD maintenance work. In return, DRD brought in its own in-house contractors to take over the work that other contractors had been doing. However, in a number of cases, they have struggled. In the case of grass cutting, they have struggled to carry out the statutory five cuts a year on the main carriageways, such as the A2 Bangor dual carriageway. Eventually, the third cut was recently completed by DRD in-house contractors.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Will the Member give way?

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Yes, will do.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Does the Member also recognise that, particularly in rural areas, either one cut or no cuts were made this year? That caused concern, particularly at traffic junctions.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I appreciate that, as I represent a partially rural area. I am very much aware that there are areas where the grass has not been cut at all. However, I understand that DRD has different criteria and standards for rural and urban areas.

I made a point about DRD taking on the work of contractors. I wonder how cost-effective that decision was when you consider the overtime involved and the weekends that DRD staff have worked and continue to work to meet the demand for services such as grass cutting. Every year, we struggle to get the grass cut five times on the A2 Bangor dual carriageway. This year, there were serious road safety issues, and local farmers had to cut sections of grass to create an appropriate sight line for entering their farms. Those were serious road safety issues and need to be addressed as a priority.

The Minister could see that the decision to cut the resource budget would have maximum impact on the public across all our constituencies. Other relatively small-scale and often non-essential capital schemes that would have had less impact on ratepayers could have been considered, but I understand that the Minister cannot flex between his capital and resource budgets. Surely, though, stalling some small capital schemes would have made more sense.

Street lighting continues to be another major issue as the winter months approach. I have seen for myself that contractors often need only one man with a lift to do the work, but DRD in-house workers often require two or three operators to carry out the same job. I wonder how efficient that is and how real savings will be made in the long term. It is unacceptable that fewer than a quarter of the street lights reported out over the last few months have been repaired. As mentioned, winter gritting and snow clearance are other major issues of concern to elected representatives. Will they be prioritised? Are we prepared for a harsh winter? What services does DRD have available under its present budget?

Despite this dark picture, some positive work has been carried out. As an elected representative, I continue to work regularly with local section engineers and officers who work hard in difficult circumstances. In the North Down area, we have seen positive resurfacing programmes locally, and parts of the A2 Bangor dual carriageway have been resurfaced. A number of residential areas have had new footpaths and street lights, and their roads have been resurfaced. We appreciate the work done and the fact that it is carried out to a good standard. I put it on record that, in the main, the work done by our contractors is to a good standard, and residents certainly appreciate that. However, the public rightly expect these services to be delivered and not to be left in the dark.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank those who tabled the motion. I represent a rural constituency, and we all know well that infrastructure is very important in rural constituencies because most accidents and fatalities occur on rural roads. In areas such as West Tyrone, which I represent, many are employed by contractors who carry out maintenance and other types of work on the 25,000 miles of infrastructure throughout the North.

The Minister's sudden announcement at the end of July or the beginning of August about works on street lighting, gullies and grass trimming came as a shock. It instilled fear among certain sections of the community, particularly the older and more vulnerable, who had the idea that the lights were going to be switched off. Like all Departments, DRD is expected to trim its budget. There is a very strong view that maintenance is one of the most important aspects of DRD's work because of the implications for road safety. It seems to have been hit quite hard, and there is certainly a view that the subcontractors who were laid off at short notice were a soft touch.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go ahead.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member indicate how he would have made savings at this late stage in the financial year, given that in-year cuts were required as a result of his party's policies?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Thank you for that. Members who spoke previously indicated areas where there is surplus money that could be used. We talked about Translink, for example. It is important to say that, rather than sniping from the sidelines and trying to get a debate on welfare cuts going, Members have been invited to bring the issue of welfare cuts to the House to have a discussion about it. Feel free to explain to your constituents your apparent willingness to slash hundreds of millions of pounds out of the welfare budget, which will affect the working poor —

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

— and the most vulnerable in our community. Perhaps that is what you should do, rather than sniping from the sidelines during debates such as this one today.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I am not going to give way, OK?

Before I was interrupted, I was saying that the plans are considered to be very short-sighted. It is widely accepted by experts that planned maintenance is cheaper than reactive techniques such as patching. Indeed, we will face more public liability claims, which will have economic implications.

Going back to the contractors issue, it is important to say that a lot of them were given just days notice to terminate works. This is people's livelihoods that we are talking about. We just cannot turn on and off people's livelihoods like a tap; that is not possible. A lot of the contractors have invested heavily in equipment and the upskilling of workers, so it is very unfair to expect to just turn them off at short notice. Going back to the point that was made a second ago, areas have been outlined in the DRD budget where funding could be got at instead of attacking the maintenance budget.

I congratulate the Members on bringing the motion before the House today. I will —

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the party across there that talks about budgets gave no consideration to rural isolation and the problems that that causes? This will further add to those suffering from rural isolation. It would be interesting to know how the party will feed into the review that will take place through the ARD Committee on the question of rural isolation.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member. I was just in the process of concluding my remarks.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

This is a very important motion in front of the House today. We brought it because we believed that the impact of the cuts were very serious in terms of the economy. We have heard about the issues around road safety and the future budgetary concerns that will arise from the fact that we have not done the work now. I am glad to support Mr Dallat and his very eloquent history of how road networks across Europe came about. He talked about the great work done by the Roman empire. Some of us here will ask, "What have the Romans ever done for us?". In some constituencies across the North, such as mine, we really understand the benefit that good roads would have for our economy, so we ask, "What have this Government ever done for us?". We are still waiting — Mr Dallat mentioned this — for the Dungiven bypass, the A5 and a proper dualling system from Derry to Belfast. Without those important pieces of work, we will never, above and beyond any current budgetary crisis, meet the needs of the people in our areas because far too many of them are not able to contribute to the economy or soften some of the blows of the cuts because the jobs just do not exist to allow them to do that.

