Block Grant

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 14 April 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP 3:30, 14 April 2015

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

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the estimated reduction of £1.5 billion from the block grant; further notes the declared intention by the current Tory-led Government to make further swingeing cuts of many millions over the next mandate; notes the devastating effect this has had on the funding of public services; declares its opposition to the austerity policies at the root of all of this; calls on the British Government to pursue, in the immediate term, a policy of economic stimulus; and further calls on the Executive to continue to defend the core public services of health and education and appeal to civic society, employers, trade unions and the voluntary and community sector to unite in lobbying the British Government on this basis.

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I rise on behalf of Sinn Féin to propose the motion. It is a simple enough motion and I do not think that it should provide any issues for any Member or party in the House. I think most of the parties will already subscribe to the general intention behind the motion and most, if not all, of its sentiments. Nevertheless, I will make a few points on the motion.

The motion, as has been outlined, asks the Assembly to note the reduction in the block grant of £1·5 billion over the last recent number of years. It further notes the declared intentions of the British Tories to make even more swingeing cuts within the next mandate if re-elected in May. The Tories, as we all know, have said that they will take a further £30 billion from public spending, which will include, perhaps, £12 billion from welfare. Who knows precisely what a Labour-led Government may seek to do? However, that is outside our gift at this time.

Unfortunately, we already know the devastating impact that this is having on public services and what the impact on the most vulnerable in our society would be if we were to simply pass on the benefit cuts to those most in need. Those are benefit cuts that the five parties to the Stormont House Agreement have agreed should not be imposed on the most vulnerable, but which will come, obviously, at a cost to the block grant. All around us, Departments have been forced to cut budgets because of the cuts to our block grant. We know that all of that is down to an austerity programme and a Tory ideological agenda of assault on spending on public services and cutting benefits to those most in need. That, of course, drives down wages and makes more profit for big businesses, the friends of the Tories.

The motion asks all parties in the Assembly to restate their opposition to the austerity policies at the root of all this and to call on any incoming British Government to immediately pursue a policy of economic stimulus. For Sinn Féin's part, we will continue to oppose austerity as an economic policy, which, by all evidence, is counterproductive to building an economy, certainly any notion of a fair economy.

I believe that it is important to place on record, particularly for those outside of here who choose to ignore the financial realities that the Executive have to deal with, that the British Government set the block grant. We have no fiscal powers or levers at our disposal to allow us to stimulate and build our local economy. Effectively, we are having to manage the block grant as opposed to managing the economy. Equally, we have a range of very negative indicators, which are additional burdens that our Executive have to take account of. They include having the highest cost of living; the highest levels of child poverty; some of the most deprived wards; higher levels of unemployment; and, of course, the fact that we are a post-conflict society.

I commend our Executive for working very hard, despite those problems, to mitigate many of them. Indeed, the Programme for Government commits us to build the economy and tackle disadvantage. The Executive and Departments have introduced many measures. No water charges have been imposed; there is free travel for senior citizens; there are no prescription charges; there are regional and other targeted rates relief initiatives; and there is substantial funding support for education to target areas of greater need etc. There is a range of other measures, which I do not need to rehearse but which I fully believe show the attempts that each Department has made to address some of the difficulties that many in society have to address in dealing with the austerity programmes and cuts to budgets.

Despite all of the controversy around welfare cuts, the Executive, to their credit, have agreed to not simply impose the benefit cuts, as demanded by the British Government. I acknowledge that the Executive and Departments have had to face very hard choices, and most have made great efforts to minimise the impact of reduced spending, although it is fair to say that not all decisions have been universally welcomed or even supported. I also want to put on the record the experience that I have had with the Minister who I have most direct engagement with, the Minister for Social Development. He personally and his Department have done their best to protect neighbourhood renewal areas and projects, in particular, from the massive cuts being imposed across the board.

The motion calls on the Executive to continue to defend the crucial public services of health and education, particularly as, clearly, they are essential elements of any caring society. As I said, I fully understand the concerns in many of our sectors. I am certain that our Executive can always do some things better, but the motion makes an important appeal to civic society in general, and to employers, trade unions and the community and voluntary sector specifically, to unite in lobbying the British Government against these austerity policies and the massive cuts to the block grant, because that is where the full responsibility for the cuts to the budgets lies.

As I said earlier, we effectively have to manage the block grant with our hands tied behind our back, because we cannot manage the economy without the powers to do so. We call on those in wider civic society to unite behind the parties here that have been doing their level best to tackle the austerity programme that has been imposed upon us and the swingeing cuts that have come as a result of those punitive policies.

Photo of Paul Girvan Paul Girvan DUP

I stand to support the motion but with some reluctance and some difficulty because I see some hypocrisy associated with what is being put forward. I appreciate that we would like to ensure that we protect as much of the block grant that we draw down as possible, and I appreciate that it is vital that we use that block grant as efficiently as possible.

I believe that it is not Tory cuts but Sinn Féin cuts that we are having to deal with in our block grant in Northern Ireland. That has happened as a result of not implementing certain things, primarily welfare reform, and is leading to a major cost to our block grant at present. There is some irony involved in stating that we should lobby Westminster considering that, when it comes to dealing with any matter in Westminster, Sinn Féin do not even take up their seats in Parliament. We think that it is vital to ensure that we draw down the maximum money into Northern Ireland, and, if that means trying to protect our block grant, we will do all that we can and ensure that it is used effectively.

It is said that we are only ring-fencing the likes of Health and Education. I appreciate that those are two very important Departments, but, as it stands, they are probably being starved of resource as a consequence of some of the cuts that we are having to put in to deal with penalties that are being imposed upon us.

We also have some major infrastructural problems to deal with in Northern Ireland, where there has been major underinvestment for many years under direct rule. As a consequence of a campaign of terrorism and bombing, we spent quite a bit of our money having to rebuild property that was destroyed and rebuild our public infrastructure, which was being systematically taken to pieces by those who claim to be the custodians of ensuring that the public and the most vulnerable in our society are protected. We are now starting to see evidence that the most vulnerable in our society are sometimes not necessarily just people who are on benefit. A lot of individuals out there are suffering because they cannot get operations or access proper health treatment, and there are those who will possibly lose their job as a consequence of the reduction in our block grant.

