Budget (No. 2) Bill: Final Stage

Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 4:15 pm on 27 June 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker 4:15, 27 June 2016

I now call on the Minister to move the Final Stage and open debate on the Bill.

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

Thank you again, Mr Deputy Speaker. I beg to move

That the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA Bill 1/16-21] do now pass.

I will go back to where we were. I wanted, as Finance Minister, to touch on the Brexit vote and give my reassurance to the public and the House that we are focusing resolutely on that crisis at this time. Like other Members, I want to emphasise that I will resolutely defend the interests of all our people across the North in the time ahead.

As Finance Minister, my plan prior to the referendum was to seek contingency papers from Department heads to prepare ourselves as best as possible for the fallout from the referendum. On Friday afternoon, directors in the Department went through some of the key issues. I thank all the officials in the Department of Finance who put their shoulder to the wheel on Friday and before that to ensure that we responded robustly but calmly to the aftershocks of the Brexit decision. I welcome the steps outlined by Mrs Foster on behalf of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to respond to Brexit. I look forward to the necessary measures being taken to minimise the damage being caused by the crisis.

I am in no doubt that people are fearful of the consequences of Brexit. That is why I took steps on Friday and over the weekend to assure potential investors and directors and, in particular, representatives of the Special EU Programmes Body, who, as you know, were worried about the decision. I also spoke to the vice president of the European Investment Bank, Jonathan Taylor, and groups that are in receipt of EU funds. I assured them that I would apply a firm hand to the wheel in the days and weeks ahead, and I look forward to meeting shortly the Special EU Programmes Body and senior representatives of business, the trade unions and social enterprises to discuss our response.

It was my intention to do this before the Brexit decision, but I will work closely with our colleagues in Scotland, where there was an unequivocal "Remain" vote. In discussions with the Scottish Finance Minister, Derek Mackay, on Friday, I agreed to coordinate my approach closely with his. I will meet Minister McKay on 11 July in Cardiff with the Finance Minister in Wales, Minister Drakeford. Similarly, the Irish Government have a pivotal role in defending the mandate to remain here and the interests of all the people here, and I have taken steps to contact the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, whom I met last week, and Minister Donohoe. It is important that the Irish Government speak out firmly to protect our interests.

I want to say one thing before I move on to the core of the Budget discussions. I want to address the young people who voted last week in overwhelming numbers to stay in Europe. As they look to the future and assess the budgets and how this Government will proceed, I urge them to not be downhearted or forced from the path of creating a shared, diverse and prosperous society. We have come too far on this journey to be diverted into a cul-de-sac of splendid isolation. It is my intention to ensure that our young people are not denied the bounty of Europe any more than Europe should be denied the right to share this continent with them.

I urge them, therefore, to keep their head up in the time ahead.

I will now move on to the detail of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. I have listened with interest to the debate over the last few weeks. It is a debate that has covered many important issues: issues that are relevant not only in the current financial year but for the future of all the people we represent. I thank everyone who contributed to those debates, particularly the two lengthy debates we had two weeks ago. I once again place on record my thanks to the Committee for Finance for its role in ensuring that the Bill could pass through the Assembly via accelerated passage.

It is worth emphasising again that the Bill approves the expenditure of Departments and other bodies for this financial year, 2016-17. Members will no doubt be very interested in the impact the referendum result has had on those spending plans. The Bill is written to the Executive's agreed Budget for 2016-17; therefore, the result of the referendum does not change it.

As we move into negotiations on the fiscal relationship with London, I will act resolutely to protect the interests of all our people. I have taken steps to contact the Treasury, even since Thursday, on not only this Budget but future Budgets. In the coming weeks, the Executive will be considering their Budget plans for future years. I have no doubt that the impact of Brexit will then become clear, and we will respond accordingly.

Members will also be aware that the Bill is not the end of the legislative process for this year. Irrespective of the referendum, there will be changes to departmental budgets agreed through the Executive's monitoring rounds. Indeed, I was able to announce the outcome of the Executive's June monitoring round on 14 June, in which over £140 million of resource and over £29 million of capital were allocated. The June monitoring changes and all other in-year changes will be reflected in the spring Supplementary Estimates, which will be brought to the Assembly in February.

When the Assembly debated the Bill's Second Stage two weeks ago, I made clear my ambition for the Executive to deliver over the new mandate. The expenditure being approved in this Bill will see investment in high-quality public services and 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.

I am proud that, as Minister for the new Department of Finance, I have the opportunity with the first Budget Bill of the mandate to signal that I will, of course, oppose austerity. This country is not just an economy; it is a society made up of people, and each person has their own needs and ambitions. We will grow the economy, not as an end in its own right but as a means of providing for all our people.

The Fresh Start Agreement represented a good start. It provides significant additional funding in 2016-17. In addition, the Executive agreed to set aside £135 million to top up the UK welfare arrangements. Additional money was also provided for 'A Shared Future' for bodies to deal with the past, for shared and integrated education, and for shared housing.

I believe that this Budget will serve our people well. I am proud that we are delivering the most generous welfare protection in these islands to ensure that the most vulnerable will be protected from the worst excesses of austerity.

I believe also that it is important not to forget the bigger picture. The Budget (No. 2) Bill, which I hope Members will support again today, does not exist in a vacuum. It is a critically important element of our financial cycle and the principal mechanism through which the Assembly can hold Departments to account for their expenditure.

I remind the House that behind the dry figures are the lives of the people we serve, as well as the schools, the hospitals, the community centres and the cultural centres. To serve those people and to provide for our front-line services, it is essential that we move through this debate today and pass the Bill into law. Every public service provided for under the authority of the Assembly is affected by the Bill and requires the legislation to operate legally in this financial year. With that in mind, I ask Members to support the legislation and pass the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Photo of Emma Little-Pengelly Emma Little-Pengelly DUP

I will speak first in my role as Chair of the Finance Committee. As 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. As I indicated in previous debates, the Committee agreed, under Standing Order 42(2), to grant accelerated passage to the Budget (No. 2) Bill on the basis of it having been consulted appropriately on the Bill's expenditure provisions.

It is imperative that the Department meets that requirement for appropriate consultation on each occasion, given the importance of such Bills progressing through the Assembly before summer recess.

At its meeting last week, the Committee agreed that Assembly and departmental officials should follow up on the work undertaken in relation to the memorandum of understanding, which will, if implemented, provide opportunities for Statutory Committees to engage with their respective Departments for the forthcoming multi-year Budget at appropriate stages in the process. The public expenditure envelope is, as we know, constrained. Therefore, for those successive years, Departments will need to ensure that every penny of public money is maximised in order to efficiently deliver the level and quality of public services expected by those whom we have been elected to represent.

There will, no doubt, be many challenges ahead, some of which will be unprecedented. In that regard, speaking on the Committee's behalf, I am confident that, as we progress, a positive, constructive and productive working relationship will develop with the Department. It is my hope that the Committee will assist and support the development of improved policy and better legislation, while continuing to fulfil a valuable scrutiny and advisory role.

As I draw my remarks to a close in my capacity as Chairperson, I highlight the fact that, in scrutinising the forthcoming Budget, Departments and Statutory Committees alike must prioritise that work to maximise the limited time available. Early engagement by Committees in the process will assist in providing a degree of certainty in respect of Budget allocations for the coming years, which will enable Departments to plan their spending needs. Indeed, the Committee wrote to other Statutory Committees just last week to highlight that very matter.

I will now speak in my capacity as a DUP representative. We are entering an exciting new chapter for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The next Budget, which, at this stage, is still likely to be a multi-year Budget, will incorporate for the first time the implications of leaving the European Union and the additional resources that we will no longer, as the United Kingdom, be giving to the European Union. It will be a time of considerable opportunity. Being freed from the obligations and rules around trade constraints and state aid will provide potentially game-changing opportunities to stimulate our economy and form new trade relations across the globe. The changed context opens up and creates the space for an exciting conversation about what new initiatives can be created and driven forward for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

There will, of course, be some apprehension. We have heard that from some business organisations and around the Chamber. There will be, as there is at every time of significant global events, market movement, followed by recalibration. It was ever thus. However, to fear or avoid change and improvement because of that would be foolish. To shy away from changing what is wrong and what is not working due to uncertainty and fear creates only stagnation. Let us be brave in stepping forward; let us take this opportunity and take the essential steps required to lay the foundation for a better, more vibrant and sustainable economic future for Northern Ireland out of the European Union.

In Northern Ireland, we needed a game-changer. Before this, we had the shackles of the European Union. We now have an opportunity to maximise and examine best practice and innovation from around the world. The negotiations in the autumn in relation to the multi-year Budget will be essential for that, particularly if we are to stimulate economic growth; increase the size of our private sector; use our well-skilled workforce, low staff turnover and other attractive attributes here to attract foreign direct investment; and use innovative tools to grow our indigenous businesses and increase exports and business development. To talk and lament where we are now will not change anything, so let us move on positively by working collaboratively to bring about the economic transformation that we need and want to see. Let us see the opportunities, not the challenges.

I have stated before that the DUP is committed to a strong and sensible approach to the Budget and fiscal matters. We want to see collaborative working, evidence-based policy and the transformation and reform of processes to ensure effectiveness. We advocate fiscal responsibility. There is nothing to fear in that, but we want a context of taking brave steps and necessary decisions and showing leadership on rebalancing and stimulating the economy of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Photo of Philip Smith Philip Smith UUP 4:30, 27 June 2016

Since the previous stage of the Bill, the economic and budgetary landscape has fundamentally changed with last week's referendum result. Fortunately, the Bank of England and the Treasury had contingency plans, but the question is this: are we as well prepared, and do we have contingency plans? On Friday, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister said that we do not have a plan B, but I was pleased to hear the First Minister mention in her comments earlier that, at last, we are now taking action.

I hope that the Minister of Finance has a plan, as every Department detailed in the Bill will be affected by our leaving the EU. Some of the funding may be covered by additional budget from Westminster, and some may not; at this stage, no one knows. The expectation is that the Estimates in the Bill will not be affected by Brexit and that it will be two years at least before the full ramifications become clear. Again, no one knows.

