Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 June 2016

418 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it compatible with the processes of this House for the Finance Minister to authorise his officials to give evidence tomorrow to the Finance Committee about the June monitoring round and, today, pre-empt and nullify that process by choosing to make the June monitoring statement in advance of that? What sort of way is that to do business?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Allister, I think you are aware that Standing Order 18(4) makes provision for a Minister to make oral statements at short notice. I am satisfied that those procedures have been followed and that the statement is in order. As you know, the Speaker does not become involved in Committee matters. Committees or Members who have concerns regarding the timing of statements should address them directly to the Minister.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Chris Lyttle has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to present this petition of over 6,000 signatures to the Education Minister on behalf of the Parents for Equal Education Coalition, calling for full-time nursery provision for children with special educational needs in our community to be maintained.

Children like Charlie and parents like Angela and the many others who have gathered at Parliament Buildings today have been an inspiration to me and many other MLAs. The dignity and commitment that they are showing in their fight for full-time special educational needs nursery provision for their children is in stark contrast to the totally unacceptable approach of the Education Authority, which has failed to disclose to this Assembly parental and principal opposition to its proposals and to engage with parents meaningfully on the issue.

I call on the Education Minister to avoid becoming associated with that flawed approach and to make clear his support for full-time special educational needs nursery provision in our community.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for accepting this petition on behalf of the over 300 children who are only three years old and face having their future made more uncertain. I hope that the Minister of Education will receive this petition. As I said, over 6,000 members of the public agree that we should be giving our children with special educational needs the very best start in life and should be maintaining those vital early education services. I know the Education Minister is monitoring this extremely serious issue. I call on all MLAs to wake up to the urgency of the issue and work together to ensure that the reductions do not happen.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

If you bring forward the petition, it will be lodged with the Minister of Education and a copy will be sent to the Committee.

Mr Lyttle moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Ministerial Statement

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Minister of Finance wishes to make a statement on June —

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Allister alluded to this to a degree, but this morning, the Assembly was given less than an hour to consider a 37-page statement on the monitoring round. In addition, as far as I am aware, no Committee has been given a detailed briefing before today's announcements. Any opportunity for scrutiny has been strangled by the DUP/Sinn Féin Executive, who appear to be genuinely terrified of genuine accountability.

[Interruption.]

As such, under Standing Order 16, I am formally asking —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to take his seat. That is not a point of order. If you have a point of order, raise it.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 16, I am formally asking for this item of business to be adjourned until next Monday, 20 June, to give parties time to consider the content of the statement.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

We need to take time to consider that. I ask the Member to clarify under which Standing Order he is making his request.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

It is Standing Order 16.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Standing Order 16 refers to a debate:

"during any debate, any debate on the motion".

This is not a debate. It is a statement by the Minister. Therefore, Standing Order 16 does not apply.

The Minister of Finance wishes to make a statement on June monitoring. Minister.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

It was good to hear children's voices in the Gallery earlier. Occasionally, we hear childish voices in the Assembly, perhaps from all sides, but certainly children's voices give a right good lift to the day. If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, in relation to Chris Lyttle's proposal, I want to say that, in this monitoring round, we will allocate £5 million for special educational needs. I know that that will bring cheer to him and the parents who are with us today.

There have been two attempts to delay this statement. There have been concerns about the style of the statement and the monitoring round. Let me say to all my colleagues that this is what streamlined, efficient government looks like. This is the earliest monitoring round presented to the Assembly. This, in my view, is an example of a Government that deliver, and this is an indication of how we intend to do that in the time ahead. So take it, a Cheann Comhairle and Members, as a statement of intent to deliver for all our people.

A Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt duit as deis a thabhairt domh an ráiteas seo a chur i láthair an Tionóil inniu. Is é seo an chéad bhabhta monatóireachta den treimhse nua seo, agus tabharfaidh Comhaltaí faoi deara nach ionann é agus na babhtaí a chuaigh romhainn ar chúiseanna a mhíneoidh mé ar ball beag. Mr Speaker, I thank you for affording me the opportunity to present this statement to the Assembly. This is the first monitoring statement in the new mandate and it signals a marked departure — as Members have noticed — from previous formats, for reasons that I will explain shortly.

The monitoring round presented the new Executive with a number of very significant challenges. Many of those challenges emanate from the austerity agenda that the Westminster Government seek to impose upon the devolved Administrations. No doubt, we will return to that later in the Budget debate and rehearse some of the arguments we heard yesterday about how the Tories have no mandate here, what their wishes for our people are and how we are going to resist those. The imposition of an austerity agenda is entirely unacceptable, and I will make best endeavours to prevent the least-well-off from shouldering that burden.

Despite the challenges, the Executive have been able to conclude the monitoring round without having to engage in a draconian cuts exercise, confounding, may I say, the predictions of the naysayers. Given the pressing need to bring clarity to Departments and Ministers on the 2016-17 in-year position so that they can get to work with the money I am allocating, and in the interests of efficient governance, the Executive have agreed to my request to expedite the monitoring round through the urgent procedure mechanism. This is the earliest point at which any Finance Minister has announced the June monitoring outcome, and the quick conclusion of the process signals my intention, and the intention of my ministerial colleagues, to conclude business in a timely manner. I believe that the next Executive meeting will be at the very end of the month, and I think that this is a much more efficient way to proceed for all the people we serve.

Turning to the substantive issues within this monitoring round, let me begin by highlighting that the Executive’s deliberations have actually delivered many positive outcomes that citizens will warmly welcome. The allocations are a signal of intent, as well. They show where our priorities lie.

Here is the detail. The starting point for the June monitoring round has to be the outcome of last year’s provisional out-turn. That determines how much money we have carried forward from the previous financial year into the monitoring round. I therefore begin with the 2015-16 provisional out-turn. Provisional out-turn is critically important for the Executive. Not only does it provide a strong indication of departmental budget management performance during the last financial year, but it determines the amount of resources that the Executive can plan to carry forward through the devolved Administration Budget exchange scheme (BES).

In detailing this position, as well as in relation to the June monitoring round, my focus will be on the non-ring-fenced resource departmental expenditure limit, as that is the element that funds our important public services. I will refer to that as "resource DEL" for simplicity hereafter. I will touch on the non-cash ring-fenced resource DEL element, which is handled separately, since that is strictly controlled and cannot be used for any other purpose.

Under the Budget exchange scheme, the Executive may carry forward a limited level of underspend, based on a percentage of the final Budget for the year. For 2015-16, the limit of 0·6% resource DEL equates to £59·5 million within the 1·5% capital DEL limit, providing for up to £11·5 million, including ring-fenced financial transactions capital (FTC). Members should note that any underspends recorded above those amounts would be lost to the Executive.

Before I turn to the amount that the Executive have been able to carry forward, I would like to highlight the individual departmental position. I will start with the departmental outcome. In their provisional out-turn returns, Departments registered total underspends of £44·4 million for resource DEL and £20·8 million for capital DEL. That is detailed in the tables attached to this statement. The level of departmental underspend in resource DEL is a little higher than I would have envisaged, given the budgetary challenges faced by Departments during 2015-16, although I recognise that an element of the underspend relates to the allocations made from the public sector transformation fund for voluntary exit schemes, where actual costs were often dependent upon the decisions of individuals and, therefore, as Members will understand, difficult to forecast.

The total departmental underspend of £20·8 million in capital DEL comprises £9·5 million relating to conventional capital DEL and £11·3 million relating to financial transactions capital. We will come back to that issue. The level of underspend of financial transactions capital is indicative of the challenges associated with developing suitable schemes that can utilise this funding, which can be used only for the purpose of loans to, or equity investment in, the private sector. I put out that challenge again — it was put out yesterday to Members — to find imaginative and innovative ways to use financial transactions capital.

I will move on to the implications of the carry forward of resources. The Budget exchange scheme carry forward is determined at block level. Therefore, account also needs to be taken of the various centrally held items that impact on the overall block position. The main component of these is the year-end overcommitment position, which, following the receipt of some additional Barnett consequentials and easements identified by Departments, amounted to £9 million of capital DEL, with £9·2 million of resource DEL being held unallocated for carry forward. In capital DEL, an element of the departmental underspend related to projects funded by borrowing. As the actual level of borrowing drawn was reduced to take account of that, some £1·3 million of the departmental underspend is not included in the block underspend position.

As a consequence of these adjustments, the Executive have marginally exceeded their conventional capital DEL control by £0·8 million. In line with the Budget exchange scheme rules, this will be deducted from our resource DEL carry forward. Therefore, there will be no carry forward of conventional capital DEL into 2016-17. However, the Executive can carry forward in full their underspend of FTC totalling £11·3 million.

With respect to resource DEL, the unallocated £9·2 million, combined with lower than forecast reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) interest payments and a small increase in regional rate income, has resulted in the carry forward of £56·1 million of resource DEL into 2016-17.

In conclusion, and most importantly in relation to provisional out-turn, no spending power has been lost to the Executive as a result of year-end underspends. As the tables show, there is an underspend of £11·5 million on ring-fenced resource DEL, which would exceed the amount available for carry forward. However, as that may be used for only the non-cash costs relating to depreciation and impairments, it has no impact on the level of funding available for public services and is, instead, a technical accounting matter. As the Executive have ample funding for these non-cash costs, no additional benefit would be gained should it be possible to carry forward that amount. Whilst I remain concerned by the level of underspend on ring-fenced financial transactions capital — as I said yesterday, and say again — it is pleasing that no resources have been lost to the Executive and that significant resource DEL can be carried forward under the Budget exchange scheme to help address the many pressures in the June monitoring round.

I turn now to the June monitoring round. Before getting into the specifics of the monitoring round, I think it is worth highlighting that the Executive have secured £4·5 million from banking fines to establish an air ambulance service. I know that Members across the House called for that air ambulance service. That funding will be received over three years, and £1 million will be allocated to the Department of Health in this monitoring round. I think all Members will agree that this is a welcome development that will greatly benefit our community. I think it will be particularly welcomed by those outside the city of Belfast.

I will turn now to the specifics of the June monitoring round, starting with a number of adjustments relating to centrally held items. Members may recall that the Budget 2016-17 held £30 million of the funding, previously identified for mitigating measures for tax credits, pending the results of Professor Evason’s work on welfare reform mitigations. As you know, Professor Evason’s report recommended that the Executive should introduce measures costing £64 million in 2016-17. With £75 million having already been allocated to the Department for Communities, the £30 million held centrally is now available for reallocation.

Updates to forecasts of regional rate income and interest payments on borrowing provided an additional £2·3 million, while the block grant adjustment for air passenger duty (APD) being lower than provided for in the Budget contributes a further £0·2 million.

The Chancellor's March 2016 Budget provided additional Barnett consequentials of £5·8 million of resource DEL and £3 million of capital DEL, which are now available for allocation.

As I set out earlier, the Executive can now plan to carry forward £56·1 million of resource DEL and £11·3 million of financial transactions capital under the Budget exchange scheme. Of course, that amount is subject to review once Departments have provided final out-turn information, based on their audited accounts. Any adjustments to the amount carried forward will be handled in a future monitoring round.

I turn now to the central pressures, of which Members will be aware. In 2015-16, receipts from the carrier bag levy exceeded allocations to environmental programmes by £0·5 million. Receipts from the levy must be used to support environmental programmes, so the Executive must now return £0·5 million to DAERA for that purpose.

The Executive must meet the cost of the May 2016 Assembly elections. It is currently estimated to be £5·3 million, and that amount has been transferred to the Northern Ireland Office. Adjustments will be made later in the year when final costs are confirmed.

Under legislation, the salaries of statutory office holders are met directly from the NI Consolidated Fund (NICF). Those include the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Lands Tribunal and judicial salaries. The salary costs also show in the relative Department's resource DEL budget, but, as they are a direct charge on the NICF, the costs are funded centrally. The latest estimate indicates that an additional £1 million of resource DEL funding will be required in this year, and it will be transferred to the relevant Departments in this monitoring round.

In total, taking into account the opening overcommitment and other central issues that have been noted resulted in £87·7 million of resource DEL and £3·2 million capital DEL being available, before taking account of departmental reduced requirements.

Departments declared reduced requirements in this monitoring round of £35·1 million of resource DEL and £18·5 million of capital DEL. Full details are in the tables provided with the statement. The most notable item on the resource DEL side is the reduction of £35 million from the Department for Communities for welfare support measures reflecting the outcome of the Evason review, which I mentioned earlier, and slippage in the roll-out of welfare reforms — the welfare attack.

I turn now to internal reallocations. With changes to departmental structures and new Ministers taking up post only in May 2016, there is clearly a risk that the departmental budgets for 2016-17 are not aligned to ministerial priorities in the new Departments. I think that that is understandable. In that regard, the Executive agreed, through the Budget process, that the first monitoring round of 2016-17 should provide an opportunity for new Ministers to realign their own 2016-17 Budget allocations. Ministers have therefore been afforded the opportunity in this monitoring round to move funding across spending areas without recourse to the Executive. New unit of service tables aligned to the June monitoring position and reflecting ministerial priorities are detailed in the tables accompanying the statement.

Departments may also, for a number of reasons, seek to reclassify expenditure from resource to capital, or vice versa. All such reclassifications need Executive approval, and those are also shown in the tables accompanying the statement.

Departments may also, subject to Department of Finance approval, seek to move budget between the ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced resource DEL categories. The impact of those moves is shown in the table detailing the ring-fenced resource DEL position.

All the adjustments impacted on the total amount of resource available to the Executive in this monitoring round. Once all the issues were taken into account, the Executive had £126 million of resource DEL and £17·7 million of capital DEL available to allocate.

Before turning to the mainstream allocations, there are a number of other important issues that I wish to highlight to Members, starting with ring-fenced financial transactions capital (FTC).

After taking account of the carry-forward of £11·3 million of FTC from 2015-16, the Executive have a total FTC budget of £124·8 million this year. Of that, £55·8 million has been set aside for the planned investment fund.

Departments have declared reduced requirements in this round of £11·4 million, while the Department for Communities has been allocated £5·5 million to support co-ownership housing, which is welcome news, in particular given Jonathan Bell's comments yesterday and the concerns of all Members. The £5·5 million towards co-ownership housing will contribute to delivering social and affordable homes over this mandate.

As a consequence of those changes, the Executive exit this monitoring round with £17·2 million of financial transactions capital remaining unallocated. Our capacity to identify suitable projects that can spend the FTC available to us remains an area of concern, and I have therefore asked Ministers actively to seek opportunities to utilise the funding through loans or equity investments in the private sector.

I now turn to central funds. As part of Budget 2016-17, the Executive set aside £14 million resource DEL and £15 million capital DEL for Delivering Social Change (DSC) in this financial year. The Executive Office has confirmed a range of allocations under the Delivering Social Change banner to be processed in this monitoring round, including the following: £13·8 million resource and £6 million capital to the Executive Office for various social investment fund and Delivering Social Change projects, which will cheer everyone; £1·6 million resource and £0·7 million capital to the Department of Health for the Bright Start school-age children scheme and Delivering Social Change; and £0·3 million resource to the Department of Education for Bright Start childcare. All those allocations will be welcomed across the House.

The Executive have also agreed to the transfer of £1·7 million from the Atlantic Philanthropies fund to the DSC programme to provide sufficient funding for all the allocations detailed. Any time we mention Atlantic Philanthropies and its generosity towards this Government, we should also salute the great Irish-American philanthropist Chuck Feeney. The Executive also agreed the transfer of £0·4 million capital DEL from DSC to the shared future programme. Following these allocations, there is now £7·9 million capital DEL and no resource DEL unallocated relating to the Delivering Social Change programme.

Budget 2016-17 set aside £8 million resource DEL for the Atlantic Philanthropies programme, which I referenced. The Executive Office has advised that an allocation of £3·6 million resource to Health for the early intervention and dementia programmes should be processed in this monitoring round. Taking account of the transfer to the Delivering Social Change programme, this means that £2·6 million resource DEL remains in the Atlantic Philanthropies fund.

Colleagues will recall that, in Budget 2016-17, the Executive set aside £7·1 million resource DEL for a change fund, including £1·5 million for estate rationalisation led by the estate management unit in conjunction with the reform of property management programme in the Department of Finance. A further £4·5 million was set aside for cross-cutting reform projects and £1·1 million for a pilot small business research initiative challenge fund. I can now report that all that funding has been allocated to Departments in this monitoring round.