We have to ensure that we target what resource we have and grow our private sector but not at the expense of our public sector. We have to ensure that we have a public sector that is fit for purpose. I use the word "fit" because it has to deliver. It is not an employment agency. It is to work. I appreciate that we have to work with the trade unions to ensure that they understand that we have to deliver and have to cut our cloth accordingly. We cannot just break the Budget and go back with cap in hand and ask for more money. I appreciate that, when they came into power in 2010, the Conservative Government made major cuts to the Northern Ireland block grant. We then set the four-year Budget for the Assembly in 2011 and that has impacted on where we are today.

So, it is with some reluctance that I support the motion. It is vital that we protect the block grant, but there is a certain hypocrisy in the way that this has been brought forward by Sinn Féin.

Photo of Dominic Bradley Dominic Bradley Social Democratic and Labour Party 3:45, 14 April 2015

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, as an deis labhairt ar an rún seo. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the motion. There is no doubt about it that 7 May is fast approaching, and, as we know, there is much uncertainty about the type of government that will be formed at Westminster. Indeed, it seems likely that Northern Ireland parties will have a key role in affairs at Westminster after the election.

The austerity policy pursued by the Tory coalition for the past five years has led to a huge fall in standards here more than anywhere else. Claims of an economic recovery have meant little to people who are on zero-hours contracts, on the minimum wage or unemployed. Report after report has indicated how hard we have been hit by the recession. It has been deeper here than elsewhere, and recovery has been slower. The situation here has been made worse by the reduction of £1·5 billion from the block grant.

Although the SDLP's amendment was not accepted, I will refer to it in my speech. Whilst we support the motion, I note, as I said, that the votes of MPs returned from Northern Ireland could be decisive in deciding the type of government at Westminster after the election. Our MPs will have an important role to play in holding the next government to account and in making their votes count.

The motion is right to call on the British Government to pursue a policy of economic stimulus rather than attacking our public services through reductions in the block grant. Austerity is a dead hand on economic development and serves only to stunt growth and keep us mired in recession. What we need is a stimulus to growth. We still have threats to the jobs of 1,500 teachers and 1,000 classroom assistants, and we are also looking at a £1·3 million reduction in the early years budget.

Civic society has an important role in informing, advising and scrutinising government. Trade unions, businesses, employers and the voluntary and community sector have done much lobbying to ensure that the anti-austerity message gets across to the British Government.

As I said, the results of the election are important, but the difference will be in how our MPs use their votes. It is ironic that the motion comes from a party that refuses to take its seats in the House of Commons, refuses to bring the fight to the Government where it can make a real difference — on the Floor of the House of Commons — and prefers to shout from the sidelines rather than engage where it matters — on the Floor of the House of Commons. It is more than a touch ironic for Sinn Féin to appeal to civic society in the form of the voluntary and community sector, employers and trade unions to take up the cudgel when it refuses to use its mandate to vote against these measures where it matters — on the Floor of the House of Commons.

Although we agree with the motion, it has a hollow ring to it, coming as it does from a party that will not go the full distance in the fight against austerity. What is the point of the motion? While its sentiments are good and wise, its purpose seems to be more to do with protecting Sinn Féin from criticism. However, we believe, as I said, that the sentiments at the heart of the motion are the right sentiments, which we should support —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

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

Photo of Dominic Bradley Dominic Bradley Social Democratic and Labour Party

— and support on the Floor of the House of Commons at the beginning of the next mandate.

Photo of Leslie Cree Leslie Cree UUP

It was only some seven weeks ago that we debated a very similar motion from Sinn Féin. We debated the subject at length, but it would appear that Sinn Féin still does not understand the current economic situation. We are emerging from a world economic crisis. We did not have to be bailed out by others. In fact, we are much more financially fit than our friends in the Republic of Ireland. We did not need outside assistance to prevent us from going bankrupt. It is also worth noting that the United Kingdom was able to assist with funds amounting to £7·5 billion as part of the £85 billion bailout to the Irish Republic. It is important to keep that in mind. We are part of the United Kingdom, which is a major world economy, and that is a significant strength for us.

Economic governance from Dublin, which the Members opposite advocate, would have been a disaster. Sinn Féin would also have us believe that austerity measures were just an experiment conducted by the Westminster Government. Why then did Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece and other countries in the eurozone have the same problem? Were the Tory cuts responsible for those austerity actions? No, the Government at Westminster were taking prudent action to pay our debts following a worldwide recession. The union with Britain brings us almost £10 billion a year in the form of a top-up — a subvention above and beyond what we, as a region of the UK, are able to raise ourselves. I trust that the signatories to the motion will be able to elucidate their economic theories with practical, researched examples of how we could raise the £10 billion alone. That did not happen in the previous debate, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

The motion calls on the British Government to pursue additional economic activity. It is a pity that, despite contesting the forthcoming Westminster elections, Sinn Féin does not use the opportunity to argue the case directly with all other Members in the UK Parliament.

It is just not enough to generalise about other sources of revenue or taxation. One has to understand how they work and the effect that they may have on the economy as a whole. Scotland has had tax-varying powers for several years and has not yet used them. Scotland has obviously done its homework. There are several taxes that could be transferred, but there is a cost to all of them. Therefore, the economic benefit to be derived has to be set against the costs of the delegated tax. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party was keen to have corporation tax devolved to Northern Ireland. We know that that action will enable the Northern Ireland Assembly to develop our economy and that it will represent value for money.

It is interesting to note that statistics published last month show that Northern Ireland benefits from the Union. The figures for 2013-14 show that public spending per head in the UK as a whole was £8,936. In England, it was £8,678, which was 3% below the UK average. Scotland enjoyed £10,275, which was 15% above the UK average. In Wales, it was £9,924, which was 11% above the UK average. In Northern Ireland, it was £10,961, which was 23% above the UK average.

We are all working to grow the economy, because the creation of jobs is directly linked to the creation of wealth. That enables people to pay tax, which, in turn, provides the cash to pay for vital services such as health, welfare and education. That is how it works.