This particular decision is understandable in a way, but it is short-sighted. What is not done today will have to be done at some point. We are looking at a false economy. Contractors are being put out of business, and people are being put out of work. We are also looking at potential road safety issues. However, before he stands up, I agree with Mr Beggs: the problem is not just about welfare reform, although I will talk about that if you want; it is about the budgetary process that we have here, which does not make very much sense. The last time the budgetary process was debated, which was at the beginning of this mandate, we proposed that we would have a system that would look year on year at the budgetary process and interrogate the Budget on a rolling basis.

For me, that would be a much more transparent way of looking at how we allocate our people's resources. We would like to see a zero-base budgetary process where we could look at every programme at issue and make sure that Ministers justify how they spend our resources.

We would also like to see the Public Accounts Committee working in the same way as the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, where they are able to properly scrutinise and interrogate the work of Departments on a permanent basis. That would be a far better way of looking at the budgetary difficulties that we have.

At the end of the day, it does not make very much sense for one Minister to be told that they have to take this amount off and another Minister to be told that. We need to look at these things in the round and if a crisis does arise, then we can look at it in the best way possible. We can find efficiencies, rather that what has been happening. I am not accusing this Minister of it, but what has been happening is that because of the political debate around welfare reform, issues like the expansion of Magee have been floated as not now going to happen, even though that was never proposed in the Programme for Government. Things like that are being floated as a political tool to try to pressurise others.

Let me put it on the record: the reason we oppose welfare reform, and the reason we are going to have to, as a whole and as a society, oppose what the Tory Government are planning to do if they get into power again, is because what is happening here is not cuts to just Danny Kennedy's budget. It is going to be cuts to people's very livelihood. Money is going to be taken out of the pockets of the most vulnerable in our society because the Tory Government who are here today and the one who could be here after the next election blame poor people for poverty — they blame poor people for poverty, and they give tax cuts to richer people.

That is the situation we are in and are going to be in unless everybody around this Executive —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— and this Assembly gets together and stands up to them, because I have seen people around here talking about walking out of Government over far less.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I thank you for chairing what has been an interesting debate. I listened carefully to 10 Members. I want to say at the outset that people at home, I think, will perhaps have a greater understanding and see clearly the reasons why I have made decisions. I will outline, as part of this presentation, why I and my party will be opposing this motion.

People will understand clearly that you cannot spend what you do not have. As a result of the June monitoring exercise — which concluded, as we know, at the end of July, and that in itself speaks volumes — I no longer have, and therefore I can no longer spend. It gives me no pleasure to see contractors put on pause, and it does not please me to see the implications for employees and their families. I do not want the public to receive a lesser service, but that was the inevitable consequence of the June monitoring cuts — something, of course, that I did not vote for.

As I say, people at home well understand the need to budget. These have been difficult years for many, with real pressures on household budgets. The public know that you must pay your compulsory bills first: your rent or mortgage, your heating and your electric. Some people save on the areas where they can. Maybe they no longer can afford satellite or cable TV, maybe make fewer phone calls, buy fewer clothes or even buy more basic food. Government is no different. There are areas in which we simply cannot make savings and areas in which we can.

I absolutely assure the sponsors of this motion and others that I have already looked forensically at my budget. That is nothing new — I have been looking at it forensically as an ongoing process since I took office, and there are a number of real problems with the approach adopted by the Executive when they considered June monitoring at the end of July.

The first problem is that the savings requested were not on proper notice; that meant that we did not have proper time to prepare. It therefore limited the options available to Ministers and Departments.

I remind the House that some savings actually cost. We might all like the most fuel-efficient boilers for our homes, but they come at an upfront cost, with our savings being made through reduced bills over a number of years. Likewise in a Department, for example, internal redundancies may be made as opposed to pausing work issued to contractors. Both save money, but one comes with an upfront cost that must be planned for and must be paid for.

To date, roads maintenance, grass cutting, gully emptying and street lighting repairs were sensibly undertaken by a mixture of internal and external staff. I deliberately retained a mixed economy, but June monitoring called time on that option. We need to remember that the savings asked of Ministers and Departments could and should have been spread over the four-year period to provide more money for the likes of health.

For the person at home, June monitoring felt like being told halfway through your usual monthly spend that you had to give part of your salary back and just do your best with the bills. It is not a sensible way to operate. It would understandably provoke anger, knowing that you could have coped better had you been told at the beginning of the month, but it makes you even angrier when you know that it could have been spread over a much longer period. The way that DFP and the Executive handled June monitoring is making cuts deeper than they need to be. It made cuts take place in areas that might have been better protected had we been given proper notice.

The second problem is more specifically related to my Department, often referred to as the valve Department or, as I refer to it sometimes, the mop Department. I call it the mop because we are often asked to clean up other Departments’ messes. When they fail to spend and money is returned, the Department of Finance calls on DRD. The absence of opportunity to bid for returned funding is a huge problem for my Department, which has been deliberately underfunded by the centre to provide the rest of the Executive with cover and to prevent money being returned to Westminster. With funding certainty, better value for money could be achieved; for example, by allowing more resurfacing work to be done in the summer months.

A fundamental realignment of Executive budgets is therefore necessary. However, that can be achieved only through a mature debate that considers the relative priorities of all Departments. That has still not taken place, and, for me, that is unacceptable.

Having commenced the year with a significant shortfall in funding, I submitted bids of £48·4 million resource and £130·3 million capital in June. Those are additional sums that could and, in my view, should have been spent on regional development this year. With only £5 million resource being allocated for concessionary fares and £26·3 million for a range of capital projects, huge pressures still remain.