The Fresh Start Agreement secured £60 million over five years to support the creation of a shared future. The Executive’s Budget 2016-17 set aside £12 million resource DEL in this year and the Executive Office has advised that the following allocations should be processed in this monitoring round: £7·4 million to the Executive Office to cover a wide range of shared future measures; £1·5 million to Education for summer camps and shared education campuses; £1·5 million to Communities for shared housing and cross-community sporting events; and £1·1 million resource DEL and £0·4 million capital DEL to the Department of Justice for the removal of interface barriers. That is all good news. My officials will engage with the Treasury in securing access to this funding through the Westminster Supplementary Estimates. Following these adjustments, £0·5 million of the funding available for a shared future remains unallocated.

The Department of Justice has been provided with the requested £0·8 million resource and £0·5 million capital from the funding provided by the Executive to progress measures to tackle paramilitary activity. This will fund the cost of a three-person panel and supporting secretariat, a Fresh Start implementation team, a publicity campaign, and the purchase of specialist forensic science equipment.

I now turn to other allocations in the June monitoring round. Allocations totalling £140·1 million resource DEL and £29·1 million capital DEL have been agreed. The individual allocations are detailed in the tables and include £67 million resource DEL to the Department of Health, bringing the total additional funding provided to health in 2016-17 to £200 million. In anyone's language, that is a significant commitment to health. However, as we are all aware — it has been repeated across the House from all sides — continually providing additional funding to Health does not address the underlying issues. Therefore, it is vital that the reforms identified as a result of the work led by Professor Bengoa be implemented. The Executive have agreed to support the Health Minister in delivering substantial reforms to our health service.

Thirty million pounds in resource DEL has been allocated to the Department of Education. This comprises £20 million for schools in line with the commitment provided to the previous Education Minister by my predecessor. There is a further £5 million for special educational needs, which I mentioned at the start of my statement, and £5 million for the drawdown of school surpluses under the schools end-year flexibility (EYF) scheme.

Twenty-five million pounds in resource DEL has been allocated to the Department for the Economy. This comprises £20 million for skills in line with the commitment provided to the previous Minister for Employment and Learning by my predecessor; that is three commitments in a row kept. There is a further £5 million for the drawdown of further education (FE) college surpluses under the FE college end-year flexibility scheme.

The Department for Communities has been allocated £8·3 million resource DEL to cover pressures, including £4·3 million for maternity grants and funeral loans.

It also includes — I am very pleased and proud about this — £2 million to honour the commitment in the Fresh Start Agreement for welfare advice centres. This will help those most in need to receive their full benefit entitlement. The remaining £2 million will be used to address other inescapable pressures in the Department, such as the derating grant.

A total of £1·5 million resource DEL has been allocated to DAERA for the knowledge transfer scheme to address the skills gap in the farming sector; £3 million resource DEL to the Department for Justice for a number of central pressures; and £5·3 million resource DEL to the Department for Infrastructure for road maintenance and flood prevention, another issue that came up yesterday.

On capital DEL — I know that Members will welcome this — the Department for Infrastructure will receive £22·9 million, with the majority going to improve our roads infrastructure. Flood prevention and Waterways Ireland are also to receive allocations.

The Department of Health will also receive £5 million capital DEL. Each year. the hearing of approximately 25,000 babies is screened here, with around 450 babies requiring referral to diagnostic audiology services. This funding will provide a robust mechanism for recording the results of these tests, ensuring that the right treatment is provided to babies where that is necessary. It will also enhance the communication systems between ambulance control and crews, providing for more reliable 999 responses.

I have spoken, at Committee and to the media, several times since my election about the importance that I place on the regeneration of border regions, which are on the periphery of two economies. Cross-border cooperation, however, puts those same communities at the heart of the all-island economy. That is why I am proud to be the first Minister since 2010 to make a capital allocation to a cross-border body in a monitoring round.

On Friday past, I visited the headquarters of Waterways Ireland. I met the amazing team leading it and saw the transformational work that they are involved in to make the Loch Erne waterway a beacon for tourism. With 6,000 boats on the Erne, Waterways Ireland is on the cusp of creating the most outstanding blueway in Europe, which will boost tourism, create jobs and revive the border region. I am allocating £1·4 million to the Department for Infrastructure, which will assist Waterways Ireland with its bold capital investment plans.

I have also provided the Department for the Economy with £1·3 million to complete the HMS Caroline museum project, which will also boost our tourism sector. This project — I was at the launch — benefited hugely from Big Lottery money, but we need to complete the project if it is to fulfil its tourism potential, so I am pleased to make that allocation also.

Ring-fenced resource DEL is strictly controlled, and funding cannot be moved out of this area. Changes to the area are shown in the tables accompanying this statement. Colleagues will note that we exit this monitoring round with £15·6 million of ring-fenced resource DEL unallocated. This funding may be used only to address pressures within the ring fence — depreciation and impairments — it is therefore not available for allocation by the Executive.

Before concluding, a Cheann Comhairle, I would like to update Members on the public sector transformation fund. Colleagues will recall that, in the Budget 2016-17, the Executive agreed allocations totalling £117·8 million, including £84·7 million for voluntary exit schemes and £33·1 million to restructure the teaching workforce. The Executive also agreed that £25 million of the £200 million available to the public sector transformation fund in 2016-17 should be used for capital projects, leaving some £57·4 million available for allocation through the 2016-17 in–year monitoring process.

The public sector reform division has, over recent months, liaised with Departments to identify easements on allocations agreed in the Budget and any new allocations to schemes with capacity to deliver further savings for the Executive’s Budget. Changes to allocations in this monitoring round under the public sector transformation fund are detailed in the tables accompanying this statement.

As a result of the allocations detailed above, we exit this monitoring round with a £13·5 million overcommitment in respect of resource DEL and £11·4 million on capital DEL.

Earlier this year, we had a lengthy debate in the House on the renewable heat incentive scheme and the problems with it. Members who were there or who read about it in the media will be aware that a potential additional resource DEL pressure exists in relation to commitments under the renewable heat incentive. I am not proposing an allocation to the Department for the Economy in this round as the Executive are determined that every effort be made to reduce this pressure. I ask Members to support any measures brought before them that would help to mitigate what would otherwise be a considerable ongoing pressure on the Executive’s DEL. I would also like to assure Members that this potential pressure has been considered when developing these monitoring round proposals, and I am content that it can be managed within our DEL controls.

Before I conclude, I would like to make Members aware that the Executive have agreed a draft timetable and approach for the upcoming Budget that will set resource DEL plans up to 2019-2020 and capital DEL to 2020-21. It will come as no surprise that there are a number of strategic issues facing the Executive over this period, not least the need to work in parallel with the Programme for Government process to allow the Budget to support the Executive's priorities while ensuring that those aims are realistic within the overall funding envelope. In light of this, the Executive have agreed that Department of Finance officials will work closely with Departments over the summer to form a view on the funding each Department requires.

In conclusion — and this is the conclusion, a Cheann Comhairle — as I said at the start of the statement, I am strongly opposed, and we will hear it later today, to the austerity agenda and the constraints that it inflicts and imposes upon the Assembly. I will continue to fight against austerity at all levels and, alongside that, seek to develop innovative funding options. However, despite the constraints inflicted upon us, I am pleased that the June monitoring round reflects a positive outcome with additional funding being provided to key public services — around £170 million in funding for Departments if I have got my sums right. This monitoring round has delivered extra resources for health, education, skills, roads, housing, welfare and tourism.

Mar sin, a Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom an babhta monatóireachta agus an ráiteas seo a mholadh don Tionól. I commend the June monitoring outcome to the Assembly.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

The Minister said that today's statement is significantly different from those of previous monitoring rounds. He is right in that this Assembly used to be informed not only of allocations but of bids. Looking at his statement today, I see no indication whatsoever of the pressures Departments had identified and bid for. Can the Minister explain why this information was left out of the statement? Can he give a commitment that, after today's proceedings, he will circulate it to the House?

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ruane] in the Chair)

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I think that it is appropriate for Mr Smith to take up the points that he said earlier in an attempt to delay the statement. I think that I might be the first Minister to go in and see the Committee for Finance, maybe simultaneously with the Executive Office Ministers. I intend to have very collegial and honest engagement with Members from all parties. This morning, I became the first Minister in some time to brief the Chair and Deputy Chair. My predecessors, God bless them, briefed only the Chair on these matters. I intend to stay with that tradition of seeing the Committee often and seeing the Chair and Deputy Chair.

I will say this: this is the choice that you have made. We want to have an effective, streamlined, efficient Government delivering for all our people. You want to be in an Opposition that is in the back seat. You want to drive from the back seat. You want to hold progress up. Our intention is to ensure that we do things. We deliver the actions. We do the deeds. Others may be strong in words, but this Government will be very strong in deeds moving forward. You can be assured of this: the Assembly and the Committee will have my full cooperation, but you cannot hold back progress. Scrutinise and challenge, certainly, but let us move forward. People want us to make progress swiftly.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I would like to thank the Minister for the very strong statement this morning and in particular the swift agreement by the Northern Ireland Executive on June monitoring. I particularly welcome the additional £67 million to the Department of Health along with the increase at the beginning of this Budget period of an additional £133 million. This does meet the commitment of the Executive to that additional £200 million each year. As the Minister will be aware, and we have discussed this already, much more is required than just resources to put Health on a sustainable footing. Transformation is required. I notice from his statement that there is £69 million of unallocated financial transactions capital and £59 million unallocated in the public sector transformation fund. Will the Minister give a commitment to work constructively with the Committee to look at those unallocated funds and opportunities around funding and initiatives in order to bring about the necessary transformation to put the Department of Health on a sustainable footing?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

You can take it that this is not a spectator sport. You are right: there are parties in government and in opposition, but I think that ideas on how we be more efficient in delivery of services should come from all sides. It cheers me that we have reached a place in this House where people are not saying that the solution to the pressures that society and the community face is always to spend more money.

I think we all agree that on health the solution is to have better outcomes, to use our money wisely and to adopt the Bengoa proposals. That, in many ways, is depoliticising health. So, on all the matters you raise and in the interests of cooperation and making sure we get the biggest bang for our buck, you can be assured that I will work positively with colleagues.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I agree with the Minister that the public out there are more interested in product than in process and want to see changes being delivered to our society. Will the monitoring rounds form part of a strategic delivery of product to our people out there? Will they form part of a budgetary process to see resources being directed to where they are required?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Aontaím go huile agus go hiomlán leat gur tábhachtaí le daoine táirge ná próiseas. I agree with you entirely about delivery of product rather than process. This was not a horse-trading exercise. We have a positive Government with the DUP and Sinn Féin and with Claire Sugden as Minister of Justice. We did not engage in having the wish lists that I have seen in previous Governments where Ministers put in bids that they know are not realistic. We had a hard-headed negotiation with all the Ministers. They understand, as I understand, that we are all in this together. This is a holistic Government. For years, people in here have complained about a silo Government and silo Departments. This is a Government acting with common purpose, moving forward together. So, in that regard, the monitoring round has to fit into our overall ambition for this Government and for our people. It should not be a wish list, horse-trading or hoping that one Department will get money and deny it to others. In fact, what I saw with ministerial colleagues in our private discussions was that they understood that, if there is a greater priority, you need to step back. If we need to finish a project or fund a project and your Department does not need it as much, you need to step back and say, "What is for the greater good?" This is a Government fuelled, I think, with common purpose that shows by this monitoring round that we are intent to deliver, but I take entirely on board what you say, and this has to be part of our strategic approach.

It is early days. This, I think, is a good outcome for us today. We have managed to allocate £175 million. We have made a significant difference, but let us keep up the good work. Let us keep our shoulder to the wheel because we need to repeat this later in the year not only in relation to the Budget coming up for 2017-2020 for resource and 2017-2021 for capital but in other monitoring rounds.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

We appreciate the Minister's energy, but we support the view that there has not been sufficient time to scrutinise the statement. The first big report of the mandate was the paramilitary report. The First Ministers completely bypassed the Assembly on that occasion. At least you have taken questions, but one hour for Members to scrutinise is not sufficient.

I am looking at a couple of the figures here. Despite having significantly reduced powers in this mandate, £19·2 million has been allocated to the Executive Office for the social investment fund and Delivering Social Change, and a further £7·4 million has been allocated for shared future measures, as well as money that has gone to other Departments for the same purpose. Will the Minister clarify what that shared future measures money for the Executive Office will be spent on?

Can I get clarity on one other item? On page 6, you refer to a £126·2 million resource DEL and £17·7 million capital DEL, and, on page 8, it refers to a £140·1 million resource DEL and £29·1 million capital DEL. Will you outline the reason for the discrepancy in those figures?

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I remind Members that only one question is allowed.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member and thank her for attending the briefing this morning. She is right: I have some sympathy. The sympathy I felt for Mr Nesbitt yesterday was to do with the 138 pages of Estimates. We need to make government work for the people, and there is a chance now to look at what we have done and to comment upon it, and you are welcome to do that. The figures are right, and I am happy for you to drill down into them.

I want to say this: this is the second time in two days that the social investment fund has been attacked and traduced in this Chamber. I am going to read again where the social investment fund is making a difference. Those who are trying to pillory the efforts of working-class communities, especially in Taughmonagh and Sandy Row because that is where the target has been, need to visit those communities and meet the heroes and pioneers who are trying to build up those communities, which have not received an adequate peace dividend, whether it is Tigers Bay, the Markets or the New Lodge.

With your permission, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, I am going to state again some of what the social investment fund has done. It provided £1 million to make the Bryson Street Surgery happen, which people know is at a very difficult interface, and of course, the build is complete and operational. On increasing community services, there is the Best of East Visitor Centre. That build is complete and will commence operations in the coming weeks. In fact, I think that it has perhaps commenced operations, because some friends have visited it. Who is not proud of the marvellous work being carried out by our friends in EastSide Arts and the East Belfast Partnership?

Again, on increasing community services in Belfast, there is £1·7 million for the community centre at Finvoy Street, the Greenway Women's Centre and the centre at Castlereagh Street. Again, that is another marvellous result from the social investment fund. There is £99,000 for the Short Strand Community Centre, for which a letter of offer has been issued. The list goes on, and those projects are being delivered.

Was that too slow for my liking? Yes, it absolutely was too slow, and I am determined as Finance Minister to be swifter. When we are swifter with the social investment fund, I hope that people do not come to the House and say, "It's too fast. You are getting the money into communities to rebuild them and transform lives too quickly", because, for me, that is very much our job.

The shared future fund goes through the Executive Office to other Departments. The district councils' good relations programme is £0·6 million. Summer intervention funding is £0·11 million. The central good relations fund is £3 million. Summer camps funding is £0·2 million. I will do what I did yesterday for the Member and email her this later.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

You can tell us now.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I will have to continue to read this then. Urban Villages is £0·7 million. Urban Villages is £1·6 million. Contested spaces is £0·2 million. Together: Building a United Community shared future promotion publicity is £0·03 million — that is £30,000. Shared future staffing for Urban Villages is £0·149 million. I think that we will leave it like that, but I could go through the whole list.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I remind Members to make all their remarks through the Chair.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I congratulate the Minister on his efficiency with the June monitoring statement. I do not believe that any procedures have been broken by the manner in which the statement has been brought to us today, but there is a genuine issue around transparency on the full pressures being faced across Departments. Hopefully, the Minister can rectify that gap.

On the additional money for skills — I welcome his following-through on the commitment made by his predecessor — does the Minister recognise that the £20 million will only avoid further cuts happening on an in-year basis? If we are to see proper investment in the transformation of our economy through future Budget rounds, there needs to be a further ramping-up of investment in skills across apprenticeships, FE colleges and, indeed, our universities. Will he clarify whether the £20 million is to be baselined, as was the intent of his predecessor in his correspondence to me in my previous role?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I thought that the former Minister might have more of a smile this morning. I am disappointed to see that the glass is still half empty, because when Mervyn Storey left those IOUs, I was not obliged to honour them, but I thought that it was important to do so. You are absolutely right about the need to invest in higher education and to point out that we cannot really build for corporation tax if we do not have a strong tertiary-level education system delivering first-class graduates.

This is my first bite at this particular cherry. I have tried to honour your commitment. I have met both vice chancellors, Paddy Johnston and Paddy Nixon: one in Derry and one in Queen's University. You know that they make a strong case, and you know that it is a cogent and logical case, but we do not have money to do everything that we want to do. I do not want to promise further than what we have done today. The £20 million is, of course, not only for universities. I am a big fan of the Belfast Met and the other community colleges — I suppose that that is what you would call them — and they have to get some money out of it as well.