Photo of Judith Cochrane Judith Cochrane Alliance

First, the Alliance Party concurs with the signatories to the motion that the cuts to the Northern Ireland block grant have caused major problems for Northern Ireland, but we should be clear that Northern Ireland is not the only region of the UK being adversely affected by cuts. We are, however, also facing other pressures, and Northern Ireland is likely to end up in a serious financial crisis as a result. We face not only large spending cuts but looming Budget uncertainty due to penalties as a result of the as yet unresolved issue of welfare reform. We also have the added future funding pressure of resourcing a lower level of corporation tax, which includes replacing the lost revenue to HM Treasury and investing more in skills and infrastructure. We welcome the devolution of corporation tax but recognise that we need to have a sound strategy in place to deal with the funding pressure in order to allow us to realise the future benefits.

The motion refers to proposed further cuts over the next mandate and:

"declares its opposition to the austerity policies at the root of all of this".

Again, we concur with the thrust of that in that the specific austerity policies of the UK Government are being forced too quickly upon us, with little balance of policies to stimulate the economy. In Alliance's 2010 manifesto, we recognised the need for the UK Government to address the deficit, but we also cautioned about the rate at which that would be done. Our advice has been borne out in events.

We have seen too steep a decline in public spending across the UK, and that has probably slowed our economic recovery. We continue to caution against addressing the deficit at too fast a rate in the next Government. Continued deep cuts in public spending will have huge implications for the Northern Ireland block grant and public services and economic investments here.

Instead of pleading a special case for Northern Ireland, we should be arguing for a slowdown in the rate of austerity at a UK level. That would be more likely to have a greater positive impact on the Northern Ireland block grant. A slowdown in the rate of austerity could, itself, constitute an economic stimulus, especially if what would otherwise have been cut from public spending at a UK level was redirected into economically relevant areas.

It is worth noting that the UK economic recovery is being seen largely in terms of the fall in unemployment and a record employment level. However, there has not really been any increase in productivity. Indeed, UK productivity levels are poor by OECD standards. That is because a lot of low-paid and unskilled jobs are being created to produce the current employment levels, but it is not healthy. That is something that the Executive and the next UK Government need to address.

The motion:

"calls on the Executive to continue to defend the core public services of health and education".

Again, Alliance acknowledges the importance of health and education as key public services, but we would add policing and economic growth intervention such as skills development. We would caution against simply doing any read across of any protection given to health and education in English public spending decisions and doing the same in Northern Ireland. We have a very different context here. While there is a case for some degree of protection of the health and education budgets, there is significant scope for reform. We need to be careful not to simply continue to allocate resources to a sector that is under pressure without expecting it to pursue its efficiency agenda.

That is particularly clear in education, where we are diverting almost £300 million per year to resource a largely segregated education system. Of course, that is not the only area that is costing us more to run due to our failure to address division in Northern Ireland.

If we are to lobby the UK Government effectively on any changes to the block grant, we must learn the clear lesson from the botched initial attempts to make a pitch in the Stormont House process. Making a loose, general pitch for more resources for general public spending, especially in the context of parts of GB having deep socio-economic problems, is pointless. We need to base any pitch on the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, show that we are genuinely trying to tackle the cost of division and not being reckless with public funds, and link any additional resources to specific deliverables.

Photo of Adrian McQuillan Adrian McQuillan DUP

We live in significantly different economic times than when the powers to this Assembly were restored in 2007. Since then, we have seen our block grant reduced in cash terms by successive Administrations in Westminster, beginning with Labour — which Sinn Féin prefers, according to Martin McGuinness in an interview some weeks ago — and the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Administration in the most recent parliamentary term.

Those cuts were generated by the need to make savings due to the imbalance in revenue generated through poorer tax returns and higher expenditure, primarily in the public sector. The bottom line is that the books do not balance, and that is an economic reality.

I do not expect Sinn Féin to understand that, as they do not even understand that fact in the country they affiliate to. They would rather have seen the Government of the Irish Republic behave like the current Government of Greece rather than behave responsibly and accept economic changes which were responsible for the need to cut public expenditure.

If the truth be told, we, as a Province, are far better off as part of the United Kingdom under the Barnett formula than we would be as either an independent state or part of a foreign nation. I therefore view the motion with suspicion, and you may ask why. The first reason is the timing. We are weeks away from a general election and one year away from a general election in the Republic of Ireland, where Sinn Féin is allegedly standing against austerity in the hope of collecting a significant portion of the lefty party votes. The second reason I am sceptical about the timing and wording of the motion is that Sinn Féin despises the Conservative Party. After all, the IRA once tried to murder the late Prime Minister and her Cabinet. Furthermore, like the Scottish National Party, they wish to fuel sheer discontent and anger in order to motivate their core vote here in Ulster.

A number of months ago, we had a similar debate with regard to the revenue-generating mechanisms open to the Assembly and Executive, and the Finance Minister was clear that they were all options on which progress had been made. However, due to Sinn Féin's rejection of the Stormont House Agreement, after it got cold feet over welfare reform, one of those key revenue-generating mechanisms — corporation tax — is on hold. We have witnessed the First Minister, along with his deputy, getting a good deal for Northern Ireland, with additional means of borrowing to plug the gap created by the failure of Sinn Féin to accept welfare reform and to fuel further enhancements to build our economy and generate additional revenue for Northern Ireland. It is therefore somewhat ironic that Sinn Féin stands here today and presents this motion calling on the Executive to look at ways to generate additional revenue and increase the Northern Ireland Budget, when a significant means of doing that was rejected by Sinn Féin after it got cold feet.

Photo of Fearghal McKinney Fearghal McKinney Social Democratic and Labour Party 4:00, 14 April 2015

I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate. I have to say that I am disappointed: there are elements of the motion with which I agree, but, as it comes from Sinn Féin, I have to take issue with it. There are a range of ways that you can describe the loss of £1·5 billion to the block grant, and noting it is not one of them. Then again, if you have already voted in favour of such cuts, it is perhaps difficult to move on to stronger language. After the motion, we will all be in a safer place, because Sinn Féin has asked us to note the scale of the cuts. Then we are asked to further note the Tory-led Government's agenda, as if, somehow or other, further noting it will make a dent in that Tory ambition. That is an ambition that the SDLP has been spelling out since the day and hour that the Tories came to power but which, in the end, Sinn Féin actually backed. But, once again, Ireland will be free now that we have further noted Tory intentions. In writing this, I have had to ask myself what all the pain and suffering was for if all we can do is sit here in Stormont this afternoon, "note" what the Tories are up to and vainly appeal to them to change their mind. That is what the motion amounts to. That is all that Sinn Féin can come up with: "Let's not go to Westminster, but let's ask the Tories for more. Let's pretend that Sinn Féin did not actually back the cuts".