Importantly, capital allocations cannot be used for resource purposes. I have to continue to stress that, because there seems to be either an ignorance or an unwillingness to face that fact. Capital allocations cannot be used for resource purposes and will not allow me to reinstate roads and street lighting maintenance activities. Those are resource accounting and budgeting restrictions that all Ministers have to operate under. I am simply unable to use capital funding to meet the running costs of repairing potholes and street lighting. Of course, that is of little comfort to the public, who may understandably ask how capital projects can continue but the running costs of maintaining our infrastructure cannot.

Unlike others, I have sought to manage my budget. To meet the 2·1% running costs reduction applied at June monitoring and in preparation for a 2·3% reduction at October monitoring, I conducted a robust forensic analysis. At the start of the year my Department’s running cost baseline was deliberately underfunded by the Executive at just over £344 million. Expenditure in 2013-14 was £381 million, making DRD again reliant on monitoring. Over the last three years I have been working to deliver savings, not least with Northern Ireland Water.

By the end of the Budget 2011-15 period, NIW will have delivered over £35 million of public expenditure savings.

Let me say that I also make no apology for my strong support of the concessionary fares scheme. This year, the scheme cost £9 million more than its central allocation. It is more expensive because it is so popular. I have to say that the concessionary fares should never have been forced to be the subject of monitoring bids; they should be fully funded by the Executive. They should not be politicised by some simply to put pressure on an Ulster Unionist Minister. Our older citizens deserve better than that.

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

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

No. I have to make progress.

Rail services in the UK and the Republic of Ireland would not be possible without a running costs subsidy from government. Locally, the subsidy has been gradually reducing with passenger growth. I have further reduced it by £1 million. In the light of the baseline reductions that I have faced, I have further reduced the fuel duty rebate to Translink by £1·3 million. Those reductions in funding mean that, this year, the company is required to work to an increased deficit of over £9 million funded from its reserves.

I have to say that there has been much interest in and quite a lot of ignorance of the reserves held by Translink. Translink is no different from any private company: it must maintain a level of cash in order to meet its working requirements. Translink is not some piggy bank to shake when we are short. I have stretched Translink. There is not a cosy relationship between the Department and Translink, but its accounts must reflect a going concern over any three-year period. I again make no apology for protecting over £9 million of grant funding for rural transport, transport for the disabled and the Rathlin ferry.

I have looked carefully at my Department's admin budget, the majority of which relates to staff salaries. Reductions in permanent staff numbers cannot be achieved quickly or without significant investment by the Executive in a Northern Ireland Civil Service-wide scheme, but I have made reductions of £2·5 million in admin funding. I have done that through a range of measures including robust vacancy management, a reduction in temporary workers and applying downward pressure to overtime. I have also identified further measures to release £3·1 million, including funding that was previously held for Translink and public transport authority funding.

The steps that I have outlined have provided almost £8 million of funding towards the baseline reductions. No area of my Department has been beyond scrutiny. I have looked carefully at the running costs that are necessary to manage, maintain and develop our road network. Of the £125 million of funding available to me to meet annual running costs, over £100 million is contractually or otherwise committed. It cannot therefore be cut in-year. That includes £40 million to meet public-private partnership (PPP) contractual commitments; almost £12 million for energy costs for street lighting and traffic signals; £10 million for parking enforcement, charged car parking services and Strangford ferry services; £5 million for the maintenance of traffic signals; £19·2 million for the management and maintenance of road drainage infrastructure; £4·5 million to meet public liability obligations; £1 million for the new street lighting carbon reduction commitment; over £4 million for fuel and fleet maintenance; £2 million for essential tools and supplies; and over £2 million to meet unavoidable charges from other public bodies. Limited options remain available to me to realise a further £7 million of budget reductions. Do not tell me that I have not looked forensically at the issues. I have protected street lighting inspection, testing and emergency repairs, winter services to ensure roads are gritted this winter and operations —

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

No. I have to make progress. It is time to listen.

I have protected operations and maintenance supplies. [Interruption.] No option remained —

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

There is £33 million left in Translink.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Order.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

No option remained other than to put our external contractors on pause for general road maintenance and the repair of street lights that fail unless they pose an electrical hazard to the public. In taking those measures to manage a 4·4% reduction, I have sought to minimise the risks to public safety and the economy. None of the decisions that I have had to take has been of my own making or desire. None of the decisions has been taken lightly or without the forensic examination of all the options.

I listened carefully to the presentations made by the 10 Members who spoke. Mr Dallat, who opened the debate, reminded us of what the Romans did for us and of the Emperor Claudius. I am more reminded of Julius Caesar — it is not quite Shakespeare — and "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" from the Carry On film.

These decisions have not been taken lightly. They are important decisions, and I realise the impact they have on small firms, many of them struggling to get contracts. Options were narrowed down, given the time limit available to me. Mr Clarke thinks that we were going for soft touches. I have explained through this statement the essentials that we had to and sought to protect and where we have to go to find realistic savings. There is also the issue of welfare reform. Two parties in the Chamber today conveniently ignore the impact that that is having, not only on my budget but on Executive budgets generally.

There were other contributions. I thank Mr Beggs for reminding us that the monitoring process and how we conduct our Budget is a matter that needs review and urgent change. Whilst I can welcome outcomes from monitoring periods, as I have done in the past, I see that there is an underlying and fundamental problem with the way we shape our budgets.

Mr McCarthy talked about the impact in his area. He thanked everybody, except me, because apparently I did not invite him to some photo opportunity, which the Alliance Party so much enjoys. I thank George Robinson for his sympathy, if not his vote. Mr Ó hOisín, again, refused to take on board —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Time is almost up.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

— the criticisms of and the impact of welfare reform.

These are the facts that I have had to deal with. This is the real world of DRD.