The Member should be content that, even though he has left the post, the thrust of what he wanted is being delivered. There is much, much more to do, but I understand the vital importance of third-level education to the success of this community, and I want to make sure that as many people as possible can access a third-level education.

Eamonn McCann (People Before Profit Alliance, Foyle)

Will the Minister allow an intervention?

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Sorry, there are no interventions allowed during questions to a statement.

Eamonn McCann (People Before Profit Alliance, Foyle)

OK.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I ask the Member to resume his seat. Thank you. The Member will have opportunities for questions.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I think that Eamonn was going to mention Magee, so we might get to that as well.

Anyway, I believe, as was said previously, that access to university should be based on your ability to learn, not on your ability to pay. I commend the stance that the Minister took previously. Maybe he did not get the funding when he wanted it, but I think that we are on a different trajectory now, and I hope that this is the start of continued investment in building up our universities and further education colleges.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the statement and thank the Minister for it. I appreciate that two amounts have been set aside for capital and resource for the Department for Infrastructure. Each and every one of us has concerns about the road maintenance budget, which has already been cut in the projected budget for this year. The maintenance budget is £5·3 million, but I would like clarification: was there a bid for additional moneys for the maintenance budget for the forthcoming year?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question. The interest in roads — it was referenced yesterday — is twofold. We want efficient roads that are passable, that we can be proud of and that we can drive on, but we are also concerned about the construction industry and making sure that the many jobs for the people who are out maintaining our roads — we see them every day — are still available when we release the budgets.

When I met my ministerial colleagues, all wanted more at first cut, but, after mature discussions, the bids from Departments were, by and large, realised. I think that you will find — I am sure that the Minister for Infrastructure will speak about this — that this will make a significant difference in-year to the number of repairs that we do on our roads. It is not really a very wise policy to have potholes, because people then claim against the Government and we lose money, but you will find that this will make a significant difference in the time ahead. I do not know whether it will cheer you entirely, but I think that you will find that it makes a significant difference.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Tá ceist agam, agus moladh agam, don Aire. I encourage the Finance Minister to continue, where possible, to support early intervention programmes and special needs programmes in education. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he and the Education Minister will support and give a good listening ear to school principals, who, at this time, feel under pressure because of the with additional pressures on school budgets. I appreciate the financial constraints imposed on the Minister by the Westminster cuts.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt don Chomhalta as an cheist sin a chur. Is ambasadóir láidir é ar son an oideachais, agus tá a fhios agam go bhfuil dea-chaidreamh aige le príomhoidí, le múinteoirí agus le tuistí i gceantar s’aige. The Member is a strong ambassador for increased investment in education and always carries the standard for principals, teachers, parents and children.

I am pleased that we have been able to make an additional allocation to schools. I am a supporter of the Bright Start programme. The discussion on how the money will be used is now with the Education Minister, Peter Weir, but the views of the Member and my views are perfectly aligned. We understand the importance of early intervention, making sure that all children have a great opportunity in life, and it has to start very early. I am heartened not only by the passion of the advocacy by educationalists and parents but by the fact that, across the Chamber, Members from all parties agree that education is a priority.

Given that we never have enough money to do everything that we want to do, it is fair to say that we understand where the priorities are, and that is why there is extra money in this monitoring round for education and for special educational needs. I want to make sure that we reinforce the delivery of initiatives such as pathways, and I wish the Education Minister well as he endeavours to make sure that we make an even greater positive impact for our young people.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I am sure that the Minister will accept that he is building on the strong foundations laid by his predecessors Mr Hamilton, Mr Storey and, of course, Mr Wilson.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

And Mrs Foster, no?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

And Mrs Foster, yes.

[Laughter.]

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

And Mr Robinson.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

And Mr Robinson. And Mr Dodds. Will he accept that, as my colleague has already said, whilst the monitoring round improvements in funding for road maintenance are indeed welcome, if we do not, through either the monitoring rounds or better funding in the main Budget, deal with the situation soon, we are storing up huge problems for the future? If we do not maintain our roads, in 20 or 30 years' time we will have a vast expenditure, because we will have to fundamentally rebuild them.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I do, Mr Wells. I think you have forgotten Finance Minister Durkan. I do not think that goes back before your time; it certainly goes back before the time of many Members here, but I think you were here for that period as well. You are absolutely right: penny wise, pound foolish. We need to invest in our roads infrastructure; we need to get this right. It is important that, as we do face constraints, we do not ignore investment. If we do, what will happen is that a year or two down the road we are landed with a huge financial headache. We take that on board. It has been a position voiced by many Members, about not only the roads in Belfast but the rural and minor roads as well. We need to make sure that we invest in this network — it is important for our people, it is important for the success of our society, it is important for tourism and it is important for visitors. Your point is well made.

Each of the Finance Ministers you mentioned — whatever about the Finance Minister I mentioned; that was before my time — was prudent and aware of the pressures which impose upon our spending, and they always tried to act in a wise and prudent fashion. I intend to do the same to make sure that there is no neglect in investment which will create a headache at a later date.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Minister, you mentioned the renewable heat incentive and asked Members to support any pressure brought before them because you have not made a bid in this monitoring round. Can you therefore give us guidance as to what the timescale is for those measures that are going to be brought? Also, I see you are content that any pressures can be managed within your current DEL controls.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question. I think, Robin, you were here for the debate on the renewable heat incentive. I was, like other Members, very energised by the way the scheme was operated. It is clear there are a number of flaws and fault lines in that scheme. I have pressed back hard on officials in relation to how we are going to rectify this problem. I do not want to make an allocation for it now, but I am preparing for an allocation if that is necessary. We need to study this carefully, but we also need to act rather swiftly because until we rectify the problem it will continue to gather pace.

Of all the issues we address in the time ahead, getting a handle on this renewable heat incentive is absolutely vital. In England they got a handle on it when it was thought there was going to be an overspend. I look forward to my colleague Simon Hamilton's proposals. He is equally energised about this issue and is focused on finding a resolution and coming to the Assembly, and to me, as early as possible, with a strategy for dealing with the problem. It is not a secret to Members, because we did discuss it at length, that it has not been a well-run scheme. I look forward to Minister Hamilton bringing forward his proposals.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

First, I, like others, have obviously not had sufficient time to read the report in great detail. I welcome some of the headline figures, particularly the news that there will be funding for roads. I will be watching carefully to see how that funding is allocated regionally. I know in particular there is a need in south Down for more tarmac —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Has the Member a question for the Minister?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Certainly, yes.

I also welcome funding for Waterways Ireland. Until now there has been a real danger of some of the cross-border bodies withering on the vine because they have not had adequate funding or support. The Minister did comment that he has had —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Will the Member ask her question, please?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Yes, thank you.

He mentioned that, during frank discussions with the Executive, some projects may have to be set aside. Given the renewed commitment to cross-border bodies, I hope the Minister can give an assurance that Narrow Water bridge project has not been set aside. Given his commitment to cross-border projects, he could give that assurance to the people of south Down.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that it should be a question to the Minister and not a statement. I ask Members to make their questions brief.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank Ms Bradley for her question. She is right to focus on rural roads — those of us from Belfast are accused occasionally of forgetting that there is anywhere outside the city limits — so I intend to do that. You are fortunate in that I think that Chris Hazzard does not live too far away, so he can certainly visit and view those roads with you.

In terms of Waterways Ireland, I think that part of the Ulster canal may be in your constituency. I am happy to visit it and to look at it with you to see how we might progress that project. That is another example of a project that has been around for too long and that we, as Governments, have not delivered on, yet it is a transformational project. In fact, as Jeffrey Donaldson reminded me, if we can get from Belfast to Lough Neagh and then to the Shannon, we will have a new all-island highway, or an old highway reopened. I am with you on that entirely.

It is a statement of intent, and I, of course, have to work with other Ministers. Do I believe that it is to the benefit of all our people, as Sir George Quigley believed, to develop an all-island economy? Yes, I do. Do I believe that communities in the border regions are on the periphery of two economies, yet could be at the centre of an all-island economy? Yes, I do. Do I believe that border communities — I know that you represent some of them — deserve a bigger slice of the peace dividend? Yes, I do. You will find me an ally for any proposals on constructive cross-border cooperation that encourage the all-island economy and encourage cooperation between our communities and peoples in the time ahead.

I remain a fan of the Narrow Water bridge project. As I said to the Committee last week, I generally support bridge building; it is a good way of moving forward. I saw that project before I was returned to the House, and I will be working with you and with other Members to realise the dream of having a bridge at Narrow Water. The work starts. It is not, of course, with my Department, but you can be sure that I think that that project is a priority, and I hope to see it realised in the time ahead. In the House, "the time ahead" sometimes can mean a long time, but I hope that we can get stuck into that project.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, thank you for your statement. I want to return to the renewable heat incentive. Can you give us an assurance that that matter, regardless of the sums involved, will be dealt with directly by the Executive rather than being left to the Department for the Economy, the sole role of which should be to transform our economy and which should not be burdened in that respect? Will he give the House an absolute assurance that that matter will be dealt with directly by the Executive?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question. You were in for the debate earlier this year. It is one of the most vital and pressing issues that we face and it is the right decision to move it to the centre. I look forward to seeing the proposals. It will be our friends in the energy section of the former DETI who will deal with it — they are dealing with it daily. It is a crucial and vital question.

We will move to allocate it to the centre if necessary. You can take it that, wherever it sits, it is a priority for me to get a handle on it and make sure that we have a solution.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I apologise for not having had the chance to go through the statement forensically as the Minister knows that I would have liked to have done, but there are a couple of questions to which I would quite like answers if he has the opportunity to do so.

Despite the increase of £25 million, much of which will go to restoring part of the issues to do with the skills shortage in Northern Ireland, I note from the ring-fenced resource DEL that there is a reduction of £34·2 million. Again, we have not seen those figures, and we would like to see the reasoning behind them fairly soon. On the second issue, I would particularly like —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I remind the Member that it is one question to the Minister.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

In that case, I shall sit down. Thank you.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

It is a matter of great disappointment that you have had 15 minutes and have not forensically examined all those figures, Mr Aiken, because I know that you are well capable of it. I do not have the full reasons for that fall. I did not realise that there was a fall. I am not sure which Department you are referring to, but I am happy to discuss that with you.

Overall, I think it is a good monitoring round. Many of the issues that have been raised by the Opposition since I came here are addressed as well. Those issues are priorities for the Government parties, but the reality is that some of the big issues we have addressed were raised by colleagues in the Opposition parties yesterday. We can all stand over that. Your priorities are addressed in this monitoring round, and I think that is a reason to welcome it. There will be an opportunity, with individual Ministers or with me, if you wish, to go through each reason for slippage or underspend. There are all sorts of reasons for that, and some of them can be very genuine. Welfare mitigations have not moved ahead as swiftly as we thought, thank God; so there is some money being returned to the centre. There are some Barnett consequentials as well. When I went back to Departments and asked why they had not spent money, it did not seem to be through inefficiency; there seemed to be other factors at play. It was, in my view, justifiable and correct that they should surrender the money for reallocation. I am happy to pore over the figures with you at a later date.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The Minister has made much reference to the importance of delivering on actions and I welcomed the fact that he said yesterday that housing is a priority for him. Considering that there are 40,000 households on the waiting list, 22,000 of which are in housing stress, how many affordable and social homes will be built from this allocation? For our most vulnerable people, a roof over your head is important but also, critically important, are wrap-around services. Where is the funding for projects like Supporting People and the housing first model?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Stephen Farry's glass was half-full. Ms Mallon, I think your glass is about a third-full. There was no indication, in any of the media reports before this announcement, that there would be anything here.

One of my esteemed colleagues in the Alliance Party talked about the unravelling of budgets. Mr Attwood talked yesterday about bringing urgent statements to the House regarding the Budget situation. In fact, this is a very positive outcome across Departments and, in particular, for co-ownership housing. We need to come up with more ways to spend this financial transaction capital but we have managed, and I have said this candidly to Members, to find £5·5 million for the co-ownership scheme. That will be for social and affordable homes. It is not the preference of everyone. It may not suit some of the people we are talking about, but it is my intention, and we talked about priorities, to provide the funding where I can do so, or ensure that we can find ways to raise money or borrow in a prudent fashion against a revenue delivering project, to build the homes that we need.

Before the election, Sinn Féin committed to building 10,000 new homes, but even that is not enough. As I said yesterday, you cannot have a family if you do not have a home. The figures and the level of housing stress and homelessness are really worrying and are an indictment of our society. We need to make a start in tackling it. That is why I welcomed the £280 million from the European Investment Bank (EIB) last week for two of our housing associations — Apex and Choice I think. That is why I will make housing a priority. If the Minister for Communities comes to me with other proposals about enhancing support for the homeless and those seeking homes, I will be very sympathetic. Nothing is more important. Nothing is a greater test of our ability and efficiency as a Government than delivering homes.

We have made some progress: £5·5 million is not enough, and the Member can work out for herself what she thinks that will deliver in terms of homes and the cost of them. The sum of £280 million from the EIB is not enough. We need to find a way of allowing the Housing Executive to borrow off balance sheet so that it can get on with what it is good at, which is building houses and making them available to families. So, if she wants to prioritise housing, especially housing the homeless, I suggest that she brings that, robustly, to the Minister for Communities. She will find me an ally with a very sympathetic ear. If she works in concert with the Minister for Communities on housing, she will find that I will be very supportive in doing what we can to ease housing need.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I, also, thank the Minister for his statement and, like others, welcome the additional £72 million being allocated to the Department of Health. Equally, I welcome the realisation from the Minister that this does not address the underlying issues. He will remember that I touched on this yesterday. What guarantees can the Minister give that our health service has the capacity to use these additional multi-million pound allocations? Also, the statement lacks clarity on what the £67 million resource —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Member is entitled to one question.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

— and £5 million capital will be used for. Can the Minister break it down for us?

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I call the Minister to answer one question of his choice.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank Mrs Dobson for prioritising and focusing on health again, and reiterating what everyone is saying, which is that while this additional money is very welcome — it brings to £200 million the extra amount we have allocated to health this year — money alone is not the solution.

I have honoured some of the commitments made by Simon Hamilton, the outgoing Minister, to the health service. I have worked with my officials and Health Department officials to make sure that every penny of this is used. I will not be pleased if any Department comes back and says, "The money that we bid for in June monitoring, we didn't or couldn't use". That would be a bad marker to put down with me, because we really made sure the bids were realistic. We really worked hard with other Ministers and officials to make sure that the money really was needed and will be used.

In terms of how it will be used, there is demand for unscheduled care. New and unplanned attendances at emergency departments have increased, as you know and highlighted, since 2014-15. Funding is therefore required in a number of areas to improve patient care and unscheduled care, including winter pressures, as well as capacity expansion on acute sites and staffing in emergency departments. Key aspects of the social care system remain under significant pressure in 2016-17, with additional investment required in domiciliary care in the statutory and independent sectors, as well as in children's services, learning disability and psychological therapies. This allocation will help to address front-line pressures and improve patient flow. I am happy to meet you to talk in more detail about where that is going, and I am sure that Minister Michelle O'Neill will be as well.

I will say what I said on housing: please highlight health. It is not my Department but, as with housing, I want to remain an ally and advocate for wise and prudent spending that delivers better outcomes in health.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire cá mhéad den chaiteachas sna hearnálacha éagsúla, thar na tréimhsí áirithe, a thagann ón Aontas Eorpach. How much of the total amounts in all key spending areas is sourced from the EU?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt don Chomhalta as an cheist sin. Bhí tú sa Chathaoir mhór aréir; anois tá tú arais i measc na dtuataí. Tá a fhios agam cá bhfuil tú ag gabháil leis an cheist sin, agus molaim an treo ina bhfuil tú ag gabháil fosta. Tá tú ag iarraidh fíricí. Baineann an caiteachas seo leis na Ranna s’againne amháin; seo caiteachas s’againne. Gan amhras, áfach, cuirfear airgead ón Eoraip leis sin. Sílim go bhfuil €280 milliún ag SEUPB agus thart faoi €270 milliún ag INTERREG.

I welcome the Member's question. I know and applaud where he is going on the question. This is our departmental expenditure, but European funds are essential to the delivery of services. The Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), and Members might correct me, provides, I think, around €280 million, and INTERREG provides around €260 million. Without that funding, and without referencing Brexit, we would not be able to deliver the vast majority of the projects that I know you are interested in, for example in rural and border areas.