What we do know is that our Budget will be affected by two issues, both of which are outside our control. First, as we have already seen, a significantly weaker pound will reduce the value of EU payments in the short term to the Executive and to funding recipients such as our farmers. There is, of course, an element of swings and roundabouts, as a weaker currency should help our exporters and our tourism industry and encourage cross-border shopping, but it will also make imports more expensive, including oil, which will increase energy and transport costs. The net impact is likely to dampen growth in investment in the short term, thereby reducing the revenue generated by Northern Ireland. Of course, this is in the context of Northern Ireland being the lowest growth region in these islands, so we are starting from a relatively low base.

Secondly, we must also look at debt and the potential for increased costs to fund that debt. Let us also bear in mind that the Executive are indebted to the tune of over £1,200 per person compared with Scotland — with an oil industry and a top 100 plcs that we sadly lack — where the debt is £530 per person. On Saturday, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, Moody's downgraded the UK's long-term debt rating from stable to negative. Its analysis is that:

"the negative effect from lower economic growth will outweigh the fiscal savings from the UK no longer having to contribute to the EU budget."

Of course, any EU contribution is still an unknown outworking of the negotiations yet to come. If the UK made the same deal as Norway, we would still contribute a net £3·5 billion to EU funds as the price for access to the single market. This reduced credit rating will result in higher borrowing costs for government, businesses and households in the longer term. It could have a negative impact on the Budget before us, as increased interest payments mean less money for services and will, of course, mean that the Minister of Finance's desire to increase debt becomes a more expensive option.

The Minister's war cry — we have heard it again already this afternoon — is that we must oppose austerity. Moody's also pointed out that the UK has one of the largest budget deficits among the advanced economies, thanks, as I pointed out in my previous speech on the Bill, to the Labour Government's mismanagement of public funds. As this deficit becomes more expensive to finance, the pressure to further reduce the deficit and raise funds to pay for it will lead to increased taxation or further pressure on budgets.

Therefore, despite the potential lead time for our leaving the EU to be well outside the scope of this Budget, it is highly likely that the impact of Brexit on currency, debt growth and government income could mean that the Budget will need to be revisited in the autumn. The expectation at Westminster is that a Budget may well be required once the initial turbulence settles, and that will require a response from our Executive as, undoubtedly, it will affect our spending plans.

As I said in my contributions during the debates on previous stages of the Bill, the Budget comes at the start of a challenging time for the Executive. This Budget is relatively benign compared with what is to come for the remainder of the mandate. The Minister of Finance has had the benefit, as he has already pointed out, of having over £170 million for reallocation as part of the June monitoring round. I assume that this met the needs of his Executive colleagues; I say "assume", because, like most in the Chamber, I do not know. We no longer have the option to see the bids from Departments, as they are now a secret. I know that officials are drawing up new processes. I hope that the Minister can confirm that future rounds and other Budget processes will be more transparent to aid scrutiny and the ability of the Assembly to hold Ministers to account.

I mentioned a challenging financial environment; this has just become significantly more uncertain with last week's events. The challenges and uncertainty are exacerbated by the failure of the previous Executive to mend the roof while the sun shone. That failure to reform and drive change in the public sector means that this Budget fails to meet the requirements of the people of Northern Ireland. The Executive's prevarication and inaction have got us to this point, and attempts to divert blame will not work.

While I appreciate that this Budget Bill is not the vehicle to do it, we need a coordinated response from the Executive that will produce a plan to protect our local economy and public services. For example, the Minister stated last week that he is committed to the rate and timetable for the reduction of corporation tax. This, of course, is the Executive's main policy for attracting foreign direct investment to Northern Ireland as part of a strategy to rebalance our economy away from its over-reliance on the public sector. The Minister stated that he is seeking a meeting with the Treasury to discuss secondary benefits and the final cost to our Budget. Of course, that is now all up in the air. The Azores ruling would no longer apply if we were fully outside the EU; but, again, no one knows how much in or how much out we will be at the end of this. Will we get a free hit to reduce our corporation tax rate without having to reduce our block grant or will the Treasury refuse this because of the implications for other devolved countries and regions? Will the policies still make Northern Ireland attractive to investors if we are outside the single market or will we still be able to negotiate access during the article 50 process? The Minister, on behalf of the Executive, needs to have an emergency meeting with the Treasury to try to obtain clarity on these key issues.

The same level of uncertainty exists in other areas too, such as agricultural support, EU part-funded infrastructure projects, access to higher education, border controls with the Republic and with GB, Peace funding, and other funding for third-sector projects: all this tallies to a significant portion of the funding within the Budget Bill. I urge the Minister and his Executive colleagues to produce an emergency plan to ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard at Westminster and throughout Europe and that they are clear in their demands to protect our funding streams.

This is a steady-as-she-goes Budget. It was never good enough to meet Northern Ireland's requirements before the referendum; it certainly does not cut it now. We will oppose the Bill. We urge the Minister and the Executive to show some urgency and start to plan for this new economic and political environment.

Photo of John O'Dowd John O'Dowd Sinn Féin

A number of Ulster Unionist Party members said that the Executive should have planned when the sun was shining. Maybe I missed it. I was a member of the Executive from 2011 to 2016 and I can assure you that there was no sun shining on the Budget during the period when I was Minister of Education. In fact, I can remember as far back as Gordon Brown being Prime Minister. He introduced a number of emergency Budgets when the economic crash hit, and the then Executive's Budget was slashed at that time. The sun has been hiding behind a financial cloud for at least seven to eight years. If we are going to talk about what the Executive need to do or should have done, let us talk about it in the reality of the situation we were in and are now in.

The theme that runs through all this — I mentioned it this morning during an earlier debate — is that it works on the theory of the trickle-down economy, which is supposed to ensure that wealth trickles down to all citizens. The difficulty with the trickle-down economy and economics is this: when things go wrong, the trickle turns into a tide of austerity against those at the very bottom of the stream. Since the economic crash in 2007-08, we have been dealing with the consequences of that tidal wave coming down the stream, which has meant that public services have been cut, investment has been cut and the Executive have been managing against a very difficult economic climate to protect public services, create investment and ensure that we try to stabilise our economy with the limited economic levers that they have. Do you know what? They have been quite successful at it.

Some 40,000 jobs were created during the last term. That is a success. Our education results since the end of direct rule have been going up year on year, and our universities are seeing graduates coming out that the world's investors want to get hold of. So, it is not all doom and gloom, but there are major difficulties for our economy and society.

The Budget Bill, which has been brought forward today, sets out spending plans for the rest of the year, but do we know what will happen in a month's time or six months' time? No, we do not. Those who favour Brexit refer to the £350 million that will come back every week. We know that it will not be spent on the health service or on a range of services. They have told us that, but they have not told us what it will be spent on. There is a fault line in that argument as well because that £350 million did not include the rebate, so it is around £180 million a week. I am sure that someone has the exact figure in front of them. That will depend on the attitude of the Government and Chancellor at that time, and it will depend on their attitude to a number of things. Do they support public services? If they support public services, that money will be invested in public services, and our Executive will get the Barnett consequentials of that, especially if it is invested in health and education because it is a direct read-over, but if the person or persons in charge do not support public services, why would they invest any of those savings in public services?

The figure also relies on the economic wobble, catastrophe, or whatever is going to happen after the EU exit. It will have a trickle-down effect on investment and jobs, and, if it has a trickle-down effect on all that, there is not the same amount of revenue being collected as there once was. So, if we lose investment, such as has been suggested, from the international banking system and other investors etc, we will not have the same amount of revenue being collected. Therefore, the Chancellor will sit back and say, "I am not receiving the same intake that I was receiving a year ago", and, if he is wedded to austerity, what will that Chancellor do? He will use the money that was allegedly saved from exiting Europe to pay off this famous thing called the deficit. We will pay off our deficit for now or never, we will continue to restrict spending on public services, and the sunny day that the Ulster Unionist Party refers to will never come.

So, there are too many things outside our control to look into the future with confidence, but, as I said in the earlier debate, I have confidence that the First Minister and deputy First Minister will work to get the best deal possible for our people, and, to do that, they will have to work together. I have confidence that they can do that, and I have confidence that the Finance Minister and the other Ministers will work together to ensure that, whatever shape our Budget is in, we will continue to invest and to struggle with the challenges that we have and will continue to invest in our public services moving forward.

I am not picking on Mr Smith, but he presents an argument that is worth responding to, which is the idea that there has not been enough reform over the last five to 10 years. In reality, in the first term of the Assembly following the restoration of the institutions, we, as a collective political body, were learning, and we had a steep learning curve to go through. When you are learning the mechanisms of power and politics, you will not always immediately go into a reform programme — I do not like that term — a programme of change, a programme of betterment to ensure that public services are fit for purpose, but, in the last mandate, a significant amount of work was carried out in that area. We have seen the reform of our local government. We have seen our education bodies reduced to one. We have seen ongoing work in relation to the voluntary exit scheme. I do not intend to spend the next five years referring back to my time as Minister of Education, but we also saw major reform in education around the number of schools that we have. People say to me that we are afraid to make difficult decisions. Those decisions were made because they had to be made, and that will have benefits as we move into the future.

That brings me on to borrowing. The figure of around £2·1 billion is thrown out as the Executive's debt, but we found out last week in the Finance Committee meeting that that figure is not all the Executive's debt. It is, in fact, a legacy debt from local government. I am looking round and there are many former councillors in the Chamber. That debt is your debt from when you were sitting on local councils and borrowing, quite rightly, to deliver public services. That debt remains and is now on the Executive's books. A significant proportion of that Executive debt relates to local government borrowing. The Finance Minister has not suggested that he will borrow in a reckless or negligent way, but it is still an opportunity that needs to be explored. I raise the issue of where the debt is broken down to because we need to have the full facts and figures in front of us so that we can then make informed decisions about how we invest and what mechanisms we use to invest in the future.