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

I thank all 10 Members who have partaken in the debate, and I thank the Minister for being here. I ask this question: why is the Minister opposed to the motion, given that we are trying to be helpful to him and the Department? Maybe there are certain intricacies in there that are more difficult to understand than is apparent.

We brought the motion to the House because, with the onset of the winter that may lie ahead, there is serious concern among the public about what might happen to the condition of roads. People are concerned about whether there will be gritting or lack of maintenance of the roads and, as a result, increased road deaths. As the winter months approach, we face the life-threatening neglect of our road infrastructure. The underfunding of structural maintenance will have severe consequences for the sustainability and safety of our roads, with knock-on effects on our economic competitiveness. It is an essential area that simply cannot afford to be insufficiently funded in the way that it has been.

Many Members who spoke referred to the fact that roads maintenance has largely been funded from monitoring rounds for the last three or four years. It is welcome that some attempt has been made to tackle the backlog in road maintenance, but, unfortunately, that has been done via the monitoring round process. That raises this question: why do we continue with the monitoring round process and the funding of budgets like the DRD budget for roads in such a way? There has to be a fundamental review of that. That is the reason why this party has, for so long, advocated a year-by-year Budget assessment re-evaluation, to make sure that there is more effective public expenditure on the issues that matter to people.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the core element of the motion is that the stop-start way of financing the Department is wrong?

Our Minister Danny Kennedy, who normally displays a high level of intelligence, has completely missed the point of the motion. Instead of opposing it, he should be enthusiastically endorsing it.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Interventions should be short, as you know.

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

When in this Assembly do you get opposition parties applauding a Minister from another party, and he rejects it?

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

I thank the Member for his statement. It reinforces what I said earlier about the confusion that I also have about the Minister and his party's position on this issue. However, as I said, maybe not everything is fully apparent to us. It is obvious, however, that the budgetary process is at the heart of the problem. Look, the reality is this: people drive cars. When they buy a car, they pay car tax, VAT and excise duties. Our motorists paid £927 million in fuel duty between 2011 and 2012, providing 18% — that is, £76 — more revenue per person annually than the UK average. That is what we have for a very rural environment. Motorists have, quite simply, been ripped off. The average car tax is £250 per annum. The average road tax for a 40-foot lorry is £1,200 per annum. So, the question is this: why is the road user who is paying tax being so handicapped in relation to the quality and condition of the roads?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, indeed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member acknowledge that that fund does not go to the Department for Regional Development, and it is, in fact, the Department of Finance and Personnel that determines the budget that is given to the Minister to spend?

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

I do recognise that, however — [Laughter.] The point, Mr Beggs, is this: it is reinforcing the budgetary process and the allocation of moneys. As a public representative in a rural area of West Tyrone, where people greatly rely on road transport because we do not have one mile of railway, I know that people feel very angry that they are paying all that duty and taxation relating to their car, lorry or van, but they are getting very little in return.

We also feel that there is such a lack of balance in the Department for Regional Development's expenditure on roads. We feel very annoyed about that. We feel that the A5 road has been sacrificed. However, the A8 was a priority, and there was no problem about EU directives. These are the real issues that affect people.

Road deaths are an apparent and real issue for many people. Mr McCarthy referred to the fact that there was a road death involving a Bangor man over the weekend, and Mr Ó hOisín referred to an M2 accident yesterday. Let us be clear: before the last general election, I had more representation from people about potholes and damage to cars and wheels than on any other issue. Thankfully, the potholes have largely been solved over the past three or four years with the monitoring round moneys, and I commend the Minister for prioritising that road maintenance work that has been done.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, indeed.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I am listening closely to the Member. Whilst we support the motion, it is more about the forensic analysis of the Minister's budget and how some of us see it as an easy touch. The Minister will defend that. I accept the point about safety, and I think that is why I can support the motion. However, when you are addressing the rest of your comments, Mr Byrne, will you tell the House how your party can prop up Sinn Féin on welfare reform and what weight you are adding to that in respect of safety, potholes and all the other issues that are raised in all our constituency offices? It is your party that is helping to prop up Sinn Féin to prevent welfare reform coming to the House.

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

I thank Mr Clarke for his comments, but all I can say to him is that we are propping up nobody. We are standing up for the public at large. I do not want the welfare issue to be flogged to death. For the past three or four weeks, it has been flogged to death, and it is not the real issue. The real issue is the overall budgetary process, the budgetary allocations and the budget going forward, which begs the question about this regional economy: do we want to have an economically viable, sustainable economy into the future? Those are the real issues that we will have to start examining going forward. The reality is that there will be cuts in the Budget from the Treasury. We have heard that. Until we make this region more economically sustainable, these are the sorts of problems we are going to face.

It is a fact that road safety issues and road fatalities are intertwined with the economic competitiveness and efficiency of this region. If we go back to a situation where we add to an £800 million roads maintenance backlog, it will be a disaster for the future. I accept that Mr Kennedy has said that he has analysed critically his Department's spending. He says that the cuts that he had signalled in July were inevitable and that they were the soft-touch cuts that were more amenable to immediate decision-making.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I did not say that.

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

The Minister said, or at least I understood him to say, that the process he was —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member give way? This is important.

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

Yes.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

At no stage did I regard these as soft-touch cuts; they are not. They are the inevitable consequence of the financial position that I have been placed in as a result, not only of June monitoring but of the overall economic situation, including the issue of welfare reform.

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

I accept the sentiments of what you were saying, Minister, but the reality is that you said that there were some things that you could cut because of the long-term financial implications involved. You said that DFP landed you with this difficulty in June and that there was no time to properly examine or scrutinise the situation. That was the same for all Departments. I recognise that and sympathise with the Minister in that regard but it goes back to the budgetary process.

Many Members took part in the debate, and there were some common themes, including the welfare issue being kicked around once again. There is genuine concern among all Members about street lighting, footpaths, grass cutting, the repair of roads and smaller capital schemes that are crucial for the overall state and condition of our infrastructure.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is almost up.