This is our commitment to the kitty, but without European funds we would not be able to deliver the services that are so vital to our people. So, your resolve, like mine, is to make sure that on 24 June those funds are still available.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement, but I must say that I find the new format unhelpful. Like others, I am concerned about the lack of transparency. I believe it is healthy to be aware of the bids, choices and pressures that were there. Can the Minister advise whether there were bids to, for instance, provide additional capital funding to improve health centres — there is an issue with those in my constituency — or, in education resource funding, to address some of the effective cuts to our schools? Were there any unsuccessful bids, and will the Minister publish all the bids?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question. The bids in my negotiations and discussions with ministerial colleagues are, of course, confidential. What I can say is this: you always find at your first meeting with Ministers that they want the earth, the moon and the stars, but we had realistic discussions very early on. This is a new style of government. I do not think it would have been to the benefit of any health centre, school or community project to have unrealistic bids trawled for a month through Committees, exercising all types of commentary and speculation, when it is much better, in my view, to have a Government of common purpose, focused on a holistic response to all the pressures facing us, making realistic bids to me, discussing those with me and understanding what their sister Departments need. That has never happened before, because before, of course, in the five-party Government, it was every man and every woman for themselves.

What I can say is that every Minister — that includes not only DUP and Sinn Féin Ministers but Claire Sugden, the Minister of Justice — left content and realising that, although they would love more money and there is more they want to do, there is not enough money in the pot. As you said, some people made a strong case on issues that were of particular interest to them but that we could not meet at this time, so I will return to those discussions with ministerial colleagues in the time ahead. This streamlined, efficient style of government will make sure that we deliver the type of projects you are talking about in the time ahead.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Minister's statement. Whilst the allocations to the Department for Infrastructure are welcome, will the Minister take steps to address the stop-start nature of funding to address road repairs and defects in structural maintenance? Will he undertake to put in place proper financial planning and a proper system to ensure that adequate funds are allocated at the earliest point so that contractors and the road construction industry can properly plan and road maintenance is no longer treated as a political Cinderella?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank Mr Kennedy for that question. I would have thought that you left a fairly healthy budget to Minister McIlveen. Now it is coming to me. If stop-start had not been part of the Department's approach, it will certainly not be part of my approach. I agree with you entirely. I want to deliver on those projects not only for the construction industry but for those who want to see projects, some of which, Mr Kennedy, some may say were stop-start under your tenure — the A5 and the A6 for example. There is very bold ambition on the A5 and the A6, and I want to deliver on them in a strategic fashion. There are always difficulties. There may be a planning inquiry here or a difficulty there, but I agree with you entirely: there needs to be a cogent, forceful, passionate approach to building up the road infrastructure that we need. Our people who use the roads need that; our economy needs that; and our construction industry needs that.

I will say finally that, although the majority of money that I have allocated in this monitoring round is to do with road maintenance and so on, occasionally, with respect to the A5 and the A6, people who meet me talk about the north-west city region of Derry — Londonderry, as you would say, Mr Kennedy — and how they need to get to Belfast, Dublin or wherever. What is really clear when you visit Derry, as I did last week, when I met the Donegal County Council CEO as well, is that the contribution they will make to the wider economy of Derry and Donegal through a proper transport infrastructure will help all our people right across the country. It is the enabling of their contribution to us that will be the real genius of the A5 and the A6. I know that not as much progress was made on it under your tenure as perhaps you would have liked, but we make a commitment here that we will deliver in a consistent, informed, strategic fashion the road infrastructure our people need and our economy requires.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

The Minister previously made reference to the benefits of the social investment fund, as he sees them. Does he share my concern, however, that there are those receiving SIF funding who wear the air of respectability by day but direct criminality by night — people who, by night, cause community tensions and, by day, seek funding to resolve them? What will the Minister do to ensure that public funding is withdrawn where evidence of such practice exists?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

You will note that I made an allocation towards strategies to end paramilitarism. I know that all Members will join me in this, but I doubt that there is anyone in the House who endorses or condones paramilitary activity. I know that there have been a series of worrying problems in your constituency and a concern on the part of ordinary people that the spectre of paramilitarism still lingers. You can take it from me: I stand four-square behind the community of North Down, of South Belfast and of every constituency in facing down the paramilitaries. However, I also want to say that I have worked with former paramilitary leaders in Sandy Row in South Belfast, and they have kept every commitment that they made to me. They have kept the peace every time that I have asked them to do so, and every engagement that I have had with them has been respectful. I believe that they are committed to the path of peace and building up their communities, and I will stand with them.

If Mr Agnew or anyone else has evidence against anyone involved in any of our programmes — I am not sure about singling out the social investment fund, as we spend money right across the piece — they should bring it to the PSNI and demand rapid and effective action against paramilitarism. We have come too far to let anyone drag us back. I will set aside your singling out of the social investment fund — if there is a project that you want to bring to the attention of the police or the authorities, please do so — but, that to the side, I stand with you in making sure that we have a society free of paramilitary influence.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister is anxious to impress with the speed with which he brought the statement to the House. It is certainly quicker than last year. We never had a June monitoring round, and we all know the reason for that: it was because Sinn Féin was involved in a sham fight for welfare before it rolled over —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Does the Member have a question for the Minister?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I want to ask the Minister specifically about a matter in table four. Now that he is a custodian and not just a spender of public finance, is he satisfied that it is good value for money to have sold 621 acres at Shackleton for £1 million? Was that value for money for the taxpayer?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank Mr Allister — go raibh maith agat. This is the can't-do corner. It is not even a corner; it is only a small redoubt in the Assembly. I do not mind people who say "You can't do". Most of the Opposition say to me, "You can do. You can do more, and you can do it faster and more efficiently", but it is refreshing to have a can't-do corner. Every time I hear from the can't-do corner, I will respond as positively as I can, because eventually, the can do — as proved by 107 Members — outnumbers, outshines and overshadows the can't do.

On Shackleton, obviously, I did not sell it; I have only been in post for two and a half weeks. If you believe that it was not value for money and you believe that what is proposed is not to the benefit of all our people, raise that issue and bring it to us. I want to see us move from a society that had symbols of division and the past at every turn to a better, more prosperous place. I am not sure that you want to be there, Mr Allister; I think that you would be very comfortable in the past. For today, this is a monitoring round about the future. This is a can-do monitoring round. Will it be tested? Will there be challenges? Of course there will. This is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a step forward —

[Interruption.]

I understand that you would like to come back: you will have plenty of opportunities to come back, because we will be here for a while.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I ask that all Members make their remarks through the Chair.

Eamonn McCann (People Before Profit Alliance, Foyle)

The Minister said earlier that we are all in this together. This is a phrase that, in recent years, has been mainly associated with Mr David Cameron, who repeats it at every occasion. As he puts the boot into the poor, he assures them, "We are all in this together".

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Does the Member have a question?

Eamonn McCann (People Before Profit Alliance, Foyle)

Yes, indeed. I want to put that together with the Minister's suggestion that there are two vice chancellors in the North. He said that there is one in Belfast for Queen's and one in Derry. That is not true.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Will the Member ask his question?

Eamonn McCann (People Before Profit Alliance, Foyle)

Will the Minister give an assurance now that the management of the University of Ulster has no need for, and should call to a halt, the redundancy programme that is closing courses and getting rid of lecturers at Magee? How can we listen to all the promises about the expansion of Magee when what they are actually doing is contracting Magee?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I do not know whether there is a "can't-do" corner, but there is the "can't-hear" corner. I mentioned British Prime Minister Cameron's reference that we are all in this together to denounce it and say clearly that it is a lie and a canard. That is why I used the expression; I did not do so to endorse it. You have to listen to the entire sentence and the one before and the one after, but you can check the Hansard report.

I went to Magee last week because I wanted to state clearly at this early stage what I was told by the chief executive of Derry and Strabane District Council, the chief executive of Donegal County Council, the business community, the Chamber of Commerce and others I met before I left the city, and vice chancellor Paddy Nixon, namely that the entire success in the future of what I am happy to call "the north-west city region of Derry" hinges on the success of the University of Ulster campus at Magee. I am happy to see that numbers there have increased. I am a big advocate — I have said this to my colleague and friend, the vice chancellor of Queen's University — of anthropology, the Irish language and history. I have a degree in two of those three subjects, though not a very good one, and I would like to see, and I have said this to all those involved in our universities, those particular disciplines grow in the time ahead as well as other disciplines. The way to grow our universities is to provide funding. We have done that today. I do not know if the Member heard — maybe he missed it — but we have just provided £20 million to make the type of investment that Dr Farry called for.

Executive Committee Business

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA 01/16-21] be agreed.

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle as an sos. Thank you for the break. This Second Stage debate follows the approval of the Supply resolution by the Assembly for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the 2016-17 Main Estimates. That happened in time for the second half of the Ireland and Sweden game, which was a good result, as today's monitoring round has been.

As Members will undoubtedly be aware, accelerated passage of the Bill is necessary to ensure Royal Assent prior to the end of July. There were some concerns expressed earlier about the urgent process we use for monitoring rounds, but I am grateful, perhaps even more so because of that, that the Committee granted accelerated passage for the Bill. If the Bill did not proceed by accelerated passage and receive Assembly approval before the summer recess, Departments and other public bodies could have legislative difficulty in accessing cash, which would threaten the effective delivery of public services prior to our return to the Chamber in September.

I am glad to note, however, that the Bill can be given accelerated passage, because the Committee for Finance has confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 42, it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals contained in it. That is an example of opposition and government working together. I hope that we see more of that. I thank the Committee for its work in agreeing to accelerated passage.

The Bill's main purpose is to make further provision of cash and resources for use on services, in addition to the Vote on Account provided in the Budget Act that was passed by the Assembly in February, up to the requirements of Departments and other public bodies set out in the Main Estimates for 2016-17. Copies of the Budget (No. 2) Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members today. The 2016-17 Main Estimates and the Statement of Excess 2014-15 were laid in the Assembly on 1 June 2016.

The Bill will authorise the issue of a further £7,986,369,200 from the Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £8,693,136,600 by the Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of each schedule. Of course, those amounts are in addition to the Vote on Account passed by the Assembly in February, bringing the total amount of cash provided for 2016-17 to over £15 billion. In addition, the Bill sets for the current financial year a limit for each Department on the use of accruing resources — current and capital receipts — totalling £2,340,215,000. Therefore, the resources authorised by the Assembly in the Vote on Account in February and the resources and accruing resources now provided in the Bill bring the total resources for use by Departments in 2016-17 to over £19 billion. Of course, those amounts of resource include not only the departmental expenditure limits (DELs), on which our Budget process mainly focuses, but departmental demand-led annually managed expenditure (AME).

Clause 2 provides for the temporary borrowing by my Department of £3,993,184,000. That is approximately half the sum authorised by clause 1 for issue out of the Consolidated Fund. I must stress to the Assembly that clause 2 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund or convey any additional spending power, but it enables my Department to run an effective and efficient cash-management regime and ensure minimum drawdown on our block grant on a daily basis. That is very important when contemplating the daily borrowing by our Departments.

The Budget (No. 2) Bill authorises £68,328,183 — there is also a very important 78p there — which was used by the Department of Finance and Personnel in 2014-15, and £952,921·37 for the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was used in 2014-15 by way of Excess Votes. The need for additional resources for the Department of Finance arose from using an incorrect rate when calculating the interest on the principal Civil Service pension scheme liabilities. The need for additional resources for the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission arose from an inaccurate assessment of the pension liability of the Assembly Members' pension scheme. The Public Accounts Committee has considered both issues and recommended that the Assembly provide the additional resources through an Excess Vote.

In bringing the first Budget Bill of this Assembly mandate, I am making clear my intention to deliver for the people whom we represent. The expenditure being approved in the Bill will see investment in high-quality public services and, most importantly, a commitment to oppose the austerity programme being driven by the Westminster Government. I aim to work with all our local communities to create a prosperous shared society and to help grow a stronger economy with opportunity for all. This Budget will serve our people well. I am proud that, with this Budget Bill, we are delivering the most generous welfare protection in these islands. I am proud that, with this Budget Bill, we are continuing to block the Westminster Government's bedroom tax. I am proud that, with this Budget Bill, we are preventing the imposition of water charges. I am proud that, with this Budget Bill, we are keeping university fees for our students affordable.

As I made clear in the Supply resolution debate yesterday, I will be taking every opportunity to continue to oppose austerity. I am meeting the Finance Ministers of Wales and Scotland tomorrow and Thursday to fight collectively for enhanced fiscal powers that will allow us to make decisions in the interests of all our people rather than have decisions imposed on us. I have sought an urgent meeting with Chancellor Osborne to drive that agenda forward.

It might be hard to translate the figures that the Bill that we are considering today contains into real-world public services. However, it is important to emphasise — some members of the Opposition mentioned health centres earlier — that every doctor and teacher, every road improvement, every hospital and every public service provided for under the authority of the Assembly is affected by the Bill. It requires legislation to operate legally in this financial year. I think that this is probably the fourth time that we have had an opportunity to talk about our funding priorities. It is crucial legislation for our public services. Ba mhaith liom an Bille seo a mholadh. Is féidir go mbeidh díospóireacht thintrí againn air seo, ach tá a fhios agam go bhfuilimid uile ar son leas an phobail.

I look forward to the debate. I know that it may be heated at times, but I believe, even though we divide between Opposition and Government, that everyone in the House is united in wanting to see a better society and that this Budget is the bedrock of that.

On that note, I conclude. I will be happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget Bill that Members may wish to raise.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I speak first in my role as Chair of the Finance Committee. As already outlined, the Bill makes provision for the balance of cash and resources required to reflect the departmental spending plans in the 2016-17 Main Estimates. These are based on the Executive’s one-year Budget for 2016-17, which was approved by the Assembly in February.

As outlined, the Bill also includes provision for excess cash and resource requirements by the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission and the Department of Finance, and we touched on that in yesterday's debate. The Committee noted that this matter has been considered by the Comptroller and Auditor General and reported on by the Public Accounts Committee, which recommended that the necessary sums be provided by Excess Vote in the Assembly.

As on previous occasions, the Department of Finance has highlighted the need for the Bill to progress through the Assembly before summer recess. In that regard, at its meeting last week, the Committee agreed to grant accelerated passage to the Bill under Standing Order 42(2), on the basis of having been consulted appropriately on the expenditure provisions in the Bill; and I wrote to the Speaker to confirm that decision.

There was positive engagement with the Minister during his first appearance before the Committee last week, and I hope that that sets the tone for further meetings. I, in my role as Chair, and the members of the Committee, will scrutinise the work and hold the Minister to account, and, if he is found wanting, we will call him out on that. However, we want to have a constructive working relationship with the Department. It was evident, during the Minister’s evidence session, that there is some common ground, most notably in the need to consider the regional economic impact of the Budget over the coming years. I believe that we all share the view that local needs and circumstances have to be taken into account and respected.

Therefore, as we move forward in this mandate, it is critical that all Departments engage constructively with their Assembly Committees, particularly in relation to budgetary matters. The provision of this information is important, for both the Finance Committee’s cross-cutting scrutiny role and the role of all Statutory Committees in monitoring progress at a departmental level. The role of the Assembly Committees in scrutinising spending and monitoring savings, as well as service delivery, will continue to increase in importance, given the budgetary challenges that we will inevitably face. Thorough scrutiny can add real value to the Budget process in that regard.

At tomorrow’s meeting, the Committee for Finance will consider how we, as a Committee, can look to shape and influence the process on the forthcoming Budget for 2017-20.

In terms of the immediate business before us, however, and on behalf of the Committee for Finance, I support the general principles of the Bill.

As a DUP Member, I welcome the Minister moving swiftly on with the core business of finance. I welcome the level of agreement across the Northern Ireland Executive, as that is both necessary and critical if we are to tackle the key challenges that we face. I know that the Minister understands the urgency and importance of those issues.

We heard from some Members — I see that Stephen Farry is still in his seat — during the election that they stood under the banner of "Forward. Faster."; it seems now to be "Forward. Slower.". Sometimes, there is a sense from Opposition Members that they want to slow things down. However, I know that the Minister agrees with me that delivery is key, and we are determined to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. The multi-year Budget will be the core opportunity and foundation if we are to meet the key commitments in the draft Programme for Government that, with some amendments after consultation, should become the Programme for Government. If we are to make those commitments a reality, finance and the Budget will be the foundation. Therefore, although sometimes these things can seem a little dry and dull, they underpin absolutely everything that we do in government, and they are critically important.