Sinn Féin, as my colleague pointed out, has got the gall to ask the unions and the voluntary and community sector to join it. The party that backed the Budget that led to the cuts wants the unions to stand with it. No wonder it was not too present at the recent rallies. No wonder the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) members held up placards in front of John O'Dowd at the recent conference, telling him that the DUP/Sinn Féin axis amounted to Tory cuts. The trusted teachers of Ireland know the score.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for giving way. I had hoped that this afternoon would not descend into a silly point-scoring exercise. Most other Members have not done that and have still been able to make their points. Can the Member identify a single pound that any of his colleagues in Westminster have brought here as a result of their participation at Westminster? I cannot identify a shilling, never mind a pound.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Fearghal McKinney Fearghal McKinney Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will turn it round on him: will you tell me how many pounds you are not going to bring back by not going to Westminster?

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

Will the Member give way so that I can answer?

Photo of Fearghal McKinney Fearghal McKinney Social Democratic and Labour Party

You will have plenty of time in the winding up.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

Do you want me to answer?

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

Go back to the Stormont House talks. If you speak to your party leader — I do not know if you speak to him or not — you will know that the five-party discussions with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, resulted in an additional £550 million being brought in for education over the next number of years. That was a direct result of our party leading on that.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I ask the Member to address all remarks through the Chair.

Photo of Fearghal McKinney Fearghal McKinney Social Democratic and Labour Party

It was our party that pointed out, way back in the summer, that two separate parties going to Stormont would not be able to do any of the work. In any event, it is you guys who have, late in the day, done a U-turn on the Glenshane Pass over welfare. In any event, it is why Mickey Brady was booed from the demo at Daisy Hill.

It is not time for noting and appealing; it is time for a real hard look at where our problems lie. There is no point in simply urging an Executive to slice up the cake more favourably when we do not have a big enough cake. There is no point in Gerry Adams urging us to socialise the wealth when we do not have sufficient wealth, and he will not get his hands dirty creating it. Chris Hazzard has a fairy-tale economics approach that we should break the link with Westminster because austerity will always be the dish of the day. It might be a cold dish, but it is a dish worth £10 billion a year and to break it now would bankrupt us completely and send any North/South ambition down the tubes. It is why Máirtín Ó Muilleoir's plans, which he revealed to the BBC's 'Inside Politics' show, to push even more taxes on to those who have properties worth over £400,000, when they may not have the income to cope with them, will not work. He also has plans to tax Coke — I assume that he means the drinking variety — but that will not bail us out either. In the midst of a financial crisis on top of an economic crisis, what is the response of the Sinn Féin think tank? It is Oliver Twist economics: "Please sir, can I have some more?".

Tilting at windmills will not sort out our problems. Agreeing what those problems are and uniting in a common ambition to resolve them may, however, make a difference. We first of all need to decide that that is what we are doing. At present, we are unsustainable, we are relying on handouts and we are powerless. If you want an answer to why we did not get on the television debates, it lies there. We have our hands out looking for more. That is not power; that is pathetic. We scarcely have an economy because two thirds of what this place produces is based on the block grant and our private sector accounts for around a third. That is unsustainable, and it becomes even more so when the grant is to be cut. Parties in the Chamber need to start addressing that issue immediately because it will continue to be increasingly unsustainable.

We need to do things differently. We need to start with an ambition to succeed, to build and to stand on our own two feet and to pay our way. Bleating to the Tories and noting what we have all known for years and what the SDLP has been saying for years simply will not cut it.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank my colleagues for tabling the motion today. The last Member who spoke called for plenty of different ideas, a different approach and alternatives. He had five minutes but did not list a single alternative to what is happening. Perhaps he wants to go away to his own think tank and come up with some ideas and he can then table a motion to solve the problems. They are probably still smarting from trying to sell the City Airport or the harbour or some other thing that was not ours to sell.

At the core of this is the notion that we need to break away from being wedded to the failed economic policies of austerity emanating from the London and Dublin Governments. We need to look around us and realise that there is an alternative. There is no reason why we should not look at places such as Latin America. In Chile, they use moneys from corporate taxes to invest in tuition fees so that children who have been locked out of education for many years can now avail themselves of it. In Venezuela, where they use their natural resources to fund social missions, they have eradicated numeracy and literacy problems, and they are genuinely lifting millions of people out of poverty. Yet, here in Ireland, Governments have sought to sell off natural assets to the highest bidder as the interests of international consortiums all too often trump the needs of the people.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

No, sorry. I want to get through this next point, and I will then come back.

Some may brush off what I say today as nothing more than radical rhetoric, but let us have a closer look at what is radical. Surely, radical is sending thousands of working families to food banks for survival; surely, radical is shipping thousands of young people off to foreign lands for a job; and, surely, radical is dismantling the NHS and selling it off for parts. Despite the nonsense promoted by Western media outlets, there is an alternative. That alternative begins with taking control of our economic destiny. I give way to the Member now.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I just seek clarification. I was listening carefully, but it seemed to me that you were implying that Belfast harbour was a natural asset. Will you clarify that?

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

I was not referring to that at all. I was talking about selling off natural assets to the highest bidder; I was not talking about Belfast harbour. If you want to look at fracking or anything else, perhaps that would be closer to home.