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

I would like more time to go through all the issues that different Members have raised, but there were a number of common themes. There is a genuine concern among all Members about roads maintenance going forward. We will have to examine how it can be addressed in a better way to make sure that our road users, who are paying a lot of taxes, are not ripped off any more.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes with concern the failure of the Department for Regional Development to adequately fund the roads infrastructure maintenance budget; further notes that this lack of funding will result in job losses or reduced working hours for contractors and suppliers; calls on the Minister for Regional Development to assess forensically his departmental budgets to highlight areas of non-essential spending where savings can be made; and further calls on the Minister for Regional Development to work with his Executive colleagues to institute a comprehensive annual budget process that provides a more transparent breakdown of the allocation of resources.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order. I wish to refer the House back to the incident during the Ministers' statement on the North/South Ministerial Council. I ask that the House might examine why I was gagged and why it was that one Member was allowed to pass way outside what was in the statement to ask questions about dumping, but when it came to this Member asking about something that was allegedly outside the ambit of the statement, I was immediately gagged at the behest, I have to say sadly, of the Clerk at Table. Why did that Clerk not equally give advice in relation to the other Member?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Order. I reject that as a point of order. I happened to be in the Chamber at that time and what I quite clearly witnessed was that the Deputy Speaker pointed out that you had digressed from the debate and the subject matter in hand and he asked you to resume your seat, which you defied. That is something that I intend to revisit after this sitting.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, can you explain why the other Member, who equally digressed, was not called to order and why only this Member was called to order? That is the point.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I will review those parts of the debate that I was not personally witness to, and that includes the subject matter that you have just discussed. However, I have pointed out to you something that I know you, perhaps more than many other Members, are very acutely aware of, which is that you cannot defy the Speaker when the Speaker asks you to resume your seat.

That is a very serious issue. I think that it is a bit rich that you think that you can raise points of order about earlier issues. I am taking exception to it. Let me warn you that I intend to study that very carefully.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

Further to that point of order, I ask you to examine the comments made by the Member who has just spoken on the integrity of a Clerk of the Assembly in giving advice to the Speaker. That, in my view, is totally out of order. Will you examine that? It has been commented on before. Will you look at whether it is in order for the Member to make such comments?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I reiterate: I will examine the record. I am not accepting that the Member raised a valid point of order. I think that, in the presentation of it, he may well have raised other issues that should be considered.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately after the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2·00 pm, when the first item of business will be Question Time.

The sitting was suspended at 12.31 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

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

We will start with listed questions. Questions 6 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

1. asked the Minister of Education to outline the measures being taken to address the maintenance backlog in the schools estate. (AQO 6765/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As Minister of Education, I have continually highlighted the need for significant investment in our schools estate to tackle the high backlog in maintenance. I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that the schools estate is appropriately maintained to prevent unacceptable deterioration of the buildings and to ensure that our young people and teachers have a learning environment that is fit for purpose and safe for use. Due to budget pressures, the maintenance budget has been reduced this year. However, I have ring-fenced some capital budget for facilities improvement schemes that should assist in improving the condition of the schools estate. The initial maintenance budget allocation for this year was £17 million. In June monitoring, I allocated an additional £5 million. Furthermore, £15 million of capital has been earmarked for facilities improvement projects. Over the last three years, a total of £134 million has been spent on school maintenance.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the many millions of pounds that need to be spent on the planned maintenance backlog. Can he assure the House that concerns about the health and safety of the young people in these buildings will be a priority and that the estate will not deteriorate to such an extent that their health and safety is put in jeopardy?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for the supplementary. Yes, there is prioritisation in the maintenance programme. The money for the maintenance backlog is to make good the work necessary to bring school buildings back to their condition when built. The maintenance backlog includes any urgent work to address health and safety issues and avoid the serious deterioration of the fabric or services to the building. I add the caveat that many of our schools are of a significant age, and I can assure you that we improve those buildings rather than restoring them to their original state.

Over this last number of years, we have invested significant amounts. The maintenance backlog figure comprises the elements that deem conditions to be category 1, which is very poor, or category 2, which is poor. Health and safety is paramount in these matters, and we have made significant improvements to many schools across the schools estate through the school maintenance programme. I will continue to make money available to that and to make bids to the monitoring rounds for maintenance budgets. In fairness to the Executive, we have been quite successful with those over this last number of years.

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

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Minister, given the strong emphasis on factors such as floor area and pupil numbers in determining eligibility for minor works, how do you ensure that small schools get the right allocation of the minor works budget?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The minor works budget is different from the maintenance budget, which is for maintaining the character of a school and tackling health and safety issues. Minor works are about significantly improving the facilities in a school, which may include the addition of classrooms or office or toilet space. Any project costed below £500,000 comes under minor works. There is a formula, and I do not accept that small schools are discriminated against by that. Over this last number of years, we have invested significant amounts in our minor works programme as well as our maintenance works programme.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The Minister referred to the deterioration of the schools estate and buildings. Nothing deteriorates quicker than an empty building, and the Minister is well aware that Ballee Community High School in my constituency is now empty, and 30 mobile classrooms are being used in surrounding schools. Has the Minister any intention to put Ballee to use as a proper part of the estate?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Ballee school is the responsibility of the relevant board, which is the North Eastern Education and Library Board. It is up to the board to decide what future uses the school should be put to. I understand that, when it gets to that stage, the first call will be to other education providers to see whether there is an educational use for the school. If not, the call will go out to other Departments, and the process will follow from there. It is a matter for the North Eastern Education and Library Board.