I want to end on the point that, unsurprisingly, I will support the Finance Minister's Bill. I am of the view that, despite the challenges over the last five to 10 years, the Executive have been a bulwark against austerity and will continue to be so. Mr Allister told us earlier that, all of a sudden, now that the EU referendum is through, we have more powers. I have not seen the list yet, but, if Mr Allister is prepared to take on more powers to benefit this society, he will not find us blushing or being shy about introducing those powers, because we need more economic levers to create the vision that we all share on ensuring that investment in our public services is secured.

Photo of Claire Hanna Claire Hanna Social Democratic and Labour Party 4:45, 27 June 2016

I thank the Minister. I will keep my comments brief because we discussed the Bill at length earlier in the process. Quite clearly, you have an incredibly large job ahead of you in picking up some of the pieces from last week. I welcome the Minister's very rational comments in the debate and, indeed, in the media earlier and urge him to continue to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive represent Northern Ireland's interests in the absence of any plan coming from London or anywhere else to make sure that our financial interests are not just washed away in the chaos that surrounds the Brexit decision.

We remain of the view that this Budget treads water by having policies and spending priorities that we do not feel are delivering very effectively for Northern Ireland. They were not ambitious. Obviously, we do not have the detail yet, but we do not see anything specific in the Programme for Government that leads us to believe that that will change very radically in transforming the economy or adding significant value to what we already get from devolution and from copying things over from London. In particular, we feel that investment in skills is lacking, and that will make a challenging foreign direct investment proposal even more challenging. Given that we will no longer be a gateway to Europe, being skilled and having infrastructure is ever more important. We are concerned about increased funding going to the likes of SIF and the Executive Office, which we do not feel are sufficiently transparent or have a particularly good record of delivery.

We also raised concerns previously about transparency and the direction of the joint government manifesto commitment for an extra £1 billion on health and the extent to which that money would be used sustainably. As I say, we urge that more of a priority be placed on infrastructure, childcare, early years and apprenticeships, and we have outlined extensive proposals elsewhere during the debates. I know that the Minister is keen enough on the idea, but we would like a move to a slightly more zero-based budgeting approach so that every time that any party — government or opposition — makes a funding proposal, it cannot be just pitched as robbing Peter to pay Paul, and, essentially, we have to go from the start and redesign our budgets and spending priorities that fit our specific needs rather than just, as I say, the baseline budget given to us by the Treasury.

We heard a pretty optimistic view of the post-Brexit world from the Committee Chair, who, I appreciate, is not here. I do not share her enthusiasm about the opportunities. If the opportunities were so fruitful, they should have been fleshed out. Instead, what we now know to be campaign priorities — the NHS and immigration — were the subject of a world-record breaking reverse ferret: people were in the media literally hours after claiming victory to recant those horrible promises.

I have a couple of specific questions. Will the Minister outline what impact the Azores ruling will have in his negotiations, if he can find somebody to negotiate with, on corporation tax with the Treasury? Of course, in theory, the Azores ruling will no longer be an issue, and my understanding is that they do not have to take the consistent amount off our block grant.

Will the Minister consider implementing a sunset clause on corporation tax? We consider that that would be useful. If we do not see the arrival of 21st-century serious, decent jobs because of the drop in corporation tax — I have long since been of the view that entrepreneurs are not hanging around waiting for a tax cut but looking for the other circumstances to be right — will he consider writing in a sunset clause? That would mean that, if we did not get those jobs, we would no longer have to subscribe to what could crudely be called "corporate welfare". We could put the rate back up and get back into the public purse what was not necessarily coming in through high-quality jobs. We await a wider political and constitutional strategy from the Executive about what to do post-Brexit, but I am keen to hear the Minister's plan.

Earlier, I expressed the view that some on the hard end of the left wing were very casual about Brexit. They threw up the argument about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as a campaigning tool during the election but refused to answer questions on the absolute quirk in their screwy logic, which was that it would not be better for that to be negotiated by 28 countries than handing it all to Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. I suspect that, primarily, they see Brexit and the resulting austerity as an opportunity to sell more pamphlets and put up more placards and posters. Who needs to care about protecting the economy and public services when you can just cry about them being cut again?

When we were talking about it this morning, I thought about the scale of the ramifications for markets, law, workers' rights and public services. I am not that much of a conspiracy therapist, but it put me in mind of Naomi Klein's shock doctrine. Basically, that is the theory of disaster capitalism and neo-liberals using national crises, and the distraction and emotional shock that they cause — to utterly redesign systems and force through the most controversial of reforms in what is, essentially, a form of shock therapy carried out on the entire economy. Will the Minister outline what strategies he can bring forward so that he is vigilant against and can prevent a raid by the incoming UK Government? I suspect that they will not spend more than a couple of seconds thinking about the nuances, complexities and differing needs of a region that will be massively disproportionately affected by Brexit.

Throughout the campaign, we said that one third of our exports were agrifoods; across the water, the figure is just 3%. The current Government do not really understand our economy, and I am sure that the new one will not either, and they will have many other things to deal with. Will the Minister outline what his strategy will be to ensure that there is not a raid on our block grant or the Barnett formula?

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I will start by talking about the Budget (No. 2) Bill in the context in which the resolution to approve was originally tabled, accepting, by implication, that the world has changed significantly since. My party had considerable scepticism about the Bill in its original format and, indeed, context and to what extent it provided for a sustainable and strategic Budget

When Mr Smith made the point about the Executive not making hay while the sun was shining, he was challenged by Mr O'Dowd, who said that the sun was never shining. I concur with Mr O'Dowd, particularly in the context in which we now find ourselves. I do not recognise a situation in which the Executive were making strategic plans for the future. Rather, we were in a series of crisis modes to try to arrest decline — some of them imposed by the UK Government, and some of them self-inflicted wounds, but, still, there was very little planning for the future. It was basically about making do, day by day or month by month, at times.

Opportunities to reform our public services and put ourselves in a stronger position to support our economy have suffered. That is not to say that good work was not conducted across a range of Departments and by the Executive as a whole on a range of issues, including our performance in job support, job creation, investment in skills to an extent — we could have done more, obviously, with more resources — and some changes in health and education. At the same time, there were a lot of big, missed opportunities, including a reorientation of our public services, particularly in health and education on a more long-term basis, and taking into account the opportunities to move ahead with integration in what is still, sadly, a divided society.

Moving forward, we find ourselves with a Budget that still has those inbuilt structural flaws. We have not yet tackled the cost of a divided society. We are still not tackling effectively issues around waste and inefficiency in a range of areas. Some of those may well be related to division; some of them are not. The reform of our health service is a key example of the latter category. I concur with comments that have been made; it is not simply about allocating up front a set amount of money to go into the pot to keep the health service going or to try to catch up with healthcare inflation irrespective of the implications for all other Departments in the process. This has to be about deciding what reform is required, and, if we need more money to support that process of reform, by all means make that happen, almost on an invest-to-save basis.

I also think that we were not planning ahead sufficiently for changes in the economy. We have not been investing sufficiently in skills. We have the policies and practices in place that would allow us to make the best use of resources, but we have not scaled up sufficiently, particularly in what was the context — it may still be the context — of a lower rate of corporation tax. Those investments, I believe, are absolute inescapable realities. They are not some sort of optional extra that we would do if we had the resources.

While I welcome the money that was confirmed by the Finance Minister for skills in the June monitoring round a few weeks ago, it is worth stressing again that that money is already factored in, rightly or wrongly, to budgets for the current year, based upon the promissory notes from the previous Finance Minister. We still have major structural deficits, particularly in higher education. The figure of £55 million has been cited by the vice chancellors. Let me stress that that is to reflect the steady state situation in terms of ensuring that we have parity of funding with other parts of these islands. It does not reflect the quite right hopes that many have for the expansion of our higher education sector, particularly in the north-west.

I think that there is the potential for fundamental changes to occur in our financial landscape. Like others, I wish the Finance Minister well on what will be a very difficult road ahead. We would be deluding ourselves if we simply pretended that it is business as usual. It is not. There are fundamental financial challenges ahead, and we are going to have to work as Northern Ireland to mitigate those as best we can and to see if we can put in place special arrangements and circumstances that will allow us to, potentially, continue to benefit from the European Union in a way that is consistent with the views of the electorate in Northern Ireland, if not necessarily the electorate of the UK as a whole.

The continuation of corporation tax may be one of those issues, but I think it is inevitable that we will have to pause and reflect on the way forward with regard to corporation tax. This time last week, we were all set to go with a rate, potentially by 2018, subject to some minor negotiations with Treasury. However, that could not and should not happen without further investment in skills.

Today, I think we need to take a step back and have a more fundamental reassessment of the model. Corporation tax was envisaged in the context of our continuing to be part of the European Union and to participate in the single market. As anyone who has worked in investment will know, the single biggest issue for businesses looking to Northern Ireland is access to markets, and that means access to the European Union. That is closely followed by political stability. We do not have either of those at this stage. The third issue is skills, and we have a good foundation but have not scaled up. There is a question mark over that as well. In the context of our not having guaranteed access to the single market, we may need to reassess the exact approach we take. In the context of a declining Budget in particular, is it something we can afford if it is not going to be effective?

The contrary argument to all that is that, if we do not have access to the single market, we are taking two steps or three steps back in our competitive position in the world, so perhaps a lower rate of corporation tax is now more essential than ever to compensate for what is the foolish decision that has been taken over the past number of days about our participation in the European Union. That can happen only through a fresh look at the model on all this, and it is important that we keep an open mind on that. At the same time, we cannot plough on regardless as though nothing has happened. I am sure the Minister will be acutely aware, as Claire Hanna mentioned, that, potentially, the terms of the Azores ruling do not apply, in the sense that the UK Government have to ensure that the money is recouped from us. They still have the discretion to insist that the money is recouped or not, and that will be a live issue.