There is a new outcomes- and impact-focused approach outlined in the Programme for Government. It must also happen, I think, that we take a different approach to our processes and how we deal with the Budget. I know that the Committee will consider this in the next number of months as we move towards those Budget discussions.

We have heard some discussion in the Chamber about the social investment fund, for example, which is having a positive impact on the ground. The Minister outlined some of the fantastic projects in Belfast South. I know that that is common across Northern Ireland. Employability South employs hundreds of people, and fantastic capital builds are supporting communities in need — communities that, perhaps, could not access funds previously. Yet, the social investment fund gets a hard time from certain parties and Members. I have talked to the Minister about this, and the difficulty and slowness with the social investment fund is not that there is a lack of agreement about what we want to achieve. There was commonality: we wanted to help communities; we wanted to talk to communities about the problems that they face; and we wanted to listen to them proposing solutions to those problems. That is very much what we did in the social investment fund.

The difficulty related to the business cases processes and procurement. I have spoken to the Minister. If a Department has a policy, but it takes years to go through the processes, those processes are not meeting the need, not delivering for the Northern Ireland Executive and, more critically, not delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. The Minister and the Committee are keen to look at this and ask, "How do we change not only the way that we do business in the Northern Ireland Executive but our processes and systems in order to produce better results for the people of Northern Ireland?". That is a huge piece of work. It is about public-sector transformation and doing things differently, but there is a commitment to do that. I look forward to working with the Minister on that important work.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

Yesterday, the Minister and his colleagues in the DUP referred to the Ulster Unionist Party as:

"the enabler of austerity" [Official Report (Hansard), 13 June 2016, p58, col 1].

because of its electoral relationship with the Conservative Party two elections ago. I will give a quick reminder for those with a short memory — a bit of a history lesson. Under Prime Ministers Blair and Brown, the Labour Party racked up, by 2009-2010, an annual Budget deficit of £170 billion. Proportionally, that is higher than when we required the IMF's assistance in 1978. You will, of course, remember the infamous quote from the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne:

"I'm afraid there is no money."

That, of course, left the coalition Government with the task of moving the country away from bankruptcy by reducing public-sector debt as a percentage of GDP and adopting a fiscal model that would balance the books. Whilst we disagree with many of the Westminster Government's spending priorities and policies, we do not wish to see Northern Ireland emulate the disastrous New Labour policy of borrow and spend, especially to cover revenue shortfalls rather than making capital investment. It is the Government equivalent of using the mortgage to pay for a shopping spree and a few good nights out.

In yesterday's debate, Mr Storey said that there was no "money tree" in Stormont. I hope that the Minister took that point on board. I believe that there are a number of actions that the Minister could implement to instil greater confidence in his borrowing and spending intentions. First, will the Minister echo the commitment in the 2016-17 Budget:

"The 2016-17 Budget is predicated on the full drawdown of available RRI borrowing. However, given the need to be mindful of the overall level of indebtedness that results from RRI borrowing, the Executive will consider mechanisms for capping RRI borrowing ... This will ensure that the overall level of borrowing remains within manageable limits."?

Secondly, will the Minister provide an update on the commitment in Fresh Start to establish:

"an independent fiscal council for Northern Ireland.",

especially its commitment:

"to prepare an annual assessment of the Executive's revenue streams and spending proposals"?

Thirdly, does the Minister agree that the UK Government's previous statement that they would legislate to ensure:

"the Assembly cannot consider spending plans which exceed the Block Grant or the Northern Ireland Executive's borrowing limits",

makes any plans to increase borrowing dependent on Treasury approval?

Yesterday, the Minister and others said that they wanted proposals from the Opposition, although the attitude of the Executive to date in providing information and facilitating the opposition process suggests otherwise. However, there are certainly potential areas for revenue generation.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. His introductory remarks show that whilst you can take the UUP out of UCUNF, you cannot necessarily take UCUNF out of the UUP. With regard to the way in which the information is being provided, the Member will be aware that, in Westminster — the system that the Ulster Unionists tell us that they want us to move towards in the House — Budgets are provided, and Jeremy Corbyn gets the equivalent of an hour to respond to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Member has been given much more information and much more time than that to respond.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I believe that the resources and how opposition is facilitated in Westminster is fundamentally different from what is on the cards here. That needs to change, or we will not have the effective government that we need in this country. That is something that needs to be improved.

As I said, the Minister and others said that they wanted proposals from opposition. I have a few that he can maybe review in due course. First, the asset management unit in the Strategic Investment Board has calculated that the Executive had over 1,100 hectares of industrial land on their books, little of which has been disposed of in recent years. Secondly, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive also holds significant amounts of land: 500 surplus and nearly 300 underdeveloped hectares, both of which could be considered for further divestment. Thirdly, we could bring forward a cull of arm's-length bodies or quangos, as was agreed in 2011 but, surprisingly, since forgotten, especially as they are now under the auspices of more streamlined Departments, which should facilitate that change. Fourthly, we could focus on reducing administration costs in Departments, as six of the outgoing Departments have increased their spend since 2011.

Overall, as I said yesterday, the Budget challenges are exacerbated by the failure of the previous Executive to reform and to drive change. Of course, some change has happened — the reduction in the number of Departments, for example — and I welcome that, but, to date, too little has been done to free up the resources needed to target our key front-line services.

Mr McElduff, Chair of the Education Committee, rattled off a number of figures relating to education yesterday. From memory, I think that he talked about £35 million coming in for pensions and £20 million more in the monitoring round process. Bearing in mind how little notice we had today, I would be keen to get Mr McElduff's lottery numbers for the weekend, because he could predict what was coming out today. He also talked about pressures that education faced. He talked about £1,000 per teacher for National Insurance increases and a further £10 million pressure for every 1% rise in teachers' pay. The key question I have is this: what is the net impact on our schools? We have heard about the increases today — I welcome them — but when will heads know what their real budgets are and be able to plan the delivery of education for the next school year?

The health budget continues to grow as a percentage of our total Budget. In 2010, it was 42%, and now it is over 47% of the overall funding pie. We know that reform is needed as well as investment, although I was surprised yesterday at how Mr Storey again couched some comments about opposition parties on the issue. From memory, I think that he asked us whom we wanted to sack as part of the change process; I do not believe that that is a measure of anybody's commitment. I do not want to sack any doctor, nurse or health professional, but I want change in how we deliver our health service. That is a very different approach. The £67 million that the Minister announced today is very welcome, but, as he says himself, it does not address the underlying issues.

I may have misheard the Minister during yesterday's debate, but I thought that he said that Northern Ireland would be better off outside the UK. I assume that I was hearing things, as I cannot believe that anyone would be able to make that case when we still require a £9 billion subvention from Westminster. We all wish, obviously, that that was not so, but I look forward to the Minister maybe detailing his proposals to reduce our dependence on the wider UK public purse.

There was also much comment yesterday about corporation tax and its reduction. We all know that it is a key policy to transform our economy. I heard commitments from the Minister — Mr Murphy and others commented as well — stating that all would be fine and we were just working out the details and getting the best deal. Does the Minister believe that potential investors will understand those subtleties, or does he share my concern that we are, at best, sending mixed messages?

The Minister also said that he would be creative in borrowing, asking whether we had ideas to allow the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to borrow off balance sheet and pay off via rents. The Minister asked for positivity, and I am happy to be positive on the issue. The potential should be explored. The Housing Executive should be reclassified to allow it to borrow money and build its own homes rather than relying entirely on housing associations. It could borrow against its assets of 90,000 houses and the income stream of £280 million a year.

It is estimated that £6 billion is required over the next 30 years to upgrade our housing stock to a minimum standard. Also, the Housing Executive said that refinancing £410 million of historical debt at cheaper interest rates could release additional funds for investment. I see potential there, and I am more than happy to work in partnership to drive that forward if that is a suggestion the Minister wants to proceed with.

It is my belief that the Budget does not meet the needs of Northern Ireland and is a symptom of inaction and failure to reform in the previous nine years. That is the critical point: the Executive failed to change and failed to reform, resulting in today's financial pressures, which are leading to a deteriorating service, despite the monitoring round additions today. The Budget just highlights the scale of reform and change still required. As I said yesterday, it is using sticking plasters to cover major financial wounds. We will oppose it.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I welcome that we are here today discussing the Budget (No. 2) Bill, which is further proof that we have a fresh start, that politics in this society can change and are changing and that the Executive are up for delivering public services in very difficult financial circumstances. That is when you prove yourself, and that is when politicians and leaders have to prove themselves — in the most difficult of circumstances. It would be easy to be in an Executive or in government during good financial times or under the financial management of a Government who were not wedded to austerity, but our leaders in the Executive have set themselves a task, and I believe that task can be delivered, even though it presents many obstacles.

In most Parliaments, a Budget Bill contains not only the spending plans of that Government or Executive but their tax-varying powers. That is what is missing from our fiscal process — tax-varying powers. That presents a challenge to politics in this society.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will in a moment. Those who formed the Opposition or Oppositions told us they were doing so because they wanted to normalise politics and to bring greater normality to our political system. I do not believe that was their motivation, but that was their statement of intent: they were going to normalise politics. Then I think that, if we are going to normalise politics in this society, we have to normalise it in its totality. We, as elected legislators, have to take on the responsibility of fiscal authority over our society.

Before I move on, I give way to Mr Agnew.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. He refers to tax-varying powers, and, of course, to date any powers we have or have sought have been to reduce taxation and reduce the income for public services. Is the Member looking for more tax-varying powers to introduce more cuts to public services?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No. I deliberately used the term "varying". Any Government coming forward with a Budget would present their tax-varying powers on how they propose to raise taxation to deliver the services they believe to be important. We have Governments in Dublin and in Westminster that raise taxation to deliver public services in a limited way. I believe we can collect taxes in varying ways to support our public services, not to cut them. There is a challenge for the Government and the Administration in that.

I will give you an example. As I was driving down to the Assembly today, I was thinking this: what taxes am I paying today? Some commentators may doubt that politicians actually pay taxes, but we do. When I got up this morning, I went downstairs and turned on the kettle. That is automatically a tax: you are taxed on your energy. Thankfully, when I filled the kettle with water, I was not paying a tax, because the Executive have blocked taxes on our water. I sat down and looked at the messages on my phone. I am paying VAT on my phone. I have no control of that whatsoever, as a legislator, as a citizen or in the Executive.

My children were getting ready and watching TV. I count the TV licence as a tax: we have no control, authority or power over that tax. I had my breakfast, I left the house and I got into my car. I pay vehicle excise duty on my car: we have no control or authority over that tax. I turned on the engine. I pay fuel duty: we have no control or authority over that. I pay VAT on new tyres and parts for the car: we have no control over that. When I come into my place of work, I pay income tax, National Insurance and pension contributions: we have no control over that. Yet we are standing here today voting on a Budget Bill as legislators.

Folks, that is the challenge for us going forward. All those taxes and levies are placed on us by the Westminster Government. Can we use them in a different way? Should we raise some of them? A Government govern largely in two ways: legislation and taxation. That is how you set society on a pathway. The classic example is taxation on tobacco products. Governments across Europe decided, rightly, to place heavy taxation on tobacco products to persuade people to give up smoking for health reasons. That is a classic, blunt example. However, if we as governors and legislators want to start making changes here, we will have to take on the mantle of not only spending tax but governing how and when that tax is raised and what purpose it is used for in alignment with the Programme for Government and our priorities for this society.

The other challenge coming down the road at us in relation to the processes for future Budgets set by the Executive is Brexit. No one knows what the outcome of the vote will be next week, but it is already creating uncertainty in terms of investment and potential investment. If the electorate — largely in England, it would appear, at this stage — votes for Brexit, then we are in a totally different landscape. European funding for this society would disappear over a number of years, and no one knows whether the current British Government or successive British Governments would fill that black hole. Just for the record — Members will know this — £236 million in direct payments for farmers comes from Europe annually and £186 million for rural development. That is only in the rural/agriculture sector. How will the Executive fill that black hole if we vote for Brexit? How will we ensure that European Peace moneys and the other funding that comes into our society continue to be delivered through our budgetary processes? All those things are unknowns and will have impacts moving forward.

There is one thing that is coming at the Executive and employers here next year, and that is the apprenticeship levy, another form of taxation imposed on us by the Westminster Government with little or no consultation and no approval by our Executive that will place a further burden on Executive finances and on private-sector employers. While everyone thinks it admirable that we should promote and invest in apprenticeships, is the apprenticeship levy the best way of doing so? Is the apprenticeship levy a blunt tool that will impact on public services and the private sector? Should that not have been done anyhow through general taxation and a sensible programme run by central government? Of course it should, but yet another levy is being placed on our Executive by the Westminster Government, and that will have a major impact on Budgets moving forward.

In winding up, I welcome the Budget (No. 2) Bill, but, if we want normal, mature politics and if we want to be true legislators, we have to get to the point where we set the taxation base and rate for this society. Not only are we, therefore, collecting revenue but, through the collection of that revenue — how we collect it and where we collect it — we set a pathway for this society and the shape of society that we want going into the future. I support the Bill.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

We return to the Budget with little having changed from the debate on the Executive's expenditure proposals for 2016-17 in the previous Assembly. The SDLP could not support that Budget, and we cannot support this one. That Budget was characterised by being cobbled together by two parties intent on staying in power, and this one is simply about treading water while they work out how little detail they can get away with in their Programme for Government.

For its part, the Budget has little in the way of investment in people. For example, we had experience of the prior Executive's dabbling in childcare, a project that failed because of its structure, not its aim. Helping parents with young families to rejoin the workforce and improve their prospects through education and training is paramount. Support for working families, particularly for working mums and, indeed, for those who have been forced through necessity to leave work rather than pay often expensive childcare, is crucial if we are to help those working mums reach and elevate themselves through the glass ceiling that exists to their advancement in the workplace. That should be, I would hope, a key element of the Budget's outcomes and indeed its policy direction.

The British Government are bringing forward an apprenticeship levy. Where is the Executive's investment in apprentices? We had a notional nod in that direction today through the allocation of funding to FE colleges, but perhaps we need that to be expanded a bit more and coupled with investment in higher education. The supposed Fresh Start Agreement promised the devolution and reduction of corporation tax to attract foreign direct investment without investment in our people — a highly skilled and motivated workforce — which is a key element of attracting that FDI to the North. Whether that is through investment in childcare to help more women back into the workforce or in additional skills and the acquisition of those skills, this is key to the success of corporation tax. Indeed, stability is key to that, and the instability offered by Brexit would certainly not help with the potential successes of corporation tax. Not only that, but the Finance Minister has told the Committee for Finance that he wants to reboot the negotiations on corporation tax. Whether that reboot is expected before or after he attempts to borrow an undisclosed sum from the Treasury is not entirely clear. What is clear is that the Finance Minister has reintroduced the uncertainty over corporation tax that has seen companies delay decisions on investment here. Those loose words risk sinking the economy.

The sustainability argument over corporation tax is of course a smokescreen to hide the division within Sinn Féin over a policy to which the deputy First Minister claimed to be fully committed. A commitment that was given on the eve of an election should have come with that significant health warning. That division will, once again, lead to a potential stalemate in the Executive as it has so often done before — the same old, tired stalemate that can lead to the deadlock with the same old, tired parties in this two-party Executive. However, we cannot risk the economy suffering as a result and our people suffering as a consequence.

The establishment of the new Department for the Economy, which I welcome in principle, was supposed to present an opportunity to deliver key economic development policies in a collaborative, cohesive and targeted manner. I trust and hope that the divisions that we see within Sinn Féin does not delay a key economic development policy and lead to damage to the prospect of devolution of further fiscal powers.

On 8 June, the Secretary of State told the House of Commons:

"The Government remains committed to devolving corporation tax rate setting powers subject to the Executive delivering sustainable finances, as set out in the Stormont House Agreement."

No sustainable finances — what sustainable finances? — and no devolution of corporation tax. The Secretary of State went further:

"We also recognise the potential for further fiscal powers going to the Executive."

Do the two-party Executive recognise the potential for further fiscal powers going to them? Do they recognise that, if there is failure to deliver on corporation tax, that will scupper the prospects of further fiscal powers going to the Executive?