If we are truly to build an economic alternative to austerity we must repatriate economic powers from Westminster and empower the people of Ireland. I know that the last Member who spoke scoffed at that idea. I am not sure if he has party support for scoffing at the idea of repatriating powers from Westminster and breaking the link with the Union. I am sure that many of his party will be surprised that he said such in the Chamber today. However, if we are to truly empower local communities to continue to raise attainment in schools and eradicate inequalities in Irish society, we must be in control of the choices that are to be made. As long as economic power resides in Westminster, we will remain locked in a Tory trap. The Union offers us nothing but the abhorrent and divisive agenda of austerity. If we act collectively, we can end the Tories' reckless mismanagement of our economy. If all sections of civil society — trade unions, political parties and the people we represent — stand united in defence of our public services and local jobs, we can build a fairer society.

We must fight for sustainable employment, a living wage and improved working conditions for our people. Our combined forces must be on promoting innovation, encouraging our life sciences sector and our tourism industry and strengthening manufacturing. We cannot repair and rebuild our economy and public services in the interests of the few; we must maximise returns for all in this society. At the very heart of that is the idea that we must smash the notion that there is no alternative. There is an alternative. There are alternatives all around the world, where the rights and interests of the many in society are put ahead of the few. We have to break away and show that this institution is full of political leaders, not political pygmies. We must stand up and take real power for our people.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

I have to wonder about the nature of the bubble in which those who tabled the motion and those who seem to be going to support it live. Anyone who thinks that you can be part of a nation that needs to balance its books and yet be immune from the steps necessary to do so is utterly deluded. To that delusion they then add a huge dollop of hypocrisy. The very same people voted for a Budget of cuts and austerity and trooped through the Lobby to support it. Then they come today lamenting austerity and noting, with disdain and dismay, the cuts that they voted through the House. Hypocrisy does not begin to describe the stance of some. Then, we have Mr Girvan say that we need to cut our cloth to meet our situation but in the next breath tell us that, nonetheless, he will support the motion: that too is lacking in the candour that one would expect in this situation.

The parties in the House have conspired to raid the block grant to promote and sustain unrealistic welfare payments to the tune of £500-plus million over the next few years to come off health and education — vital services. Then, of course, Sinn Féin is back demanding more. It is typical of their strategy that they pocketed what they could get at Christmas and are now back demanding more, leaving a huge ransom note on the First Minister's desk, producing the five-point plan that really seems to amount to "Give us more, more, more, so that we can pay off the Sinn Féin ransom demand and keep Stormont going".

We really need to get a grip on reality. This is the same party — Sinn Féin — that, day and daily, is depleting the block grant through penalties over welfare reform and then laments the situation of its own creation. We have Mr Maskey, on the one hand, talking disparagingly about big business but then, apparently, they want us to embrace the devolution and cutting of corporation tax. Who does he think that will primarily benefit, other than big business?

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice 4:15, 14 April 2015

At the same time, it will further deplete the block grant, which it tells us it so cherishes.

Yes, I will give way.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

I am grateful to the Member. As I have pointed out before in these debates, corporation tax cuts have a long way to trickle down before they reach people on benefits and welfare — the people Sinn Féin says that it wants to help. Does the Member agree with that?

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

Thank you.

Absolutely. The only certainty about cutting corporation tax is the further depletion of the block grant. There is hope and expectation — it is a wing and a prayer — that it might produce more jobs, but there is no certainty whatsoever about that.

If this debate is to have any value, it will come when the Minister maybe answers some of these questions. I have a couple for him. Given the situation we are in with the logjam on welfare reform and the failure to deliver the Stormont House Agreement, will he be in a position to bring the Budget (No. 2) Bill to the House in June? Will he be in a position to bring the final Estimates? That is really where the House will have to face reality. I think that the Minister needs to tell us whether, if things continue as they are, he will be in a position to deal with those fiscal necessities. If he is not, does he expect the Treasury simply to stand back and say, "That is all right then"? Or does he have a realisation and an expectation that that will not happen and that the Treasury cannot and will not stand back?

I think that we need to hear from the Minister the stark financial realities of the situation — not the aspirations, not the hopes and not what one might dream about. What are the fiscal realities? Will he be able to bring the Budget (No. 2) Bill to the House? If he is, how is he going to do it? If he is not, what happens then?

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

I have to say that this is one of those completely bizarre motions that a party — a party of government — brings. I am surprised at others supporting it. When I first read the motion, I was reminded of Neil Kinnock's remarks when he turned to address militants in his own party. This is what he said:

"I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end up in ... grotesque chaos".

That is where Sinn Féin is now stuck. On the one hand, it talks about criticising big business, but then it is cutting corporation tax. It talks about the block grant, the cost and price of the Union and austerity and of how evil the Tories and Tory cuts are. Did it watch the leader of the Labour Party, who is hoping to be prime minister of our country in a few weeks, trying to sell himself as a man who will be fiscally responsible? There were no promises of reckless spending but of trying to buy in to a triple-lock.

As part of the coalition agreement, the Tories in 2010 — the Minister may wish to allude to this — ring-fenced and protected health spending. We get a Barnett consequential for that. That made a big difference to what happened. The Minister will probably know the Barnett consequential better than I, but if the Tory and Lib Dem Government happen to be re-elected by promising year-on-year increases in health spending by up to £8 billion until 2020, the consequential will be somewhere in the region of £230 million to £240 million. The very fact that a future UK government could protect health and education, amounting to 60%-plus of our Budget, is the kind of thing that has shielded this Executive from the real ravages of austerity.

I remember a previous debate on the Budget when Mr Nesbitt gave some figures about UK debt. I reminded the House that the Republic of Ireland had reduced its spending by some €30 billion, the equivalent of 18% of GDP. If the UK had to reduce public spending at the same level, that would have equated to £500 billion. I will let the Minister work out how much that would have been off our block grant.

There seems to be an idea that you can keep asking for more and more, and that more money is always the answer. When you are part of a union, you have to take some of the hits. The Executive boast that we have the lowest household charges anywhere in the UK. As Mr Cree pointed out, we have the highest levels of public spending in the UK. Those situations cannot be balanced with endless talk of more and more money.

There are no ideas coming from the Government. Corporation tax is, effectively, the only thing in the tank. They want to cut corporation tax and, as Mr Allister said, the hope is that all this investment will come in. That might be good, positive and could help us to grow, but not when we are cutting our skills budget.