On the wider financial context that arises from the decision, we need to be mindful that there was a lot of debate during the campaign about who got what money and the money that comes in and the money that comes out. Even if you work on the assumption that Northern Ireland maybe gets just slightly more from the European Union than local taxpayers pay in and that, therefore, it is not really something worth quibbling about, you also have to bear in mind that that is in the context of much a greater economic argument about the economic benefits that come. It is about not just the flow of money in cash terms but access to markets, the economic boost that comes and the finance that is generated from that.

In the context of our being out of the European Union, there is no guarantee that we will achieve the same amount of money coming from London that we currently have coming from Brussels. It is OK for people to say, "It is great that the UK Government will reclaim the net effect of the money that is paid in and will be very generous in their largesse to the regions", but there is no guarantee whatsoever that that will be the case.

We have to bear in mind that the UK Government do not follow the same approach to us under devolution in terms of what our priorities are. For example, we place a much heavier emphasis on support for agriculture and agrifood. Those are two important elements of our economy. They are far more important on a proportionate basis in Northern Ireland than they are in the rest of the UK, so there is no guarantee that a future UK Government are going to place the same focus on that type of support. Also, I do not imagine that the UK Government are going to worry to the same extent about support for something like the European social fund when they, particularly the current Conservative Government, do not see the value of that focus in training and supporting marginalised communities.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

To develop your point, is it also not the case that, when it came to the successor programme to Peace, the British Government made no argument whatsoever to the Brussels authorities for the continuation of Peace and that it was left to the Irish Government and our own Government to make that argument? Is that not further evidence of what London will do on a pound-for-pound basis to support the North post-EU withdrawal? Look at what happened with the Peace project. They did not back it at all.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I very much concur with the Member, and I am sure he will also reflect on this from his period in office. When Northern Ireland has been working in Brussels, we have often had to rely upon our own resources, our own administration and support from our own Northern Ireland bureau in Brussels to get access to the European Commission. Frankly, at times we have had stronger allies in the Irish Government when we have needed extra leverage to get points over the line. The UK representation in Brussels has been next to useless in supporting the interests of Northern Ireland. They pay lip service to it but, frankly, it is a complication they do not often want. They have their own aspirations in that regard.

Another example is the potential use of the European anti-globalisation fund, which Members have expressed interest in using whenever jobs have been relocated out of Northern Ireland. That is a fund available within the European Union — another benefit — but our UK Government have set their face against the use of that fund in its entirety, in contrast with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. So there are a whole host of things there that we risk losing in terms of cash.

The most fundamental point that we have to bear in mind is the context of a shrinking UK economy if, as now seems inevitable, we are going to see a UK recession. Whether it is a technical recession or a more sustained recession, it is a recession nonetheless, and something that will affect people. We will see the UK economy shrinking. There will be less tax revenue coming in. It is in that context that the UK Budget as currently set begins to unravel. That is the context in which we will potentially see our own Budgets being unpicked here in Northern Ireland. There is a reasonable chance that we will be spared in the current financial year, but in the next comprehensive spending review the chances are we are going to see even a smaller Budget than has been allocated to us in terms of future planning. That is going to cause us difficulties in terms of already difficult decisions to be taken.

If I go back to the comments I made at the start about structural difficulties within our own Budget that have not been properly addressed to date, we are going to get an ever tighter situation, which puts an ever greater premium on trying to address those types of issues. In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I do not agree with the Member that there is not going to be a supplementary Budget this year. The Chancellor flagged up this morning that, on the far side of the new Cabinet in the autumn, there may well be. In that event, is it not now the case that the Minister of Finance will be obliged under the law established for Fresh Start to come to this Chamber and make a statement about the changed financial position, that being a requirement of the British Government for the Fresh Start?

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

That may well be the case, but I want to stress that I agree that there may well be a statement this year, but I suspect that the 2016-17 Budget may be spared, although any statements made in the autumn will have application from the 2017-18 financial year onwards. It is in that context where things could begin to unravel to an extent. No matter what way you look at it in terms of precisely when things are going to happen, we are in perilous times. Even if we do not see an economic collapse overnight, that does not mean we are out of the difficult, choppy waters. These things are going to happen over a period of time. Companies will take time to make decisions over what is going to happen. Investment decisions will slowly unravel. We will never actually see the investment decisions that could have been taken that never happened. We will never see the effect of those that we have missed out on.

It does trouble me, and we have heard this from the Chair of the Finance Committee already, about this wonderful nirvana that we are now entering into, free from the shackles of the European Union. I wonder why we still have countries queueing up to join the European Union, if it is such a straitjacket on your ability to invest resources. Of course, we can do more without state aid rules, but that presupposes that we have a Government that want to actually invest in supporting our industry. You just have to go back to the 1980s, when we were part of the European Union and state aid rules were a bit more lax, and we did not have a Government that wanted to support industry in different ways. So there is no guarantee that, free from the European Union, that is going to happen.

We had Mr Bell talking about the shrinkage of the EU's share of the global economy. Albeit that growth has been slower in the EU than in many other parts of the world, that reflects the fact that we have modern economies in the European Union, where growth has occurred over many decades before. The reason we are seeing an imbalance in the global economy is the very welcome rise in development in many other parts of the world, particularly the Far East, and that is good news.

That, in turn, is where a lot of investment will come from over the coming years. They will look to the European Union to make those investments, not a United Kingdom on the fringes of the European Union.

We also heard the nonsense that there would be lower youth unemployment outside the European Union. The reason that we have different approaches to youth unemployment across the European Union is that different policies on training are applied at the national level. Countries that invest in highly vocational systems of training, including high-level apprenticeships, have lower youth unemployment figures because there is a much stronger match between supply and demand in the economy and because employability skills are taught at an early age. Hence the Germanic countries and Scandinavia have lower rates of unemployment. European countries with national policies that do not follow those models have high youth unemployment. The European Commission is keen to promote vocational training on the Germanic model and show the countries in Europe that do not have good figures that there is a different way. It is important to put that on record.

We have concerns with this Budget as we find it. It is not sufficiently sustainable or strategic. In its current format we have opposed it through the Executive and the Assembly, but we recognise that it will be passed. The world is changing. Looking ahead to the wider context, as is the custom at Final Stage, we are in an extremely difficult situation, and it is important that we are fully alert to the dangers and work closely with the Finance Minister. He has our best wishes for a difficult and challenging job.

Photo of Jonathan Bell Jonathan Bell DUP

Many Members will be confused about whether parts of this debate belong to the previous debate, so we need to be clear about a number of points so that this does not carry over to debate after debate. The referendum has been held, and the decision of the United Kingdom has been made. The Prime Minister in the House of Commons today was explicit that there would not be a second referendum. My distinguished colleague Gavin Robinson asked the Prime Minister to dismiss the constitutional nonsense that devolved bodies could somehow frustrate the decision of the United Kingdom to go for Brexit, and he did so. And just to clarify for those who came out with the nonsense of a border poll, the Prime Minister has said that there will not be one.

Now that the decision of the United Kingdom has been made, it is incumbent on all of us to follow the instructions of the people of the United Kingdom and to do our best with the Budget before us. All of us could do more if we had more money. However, we are not tasked to have a debate about fantasies or what might be; we are tasked to deal with the allocation that we have and to show to the people of Northern Ireland effective stewardship of the Budget by delivering something better than they would have got without a devolved Government.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I thank the Member for giving way. I welcome his repudiation of fantasy budgets. On that basis, can he tell us when we are getting our first share of the £300 million per week that will be returned to us to invest in our hospitals?

Photo of Jonathan Bell Jonathan Bell DUP

Let me repeat this in case the Member just did not get it: the referendum has been held. Secondly, the people have spoken. Thirdly, we are not going to have a second one. Can we move on to the Budget?

I voted to leave on the basis that I wanted to spend the money that we have in Northern Ireland in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. When we have considerable difficulties across the board, we should not have been giving the levels of money that we gave to the European Union, when it would be better spent on the most vulnerable people in Northern Ireland, who are suffering. That is not a laughing matter.

Let us get the point: there is not going to be a border poll or a second referendum. The team has been set up by the Prime Minister to take forward the terms of the Brexit, and it is now incumbent on all of us to do what we can to ensure that we deliver the maximum with the resources that we have.

I turn to the economy. Claire Hanna is not here. I am not sure what she was talking about when she said that we were not going for high-value jobs, nor am I sure where she has been for the last number of years. Anybody who has been in the House or is moderately aware of the jobs that have come into Northern Ireland will know the significance of some of those jobs. I offer two examples. Citigroup came here with 369 jobs and now sits with over 2,000 jobs in Northern Ireland. Ten years ago, we did not have a financial technology industry of the significance that we do today, when the 'Financial Times' refers to us as the fintech capital of the world. We are the most entrepreneurial region of the UK, as defined in the past by the 'Financial Times'. This is the part of the United Kingdom where you can most quickly grow your business to £1 million. In our universities and further education colleges, we have the ability to give our young people the skills in the future areas — not least cybersecurity — that can attract high-value jobs to Northern Ireland.

Photo of Jonathan Bell Jonathan Bell DUP

I want to make some progress.

We have to make sure that we look forward and unite across the House to see how we can get those high skills and high-value jobs into Northern Ireland.

I know that the Minister has been active in markets outside the European Union, not least the United States. Earlier, Mr Farry referred to the huge growth in the economies to the east and how we should try to link into them. I come to the Budget debate believing that the British economy is strong and that we are open for business. In the past, we have made a strong contribution in terms of talent. With our education system, we can continue to produce young people who, many businesses and others have told me, are, as a rule of thumb, about 10% ahead of the UK average. Groups like Allstate publicly say that they came to Northern Ireland for our business costs. We all know that our business costs are about 50% or less of those in London, 85%, generally, of those in the rest of the United Kingdom and about 95% of business costs in the Republic of Ireland. We can win on cost, education and talent. I hope that in the future, as the First Minister and Finance Minister outlined, we can make sure that we have a tax rate that will attract investment into Northern Ireland.