In the previous Assembly debate on the 2016-17 Budget, it was asked by party colleagues of the then Enterprise Minister whether an assessment was being done on the drop in funds that a Brexit would bring about or on how a Brexit would impact on Budgets. I now ask the Finance Minister — I referred to this earlier — how it is likely to impact on Budgets.

From 2007 to 2013, we had investment here of £2·4 billion. In the 2014-2020 programme of EU funding, there is the potential to raise €229 million under one of the EU programmes. Under INTERREG, there is potential for another €240 million. We had projected targeting by the then Department of Enterprise of the drawdown on Horizon 2020 funding for research and development — a key element of our economy — to develop research and innovation to help bring such jobs to the North, drawing on the resources, wherewithal and specialist knowledge of other parts of the EU and working collaboratively to help our economy rise, help our skills rise, help our knowledge base and improve our attractiveness to other investors.

Furthermore, with that comes the potential to realise €40 million and €42 million respectively in match funding. Has any consideration been given to, or any assessment made at departmental level of, the potential impact of the loss of those funding streams? I have mentioned some of them. What assessment will be made by the Economy Minister, or will he agree with an assessment by the Finance Minister? These are key parts of our way forward, as is trying to assess and accommodate their impact post-23 June.

The output of the Northern Ireland economy is estimated to be £33 billion per annum. Research shows that a Brexit could lead to a 3% fall, which is a £1 billion per annum effect on the Northern economy. Where is the two-party Executive's contingency plan for the impact of a Brexit, for which at least one of the parties is campaigning?

The PwC economic outlook report of 2015 stated that our local economy has been characterised as a job-creation economy rather than as an economy driven by productivity. That suggests that we have been able to create jobs despite productivity levels being low. Educational underachievement is present. The OECD international comparison study of last year demonstrated that, in the North, academic ability among 16- and 17-year-olds is among the lowest in the United Kingdom and that wealth generation options are relatively low due to the size of our private sector. Our private sector accounts for only one third of our total economic output. The Executive have previously failed even to propose the development of a manufacturing strategy to help address that. As a result, a heavy burden is being placed on the public sector — a public sector that the two-party Executive plan to cut. Our low-wage and low-skill economy is not best equipped to perform well and create prosperity, but those are the challenges facing us. Therefore, I come back to my original point. I challenge the Executive and the Minister. Have they ducked these questions? Have they ducked addressing the hole that there is likely to be in the public finances? Have they ducked the challenges that face us consequently?

Those are the questions that I leave with the Assembly. We have been provided with some information here today. However, we need much more information to absorb the direction of the Executive. Have the Executive sat down and worked through the void that there inevitably will be post-23 June if the wrong decision is made? Those are key elements for our Executive, the Assembly and, more importantly, the people whom we represent.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Yesterday, we tested the views of the various political parties and MLAs on the current Budget situation. That was the first opportunity that we as an Assembly have had to do that since the election and the start of the new mandate. With the passage of the Supply resolution yesterday, we are now locked in much more tightly to the Budget situation as we find it. That said, we still have significant concerns about the Budget, and it is worth developing and highlighting some of those in a bit more detail today.

At the outset, I want to touch on the issue of skills, which was raised this morning and, indeed, has been touched on by a number of Members already in the debate. As the Assembly, and the Minister, will know, skills are critical to the transformation of our economy. As we look ahead, especially to a lower rate of corporation tax, we need to ramp up the investment that we are making in skills across a very broad front, including universities, our FE colleges, apprenticeships, and what we are doing with marginalised young people. All those interventions are critical. There is a range of policies and programmes already in place that can help us to do that, but we need to scale those up considerably.

The Minister is disappointed that I have not been more warmly welcoming of the allocation of £20 million. It might be useful to explain why I am not as enthusiastic about that allocation as some would have expected. We have had a number of cutbacks to skills interventions over the past four or five years, in particular. If we look to our universities as a key area of intervention, we see that there are three particular aspects that are important to bear in mind. First, the cuts that have been passed on in recent years have seen a reduction in student places and staff posts and, indeed, the consolidation of some courses. A lot of that is counterintuitive and will have an implication for our widening participation agenda. That is of massive concern to a lot of people and, indeed, to the future of our economy. Those cuts are still in the system; we have had only one year of them working their way through, with the second year about to hit us in September 2016.

On top of that, we have a structural gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, which manifests itself in the amount of money that we spend per student. Depending upon the course of study, that varies between £1,000 and £2,500 per head. That will go to the heart of the quality of what we produce. The issue is not simply the volume of graduates that we produce in Northern Ireland but their quality. We know that Invest Northern Ireland is setting this area as an investment location based upon the quality of our universities and our graduates, so it is important that we do not allow that to erode.

The third issue is our expansion demand. If we are to meet the needs of local companies and investors coming in, what do we need to put in place to ensure that they have the pipeline of talent and, indeed, that that pipeline is being directed to the most appropriate areas? Not all of that will be the traditional model of a university degree; it may be a high-level apprenticeship. So, it is important that we have a mix, and we have to be mindful of that.

Based upon the figures of my outgoing Department, beyond the £20 million that has been allocated and confirmed today, by 2019-2020, we will need to spend an additional £85 million per annum on skills if we are to achieve those outcomes and meet the expected demand in our economy. Some of that may dovetail with the hoped-for expansion of the Magee campus in Derry. I am very enthusiastic that that happens, and I have done a lot to make it happen, subject to the constraints of resources. We have, potentially, a very exciting future there, but it is important that everyone in the Government fully understands the scale of what is required on skills interventions if we are to meet that demand.

The £20 million that was confirmed today is already factored into the budgets of FE colleges, universities and apprenticeships. It will not provide new starts as we stand today, but it will head off further cuts in the current financial year. I certainly welcome that, but people should be under no illusion that this substantially addresses the skills pressures faced in our economy.

John O'Dowd referred to the apprenticeship levy, and I very much agree with his sentiments. This is not about investing in apprenticeships but about a different form of raising money from our business community, and it does cover the public sector. It is designed to address the deficit in terms of the UK as a whole and to try to pump-prime the English approach to what they term apprenticeships, which is a dumbing down of what is involved.

In Northern Ireland, we are much more in tune with the European standards of apprenticeships. We try to base what we do on quality and ensuring that we provide what employers need. In addition to the funding challenges that will come from this, it will come as a Barnett consequential to the centre. We will still need to ensure that we fund apprenticeships at the appropriate level, and that money may not necessarily be enough. It might help to cover other areas of youth training or working with companies on what they are doing with their existing workforce, but we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that the money will simply address all our apprenticeship needs. Hopefully, we can return to this issue in the future.

There are structural issues in the Budget, and I want to highlight a number of themes that we need to be very mindful of. First, we still face an embedded cost of managing a divided society. We have had a succession of reports, the most recent of which was from the University of Ulster's Economic Policy Centre, which was published by DFP in March this year. It is important that that does not sit on the shelf but becomes an active document whereby Departments are challenged on how they can do better in the provision of their services in the context of a divided society.

We also have inefficiencies in what we do in education. Part of that is obviously related to the fact that we have a number of sectors and a degree of segregation in our system. It is worth stressing that it is a very heavy degree of segregation. As my colleague Trevor Lunn mentioned yesterday, we are still talking about around 70,000 empty school desks. I believe that our school-age population is about 320,000 or 310,000, so we are talking about potentially 20% of our school places being empty. That is a level of inefficiency that most societies will struggle to justify. It has to come down. It will not be easy, but there are tough decisions ahead on rationalisation, which will, of course, be helped by an integrated area planning process rather than the piecemeal approach that has been adopted to date in many respects.

I am still very concerned about the big headline commitment that has been made by the DUP and Sinn Féin to an additional £1 billion for health. I appreciate that there is a need for additional spending in health. Healthcare inflation, based upon our current model of provision, is running at something like 5% to 6% per annum, which is an incredible fact to try to get your head around. That stems from a changing demographic, an older population and more expensive drugs and treatments.

In many respects, it is a good thing that we are faced with these challenges and opportunities, but, if we try to match that healthcare inflation, the distortions in the rest of our budgets will be massive and unsustainable. This has to be a very important driver of reform. Stating what your input will be cuts across what is the outcome-based focus of the Programme for Government framework document. To be clear, my party is comfortable with the ethos of that process but sceptical about some of the measurements, targets and indicators that have been set out. Health reform is important. We need to decide what change we will make and then resource that change, rather than simply making a very bold promise on the amount of money that will go into it.

A number of people have commented on the social investment fund. I said yesterday that I believe that this fund, in its entirety, was a mistake and should be done away with. That is not to negate the importance of government engaging with communities, particularly marginalised communities, and seeking to ensure grass-roots community development and economic development. The difficulty that I have with the fund is that the governance risks are substantial.

There are also risks with fragmentation and how money will be spent. While people can point in absolute terms to the success of the fund and say, "This would not have happened without the fund", it does not take into account the relative opportunity that exists of working through Departments. With the Department for Communities and the Department for the Economy under the current structures — the Department for Social Development, the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment under the previous system — the opportunity existed for new schemes to be run through Departments for which there would be tighter governance and a much tighter audit process.

Departments can work in partnership with the community and voluntary sector. I did that with the NEETs strategy, Pathways to Success, and we distributed money on a sustainable basis to a number of different groups, some of which are actually benefiting from the social investment fund as we speak. The evidence is there that that can be done on a more sustainable basis.

Importantly, when money was earmarked for the social investment fund, it was in the context of cuts being passed on to Departments, so a lot of work that could have been done by Departments was hampered by the fact that our budgets were trimmed to produce that ring-fenced money for the social investment fund.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate the Member giving way. He will be aware of the importance of localism, and his sister party, the Liberal Democrats, majored on that for many years. One of the great assets of the social investment fund is the fact that the local area working groups, which are responsible for administering the fund and making the decisions on it, are drawn directly from local communities. They are local people who know the situation on the ground better than any Department or official ever possibly could.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I recognise the argument in favour of local delivery, but that does not negate my point that you can set up structures, through which there is much tighter control on governance and audit issues, and still create delivery structures with advisory groups that help in that regard. For example, with the Pathways to Success strategy, we have a very active NEETs forum that helps and advises officials on the allocation of funding. A lot of what is being achieved could be achieved differently but without the degree of risk that has been run. I hesitate to make predictions, but there may be some adverse comments in due course from the Audit Office about the value for money in public spending when the schemes have bedded down for a significant time.

Comment was also made yesterday about teacher training and the opportunity for its reform. The amount of money for teacher training may be relatively small in the big picture of budgets, but, in some ways, it is the front line of the challenge as to whether parties are serious about investing in a shared future and a different way of doing things. If we cannot train our teachers in a single, shared system it begs the question of how on earth we will get our schoolchildren in substantial numbers into that type of format. I was disappointed, not least that Mike Nesbitt very readily dismissed the fact that his party voted to overturn the steps that I was trying to take, both in the Executive and on the Floor of the Assembly, as did the other four parties in the Executive at that time.

That leads into the issue of the resources that are being used with the public sector transformation fund in education. I see that that scheme is now unwinding, and money is being surrendered back to the centre. I found it bizarre that we were going to spend public resources to encourage existing teachers to leave their jobs to try to provide job opportunities for young people who had trained as teachers but who could not find a job because we are training too many teachers in the first place. The most logical thing to do would have been to address the flow of teachers being trained rather than keep the tap flowing as ever before and simply try to spend more money, having already spent money inefficiently on teacher training in the first place, to address the problem that was created. I do not think that is a good example of the wise use of public money by the Government.

I am conscious of the need to break for lunch soon, but I want to make a couple of very brief points. We need to look actively at the issue of revenue raising, and that needs to come in the context of addressing the cost of division first and looking at issues of tackling waste and inefficiency. Just to remind the Assembly, we have some existing powers; for example, the use of the regional rate and the removal of rates capping. I appreciate Sinn Féin is now dabbling in this area, but there have been votes in the past 10 years in the Assembly where that party has not supported an increase in the regional rate and where the opportunity has been forgone to overturn rates capping. Rates capping removal would raise only a few million pounds to begin with, but, again, it is symbolic. It is about our values and trying to have revenue as consistent with progressive forms of revenue raising as we possibly can.

I also think the Minister needs to come back and clarify what he is intending to do on corporation tax, because despite what was said yesterday, there is this latent uncertainty in the process. The Minister is saying he is confident that he will negotiate what he needs to negotiate on the resources from Treasury, but as the Minister will well know, any negotiation is never certain. If there is an uncertainty in the system, what are the implications for the long-term position of the Executive and the message we are communicating to businesses, not least given that Invest NI is out courting businesses to invest in Northern Ireland on the basis of there being a lower rate in 2018? Between himself, the Economy Minister and the Executive as a whole, I think we need a shared, collective statement across the piece, rather than one party saying one thing and a different party saying something subtly different so that people see that there is, in practice, a difference of emphasis, if I can put it no more strongly.

In the context of where we sit with regards to London, I certainly accept there is a need for the UK Government to rebalance their books. Where I have a fundamental difference is on the speed and rate at which they are doing it. They have had options on that, so they do not need to pay down the deficit at the rate they are. There is a point for us to continue to make on that.

I am concerned, however, that if we simply focus on what London are doing vis-à-vis ourselves in Northern Ireland, we will take the eye off the ball of the need to reform ourselves here. I think, frankly, if we have that very strong process of reform, we have a much stronger foundation for asking for additional borrowing, especially if that borrowing is then going to be linked to funding that process of reform, essentially on a massive invest-to-save basis that would make our public finances more sustainable in the long-term.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time. After Question Time, the first person called will be Doug Beattie. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.57 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Communities

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in his first Question Time.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Communities for his assessment of the local impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. (AQO 31/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for those warm words. I trust that Members will go easy on me in my first Question Time. I suspect —

[Interruption.]

I was about to say that I suspect that that will fall on deaf ears, not least among my own colleagues.

I thank Mr Durkan for that question. The Member will be aware that, as part of the Fresh Start Agreement, the Executive are committed to the introduction of the welfare elements of the Welfare Reform and Work Act as introduced at Westminster last year. Officials are working with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to take forward an Order in Council and accompanying regulations at Westminster later this year. My Department has previously published a detailed analysis of the impact of the planned reduction of the benefit cap from its current level of £26,000 to £20,000, and this information has also been placed in the Assembly's Library. This analysis showed that the number of households impacted on by the benefit cap will rise from the current level of an estimated 500 households to an estimated 2,440 households. The Member will also be aware that the Executive are committed to mitigating the full impact of the benefit cap, and I can confirm that the legislation and operational arrangements to make payments to protect households are now in place.

Work has been completed on the impact of the changes to a range of elements within universal credit, and I hope to be able to publish a detailed analysis of these changes in the next number of weeks. The alignment of the amount of benefit paid for the work-related activity element of employment and support allowance with that paid for jobseeker's allowance is projected to impact on 2,300 new claimants in the next financial year. This figure is based on the historical level of claims made in each financial year over the past three years.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for that answer and congratulate him on his appointment. I remember how easy the Member went on me during Question Time —

[Laughter.]

— and I shall reciprocate.