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

2. asked the Minister of Education to outline his plans to address the problems with literacy and numeracy in primary-school pupils. (AQO 6766/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The results of the progress in international reading literacy study (PIRLS) and trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS), which were published in December 2012, showed that a high proportion of our P6 pupils were performing at the highest levels of proficiency in reading and mathematics. It is clear from those international studies and our own inspection evidence that the characteristics of a good school are being embedded in our system. The policies that we have been implementing in recent years are working, and our young people are reaping the benefits.

Count, Read: Succeed, the literacy and numeracy strategy, makes it clear that teachers and school leaders are best placed to identify pupils requiring additional support and the most appropriate action to meet pupils' needs. However, we know that many children face barriers to fulfilling their potential, and more needs to be done to ensure that every pupil leaves primary school with adequate literacy and numeracy skills. The Learning to Learn framework recognises the importance of delivering high-quality education services for children before and in the first years of compulsory education.

Funding has been allocated to specific programmes to further improve outcomes in literacy and numeracy, particularly focusing on disadvantaged pupils. I also focused on the important role that parents and local communities can play in addressing educational underachievement. The Education Works campaign, the community education initiatives programme and the extended-schools programme are all aimed at delivering positive educational outcomes.

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

I thank the Minister for his information so far. Given the welcome moneys that you announced last week in respect of barriers to early learning, could you confirm what discussions you have had with the Health Minister in relation to ensuring that, once a language acquisition problem has been identified, there are sufficient therapists in schools to respond to those in need?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have had no discussions to date with the current Health Minister, but I did have regular discussions with the previous Health Minister, Minister Poots, about a wide range of programmes, including programmes that his Department is involved in through Delivering Social Change and regular programmes of the Health Department. I can assure the Member that my officials and the Health Department officials meet on a regular basis to discuss such initiatives and how we can support each other in ensuring the well-being of the young people we serve.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Where there are problems with numeracy and literacy and a school is therefore deemed not to meet the standard and goes into intervention, what is the minimum level of support that a principal might expect from the education and library board or the Department of Education?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The first responsibility for ensuring numeracy and literacy levels at a school rests with the principal and the board of governors of that school. They are the first anchor in ensuring that education is being provided appropriately to the young people in that school. Schools will enter formal intervention for different reasons, and, when that happens, different aspects of the coursework or curriculum being delivered in the school are called into question. It will depend on which elements of the curriculum are being called into question and where the weaknesses are in the school, whether that be in classroom teaching or leadership in the school. So, in short, the support will be delivered on the basis of the needs of the school. There is no one-size-fits-all approach in these circumstances. It is about the support that the school requires, but the first responsibility lies with the principal and the board of governors to deliver the education in the school.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Could the Minister give us an update on the Delivering Social Change programme, which is aimed at improving levels of literacy and numeracy in our schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Delivering Social Change programme has proven very popular and, in my opinion, very effective in delivering change in our education system and delivering for the young people it serves. In recruitment, for the entire programme, 266·3 teachers are in post — I am not sure how they work out the 0·3 — out of a total of 269 planned posts. That is 165 in post-primary schools and 100 in primary schools. So, there are a significant number of additional staff being deployed in schools. They are working to a plan that is agreed between the school and the education and library board. That is being delivered effectively. We hope to carry out an evaluation of that programme in the months ahead. That, of course, will depend on finances being available at that time. At this stage, I am focused on ensuring that services are being delivered in the classroom rather than the evaluation of those services being delivered in the classroom, but it is important to evaluate it at some stage in the near future.

Initial reports are very positive in that it has had a significant impact on our young people. The scheme is very popular with schools.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answers to date. During those answers he talked about the importance of the role of parents. Does he accept that grandparents may also have an influence both on parents and pupils? If so, what programmes are in place to tap into that valuable resource?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

In the most recent Education Works campaign, we focused on the role of the broader family — not just the immediate parents or guardians — whether that is siblings, aunts and uncles or, indeed, grandparents of those children, because they are a valuable resource for any family and a valuable resource in the community. We encourage the family unit, including grandparents, to become involved in a child's education, not a specific individual within the family unit.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

3. asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of the proportion of male teachers in primary schools. (AQO 6767/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The proportion of male teachers in primary schools has remained fairly constant at around 15% since 2010. The reasons for the relatively low proportion of male teachers in primary schools are complex and not unique to our system. There is a perception that women are more suited to teaching young children. Societal attitudes and the focus on child protection issues may also discourage males from entering the profession, particularly in the primary sector.

However, I continue to encourage the providers of initial teacher education (ITE) to take steps to address the issue. They are ensuring that males are well represented in publicity materials for courses and are targeting all-male schools, and male groups in mixed schools, for careers talks and presentations. As a result, the proportion of males enrolling in primary ITE courses has increased from 17·4% in 2008-09 to 20·4% in 2012-13.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for that response. Will he outline the extent to which he is working with the Minister for Employment and Learning on a cross-departmental basis to help to address the gender imbalance in our primary schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As you know, we are involved in a joint review of our careers services. Clearly, one of those careers is teaching. We have been working closely with DEL on the programmes to which I have referred, and it is through DEL that initial teacher education is provided. In particular, we have been working closely to ensure that the colleges are going out and speaking to young males in post-primary schools who are at the stage of deciding career pathways. We have seen some success with that, with a 3% rise in the past four years. I would like to see that rise again. However, as I noted in my commentary, there are societal attitudes around this that are required to change, and there is also a role for my Department and the Minister for Employment and Learning. However, we are working together on it.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for a high-profile campaign to increase the representation of males in the primary-school workforce?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I agree that a high-level publicity campaign would prove beneficial. Publicity campaigns cost money, and unfortunately at this stage our advertisement budget across the Executive has been curtailed to allow us to deliver services to the front line. Therefore, I will not be providing such a campaign in the near future, unfortunately.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline the benefits that increasing the number of male teachers would bring to the system? With that in mind, what is DE doing to achieve that?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I think that it is important that our young people in primary schools come into contact with responsible adults of all genders. Look at the learning patterns of young males in particular: if they have a male teacher in the classroom, someone whom they can look up to and someone to aspire to as a responsible male in their life, then that will assist them in their learning journey. Primary-school education is a very rewarding career pathway for anyone. It is vital that we allow and ensure males to feel comfortable in entering primary-school education and that they know that they have a valuable role to play in primary-school education. They must also know that their presence in the classroom can and does motivate young boys to do better in education. I know that many young people have responsible male adults in their lives, but we have to accept that that is not always the case in our society.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