You remember that we were told that we could not attract more foreign direct investment than London and that London was a high-water mark, a global city. We were told that we should not try. Yet, sometime around August 2014, we overtook London and attracted more foreign direct investment per head of our population to this part of the United Kingdom than anywhere else.

Photo of Jonathan Bell Jonathan Bell DUP

No. There is no reason at all why we cannot continue an upward trajectory.

One thing that has been missed is that we did some sterling work to ensure that we had mitigation measures in place for the most vulnerable in our society, and I pay tribute to Professor Evason on the work that her team and the working group did.

I am not sure that she and the team in their work have got the credit that they deserve for giving us the evidence base to bring forward policies that will mitigate the worst effects of what is a difficult time for many vulnerable people out there. We will do work in the House later on other items that are going to be brought forward in communities. If the referendum has taught us anything, it is that there is a significant disconnect among people who are struggling to get by. This House must be on their side. We must use the mitigation methods that we have at our disposal to help the most vulnerable people in society and show the people in our society —

Photo of Jonathan Bell Jonathan Bell DUP

I am not prepared to play political games with vulnerable people. I am speaking about Professor Evason's report. It is not a joke. It is not a political game. It is about helping the most vulnerable people in our society. I hope that, as we go forward with this Budget, we can continue, with some of the best knowledge base that Professor Evason and her team have given us, to look to help and support the most vulnerable people in our society.

The Minister mentioned it. We will disagree on whether or not there is hope for young people out there. The UK figure of unemployment among under-25s of 13·4% is not acceptable. It is 13·4% too much, but, as I said in the earlier debate, look at the unemployment in Greece of 48·9%, in Spain of 45·3% and in Croatia of 40·3%. While I do not boast about the state of our youth unemployment, I do welcome the fact that the last set of figures that I saw showed another fall in the overall unemployed. We had more people in employment. Long-term unemployment, economic inactivity — albeit by a small margin — and youth unemployment are falling. It is incumbent on us in this Budget to make sure that that trajectory continues.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

I call Mr Declan Kearney. As this is Mr Kearney's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that it is the convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.

Photo of Declan Kearney Declan Kearney Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhaire, as ucht na deise labhartha. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Go raibh maith agat, a chara, agus guím gach rath ortsa san Aireacht úr atá os do chomhair amach anseo. I am honoured to replace my friend and comrade Mitchel McLaughlin in the Assembly and to represent South Antrim. I pay tribute to his role as an architect of the peace process and latterly as Speaker of the House. Since childhood, I have been inspired by a proud Antrim republican tradition founded on the egalitarian and anti-sectarian ideals of Jamie Hope and Roger Casement and the commitment of personal friends now deceased such as Anne McCoy, John Davey, Malachy Carey and Peter Gallagher.

Dearbhaím go bhfuil mé tiomanta mo dhícheall a dhéanamh ar son leas na ndaoine go léir ar bhonn trasphobail. The purpose of the economy must be to serve the needs of society. Budget allocations should be aligned with society's priorities. This small regional economy contends with deep structural weaknesses and depends on a public expenditure settlement from Westminster that has reduced in net terms year on year since 2010 due to the austerity policies of this British Tory Government and the previous Administration of Tories and Lib Dems.

British Government policy has been a direct cause of political instability here in recent years. The North remains a low-wage economy with unyielding and unchanging patterns of social and economic disadvantage and the worst living standards of any region in Ireland or Britain. Tory austerity has run down our public services and forced our people into food banks. It has undermined economic growth and prevented balanced regional investment, job creation, all-Ireland economic competitiveness and the eradication of inequality. Add to all of that the denial of fiscal independence to the Executive.

Austerity is the cost of the Union and the context of the Budget debate, within which the new Programme for Government (PFG) must be implemented. The PFG offers a new policy paradigm, which puts the well-being of community at the heart of governmental decision-making. The proposed consultation process should be embraced as a strategic opportunity by local businesses, our trade unionists, our urban and rural-based community sectors and wider civic society to democratise further the process of government in this state. I urge the Executive to listen carefully, very carefully.

Increased engagement and partnership with wider civic society should now define how our regional government works. Ní mór don Choiste Feidhmiúcháin agus don Tionól malairt slí straitéisteach a mhúnlú amach anseo. A step change is required. Renewed commitment to power-sharing and partnership has to be central to the new mandate, and that will be as much a test for the parties that chose to go into opposition as it will be for the parties that are entrusted with governmental responsibility. The approach to the forthcoming PFG should be radical, innovative and transformational. It should also refuse to be fettered by institutional orthodoxy and absolutely and resolutely oppose austerity. These institutions need to continue to act as a bulwark against British Tory austerity.

I believe that justice and policing remain central to the continued democratic transformation of this state, and, as my party's justice spokesperson, I will advocate for increased investment in front-line policing, community restorative justice programmes and effective service delivery to make our community a safer place for everyone. Justice agencies and processes must be appropriately resourced to ensure that they administer not only appropriate punishments but deterrence and rehabilitation. The justice system must become more responsive to young people, vulnerable women, disadvantaged families and our elderly citizens, and everyone must have adequate access to justice. That includes the families denied truth and justice because of the British Government's refusal to finance legacy investigations and inquests.

There must also be greater accountability on the use of public funding. In the Public Accounts Committee, I have already noted an absence of transparency and accountability and a culture of disregard concerning the use of public funds in this state. That is never acceptable, especially when our Executive Budget is being raided by Tories and far too many families are living on the breadline. There must be zero tolerance of the misuse and abuse of public funds.

In recent days, the EU referendum has dramatically changed the political and economic landscape here. The majority of voters from across the political spectrum in this state voted to say that the North should remain in Europe. This referendum was always about a civil war between British Conservative right-wing factions, and it is unacceptable that the democratic will of this region should be overruled by English voters. Our economic and financial future is now one of unprecedented uncertainty. Two hundred thousand jobs in Ireland directly and indirectly depend on €1·2 billion worth of trade, North and South, on this island every week. Brexit directly threatens all of that and more.

I have previously challenged Theresa Villiers to say whether Brexit would benefit our people and whether her Government would replace the lost investment, trade and funding that would go with a Brexit. She refused to answer then and has refused since. However, the majority of our people know the answers to those questions, and they registered that answer last Thursday. Their outrage is justified, so Theresa Villiers should follow David Cameron and resign. She has absolutely no authority to represent the economic or social interests of the people of the North of Ireland or on matters regarding Europe. Brexit is the price of Ireland's continued partition.

I predict that we will face an even more right-wing Tory Government and greater austerity in this state.

The Assembly and Executive should respect and underpin the democratic decision of the North and not, as other Members advocated, simply roll over and acquiesce. We are better than that. Our urgent focus must be on retaining our special relationship with the EU and protecting the trade, investment and funding that are essential to support our regional and island economies. The Executive's Budget, the Programme for Government and the democratic will of our people must not be held hostage to the anti-democratic agenda of British right-wing Tories.

The British state, as we know it, is in crisis. The political imperative for the Assembly must be to stand up for local democracy and face down the austerity coming from Britain.

Photo of Colin McGrath Colin McGrath Social Democratic and Labour Party 5:30, 27 June 2016

I want to talk about the many constituency-based issues and priorities that I would like be in the Budget. I was raised on the old maxim of, "If you don't ask, you don't get", so I would like to take this opportunity to ask. The things I am asking for are relevant to all of Northern Ireland and are the very basic things that we should have. They are the things that protect life, educate our children, help our elderly to feel safe and make our communities better places. In short, they are the things that we should be asking for.

As you all know, I hail from South Down, a rural community that feels exposed and vulnerable, especially when it comes to health matters. I have been an active participant for nearly a decade in the Save the Downe campaign. In that time, we have had life-saving and critical services downgraded or removed from our facility. At times, the trust told us that it was down to personnel issues and that the sunnier climes of Bondi Beach were much more attractive than Newcastle, something that is, I might add, without foundation. On other occasions, we were told that the cuts were financially led. That was the case in the stripping of our coronary care facility, which provided much-needed local heart services, often to the most ill in our community and the elderly. That facility was shut by the trust to make in-year savings of just £300,000. I noted that, in the June monitoring round, nearly £200 million was going to health. I was going to say that I hoped that some of that would trickle its way down so that the Downe Hospital might be able to reopen the facility. However, I got an Assembly answer this afternoon that said, "No, it will not." Once again, we will have to do without.

One of the vulnerabilities most keenly sensed comes from the lack of appropriate ambulance cover, especially in rural areas. My community has had waiting times in excess of an hour for emergency ambulances when somebody has rung 999, which is deplorable. We are failing our elderly population when they must lie, as a constituent of mine had to, for an hour and a half with a broken hip, waiting for an ambulance to come. We are letting our community down when a constituent of mine, who is in the midst of a severe mental health episode and cannot be injected by a paramedic, has to wait two hours for a doctor to come out to help her. We are letting people down. In a case that I had, for example, a young lad who had broken his leg had to wait two and a half hours for an ambulance to come and provide basic care.

The service is staffed by some of the most competent life-saving individuals in our health system, but they are pushed to their limits. They miss meal breaks and stay late after work. That is unfair.

Photo of Nichola Mallon Nichola Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Member for giving way. He shared a story about a constituent suffering a severe mental health episode. Does he agree that we need greater investment in our mental health services, particularly early intervention support and within the community? Would he, like me, welcome hearing the Minister's views on any plans the Executive might have to put investment in physical and mental health on a more equal footing?

Photo of Colin McGrath Colin McGrath Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank my colleague for her intervention. I know that some reports published in England have stated that it is a necessity to try to provide mental health coverage as close as possible to patients to enable them not to have to travel long distances, as that can have a detrimental impact. There therefore needs to be financial intervention to help the mental health services in Northern Ireland.

We have to resource our Ambulance Service adequately, and I would like to see this Budget specifically mention that. I ask the Minister to consider additional funds for the Ambulance Service. I do not mean just a few quid to sticky-tape over the problem. It needs wholesale financing to allow it to respond to our rural population in particular.