We signed up for welfare reform. Other colleagues have talked about civic society buying into that. We had the Make it Work campaign come up to the Stormont House Agreement talks. When people saw what Make it Work really looked like, they all ran for cover. Suddenly, it was a case of, "Hang on, maybe we don't want to make it work as well as that." That included parties that are in the Government. We have Sinn Féin, which signed up to welfare reform. We debated it, were making progress with it, and things were going very nicely until they got a bit nervous because they had not read the small print or something properly, and there was a row —

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

I am happy to take an intervention at this stage.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for giving way. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Member stood with me in Annalong in solidarity with those who had been affected by an SDLP cut to the money that was allotted to the Mourne Heritage Trust. That is the effect of austerity coming from Westminster. That is the outworkings of austerity.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

Surely you agree that that is the outworking of negative austerity from London and it is something that we stood against together.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

I agree with that but, as Mr McKinney was shouting, it is your Budget. You voted for it. Check the record; I voted against it.

The point is that the problems with our Budget are very often made in Northern Ireland. The Minister could possibly have his Budget blown apart by June because of the £2 million a week in fines due to welfare reform not being delivered on. We also have 65,000 empty school desks, a lack of reform in education and Transforming Your Care has stalled. The only reform that the Administration are doing is reform that has been effectively forced on it by the Government —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a conclusion.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

— in welfare and the public sector. If we had put a recruitment freeze in the Civil Service, you would already have the 12% instead of us having to borrow £700 million to do it. Those are as much your cuts. I also spoke in Kilkeel —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

— against cuts to early years and early intervention. That was a huge blow to those services.

Photo of Simon Hamilton Simon Hamilton DUP

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I think that this is the first time I have spoken in the House under your chairmanship. I know that it has been several weeks since you were elected to the position of Principal Deputy Speaker, but I want to belatedly welcome you formally to your post. It is a pleasure to sit under your chairmanship.

I have enjoyed the debate much more than I thought I would. It has been entertaining from my vantage point to sit back and listen to the various squabbles. It is always nice and heartening for unionists to listen to nationalists squabble among each other, and I do not intend to fight with any unionist colleagues too aggressively today.

We do not get enough opportunities to debate budgetary matters, and I welcome opportunities to do so. We debate the Budget frequently in the House, but that can sometimes turn into a very broad discussion that is about anything other than the Budget.

We do not often get into focused discussions around austerity policies or whatever it might be, so I welcome the opportunity that today's debate has presented. I do so even if this motion is very suspiciously like a Sinn Féin motion that was before the House approximately two months ago.

The House is very well versed, I hope — listening to the contributions it appears that it is — in the past, present and future pressures on our block grant, and it does no harm to rehearse them again. As the motion says, roughly £1·5 billion in spending power has been lost to the block grant since 2010 because our Budget has not risen in keeping with inflation over that period. It is often forgotten that while, latterly, things have changed in this respect, our capital budget was hit by a 40% reduction in the 2011-15 Budget period. That has improved slightly in recent years, but that had a devastating impact. I will come back to that in a moment when I pick up on a point that one Member raised earlier.

In this current financial year — I have to remember that we are now in a new financial year and I cannot talk about next year any longer — we are facing a 1·6% real-terms reduction in our resource budget. We should be listening to what Conservative Party and Labour Party spokespeople are saying, and I will address that as well. Looking forward, however, you do not have to listen to them, nor do you have to listen to me or anybody in this Chamber; you can read what the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is saying. It is clear that whoever wins the upcoming general election, if indeed anybody wins it, the future is more of the same. It will be different; the timings may be slightly different from what we were thinking they were going to be. However, I warned in the House before on earlier OBR projections that we could be facing, at a UK-wide level, as much as 13% reductions to resource expenditure over the next three years. If that was fully applied to Northern Ireland that would equate to a further £1 billion being taken out of our resource budget.

I am listening attentively, as is, I am sure, everybody in the House and further afield, to what is being said by the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, as the two parties likely to lead any new Government, about the various spending commitments that they are making. I listen to them because, as Mr McCallister pointed out in respect of the Barnett consequentials, they have very serious implications for our Budget but also because what they particularly pick out as their favourite areas of expenditure have significant Barnett consequential impacts — or not — for Northern Ireland. We are hearing both parties outbidding and outgunning each other in respect of protecting health and education in real terms or cash terms, and we have had the recent commitment by the Conservative Party to put a further £8 billion a year into the NHS in England by 2019-2020, which would have significant positive Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland because of the high degree of comparability that there is through the Barnett formula for Northern Ireland in respect of health and education spending. We also recently heard the Chancellor in his Budget statement in March herald the end of austerity by 2019-2020, when he is predicting a significant increase in public spending.

The result of all those pledges, if they are taken forward and implemented — it is likely that there will be bartering between various parties as a Government is formed and things may not come out of the wash exactly as parties put them in — is that instead of there being 13% reductions to our resource budget moving forward over those three years, the reduction is likely to be significantly less. While it will be less, however, reductions in public expenditure are still looming on the horizon. The only plus point, looking at the Budget moving forward and the projections that are there, is that the capital position is likely to improve significantly over that period as well. That, obviously, will provide a boost to the economy. Mr Cree will be glad to hear that it is likely that FTC will play a large part in that, and that might pose some particular difficulties for us in Northern Ireland.

I will pick up on points made by some Members, including Mrs Cochrane, on the pace of reductions. The reality is accepted by most of us that there is a requirement to live within our means. That is accepted by most sensible people, although it appears that not everybody is sensible. In 2010, the UK Government, in my view and in the view of many, went too hard and too fast, particularly in cutting the capital budget. As I have said before, it was indicated that our capital budget reduced by some 40% over the four years. At that time, given the UK Government's interpretation of the evidence that they saw, that was their way of reducing the deficit and eliminating it in this Parliament. It has not been eliminated in this Parliament, and I believe that one reason why it has not been eliminated is the conscious decision to go after capital, because the economy reversed again. It is sometimes forgotten that, at the time of the last election, the economy was growing, but it reversed because of that very significant impact on capital spend. Capital projects that did not move forward or were stopped resulted in a lot of people becoming unemployed, and unemployment registers going up, and it had a devastating impact on the economy for a time. That is why austerity and austerity policies have continued and will continue well into the next Parliament.