I just want to double-check that the Minister is confident that the £500 million mitigation fund, as established by Fresh Start, will cover the new, and in some cases unforeseen, cuts contained in this subsequent legislation.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The welfare mitigation measures that the Executive are committed to — some £0·5 billion — have been dealt with through Professor Evason and the report. That deals with what flowed from the 2012 Act, which we gave effect to in 2015. Obviously, there are new measures coming that are not in Professor Evason's recommendations.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer and congratulate him on his new post. Is the Minister aware of the projected financial savings for Northern Ireland, with the benefit cap being reduced from £26,000 to £20,000?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her warm wishes. The draft Welfare Reform and Work (Northern Ireland) Order 2016 introduces the benefit cap at a threshold of £20,000 per annum for couples and households with children in Northern Ireland. At the £20,000 threshold, it is estimated that 2,440 households in Northern Ireland will be impacted on by the cap, with an anticipated saving of approximately £8 million per annum. At the original £26,000 threshold, it is estimated that the cap will affect up to an estimated 500 households, with an anticipated saving of approximately £1·1 million per annum. The benefit cap at the £26,000 threshold is being brought into effect, and the final actual caseload affected will be known in the coming weeks. It is anticipated that the £20,000 threshold will be implemented later in 2016. These measures flow from what was in 2012. Of course, the Executive have decided to mitigate the costs in the benefit cap. Therefore, the homes that this will impact on are going to be protected until 2020.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On the secondary legislation that the Minister has yet to bring to the House on welfare issues, does he intend to persist with the obnoxious and amoral proposal that a terrorist who suffers a disability by his own hands, by his own terrorist act, should have his benefits protected on the same basis as an innocent victim of terrorism?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for the question. Social security benefits have always been blind to why people are suffering from their injuries, in the same way that the National Health Service is blind when treating people who present themselves to it. That is how it will continue.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

2. Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the plans to refurbish accommodation at Clare House, Newry. (AQO 32/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Housing Executive is carrying out an economic appraisal to assess a number of future investment options for Clare House. It has indicated that it is not likely to have this appraisal completed until late July 2016. However, once an outcome is known, the Housing Executive has committed to consult with its tenants in Clare House.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response, and I also wish him well in his post. I know that he is only just through the door. I did have a chance to meet the previous Minister, the Social Development Minister, and press the case for this. I think that the current Minister will be aware, from a brief look at the notes, that this property is very badly in need of renovation and needs a serious amount of money spent on it. The original deadline for completing the appraisal was in June, but the Minister's answer suggests that it will now be in July. I ask him to ensure that a sense of urgency is given to the assessment and that a decision is taken in consultation with the residents. This scheme has been awaited for a long time and is very much deserved by the residents, many of whom have lived there for the full 50 years that the flats have existed.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As he said, the Member raised this issue with my predecessor, and work was carried out. There are 13 tenants for the Housing Executive to deal with. It met all of them individually to discuss their needs, and some of those needs have been addressed. However, the Member rightly raises a broader issue that was highlighted in the survey report, and, obviously, there are issues that the Department and the Housing Executive will need to consider. This issue is not unique to Clare House; it is one that affects other buildings of this nature in the Housing Executive stock and, therefore, there is a process to look at all schemes of this type, subject, of course, to our budgetary situation. I will certainly keep on top of this area.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I too wish the Minister well, and trust that he will remember the North Down community as he carries out his duties. What progress has been made with implementing the Housing Executive's long-term investment plan based on new asset management?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that question and congratulate him on the prestigious recognition that he received from Her Majesty The Queen in the Birthday Honours list.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

North Down is incredibly well represented, not least by Mr Gordon Dunne for his years of service, as a councillor and an Assembly Member.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Thank you.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Housing Executive has a new asset management strategy that sets out its long-term investment approach. The Housing Executive is drafting a ten-year investment plan for its stock, which is a practical reflection of the strategic approach set out in the strategy. This will prioritise and shape its long-term investment and it is planned to commence in April 2017, but will necessarily be constrained by the level of funding available to the Housing Executive.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I also wish the Minister well in his new post. Can he tell me how the Housing Executive and other housing providers will have the necessary budget to ensure that adaptations for tenants with disabilities are provided?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This is a question that I will answer in more detail subsequently, but issues regarding disability and people who need wheelchair access, particularly into their homes, are very important to the Housing Executive.

In Northern Ireland, there are 457 people on the housing waiting list who require wheelchair access. This is an important area, and it is one that we all have experience of in our constituencies from trying to support people. It is something that we want the Housing Executive to work on. There is progress on that, which I will outline to one of his colleagues.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. Mr Maskey asked the Minister for Communities what plans he has to protect libraries, including the Homecall and mobile library services, to ensure continued access for people with disabilities, older people and people who are socially isolated. (AQO 33/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am aware that Libraries NI is considering a range of savings measures in response to the previous Executive's decision to reduce the budgets of unprotected Departments by 5·7%. I recognise the concerns that many in the community, including people with disabilities, older people and people who are socially isolated, will have about the impact of the reductions on their library service. I assure the Member, however, that, whilst Libraries NI will wish to continue to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the Homecall and mobile library services, neither will be affected by the current budget reductions exercise.

I regard the mobile library and Homecall services as important ways of ensuring that library services can reach people who are unable to access local branch libraries. They are particularly valuable to rural communities, older people, those with disabilities and parents or carers of children without access to private transport. They also make an important contribution to combating social isolation, which is one of the reasons why I am content that they are not affected by the budget reduction exercise.

I can also confirm that my Department received a bid for additional in-year resources from Libraries NI to help it meet some of its other existing pressures. That bid forms part of a wider budget review exercise that is being undertaken across my Department. I will, of course, be considering Libraries NI's bid in that context. Until all considerations are completed, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that issue.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for his response so far and for his commitment, in his new role, to support those who access libraries. The library service received substantial support throughout the previous mandate. The Minister has identified categories of people who are in most need, so I ask him once again to do his best to ensure that those who are most in need — he listed the categories — will continue to be able to access library services.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am happy to give that commitment. Libraries play a vital role in Northern Ireland. Within a two-mile radius of libraries and mobile stops, nearly 90% of our population are within reach. They are a shared space and are valued by all of the community. People avail themselves of them, and it is important that they continue to play an important role in our society. It is an area that I am considering, given the pressures that Libraries NI is under, but there are particular vulnerable groups that need support, and I want Libraries NI to continue giving that support.

Richie McPhillips (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister and offer him my best wishes. You have probably answered my question, but, for clarity, can you give us an assessment of the impact of the budget cuts on libraries, particularly for users with disabilities, older people and the socially isolated?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A number of those issues were dealt with in my initial response.

I congratulate the Member on being elected to the House. I assure him that this in an area in which I invoke my experience in my constituency. I remember arguing that it was right to close a particular library because it was small and we were getting a new library. Of course, there were people in the specific locality who did not want to see the closure of that library, but it facilitated a new library being built in Lisburn. Sometimes, those are the difficult decisions that political representatives need to take. They need to provide that leadership to the community, because, when you can see the bigger picture, you need to go out and sell it to people. This is an area that Libraries NI is acutely aware of. There have been investments in new libraries, and there are opportunities for the functions that libraries deliver to be broadened to include other aspects of government. That is something that I want to see Libraries NI continue to do.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

First, I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him all the very best. I hope the Member for Lagan Valley — the Minister — will show kindness and deference to the people of South Belfast, as I am sure he intends to.

Will the Minister outline for the House the practical steps that the Department intends to take to address the deficiencies in disability access to the public library on the Lisburn Road?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that welcome from one representative of a great city to another representative of a city. I am delighted that Mr Stalford is here in the Assembly. I remember him well from our Young Democrat days, so I am particularly pleased that Christopher is here in the Assembly.

The Member raised issues around the deficiencies at Lisburn Road library. There are also issues with deficiencies at Coleraine library. I am delighted that capital funding has been secured for the redevelopment of the Lisburn Road and Coleraine libraries: up to £1 million is being provided to Lisburn Road and £250,000 to Coleraine library in this financial year. That funding will enable Libraries NI to begin to address any existing deficiencies and to provide modern libraries for the whole community. The total cost of each project is estimated to be £3·5 million, with £1·5 million for Lisburn Road library and just over £2 million for Coleraine library. It is envisaged that work at the Lisburn Road library will begin in December of this year, with work beginning on the redevelopment of Coleraine library starting in January 2017. Both projects will take approximately one year to complete.

I trust that that answer will be helpful to the Member. My colleague Mr McQuillan has been engaging with me in respect of Coleraine library, and I trust that that will be helpful.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. Minister, many small libraries are valued by their communities. I place on record my thanks to the staff, who are highly dedicated in the service that they deliver to the public. They quite often go over and beyond that which is required of them as library staff. What assurances can the Minister give to my constituents in East Antrim that small and rural libraries will be retained and enhanced and their service delivery improved?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question and his best wishes. Libraries NI has work to do. It has had to deal with a 5·7% reduction in its budget and is looking at ways in which it can do that that will minimise the impact on front-line services. Obviously, having access to a library is vital, but so is having stock in it. We need to make sure that the libraries that we have will provide the services that the public expect. It is not always about maintaining bricks and mortar; it is about what is inside. I am keen to make sure that libraries continue to play an important role in our community. There has been investment in libraries in the past number of years, and I want to see Libraries NI continuing to do that.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I congratulate you, Minister, on your appointment. Will you give an assurance that Libraries NI will not transfer to local government?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you for the question. Maybe the Member has caught me out on this one, but I am not aware of there being proposals for libraries to transfer to local government. I am certainly happy to look into that issue and allay any concerns that the Member may have about it.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

4. Ms Mallon asked the Minister for Communities how many people with physical disabilities are on the housing waiting list for wheelchair-accessible accommodation in the Belfast and greater Belfast area. (AQO 34/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has responsibility for managing the social housing development programme. It carries out annual housing need assessments of all district councils, examining the supply and demand of social housing, including wheelchair-accessible accommodation. The Housing Executive has advised that there were 96 applicants on the waiting list for wheelchair accommodation in the Belfast local government district as at March 2016.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I add my good wishes to you in your post. On behalf of those 96 families in the greater Belfast area and on behalf of the Forbes family in my constituency, who, since March, have been sleeping in the living room because they cannot get a home that suits their needs in terms of the mother's disability and the son's, I ask what assurances you, Minister, can give those families that you intend to review the policy on the provision of social housing for those with disabilities?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that question and congratulate her on her election to this place. Her predecessor is someone whom I got on very well with and had a lot of respect for. I trust that I will have a good working relationship with Ms Mallon.

In the last financial year, 121 new starts were of wheelchair-accessible standard. This is an area that we will continue to work at. Does more need to be done? Yes, it does.

How people adapt their homes is an area that I have concern about as well. When, sometimes in emergency situations, people end up having disabilities, how quickly do we respond to their needs by adapting their homes? We need to address that. For minor adaptations, the time frame is six weeks, with the exception of showers, which can take 10 weeks to adapt for urgent cases and 40 weeks for non-urgent cases. The target time frame for major adaptations is 34 weeks for urgent cases and 50 for non-urgent cases. Those time frames concern me, and I want to consider whether we are providing a response quickly enough for families put into situations that, I believe, are often unacceptable. I have had experience of that in my constituency, as, I am sure, have other Members. It is an area that I want to keep under review.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I also wish the Minister well as he takes up his new role, and I welcome his announcement on the Coleraine library. What actions have the Department and the Housing Executive taken to ensure the better management of the allocation of bungalows?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that question. I am sure that we have all had experience of the allocation of bungalows, and it needs to be considered. A review of the design and space standards associated with wheelchair-accessible housing in Northern Ireland has been carried out, and the Department intends to introduce new wheelchair standards as part of the social housing development programme, which will involve a programme for new wheelchair-standard accommodation. That should, in time, lead to a reduction in the waiting list for this type of accommodation. Furthermore, my officials have sought assurances from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that initial and future allocations of this specialist accommodation will be retained for applicants who require ongoing wheelchair accommodation, and not used as a general needs allocation.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

I offer my congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. Can he advise how many applications from individuals for assistance to adapt their properties have been turned down due to lack of funding?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that question. I undertake to find out the specific answer and relay it to the Member.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

5. Mr Lynch asked the Minister for Communities what policies he plans to bring forward in relation to older people. (AQO 35/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department is committed to promoting and protecting the interests of older people by building on the good work previously achieved across Departments. My Department will continue to take forward and implement the Executive’s Active Ageing strategy, which was launched in January of this year.

The key message of the strategy is that keeping active physically and mentally as we get older is the most effective way to enable as many of us as possible to enjoy the benefits of living longer and to minimise the problems that some older people face. That means addressing the problems that older people face now and encouraging people at midlife to live more active, healthier lives.

The strategy will be implemented using an outcomes-based approach. Six key outcomes have been identified. This is not dissimilar to the outcomes-based approach we are developing through the Programme for Government. Each outcome will be supported and measured with specific indicators. I understand that the Executive Office is completing an analysis report following consultation on the Active Ageing strategy indicators. This work had commenced prior to the policy responsibility transferring to my Department. My Department will take forward the outworking of the analysis report.

As work continues to develop a social strategy and a new Programme for Government, my Department will ensure that, by working across Departments and engaging with stakeholders, we play a pivotal role in helping transform attitudes to and services for older people.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his fairly extensive answer. What steps has he taken to work with the Commissioner for Older People?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Commissioner for Older People has a very important role to play in this, and I want to take it forward by engaging with her. I will request to meet her to find out how I can take that forward. It is vital that we send out a message to our older people that they are very much valued, supported and respected. That will be a key principle for me in my role in the Department.

On this one, I do sign up to the United Nations principles in respect of older people, which are ensuring that they have independence, participation, care, self-fulfilment and dignity. Those are principles that we would all do well to abide by in how we take forward our policies.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I join in the chorus of congratulations to the Minister on his appointment and wish him well. I also highlight the importance of the East Antrim constituency, which, I have no doubt, he will be wanting to visit very soon. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the social strategy have a budget?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The social strategy is part of the new Programme for Government. Obviously, strategies relating to older people and all strategies around social inclusion are going to feed into the social strategy. Currently, it is under development and a budget has not been aligned to it. Going forward, this might change once the proposed Programme for Government action plans are developed, but we will also be looking very carefully at our existing budgets to ensure that they are using resources to best effect.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

6. Mr McGlone asked the Minister for Communities when he plans to bring forward legislation to reform licensing laws. (AQO 36/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Alcohol is not an ordinary product, and the sale of it must be regulated to ensure the protection of public health and the preservation of public order. I recognise that certain aspects of liquor licensing law in Northern Ireland are in need of reform, and I have copied to my Executive colleagues a paper that seeks agreement to introduce a licensing Bill. Provisions in the draft Bill mainly flow from the consultation that was carried out by one of my predecessors in 2012. The Bill includes a number of measures to tackle practices that may encourage alcohol misuse, safeguards for children and young people and minor changes to opening hours.

In recent years, drinking patterns in Northern Ireland have changed. Some 70% of drink is now sold for consumption at home rather than in the relatively controlled environment of licensed premises. It is important that our legislation is updated to take account of these changes.

When I have received comments from my Executive colleagues and agreement to the introduction of the Bill, I will publish full details of the measures in the Bill.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his comments and wish him well in his new appointment. He and I have shared a number of Committees, and I am certain that he will bring dedication to the post; there is no doubt about that. It is well acknowledged by Hospitality Ulster that the food and hospitality sector sustains upwards of 60,000 jobs here in Northern Ireland. Does the paper that he has introduced address the anomalies that exist around the licensing hours on the Saturday after Good Friday and Easter Sunday, for example, and the anomaly that exists with regard to the situation —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to come to a question.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Will it address the licensing for certain locations where there will be under-18s, as that even leads to the very big anomaly for people attending church events?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has asked his question.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

OK. Thank you.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for those questions. Easter is a period of special significance in Northern Ireland, and that is reflected in liquor licensing law by the placing of restrictions on opening hours for licensed premises over the period. I have listened to the arguments put forward, but Members will be aware that there are restrictions around this time in other countries. The sale of alcohol is prohibited all day on Good Friday in the Republic of Ireland, and there are restrictions on opening hours for pubs during Easter in other countries, such as New Zealand and Australia. This is an issue that I have considered. The way in which the Easter period will be dealt with will be covered in the Bill. Clearly, Easter is a significant time for a lot of people in Northern Ireland, and I think it is right that we reflect that in public policy around different issues, not just this one.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

We have time for a quick question from Mr Douglas and a quick response from the Minister.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I join the crescendo of congratulations and wish the Minister the very best. Currently, there is a voluntary code of practice for licensed premises. Will the Minister consider making that a statutory requirement?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that question. He is right to highlight the voluntary code of practice that exists. It was brought in by the industry to deal with irresponsible drinks promotions by people who have licensed premises. There was outrage at the consequences of a lot of those promotions and how they impacted on people. That will be dealt with in the Bill, and there will be penalties associated with it. For those who engage in these promotions, when it comes to reapplying for a licence, that is an issue that the magistrate will be able to take into account and that there will be penalties for.

Let me conclude on this point: alcohol is a substance that needs to be regulated, and rightly so. Gone are the days when you would go to people's houses and they would say, "Would like milk and sugar with your tea or coffee?"; now it is, "Do you want red or white?". There is a societal issue in how we deal with alcohol. We all know the consequences of it and its impact if it is not controlled sensibly, and that is the approach I intend to take in the Bill.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Gerry Mullan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

T1. Mr Mullan asked the Minister for Communities how he can reconcile his comments endorsing a recent European Investment Bank loan of £280 million to fund social housing projects in Northern Ireland with his support for withdrawal from the European Union, which would critically damage our ability to attract such investment. (AQT 21/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that question. Let me make this clear: the outcome on 23 June will have no impact whatsoever on the contract that has been entered into with the European Investment Bank. I should also say that the European Investment Bank invests hundreds of millions of pounds outside the European Union, and, therefore, there is absolutely no detrimental impact in the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and continuing to get support from the European Investment Bank and other private lending institutions, which will be critical in taking forward developing social housing in the future.