What plans does the Minister have to help our newly trained teachers who are still unemployed to find employment, irrespective of their gender?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The primary objective of the Delivering Social Change programme, which I mentioned in response to Mr Sheehan earlier, was to improve numeracy and literacy and educational outcomes for our young people in schools, but it was also to allow newly qualified teachers to have real-time teaching experience in schools. That project has been successful.

Our education budget continues to face significant pressures. We have seen a reduction in teaching staff over the past four years in our schools estate, and, as education budgets continue to face pressures, I suspect that we will continue to see a reduction of the teaching workforce in our schools. It is a very difficult time for all teachers, but particularly for newly qualified teachers. I will continue to push the Delivering Social Change programme forward, and I will continue to push the education budget at the Executive table, but, at this moment in time, our budgets remain very constrained, and I do not expect an increase in employment in education any time soon.

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

4. asked the Minister of Education when he will introduce some flexibility in the school starting age. (AQO 6768/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The foundation stage curriculum is designed to allow teachers the freedom to ensure that very young children should be allowed to learn at their own pace, reflective of their individual needs. For certain children in specific circumstances, there may be reasons why a child may be considered not ready to start school. It is for that reason that, following meetings with the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) and associates, I agreed to look at options for introducing a degree of flexibility in certain circumstances around the compulsory school starting age here.

There is no flexibility in current legislation that would allow parents to defer their child’s entry to year one, and the introduction of any form of flexibility would require a change to primary legislation. Officials are now working to finalise the detailed arrangements that arise as a consequence of making such a change. I have instructed my officials to complete this work as quickly as possible. I expect a consultation to be launched this autumn, and I have asked that these changes be in place by September 2016. This is a tight and challenging timetable and is subject to Assembly approval of the necessary legislation.

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

I thank the Minister for that answer. I think that many parents will be reassured that the Minister and the Department are on track to introduce legislation that will help to create flexibility. A further issue that I wish to raise with the Minister is that some children who attend school and who are young for their years, as it were, underachieve. Has the Department done any work on that particular problem?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Again, I return to the comments that I made in response to the original question: the foundation stage curriculum is designed to allow teachers the freedom to ensure that very young children should be allowed to learn at their own pace. It is about individual teaching for the individual child in the early stages of their educational development. I have accepted that there are some children who, for whatever reason, are not ready to start primary school at the required legislative age as set out currently, and that is why I propose to make changes to legislation, although it will ultimately be up to the Assembly to approve.

Our primary-school curriculum is designed to allow teachers to teach to the individual pupil rather than setting out a pathway that instructs them to teach a class at the same level, at the same time and at the same progress. We allow the professional judgement of our teachers to fit the curriculum to the child rather than the other way around in order to help those children in school who, for whatever reason, find the curriculum challenging.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What measures can be or are being taken to ensure that the proposed changes will not have any unintended negative consequences for schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That is one of the reasons that the work has taken slightly longer than I first expected. When you start to change the school starting age for some children, it may have an impact on preschool and primary school provision. The question also has to be asked about whether it will have an impact on the leaving age for post-primary schools and so on. My officials have spent considerable time going through the relevant legislation and policy documents to ensure that, when we go out to consultation, as many of those questions as possible will have been answered and that we give the public and Members a full picture. As I said, it will then be up to the Assembly whether it agrees with the legislative proposals.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister's comments about flexibility. That has been raised with me in my role as an MLA. Will he expand on whether any criteria will be set against that? There is flexibility and there is flexibility.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not proposing an open book, whereby parents can state that they do not believe that their child is ready to start school and therefore will not start until the next year. I am interested in some examples in councils in and around the Scottish borders and in some English councils, where they have brought in criteria that allow children to start school a year later. However, that decision is assessed against criteria.

I have not finalised the criteria that I will put out to consultation. They will be example criteria, and, if others have ideas, I am more than willing to listen to them. It is important that we get the legislation right and get agreement on it through the Assembly. There are examples out there. I will propose a number of those examples in the consultation, and, if others have any other ideas, I am open to listening to them.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

5. asked the Minister of Education to outline what assistance he can provide to prospective pupils wishing to travel from Coleraine to Limavady schools, including the provision of suitable bus transport. (AQO 6769/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The current rules governing the home-to-school transport policy are laid down in departmental circular 1996/41, as amended, which is available on the DE website in the section dealing with transport. The policy requires education and library boards to make such arrangements as they consider necessary to facilitate the attendance of pupils at grant-aided schools. Eligibility is determined by two qualifying criteria: distance and suitable school.

Under the policy, transport assistance will be provided only to pupils who have formally sought and been unable to gain a place in all suitable schools within the relevant eligibility distance of their home. That is two miles for primary age pupils and three miles for post-primary pupils. There are six categories of schools within the definition of "suitable school": controlled and other voluntary schools; Catholic maintained schools; integrated schools; Irish-medium schools; denominational grammar schools; and non-denominational grammar schools. If a pupil is eligible, the ELB will decide the most appropriate form of assistance to provide. That may take the form of a seat on a Translink bus, an ELB bus or a private operator bus, a private operator taxi or a monetary allowance.