I will take up a point made by Mr Allister. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for us to accept the reality that we have to live within our means and that adjustments have to be made to do that at a national government level, just as we in Northern Ireland have to make adjustments to live within our means, but to oppose a particular type of policy that is being followed by the Government in Westminster, whether that Government be of a Conservative or Labour hue. On reflection, many of us, including my party, warned that going too hard and too fast, particularly with capital, would have significant negative consequences, and so it proved to pass.

I share the sentiments of many about the motion and agree with some of its sentiments — not helped, I have to say, by some contributions from the Sinn Féin Benches — but what is significant about the motion is what it does not say. Some Members picked up on precisely the points that it does not mention. There are at least three areas in which it omits significant things that should be addressed in a debate like this.

The first — at least Mr Maskey addressed this in moving the motion — is that it omits to acknowledge the good work that has been done, even in a period of cuts to our Budget, by the Executive and by society across Northern Ireland to ensure that economic growth is underpinned and that key public services like health and education continue to be invested in.

Secondly, as some Members picked up, it also fails to acknowledge the home-grown austerity — if I can use that phrase: the Sinn Féin austerity resulting from Sinn Féin inaction, particularly on welfare reform, and how that has harmed Northern Ireland.

Thirdly, as Members pointed out, whilst the motion calls for business, trade unions, the third sector, Uncle Tom Cobley and all to join with politicians to oppose austerity, it fails to mention the fact that, where it matters — at this moment in time, the new House of Commons will be where it matters — Sinn Féin is, of course, absent.

If I may, I will take each of those points in turn in the limited time available. We have done much, and much has been done by many across Northern Ireland, to ensure that our economy has been turned around and that past trends have been overturned. Our economy is growing, albeit at 1·2%, year on year between quarter 2 of 2013 and quarter 2 of 2014. It is a private sector-driven recovery, with the private sector up in three of the last four quarters. In particular, the services and production sectors are driving that annual growth. Unemployment has fallen for 26 months in a row and is down 18,600 over the period, and, of course, in 2013-14, Invest Northern Ireland posted record results, with 11,000 jobs being promoted.

We have also continued to invest in key public services. Health is up by over 3% next year, with some £200 million additional going into the Department of Health. Since 2007, health and education have been up 33% and 23% respectively in expenditure, again showing that, even over difficult years, those key public services have been the priority of the Executive, as the motion calls for.

As bad as austerity policies emanating from London have been, they have been compounded by the self-inflicted wounds of Sinn Féin.

The austerity emanating from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats has been exacerbated by the austerity emanating from Sinn Féin. I of course refer, as did many Members in their contributions, to the £100 million that has been lost already in welfare reform fines. We talk about these things so often in this place, at Question Time and in debates, that I think that sometimes we forget that, at a time when there have been various pressures on public spending, as the motion is right to point out, we have lost £100 million because of Sinn Féin inaction on welfare reform. That is £100 million that could have gone to health, education, the environment or wherever. It has gone not to health, education or the environment but back to the Treasury in fines paid because of non-movement on welfare reform. There have been consequences. There have been in-year cuts to services to pay for that £100 million. There have been job cuts in the public sector and outside. As a result of the handing-back of that £100 million to London, there have been contracts with the private sector and the third sector that have ceased, resulting in job losses in those sectors.

There are looming problems — I have to make this point — with the Budget for this current year, 2015-16. The Stormont House Agreement contained a significant financial package with a voluntary exit scheme, whereby I would be able to access £200 million in loans, and payroll savings of £50 million that would emanate from the scheme. I could go on and on and on. Even Mr Maskey referred to the £500 million that shared education would get as part of the financial package. The Secretary of State and others are on record as saying that, if we do not proceed with welfare reform, the whole package is at risk. That includes the financial package that underpins our Budget. That clearly will have a significant impact on our Budget and on our ability to agree a Budget in advance, and that is something that Executive colleagues and I will have to contend with in the coming weeks.

The impact of the cuts to pay for welfare reform fines and of cuts that could be required in order for us to live within our means this year because of the failure to move forward with the Stormont House Agreement and the Stormont Castle agreement will be every bit as devastating as the austerity that is emanating from London, under any UK Government, if not more devastating.

Thirdly and finally —

Photo of Simon Hamilton Simon Hamilton DUP

I have very limited time. If you are very brief, I will give way quickly.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

If the Minister cannot bring forward the Budget Bill in June, what will happen to the finances?

Photo of Simon Hamilton Simon Hamilton DUP

I do not think that, in one minute, I will have time to deal with that and still conclude my remarks. Suffice it to say, the Member and others are right to identify the very serious impact that not being able to move forward with that whole financial package will have on our Budget and on our ability to advance a Budget this year. Several weeks ago, I spelled out that there would be a black hole in the Budget of roughly half a billion pounds. That clearly presents problems for balancing our books and getting a viable Budget.

The motion also rightly calls for Northern Ireland politicians to fight austerity, but what it fails to point out, as I have said before, is that Sinn Féin is absent from the arena in which it is important to be to oppose austerity — the House of Commons. Members opposite laugh, and, again, I do not think that I have the time to really get into this, but a once-in-a-generation opportunity presents itself to politicians from Northern Ireland who are returned to represent the people of Northern Ireland. There is an opportunity like never before, and perhaps like never again, to exert influence on an incoming UK Government.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

The Minister must bring his remarks to a close.

Photo of Simon Hamilton Simon Hamilton DUP

Sinn Féin, for all its ranting and raving and opposition, will not be there. I can assure the House that MPs from my party will be there, will exert their influence and will be seeking to get the best deal that they can get for the people of Northern Ireland.

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I welcome the tone of the debate. I think that it has been, for the most part, a mature and informed debate. I have to say that I welcome the developing consensus around the very clear focus on the policies of austerity that are coming at us hard and fast from Westminster.