I want to see an education budget that goes much further than the one that we have at present. A few extra quid periodically may have helped grease the odd ministerial visit —

Photo of Jennifer Palmer Jennifer Palmer UUP

Thank you very much for giving way. You highlighted inefficiencies in the Ambulance Service. Do you agree that it is despicable that, this year, 33 calls have been diverted to Scotland, which, in turn, slowed the delivery of an ambulance to an urgent case?

Photo of Colin McGrath Colin McGrath Social Democratic and Labour Party

I welcome the intervention, which further highlights the pressure that our staff are under. If staff in a call centre are not able to deal with the pressure, that too needs some resolution. I know that staff there are dealing with immense pressure, as are staff in the ambulances.

I was saying that the few extra quid for education that may have greased the odd ministerial visit in the previous mandate is not going to help, because our schools are at breaking point. This week, probably even today, they have been taking decisions on whether to let staff go. They have been contemplating letting more-experienced staff go so that they can employ cheaper, newly qualified staff, and they are shedding classroom assistants, who are critical to the delivery of tailored education for some. Schools are stripping away the curriculum support that our children get, in the form of field trips and study visits, and diluting classroom resources that complement learning. We are taking the additional out of education and leaving stressed teachers with little support in the classroom and increasing class sizes, yet we throw in the Education and Training Inspectorate inspectors and expect them to see a miracle.

We must adequately resource our schools and allow our education system to deliver children's fullest potential. The current debacle of passing on the superannuation and pay increases to school budgets is so shortsighted that whoever decided that the Department should not step in and help should be sent to detention. School budgets are definitely like balloons at the minute. They are filled to capacity, and this decision is like a pin, and it is going to cause them to burst. It will impact on education and on our children. It is a bad decision and is being implemented without any help. As I said, it impacts on our children and their future, and for the Budget and this Executive not to address that is unforgivable.

I also hope that the shortsighted and ill-thought-out campaign by the three Brexiteers of England, Wales and the DUP does not mean that we will not see a direct and detrimental impact on tourism in Northern Ireland. It is the jewel in the crown. In South Down, we are well aware of that. We have Saint Patrick's Country around Downpatrick and the fantastic Saint Patrick Centre in the town centre, with St Patrick's grave at Down cathedral. We also roll right the way through to Murlough and Newcastle and down to Carlingford bay.

South Down does indeed have it all. We have the forest parks, hiking, world-class golf courses and tourist centres. I am doing a good advertising job for the area. The population in Northern Ireland is small, however. We must be outward-looking, and I hope that we can adequately resource Tourism NI and charge it with bringing in visitors from these islands and beyond. Our product is unique in Northern Ireland, and I do not need to rehearse it. Unless we make the effort to reach out and sell our area, however, the return is going to be low. I accept the maxim that you have to speculate to accumulate, and it is so true with tourism. I hope that the Budget can direct much-needed additional funds to tourism sellers to equip them to do our area justice.

The impact that the tourism industry can have on our local economy is massive. That is certainly the case in South Down, where so many jobs, businesses and households rely on the income from tourists. If we cannot maximise that benefit, it is families in my area that will be impacted.

The Budget is for eye-watering amounts of money, and I know that Members from all sides will make their case for priorities, but I have focused on the few that are priorities for my constituents: health, education and tourism. I hope that those can be reflected in the final out-turns to the Departments. Northern Ireland can be better if the funds the Executive distribute are allocated and spent correctly. However, I fear that this Budget will do little to achieve that.

Photo of Justin McNulty Justin McNulty Social Democratic and Labour Party

I rise to speak specifically on how the Budget will affect our people: our businesses, our farmers, our healthcare users, our tradesmen and our newcomers. Newry and Armagh is a great constituency. However, things are not all positive. There are constant threats to services in Daisy Hill in Newry. The withdrawal of services in Armagh city is hitting our people hard. Hard-working families, the vulnerable and the elderly are constantly being squeezed. Our young people need jobs at home, and our education system needs fixed. We need real investment in our roads, rail and communications infrastructure, and we need solutions to the problems facing our farmers and rural communities.

As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I will highlight public transport. Thousands of people in my constituency get in their car every morning and travel to Belfast because there is inadequate rail provision. I know that many of those people would much prefer to use the train for their commute to work. Over the past number of years, we have seen rail services between Belfast and Newry becoming less frequent and more expensive. There are 46 trains from Portadown to Belfast every day and only 10 from Newry. The last train for Portadown leaves Belfast at 11.00 pm; the last train for Newry leaves at 8.00 pm. I have previously asked the Minister for Infrastructure what he intends to do to address that inequality in rail provision, and I repeat that call today. Northern Ireland must have a modern rail infrastructure, and we must see the continued development of a modern railway system throughout the North and across the island.

A vibrant and equitable economy cannot operate without a modern road network. Chronic underinvestment in the past means that Northern Ireland's road network is no longer fit for purpose. The SDLP wants to see a roads strategy using 20 years' modelling and agreed in cooperation with the Dublin Government. In the situation in which we now find ourselves, that cooperation is even more crucial.

Alongside delivering roads, the maintenance of our current roads is vital. I also called on the Minister to prioritise rural road repairs. He knows so well, being from a rural constituency, of the impact of dangerous driving conditions and the damage and danger that they cause. Investment in road upgrades will continue to help to improve road safety and ensure access across the North. So far, in my short time on the Committee, I have seen that the outlook is bleak. We have heard about the 9% budget cut and the £1 billion backlog in investment. The Minister and the departmental officials did not seem to have any suggestions about how to deal with that backlog other than trying to keep on top of it, which does not fill us with much confidence. If that is the way in which the Department deals with issues such as road maintenance, we are right to be concerned. How does it plan to deliver all of the A5 and A6, never mind the much-needed east link and north and west link roads in Armagh and the southern relief road in Newry? Minister, can you tell me how much of the Northern Ireland Executive's Budget is match funded by the EU?

Moving back to my constituency and turning to health, I reiterate the words of my colleague Mark H Durkan: we need to spend money on health much more wisely, as opposed to just spending more. Daisy Hill Hospital and its emergency department are vital resources for our community. Recently, there have been discussions about staff shortages and the failure to fill publicly advertised posts. Health trusts have collectively spent over £50 million on temporary staff alone. They should focus on reducing that and recruiting permanent staff as a cost-saving measure.

Report after report on high waiting times, coupled with the recent Assembly debate on waiting times, highlights the need for urgent action. By addressing those problems, the Minister can begin to tackle emergency room waiting times, which have spiralled out of control. People in my constituency are angry because they feel that decisions about healthcare are made to save pennies rather than to save lives. They do not want to travel further and longer for healthcare treatment or wait longer for consultations and essential treatments.

We have already seen the potential for cross-border initiatives with the new radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin. That is a pioneering project in terms of North/South cooperation, facilitated by our membership of the EU. In Newry and Armagh, we hope that that type of relationship can be extended to other border communities to pool resources and expertise and help our people. The question that the Finance Minister has to answer is this: how has Brexit impacted on our ability to expand services on a cross-border basis?

I live in a border constituency. An estimated 30,000 people cross the border every day, a large proportion of whom are from Newry and Armagh. I have been out speaking with people, and last week's referendum result has left a sense of shock. People are worried about the consequences for them. The result has huge ramifications, not only for people in Newry and Armagh but for Ireland. I have spoken to our farmers in south Armagh, and they want to know if the single farm payment is guaranteed for the next two years. They want to know if the export of live lamb to the South will continue. They have huge concerns. Minister, are you not worried about the tractors coming hurtling up the avenue because the farmers have not received their subsidies? They will not be coming to see me; they will be coming to see the First Minister and they will be coming to see you. Where is your plan?

People in our tourism industry are worried about the images we are sending out to the world as an outcome of last week's vote. I have talked to our newcomers in Armagh city. They say that nobody knows what is going on or what the future holds for them. They are worried about travelling and their jobs. Can you reassure them? They want answers.

I have met industry in Newry city. They are worried about their competitiveness. Will there be tariffs? They want answers.

What are the implications for Invest NI? An outcome of Friday's decision is that access to market now has a big question mark over it. Will Invest NI have no certainty for two and a half years? What do they do now? Do they just press the pause button?

I have spoken to our voluntary and charitable sector. They have had sleepless nights. How is your Budget linked to the charitable organisations? They say that, without EU funding, they will not have jobs. Can you reassure them?

I have spoken to our tradesmen, men who leave in their vans for Dublin every morning. They are worried about the impact that Brexit will have on them. Can you give them any comfort?

Many of our major stakeholders do not know, as of last Friday, the status of their budget. The QUB cancer researchers, the aeronautical researchers and other higher education research departments rely heavily on EU funding. For us to remain competitive, we need a strong tertiary education system with strong research functions. What reassurance can you give them? What is your plan?

How relevant is your Budget now, given Friday's outcome? Does it need to be rethought? It is not my intention to catastrophise. The tsunami has landed; we are where we are, and we need cool heads. We are in the situation that we are in, and the First Minister's party proposed this. We need to see leadership from her and from the Minister of Finance. We need to see her plan. This has so many implications across our society and across our Ireland. On this island, 30 out of 32 counties want to remain part of the EU. This outcome has disrupted relationships at best.

Our leadership has a duty to be conciliatory and not triumphalist. Unionists need to reflect on the disuniting nature of this outcome. For the Irish Republic to remain part of the EU, it must now join the Schengen agreement, which, inevitably, will lead to a hard border, but where? The land border must move to the island of Britain. This decision will have an impact on all our islands.

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin 5:45, 27 June 2016

I thank everyone who contributed. I see that it has proved too much for the Chair of the Finance Committee because she left after 15 minutes, but I want to thank her and her Committee for granting accelerated passage for the Bill. I will start at the end, as I am wont to, by dealing with Mr McNulty's points. It is the first time that I have been blamed for Brexit; there is a first time for everything.