Gerry Mullan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you will be aware that your party claimed that detailed discussions were ongoing about leveraging further finance from the European Investment Fund for social housing and urban regeneration. Will the Minister update the House on those discussions and the effect that Brexit would have on the central plan of his party's manifesto?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Let me thank the Member for that supplementary. Ongoing discussions on securing investment from the European Investment Bank will not be impacted by the outcome of the referendum on 23 June. What would have a positive impact is this: should the United Kingdom leave — I hope that it does — that will allow us to take back control of our borders and to have a sensible policy on immigration and a sensible policy on the movement of peoples. We, as a society and a community, have a very tolerant approach, and that is right, but, ultimately, we need to be able to integrate and accommodate people. You cannot do that effectively without being able to control immigration, and you will not have that for as long as the United Kingdom remains within the European Union.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

T2. Mr McMullan asked the Minister for Communities whether he agrees that housing waiting lists are getting longer, with a larger housing stock the only way to address the problem, and to state whether he will embark on a programme to build more houses in urban and rural areas. (AQT 22/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member raises a very important point; that is, the pressures we face in meeting the need that exists for housing. In the current year, the target is to build 1,600 new social homes. The Housing Executive has said that, over the next five years of this mandate, we should be building 2,000 homes each year. I would like to do more, but achieving that target in itself is going to be incredibly challenging. There are issues in how money is to be raised to finance the building of new homes. That is an issue that we need to be preparing ourselves for, because the Office for National Statistics is looking into the way in which housing associations are classified in Northern Ireland. If the direction of travel follows what has happened in England and those associations become recognised as public bodies, that is going to have very serious consequences for the way in which we want to fund new social builds.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Look at the current figures for housing stock in urban and rural areas: there is a vast difference between them. The rural areas are lagging far behind in the numbers of houses that are being built. In my constituency in the glens — in areas of Cushendall, Cushendun and Waterfoot — no houses have been built for years. Will you ask your officials to look at this and carry out an investigation as to why houses have not been built? There is the land for them, and we still cannot get housing. We are losing young people out of rural areas who are moving into urban areas.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to come to his question.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Building houses is part of regenerating rural communities.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the Member's point. The Executive have been looking at ways in which we can support local communities in rural areas in order to facilitate them with new housing. That is not always in respect of social housing; it is also about how the private sector can do that. Colleagues have been raising this issue with me from the point of view of social need and the new builds that the Housing Executive can take forward. I want to see our rural communities being supported, and part of that mix has to be the provision of social housing. I am happy to take the issue up with the Housing Executive.

Phillip Logan (DUP, North Antrim)

T3. Mr Logan asked the Minister for Communities, after congratulating him and wishing him well, for an update on the redevelopment of Windsor Park. (AQT 23/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The question is a timely one, given the tournament that is taking place in France. The new national football stadium at Windsor Park continues to progress well and is nearing the end of its construction phase. The majority of the project was completed in March 2016, delivering an operational stadium with a seated capacity of almost 15,000. The final phase, which is the reconstruction of the west stand and completion of the education and heritage centre, is due to be completed as planned in September this year. This will bring the seated capacity up to 18,500. The then DCAL contributed £28·75 million towards the national stadium project, funded by the regional stadia budget, and the Irish Football Association (IFA) contributed an additional £4 million. The project will be completed on time and to the agreed budget.

The Department has also invested in the redevelopment of the Olympia leisure centre, directly adjacent to Windsor Park, in partnership with Belfast City Council. That project is part of the council's investment in leisure transformation, with DCAL contributing £2·75 million from the regional stadia budget to the total £21·7 million cost of the project. The first phase will be completed in November 2016, with final completion in late 2017. On completion, the new leisure centre and sports village at the rear of the west stand will completely transform the area.

Phillip Logan (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister also provide an update on the subregional programme for soccer?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There was a 12-week public consultation on the subregional programme for soccer, which ended on 22 February 2016. There were 1,280 responses to the consultation document, which will help to shape the programme going forward, including the eligibility criteria for the programme. My officials are currently carrying out detailed consideration and analysis of the responses received, together with all the relevant information, before making recommendations to me on the way forward.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

T4. Mr Robinson asked the Minister for Communities, after wishing him well in his new post and hoping that he does not forget East Londonderry, particularly Limavady, whether he wishes to express his sympathies to the family of Malachi Mitchell-Thomas, the young rider who tragically lost his life doing what he loved at this year’s North West 200, and to state whether he agrees that such tragedies are truly heartbreaking. (AQT 24/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for raising this issue. All of us, collectively, in the House express our sympathies and condolences to the family of Malachi. We know of the tragic circumstances in which he lost his life. In the first instance, the incident is a matter for the organisers of the race, the Coleraine and District Motor Club, and the governing body of the sport, the Motor Cycle Union of Ireland, to investigate. It is their responsibility to look into how this happened.

Sadly, motorcycle racing is a dangerous sport, but it is one that is supported by huge sections of the community. Dangers are not unique to this sport; there are dangers in a huge range of sports. What is important to me as sports Minister is that we ensure that the environment in which road racing takes place is as safe as it can be. There has been investment to enhance safety measures, primarily through 2 & 4 Wheels, but I will actively look, within my Departments, at measures that I believe may be helpful in supporting these flagship events, particularly the North West 200 and the Ulster Grand Prix.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

A lot of the focus has been on safety at the North West 200. Will the Minister assure the House that the Department will do all that it can to promote safer road racing throughout Northern Ireland?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am happy to give the commitment that we will try to ensure that events, when they take place, are as safe as possible. Sadly, that will not prevent something of this nature happening again. We need to work with the sport to make sure that it is as safe as possible. From 2009-11, there was £2 million investment to support the sporting industry on this matter, and I will consider the issue going forward.

Harold McKee (UUP, South Down)

T5. Mr McKee asked the Minister for Communities, after congratulating him on his new post, to comment on the use of d’Hondt to allocate positions of responsibility in local councils. (AQT 25/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This measure for allocating positions was introduced during the previous Assembly. The process is used in the Assembly, positions are now being allocated through it, and councils have had a number of years to embed it in the way in which they do business.

Harold McKee (UUP, South Down)

There seems to be confusion across the country about the law concerning the allocation of committee places and positions of responsibility in the case of councillors who change their party designation midterm. Will the Minister consider amending the legislation to ensure consistency across the board?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Members know that, at times, there will be changes in all parties. I suspect that where an individual has been elected because of the party they belong to, that party will feel that the seat was theirs and was endorsed as such by the public. We no longer have by-elections, and that is appropriate given the circumstances. For example, a by-election in a predominantly nationalist area, after a unionist loses the seat, may not return another unionist because of our proportional representation system. I suspect that there will be times when members of all political parties feel that the way this measure is being used is appropriate and times when they will not.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T6. Mr Lynch asked the Minister for Communities for an update on actions taken on the anti-poverty strategy following the completion of the judicial review. (AQT 26/16-21)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This issue has to be taken forward by my Department. There is a range of strategies that come under social cohesion and inclusion that I need to take forward. The Member will know that the Programme for Government has set up an approach through a social strategy that will align with an economic strategy. All the strategies need to be incorporated in the social strategy that needs to be taken forward. I am committed to taking all those areas forward, including the issue that the Member raised.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Lynch, we need your supplementary question and the Minister's response to be quick.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I was just going to ask that the Minister give a commitment to the strategy and an assurance, which he has done.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am happy to affirm that.

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

1. Mr Nesbitt asked the Minister for the Economy how he plans to increase Northern Ireland’s gross disposable household income. (AQO 46/16-21)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

My Department is committed, through delivery of the new outcomes-based Programme for Government and the refocused economic strategy, to increasing the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy and to growing employment and prosperity for all. In doing so, it will be important to ensure that growth goes hand in hand with improvements in people's living standards.

It is a matter of record that earnings in Northern Ireland have historically been lower relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. That partially explains why Northern Ireland's level of gross disposable household income per head has continually been lower than in other parts of the UK. On a more positive note, in April 2015, median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees in Northern Ireland was £485, up 5·4% from £460 in 2014. That represents the largest annual percentage increase in earnings since 2004 and the first increase in inflation-adjusted earnings since 2009. The median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees in Northern Ireland is now 92% of the UK level and is at its highest since the survey began in 1997.

High inflation has the effect of eroding earnings growth and therefore reducing any possible increase in gross disposable household income. At the height of the financial crisis in 2008, inflation was running at over 5%. However, inflation has been at historically low levels for some time now. In April 2016, inflation, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), was 0·3%. With wages growing faster than inflation, that will result in higher gross disposable household income.

The most effective way of increasing household income is to have more people in better jobs. Since 2012, we have seen 40,000 new jobs created, with 26,000 fewer people claiming unemployment than in February 2013. We know from research that businesses that are innovative and invest more in R&D are more likely to be successful in global markets, employ more people and pay higher salaries — more and better jobs. Continuing with that policy will make a massive contribution to increasing local household incomes.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for the answer and wish him well in his new post. Does he accept that there has been a failure to close the prosperity gap, as evidenced by the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, which state that Northern Ireland has the lowest gross disposable household income of the four home countries and that, based on a comparison with the previous year, we are demonstrating negative growth?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his congratulations. I do accept that the level of gross disposable household income is disappointing. The latest figures for 2014 show that £14,645 per head is the average figure in Northern Ireland, which is about 81·5% of the UK average. That is not good enough. I could stand here and say to the Member and the House that it is something that has historically been the case and that Northern Ireland has always had far lower earnings on average than the rest of the United Kingdom, and just accept that as something that we cannot really do much about, given that we have done little to erode that gap over the past 10, 20, 30 or more years, but I do not want to do that. I want to make sure that, in trying to create a better, stronger economy for Northern Ireland, that entails bringing in not just more jobs but better jobs. By "better jobs", I mean jobs that pay more money to people in Northern Ireland. It is one area in which one of the factors that we can influence, or at least try to influence, as a Government is to try to attract more and better jobs.

Yes, we have managed to bring in 40,000 jobs over the past five years. I want to see that continue, grow and do better over this Assembly term. Just out of interest, I will say that, between 2011 and 2016, of the jobs that the Executive were able to attract into Northern Ireland through Invest Northern Ireland, 64% of those that were created by locally owned companies were above the private sector median wage and 72% of those that were created by external investors into Northern Ireland were over the private sector median wage.

Targeting our work with Invest Northern Ireland on more and better jobs that have higher wages will also increase the gross disposable household income for people across Northern Ireland.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The DUP understands the importance of low taxation and, in particular, low household taxation. Does the Minister agree with me that the policies that the Executive have put in place have helped with disposable incomes in Northern Ireland?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I share the Member's pride in the fact that we are a low-tax party and have rightly earned that reputation over the years in local government and in the Assembly. Taxation is a factor in disposable household incomes. There are others, including the size of a household, and, in Northern Ireland, households tend to have more children in them. There are also factors around inflation, as I mentioned, and earnings, but taxation is a factor. There is little that we can do to affect income tax, although the changes that Her Majesty's Government have brought in to increase the personal allowance will disproportionately benefit people in Northern Ireland because of their lower incomes.

As an Assembly, we have a proud record of keeping household taxes down. We have the lowest household taxes in the whole of the United Kingdom: the average household bill in Northern Ireland in 2015-16 was £842. That compared favourably with Scotland, where it was £1,300, England, where it was £1,400, and Wales, where it was over £1,500. When you total that up over the five years of the last Executive, the average householder in Northern Ireland saved £2,500. Add to that the policies that the Executive have pursued such as free transport for the over-60s and keeping the lone pensioner allowance in place, many of which are policies that some in the House, never mind people outside the House, told us to that we needed to get rid of because they were too expensive and we did not need them any more. Some, in fact, ran during the recent election on a platform calling for increased rates and the introduction of water charges and so on. Maintaining a policy of taking pride in having the lowest household taxes in the UK and withstanding the pressure inside and outside the Assembly to increase local taxes has helped to ensure that gross disposable household income in Northern Ireland is not worse than it is.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

The DUP claims to deliver low household costs, along with Sinn Féin. However, childcare costs for which they have been and continue to be responsible are second only to mortgage payments for many people and prevent many people from accessing employment. Will the Economy Minister, therefore, support an increase in the free hours of early education and childcare available to families in Northern Ireland to at least 20 hours per week?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Everybody in the House recognises that there are long-standing, deep-seated structural issues with childcare in Northern Ireland and that it is not as good as we want it to be or does not compare favourably with provision, for example, in Great Britain. I want to support seeing more free childcare places provided to people across Northern Ireland, but I do not wish to intrude on the departmental responsibilities of other Ministers, and I think that that is a responsibility for the Minister of Education, if I am right. I will leave it to the good offices of my friend and colleague Mr Weir to advance that in a sustainable way.

It is brave of the Member to stand up in the House and lecture me and my party about costs to households and taxation in Northern Ireland. His party ran in the recent election, and, at least, to be fair, it was honest in running on a platform of wanting to see water charges introduced and rates increased and wanting to do away with the proud record that we have of having the lowest household taxes in the whole of the United Kingdom. As Mr Nesbitt's question elicited, gross disposable household income in Northern Ireland is lower than we would like it to be, but it would be far worse if the Alliance Party had its way and people in Northern Ireland were paying £400 or £500 water bills and radically increased rates bills as well.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister agree that unrestrained immigration, to which we are subjected by virtue of our membership of the EU, has a downward pressure on wages and income and thus suppresses household incomes and thus is their opportunity on 23 June to do something radically positive about that?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I commend the Member on his innovation in introducing the EU referendum into a question on gross disposable household income. It is that sort of innovation that I would like many of our companies in Northern Ireland to display. If they did, we would have a fantastic economy.

The Member raises a good, pertinent point. There are clearly issues, perhaps less so in Northern Ireland and more so in other parts of the United Kingdom, with immigration and the effect that it has on the local, regional and, indeed, in some cases, national economy. I think that we in Northern Ireland have benefited from immigration as well. In the public sector, many staff, particularly in our NHS, are immigrants — I had the privilege of being the Minister of Health for the last year — and we would not be able to cope were it not for those people coming into Northern Ireland to provide much-needed services. Similarly, many staff come from other parts of the world to work in agrifood businesses — I represent a constituency that has many such businesses — and those businesses would not be able to survive were it not for that support. I absolutely understand and take on board the Member's point. If, indeed, there were unrestrained immigration into the United Kingdom, it would have a depressive effect, as the Member indicates, on household incomes and the economy generally.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before we move to the next question, it was remiss of me, Minister, not to welcome you to your first Question Time in your new role. I think that that is because we have become so used to you being at the Dispatch Box. I also inform Members that question 7 has been withdrawn.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

2. Mr Maskey asked the Minister for the Economy what plans his Department has to encourage businesses to invest in research and development. (AQO 47/16-21)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your comments.

Business investment in R&D is critical to economic growth. It leads to new, innovative products and processes and increases in productivity and can drive sustainable export growth. To deliver our vision of a more dynamic and competitive economy, Northern Ireland needs many more companies engaging in R&D and innovation. In recent years, through the excellent work of Invest NI, our universities and our colleges, we have made positive progress in this area. Their support has helped to create the conditions in which our companies now invest more than £400 million annually in research and development — that is up 25% since 2009. Most encouragingly, we now have more firms than ever before investing in R&D.

In the last year alone, Invest NI has supported businesses, the majority of which are local companies, small and large, to invest £70 million in research and development. That has created a strong foundation for us to drive forward our ambitious plans for the economy. My Department, through its delivery bodies and by working in partnership with the private sector, will continue to focus on getting more companies engaged in R&D. A range of interventions is already in place to deliver that, whether it is the Invest NI monthly R&D clinics, the financial assistance from the grant for R&D programme, the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) run by universities or the employer support programme run by our colleges. The challenge that we face is supporting companies to take the risk to invest in R&D. R&D is a risk, but it is a necessary one to drive sustained company growth.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. The Finance Minister today referred specifically to allocations for skills and further education. The Minister has addressed the fact that Invest NI, skills and further education are key components in assisting local businesses. Will he give us some assurance that Invest NI, the further education sector and the skills sector will embark on work to ensure that local companies get enough support to attract, in particular, inward investment?