I want to refer to a number of Members' comments. In proposing the motion, Alex Maskey very clearly highlighted the £30 billion cut that is pending. It is important for us to reflect on that, and on the £12 billion welfare cut that is pending. The motion calls for all parties to assert opposition to austerity. I welcome the fact that, from the DUP Benches, Mr Girvan supported the motion, albeit reluctantly, and called on Sinn Féin to take its seats in Westminster. Thankfully, Mr Girvan does not write Sinn Féin policies or strategies. He also stated that, as a party, the DUP would do all that it could to maximise the block grant. Again, I find that welcome.

Dominic Bradley highlighted how austerity has resulted in a huge fall in standards for people in the North of Ireland and that austerity was what he called "a dead hand" on our economy.

Judith Cochrane outlined how the cuts have caused major problems for the people of the North of Ireland, and Mr McQuillan also referred to living in very difficult economic times.

Fearghal McKinney, from a position that, in my view, was very pro-UK, took great issue with the fact that the motion calls for us to note a number of things, but he missed the fact that it declares opposition to austerity policies. Yes, but also:

"calls on the British Government to pursue, in the immediate term, a policy of economic stimulus".

That is a very clear action in my view.

It was interesting that the Minister, in welcoming the opportunity to have this debate, noted that we do not often have enough debates around policy. I welcome the fact that that was a developing consensus in the Chamber. The Minister noted that a number of issues were missing. I agree with him in terms of the good work that has been done; I acknowledge that, and I will reference it. However, I suppose that I would make reference to his analogy that the motion had failed to acknowledge "Sinn Féin austerity". I suggest that the Minister's word "austerity" should be changed to "protection". And, if it is the case that money has been kept in the pockets of the most vulnerable, I and my party are very happy with that result.

In relation to the motion itself, as we have heard today from Members, there are plans for further cuts of up to £30 billion. We need to fight collectively, tooth and nail, to protect vulnerable people in our society, support our local economy and invest in public services. The Tories have promised a further £12 billion of cuts to welfare provision, and we do not even know clearly, or they do not even have the decency to tell us or outline exactly, where those cuts would come. What we know, from past experience, is that those cuts will be targeted at the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin

No, I will not. Thank you. The Tories continue to offer tax breaks to the super-rich —

Photo of Kieran McCarthy Kieran McCarthy Alliance

Will the Member give way to me?

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin

No. What is —

[Interruption.]

I may come back to both of you in a second, after I make this point. What is very clear is that the austerity programmes have failed by any benchmark, and that is an important point to be made by this House today. Even by Westminster's own yardstick, austerity has failed. Lost growth and higher debt are just the financial costs of Westminster's failure, but the human cost has been higher still. Analysis, even by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has found that the coalition's tax and benefit changes have indeed hit poorest households hardest. I give way, now, to Mr McCallister, if he so wishes.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

Thank you. You will maybe get in now, Mr McCarthy. I just wanted to ask the Member whether she does not consider the £9·6 billion per year subvention as an investment. What about the Minister's point about £100 million effectively wasted on welfare reform or on fines? Who is paying the most for that? Is it not, surely, the most vulnerable?

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin 4:45, 14 April 2015

I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, I go back to the point about the protection of the most vulnerable. Members from other Benches have noted the issue around the lack of clarity regarding the money that is raised here and, indeed, the gap of the alleged £10 billion from Westminster. Let us look at it in terms of the consensus that is coming from the House. Often, we do not even know how that money is raised or how it is spent. Members on the opposite Benches and other Benches have commented on that lack of transparency. Again, there is an opportunity for consensus in the House around challenging issues of fiscal powers to the North of Ireland.

As I said, the human cost has been much higher than is stated in some of the statistical reports that we have seen. This is an important point in the debate today: we could change course. There are alternatives. There is an alternative — there is a very clear alternative. It is within the power of the British Exchequer to restore the Budget. I hope that the developing consensus in the Chamber today will encourage us to demand that that is done. It is within that power for the British Exchequer to drive forward a policy of economic stimulus. In our respective constituencies and legislative frameworks, we must demand no less for the North of Ireland.

The £1·5 billion cut to our budgets has been well documented today. It is important to reflect on the fact that we have maintained public services. We have protected our health service from privatisation; we have —

Photo of Kieran McCarthy Kieran McCarthy Alliance

I am grateful to the Member for giving way, and I am getting angrier as the Member talks about how well she has been doing. What can the Member say to my 10-year-old granddaughter who said to me the other morning, "Grandad, what are they doing up at Stormont? They have taken my opportunity to learn Spanish and Italian away from the classrooms. What are you doing up at Stormont?"? In view of the fact that the Minister has advised the Assembly that we have handed back millions to London, what can you say to my granddaughter and other children who have been denied education in Spanish and French in their schools?

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for his intervention. As the Member well knows, some of the debate within our departmental budgets is about where money goes and whether it goes in the right direction. The Member is familiar with some of those similar issues in relation to the current spend of our health budget, for example. A huge debate, which has been validated by the Finance Minister himself, needs to take place. We need to have the hard and tough conversations around where our current spend goes in relation to maximising outcomes for all of our constituents.

It is important to reflect on the fact that there has been progress: progress in opposition to privatisation; in protecting people from water and prescription charges; in ensuring that older people benefit from free transport; and in retaining the education maintenance allowance to support young people from poorer backgrounds to stay in education. We have protected people, invested in business and created jobs, and we should acknowledge that work. However, that work has not happened because of Westminster; it has happened despite Westminster.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I ask the Member to bring her remarks to a close.

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin

I will. I welcome the growing consensus that has taken place in the debate; I welcome the mature approach that, for the most part, Members took to the debate; and I welcome the clear opposition to the Tory-led Westminster cuts and policies of austerity. I support the motion in its totality.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the estimated reduction of £1.5 billion from the block grant; further notes the declared intention by the current Tory-led Government to make further swingeing cuts of many millions over the next mandate; notes the devastating effect this has had on the funding of public services; declares its opposition to the austerity policies at the root of all of this; calls on the British Government to pursue, in the immediate term, a policy of economic stimulus; and further calls on the Executive to continue to defend the core public services of health and education and appeal to civic society, employers, trade unions and the voluntary and community sector to unite in lobbying the British Government on this basis.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Sinn Féin

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I would like to apologise for missing my question today. I meant no disrespect to the House.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

It has been noted.

Adjourned at 4.49 pm.