I want to give him advice for when people come to him to say that they are worried. We had a small group of sixth-form pupils here today from Omagh who were very concerned, worried, fretful and trepidatious about the future. The first thing that we have to do in showing the cool heads that the Member asked for is to assure everyone that we have a firm hand on the tiller. There is chaos in London and there is absolute uncertainty and a lack of leadership. It is clear from all sides in the aftershocks of Brexit that there is a lack of clarity in London about the way to proceed. However, there is no lack of clarity in this House. We differed on the vote before it happened and we still differ afterwards on its outcome and how it will proceed, but the one thing that we are united on is that we will act in the best interests of our people.

The Member mentioned newcomers, and they come not only from EU states but from other parts of the world. They are anxious because of the tone of some of the debate. The first thing that we should say is that we are here to protect the newcomers and that we respect them and will defend their right to be here. We say to young people who are worried about being cut off from the beauty and bounty of Europe that we will insist that they remain at the heart of Europe. We say to those in the border regions in particular, although it applies to Belfast as well, I can assure you, who fear being cut off from the rest of this island, that we will ensure that our destiny and that of the rest of this island is wedded together in the time ahead.

To those in receipt of European or Invest NI funding, who depend on INTERREG or transnational funding in Wales and in both parts of this island, we should say that it is our intention to ensure the continuity and success of their funding. Do we know how this will shake out in the medium or long term? We do not. We were, of course, anxious and we resisted the policies of Mr Cameron, but I fear that his successors have even less of a clue about how to proceed with building jobs, especially in this part of the world. Maybe they are experts in looking after the south-east or parts of London, but I fear that those who replace Mr Cameron will have even less regard, if that is possible, for the desires of our people to have good housing, sustainable jobs, and a good quality of life.

I spoke to the Special EU Programmes Body on Friday and I said that it has to be business as usual and that we cannot give in to fear. The alternative is to sit on our hands and wait for the new Brexit ideologues in London to come forward with ideas. We have to steady our ship — I missed parts of the Brexit debate — and send out word from everyone in the House that we are determined and resolved to act to safeguard the interests of all our people.

I will add one other thing. Mr McNulty is a big fan of the railway network and wants it improved. I am in favour of that as well. I travelled by train from Dublin last week and we stopped in Newry, which has a wonderful train station. I cannot remember the name of the Minister who ensured that it was built. We stopped in Newry, and two ladies beside me from Bangor asked me whether Newry was in the North or South, presumably because they saw the bilingual signage. I was able — I do not know whether it was with regret or not — to tell them that Newry remains in the North. I am in favour of investment in all this infrastructure. I think that my colleague Chris Hazzard will bring that forward in the time ahead.

Ms Pengelly has left us, but I have never heard as sunny a depiction of the future under Brexit as that which she outlined. I do not know what she is on with regard to Brexit, but I think that a lot of people need it because Neil Gibson's Oxford Economics report, which was delivered on the watch of the previous Minister — he may not have commissioned it — said that, in every criterion and outcome, Brexit is bad for us. Mr Gibson of Oxford Economics said that —

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

I will in just one minute, when I finish this. He reckoned that Brexit was bad for our neighbours across the water and of course for the South, but he said that, on every index, Brexit would be worse for us because we share a land border with the South of Ireland, depend so much on manufacturing and rely on FDI. Rather than having a sunny outlook, I have not heard even the advocates and those who said that we should vote "Leave" posit such a bright and positive future under Brexit.

I will give way.

Photo of Nichola Mallon Nichola Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party

I very much appreciate the Minister's giving way. I would like to get some clarity from him on the narrative that we are hearing a lot today about this joint strategy to protect the best interests of Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin's position is very clearly that our best interests lie within Europe, and the DUP fundamentally believes that they are best served out of Europe. Sinn Féin has an understanding and analysis of the impact of a Brexit vote that is fundamentally different from that of the DUP. It would be really useful if we could get some light shed on what this joint strategy will look like, considering that you hold polar opposite views on nearly every issue to do with Europe.

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for her question. Maybe she was not here when the First Minister spoke earlier and outlined that strategy. In fact, I think that that common purpose does unite us, but let me just say again what I have said in the media several times: in my view, the majority of people in the Six Counties voted to remain in Europe, and that vote should be respected and recognised. I do not accept the right of anyone to drag us out of Europe. I will stand by the best interests of the people here and make common purpose with anyone from any part of this House or elsewhere who wants to stand with me in doing that.

I think that I will leave Ms Pengelly's comments, since she has left us, except that she did mention the memorandum of understanding. For other members on the Committee, we are still working on a memorandum of understanding about the Budget process. Work is proceeding. It is not proceeding as quickly as we might want it to, but I hope to have that memorandum of understanding in place.

It is good to be back at the dance hall with Mr Smith. He is back where he was: at the slow dance. He was saying that no one else has a plan for the economy, but unfortunately he has no plan for the economy either. He is now telling us that we have no plan post-Brexit, but he has no plan either. What I would suggest on both counts is that he should come forward with his alternative plan for growing the economy and let us assess it and take a decision on whether it is a cogent plan or a plan which does not hold water, and let us and the people then vote on how sensible that plan is. The Achilles heel of Mr Smith's argument is that I can say, hand on heart, that no one in my party voted for Brexit, but I can also say that I stood outside Botanic Primary School with a member of the Unionist Party who was canvassing and urging people to vote "Leave". If you have some advice on how we should respond to Brexit, I suggest that you first speak to your own members who were telling people that it was in their interests.

Of course, the second fault line in Mr Smith's argument is that while he bemoans austerity — he certainly decries my attacks on austerity — his party supports it. I have seen no evidence yet that he will oppose resolutely the austerity coming from London — the 4·5% decrease in our resource budget between now and 2021, or the cut in our budgets from 2010. You cannot have your cake and eat it on this one, Mr Smith.

Either you need to tell us that you are opposed to austerity and will oppose it, or you have to admit that you accept that the Tories in their wisdom — mar dhea — have the right to assault and cut our budgets.

I absolutely stand over the outcome and processes of the June monitoring round, and I think that the public will endorse that. Some people said that it was a June monitoring round in June, which, in itself, was praiseworthy. Not only was it the fastest June monitoring round but it delivered over £170 million into services and needs, which our people were requesting. If that is not a good way to do business and he wants to go back to horse-trading and stop-start, I am afraid that I am not an advocate of that. Whether or not, of course, we have the same type of money in our budgets in October for the next monitoring round is another matter.

Other Members talked about the effect of Brexit, and Mr Farry touched on it. This is a 2016-17 Budget, and it is my hope that it will not be affected by the Brexit vote. That said, that should not be taken to mean that I do not think that the damaging effects of Brexit will not be felt immediately. I think that they will be felt immediately. A lot of decisions are being taken in business, and I am not going to relay conversations that I have had with other people, which perhaps would prove my point, because I do not think that this is the place to do it, but there are conversations taking place even day that indicate to me that the impact of Brexit will be immediate and will not be helpful, and I will not say any more than that. So, you never know, the October monitoring round could be an attempt to minimise some of the damage of Brexit. That said, I think that the budgets will hold. There may be some extra money needed to help people to deal with the aftershock of Brexit. If so, we will have to deal with that in the monitoring round, but I think that this Budget holds.

That said, there is no chance that we can proceed with our budgets for the period ahead as we had hoped to later in the year oblivious to Brexit. Brexit is the most damaging, fundamental change that we have seen in our economic circumstances in 40 years. It would be unwise, and I say this again in relation to corporation tax and all the other issues, for any of us to proceed ramstam into the future thinking that the plans that we had on Thursday are good enough for today. So, let us take stock together, let us assess where we are and let us proceed confidently to protect our interests but not be naive about the huge damage, chaos and crisis that has been triggered by Brexit.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt do mo chomrádaí, John O’Dowd, as aird a tharraingt arís ar an dochar a rinneadh le linn na géarchéime eacnamaíochta a thosaigh in 2007. I thank John O'Dowd for pointing out that many of our woes date back to the economic crash, and, in fact, the irony is that Brexit perhaps has its roots in the crash of 2007-08. I look forward to looking at all the options ahead. If that includes prudent borrowing, so be it.

The reform programme that he and I defend has been a success thus far. Some £4·5 million was allocated in the Budget to take forward the programme during 2016-17, and, during 2016-17, the programme work will focus on undertaking feasibility studies to establish the full potential of each reform. Our mission is to improve our services and to be more effective, but can we do it at a lower cost so that we can free money up for education, the economy and other matters?

Ms Hanna returned to the Budget that she does not like but does not have an alternative to. She is not sure that the £1 billion that we had promised for health will be sustainable. I share that. It has been echoed by everyone in this House that money alone will not resolve the deep-seated problems in the health service. Therefore, when we spend money in the time ahead and make sure that the health service has the financial resources that it needs, we are cognisant of that. It is to the fore of our minds that money alone will not solve the problem. I agree with that, but I say again that, if the SDLP or Ms Hanna have an alternative to this Budget, I would like to see it, and when we do see it, we can make up our mind on whether it is anything other than a wish list.

As the Minister of Finance, I state again, as I have stated many times, that I would like all the fiscal levers, not just corporation tax but income tax, air passenger duty and stamp duty. I would like all those taxes. The issue is what we do with them when we have them, and I stand behind that, even as we assess the landscape ahead.

Ms Hanna said that she opposes the Budget Bill because the Executive are not investing enough in our infrastructure and in childcare. I think that you will find that our infrastructural investment will increase. There have been years of unprecedented cutbacks in capital expenditure because of the Tory policies and the allocation in the spending settlement, but I think that you will find that infrastructure will be increased. As for childcare, let us not forget the flagship projects. I know that we have a Member who wanted to stop, I think, all seven flagship projects previously, but let us not forget the new women and children's hospital, which demonstrates our commitment to improving and building on our services to women and children.