As Coleraine to Limavady is a main arterial route, the most appropriate form of transport assistance is likely to be a Translink sessional ticket — a bus pass — although each case is considered individually. The ELB response will be dependent on the number and distribution of pupils travelling to a particular school and will take account of the possible interactions that exist with public bus services.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I hear what the Minister has said. Does he agree that the choice of school can be an important influence and factor in a child's educational attainment?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Sorry, I missed some of that, Mr Robinson. Would it be possible for you to repeat the question?

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does the Minister agree that the choice of school can be an important influence and factor in a child's educational attainment?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It depends on the reasons for choice. We have several different sectors out there. The main concern for me, as Minister of Education, is that, regardless of which school or sector a parent or pupil chooses, it should provide a high-quality education and look after the educational well-being of pupils.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Further to the Minister's decision to amalgamate Coleraine High School and Coleraine Academical Institution, does he have any plans to work with the Department for Regional Development to provide suitable bus provision and infrastructure for the proposed new school?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not aware of all the transport issues surrounding the case that you referred to. However, first and foremost, I would encourage the schools or the interim board of governors to engage with Translink and other service providers in the area to see what transport facilities are in place and to engage with the education and library board to discuss transport facilities in the area, eligibility etc.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. When it comes to transport charges in the future, will he promise that he will not place some form of transport charge on children travelling to voluntary schools in Belfast?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I assume that the Member is referring to one of the issues raised as part of the transport review that I commissioned. I have received a copy of the report, and I am studying the part that relates to transport provision going into the future. I am not in a position to respond to any of the recommendations in that report at this stage, although they cover the issue of charging all pupils. It does not specifically refer to one sector or area. All those matters will be dealt with fully when I publish the report and make a statement to the House in due course.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

7. asked the Minister of Education for an update on the redevelopment of Rossmar School, Limavady. (AQO 6771/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Following approval of the Rossmar economic appraisal in October 2013 by my Department, a professional team was appointed to progress the design of the new 100-pupil school building. The Western Education and Library Board is discussing the level of accommodation to be provided, and an addendum to the economic appraisal will be submitted to my Department for consideration by mid-October 2014. It is anticipated that the new build will begin on site towards the end of August 2015, with completion by March 2017.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. I am aware that the accommodation requirement has gone to the Department, but will the Minister acknowledge that Rossmar School and other schools in the area for which construction projects have been announced wait with anticipation, as does the construction industry locally?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes. It is quite a journey from the announcement of a new build to the start of construction. Each site and school throws up its own complexities. With Rossmar, while there were some hiccups at the start, we are making good progress and are working towards a start date of August 2015. So, all the major hurdles have been crossed.

I am also aware of the interest of the construction industry in my school-building programme. For different reasons, they want to see sites opened up to ensure that construction workers are on site, that jobs are there and that finances are going into the economy. While that is not the primary responsibility of my Department in this case — my primary responsibility is to provide new facilities for schools — I welcome the fact that investment by my Department assists the construction industry and the wider economy.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister has been down at Rossmar School. I welcome the fact that by this time next year we should be well on our way to a new school being finished there. Has account been taken in the preparation of the capital programme required there of any likely change in the first year or two in the number applying to be accommodated in the school?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

In the preparation for a new school build, projected entry numbers are taken into consideration as best they can be. They will form part of the deliberations of the Western Education and Library Board and of my Department before final approval is given for the size of the school. If the Member has any specific information that he believes would be valuable in our deliberations, sharing that with my Department or the Western Education and Library Board would prove beneficial.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

First, I am sure you will agree with me how relieved we all are that no pupils were seriously injured or killed in last week's bus collision. That was largely due to the fact that a high proportion of the children were, thankfully, wearing seat belts. As I confirmed at last week's safe transport awareness conference in Stormont, I view safety as the main priority in the provision of home-to-school transport policy.

Existing safety standards are already of a high level, following the implementation, since 2007, of a number of key safety measures by my Department, the education and library boards and Translink. They include not seating three children to two adult seats; no standing on school-designated services except in exceptional circumstances; and all designated school services to be fully seat-belted. Board vehicles and board-contracted private hire vehicles have been compliant for a number of years with all those measures, as pupil numbers are matched to vehicle capacities. Schools are also regularly reminded by ELBs and DE of the importance of the use of seat belts. The latest letter issued in January this year, and a further letter is being prepared by my officials.

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

That ends the period for listed questions. We move to topical questions. Topical question 8 has been withdrawn.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister of Education to detail the cuts imposed on his budget over the past four years as a result of British Government reductions to the block grant. (AQT 1561/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

In the settlement of the Executive Budget for the period 2011-15, the resource budget was cut by £125 million, as compared with 2011. That translates into a £255 million cut or 13·6% in real terms. Late in 2011, around November, I met the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the then Finance Minister and outlined to them the impact that losing £255 million would have on resources in education. They agreed that we could not travel forward on that trajectory, and I secured a further £120 million for the education budget. However, as I have said in answer to several questions, we still face significant budgetary pressures in education. They are curtailing the services that we deliver, and they are stopping services expanding, including the employment of vital front line staff in our classrooms.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he confirm whether those cuts predate any potential fines linked to the Tory-led coalition's plans to cut welfare spending? Go raibh maith agat.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The current resource budget for 2011-15 was set on the basis of a block grant from the Treasury of approximately £10 billion and distributed among Departments. When that was done, the current Welfare Reform Bill was not dreamt of or heard of. Although welfare reform was being brought through the Assembly under the auspices of the then Labour Government and the then Social Development Minister, the current Welfare Reform Bill was unheard of. The cuts to services and the job losses in education have everything to do with the coalition Government's economic policy, and the continued implementation of that policy will have a detrimental impact on all our public services.