Some Members mentioned working closely with our colleagues in Scotland and Wales. I have met the Finance Minister for Scotland, Mr Mackay. Some of us were calling him Mr Mackie, but I was informed recently that it is Mr Mackay. I also met Minister Drakeford from Wales. We have had one useful meeting. I met each of those gentlemen. We have a lot of issues in common, not least our belief that, when we speak together for 10 million people, the Treasury does listen. However, our meetings took place pre-Brexit, and the urgent need to meet again is not lost on any of us. I spoke to Mr Mackay on Friday. The three Ministers will meet in Cardiff on 11 July, and, as you might expect, all the issues that we had on the table are now being relegated, and the exit from the European Union is being brought to the fore and will dominate our conversations. I do not know whether Ms Hanna or someone else brought it up, but the Chancellor, George Osborne, requested that meeting. That might give you an indication of the depth of the crisis because, for the last three years, he has been refusing to meet us. It is essential that we meet Mr Osborne. It is equally important to me that we meet the Finance Minister in the South, Mr Noonan, and Mr Donohoe, who handles public expenditure, because we need to make sure that those who are on the other side of the negotiating table with the 27 states not only understand where we are coming from but will defend, as Mr Farry said, the fact that a majority here voted to remain. That is at the front and centre.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP 6:00, 27 June 2016

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Minister outlined earlier that the Executive will work very closely to ensure the best possible outcomes following the vote in the European referendum. He will be aware that the Finance Minister in Wales advocated a "Remain" vote but that the majority of Welsh people voted to leave. Does he agree that, regardless of the position of the Government of Wales, the Finance Minister in his country will be doing his best to work for the benefit of the people of Wales and that that is what the Executive should do as well?

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for his question, and I look forward to bringing that up with the Minister from Wales when we meet shortly.

It pains me to say this, but Mr Farry speaks a lot of sense when he says that we need to reduce the cost of division, invest to save and make sure that, in the time ahead, regardless of what direction the economy goes in — hopefully, despite Brexit, it will be a forward direction — we invest in skills and investment. He makes a good point about what will replace European funding, and I think that, in the last three years, it has been around £350 million per annum from Europe. He will have noted that the Secretary of State, Ms Villiers, has refused point blank to give a guarantee that she will replace the moneys that were received under the SEUPB, the Horizon 2020 programme, INTERREG or the many other programmes. While I agree that the Member has his finger on the pulse of many issues, he is wrong in saying that this is not a sustainable Budget and that we have made the wrong choices. There are budget choices to be made, and, even in regard to the opportunity cost that he speaks of, we have made the right choices.

In relation to his particular interest, he will be aware that an additional £5 million was committed to the Department for the Economy in the Budget to contribute to the skills enhancement agenda. He will also be aware that the previous Finance Minister left a "promissory note", as he called it, for £20 million, and we have honoured that. I want to assure him that we are on one page when it comes to investing in skills and in higher and further education.

Mr Bell was still in ministerial mode and talked up our economy. I agree with him about the great work that has been done, especially by our entrepreneurs, to create business. We have a very talented workforce and people who are deeply entrepreneurial and want to build a successful society. However, I have to say as well that we should not be blind to the crisis that is unfolding and the difficulties that we will face in the time ahead in making sure that international talent, especially from the European Union, wants to come here to work and live. I endorse his comments about the great work done by our businesses.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is an important point that builds on the comments of Jonathan Bell. I pay tribute to the work that he has done, particularly in the Far East. All three of us have done work in different capacities over the past five years to work for investment into Northern Ireland. Will the Minister comment on his experience? In all his work, has he ever come across a single business that advocated that Northern Ireland would be better off outside the European Union?

[Interruption.]

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

I believe that, in the trade, that is called a leading question. Those are the difficulties that we face. I know that he said that in jest, but the hardest job of all is the job of Alastair Hamilton, the CEO of Invest NI, and we wish him well in the time ahead in dealing with the particular predicament that he has been placed in by Brexit.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoi mo chomrádaí Declan Kearney

Photo of Jonathan Bell Jonathan Bell DUP

I wonder whether he will want to comment on some very positive news. I think that we all understand that it is a very difficult job in Invest Northern Ireland, but it is one that has been done hugely successfully by Alastair Hamilton. I understand that he said that he was talking to two Boston firms that were about to invest, and they were not nonplussed at all about the fact that Britain has voted for Brexit.

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

Perhaps I should put on the record that I spoke to Alastair Hamilton on Friday and to his — I do not know whether it is his father — Simon Hamilton, the Minister.

[Laughter.]

I also spoke to the vice-president of the European Investment Bank and, as I said earlier, the directors of the SEUPB. Everyone is determined to steady the ship, but no one is blind to the challenges ahead.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoi mo chomrádaí Declan Kearney, a labhair faoin bhuiséad. Thug sé le fios, ar ndóigh, gur laghdaíodh ar na Buiséid ó 2010. Tá sin fíor. Dúirt sé go bhfuil bealach fada le treabhadh againn sula mbeidh eacnamaíocht agus geilleagar láidir againn, agus aontaím leis sin. Labhair sé go láidir in aghaidh na déine. I welcome and thank my colleague and comrade Declan Kearney and commend him on his maiden speech. He pointed out some valuable contextual points. We talked about the crash earlier, but the DEL resource budget has been reducing since 2010. Despite the success of many of the companies that we have attracted here, we remain a low-wage economy, and that is not acceptable to me. The self-defeating ideology of austerity certainly undermined our growth in the past.

In all the debates — several times — Mr Attwood has invited me to make a statement to the Assembly on the Budget. I can assure him again, as I have assured him previously, that the Budget (No. 2) Bill and my statement will stand. If there are any changes to the block grant in the time ahead, I will return to the House with a statement in that regard. However, the Budget (No. 2) Bill has been written into the Executive's agreed Budget for 2016-17. There have been no changes to the block grant following the referendum, although it is early days, and we do not know what perils lie ahead. I assure him and other Members that, if there any changes in circumstances, I will make a statement to the House. I add the caveat that the job of preparing a Budget in September just got considerably more difficult.

I welcome the comments of Mr Colin McGrath. I tried desperately to get the Health Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the Education Minister on the phone. He made strong points for his constituency. I think the Education Minister was the only one who got my call and came down to the House. I think they are strong points. I visited South Down, recently. You focused particularly on tourism. I think South Down deserves a greater share of the tourism peace dividend.

I would like to see Ireland's Ancient East extended across the border. It is bonkers that it stops at Dundalk. If we could extend it, in conjunction with the Narrow Water bridge, I think we would let people enjoy the great treasures of south Down. Tourism has created more jobs south of the border in the last four years than any other sector. I met Niall Gibbons of Tourism Ireland in Dublin, last Thursday, I think, and we discussed how we could do more to attract more visitors north of the border. We mentioned in particular south Down, and he has made a commitment to visit south Down in the near future.

The area that continues to give me some cause for worry — you touched on it — is the willingness of people to visit from the South of the country. That is the responsibility of Tourism NI. In the Budget, we provide £27 million for Tourism NI and, I think, around £10 million or £11 million for Tourism Ireland. One of the many responsibilities of Tourism NI is attracting visitors from south of the border. Those numbers have not been growing. They give us all cause for concern. I can assure you that in my role as Finance Minister — I am not responsible for tourism — I will be asking that we get more bang for our buck. Terence Brannigan, chair of Tourism NI, was in earlier, and I know that that is his wish as well. We need to grow the tourism numbers from south of the border. In that respect, and to finish with Mr McGrath's comments, is Brexit helpful to that? I will let you answer that yourself. I am happy to pass on the issues on the Downe Hospital, and the other issues, or to have the Ministers pick them up, including the education issue. The Minister is now here.

I started with Justin McNulty, and I will finish with him. I know that he is unhappy with the Budget, but, in the round, do we have enough money? Demand is infinite, and the amount of money available is finite. In the Budget, we have made choices, and I stand by those choices. Agriculture has received £200 million; Communities, £820 million; Economy, £814 million; Education, £2 billion; Finance, £141 million; Health, £4·7 billion; Infrastructure, £372 million; Justice, £1 billion; and the Executive Office, £62 million, with the vast majority of that to be redistributed to other organisations. I believe that I present to the House a Budget that will meet our needs in the time ahead, even in this time of crisis and economic peril.

If I missed any Members or questions, I will be happy to address them if they write to me. Ba mhaith an óráid a chríochnú. I will bring my remarks to a close. I believe that the Budget Bill is essential to provide our Departments with the legislative cover they need. As I outlined in my opening speech, the decisions that we as an Administration take have wide-ranging and long-term consequences for everyone in this state. I hope that all Members will keep that in mind and do what is right for the people we serve. On that note, I commend to Members the Budget.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker 6:15, 27 June 2016

Before we proceed to the Question, I advise Members that, as this is a Budget Bill, the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 54; Noes 29

AYES

NATIONALIST:

Ms Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Ms Dillon, Ms Fearon, Mr Hazzard, Mr Kearney, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McElduff, Mr McMullan, Mr Maskey, Mr Milne, Mr Murphy, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Seeley, Mr Sheehan

UNIONIST:

Mr Anderson, Mr Bell, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mrs Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mrs Little Pengelly, Ms Lockhart, Mr Logan, Mr Lyons, Mr McCausland, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Lord Morrow, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Boylan, Mr Robinson

NOES

NATIONALIST:

Ms S Bradley, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Ms Hanna, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McNulty, Mr McPhillips, Mr Mullan

UNIONIST:

Mr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mrs Dobson, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Palmer, Mr Smith, Mr Swann

OTHER:

Mr Agnew, Ms Armstrong, Mr Dickson, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Lunn

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Aiken, Mr McGrath

<TR><TD>Total Votes
83Total Ayes54[65.1%]
Nationalist Votes32Nationalist Ayes22[68.8%]
Unionist Votes45Unionist Ayes32[71.1%]
Other Votes6Other Ayes0[0.0%]
<BR/>

Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support):

That the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA Bill 1/16-21] do now pass.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

I advise Members that, at half-time, Italy were leading Spain 1-0.

I ask Members to take their ease while changes are made at the top Table.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)