Spring Supplementary Estimates 2015-16; Vote on Account 2016-17; and Supply Resolution for the 2013-14 Excess Vote

Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 7:45 pm on 8 February 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker 7:45, 8 February 2016

The next three motions relate to the Supply resolutions, and, as usual, there will be a single debate on the motions. I shall ask the Clerk to read the first motion on the 2015-16 spring Supplementary Estimates and call on the Minister to move it. The debate on all three motions will then begin. When all who wish to speak have done so or when the time limit is reached, I shall put the Question on the first motion. The second motion — the 2016-17 Vote on Account — will then be read into the record, and I will call the Minister to move it. The Question will then be put on that motion. After the Question has been put on the second motion, the third motion — the 2013-14 Excess Vote — will then be read into the record, and I will call the Minister to move it. The Question will then be put on that motion.

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

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves that a total sum, not exceeding £15,770,704,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2016 and that total resources, not exceeding £17,135,765,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2016 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3(c) and 2(c) of table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2015-16 that was laid before the Assembly on 2 February 2016.

The following motions stood in the Order Paper:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,899,052,800, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund on account for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2017 and that resources, not exceeding £8,680,276,400, be authorised, on account, for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2017 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4 and 6 of table 1 in the Vote on Account 2016-17 document that was laid before the Assembly on 2 February 2016. — [Mr Storey (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

That this Assembly approves that resources, not exceeding £6,031,448.89 be authorised for use by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2014, as summarised in Part II of the 2013-14 Statement of Excesses that was laid before the Assembly on 2 February 2016. — [Mr Storey (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

The Supply resolutions debate is a key element in the legislative process that governs our finances. The debate commencing this evening primarily covers the final spending plans for the 2015-16 financial year but also the first few months of 2016-17 through the Vote on Account. For today, I have tabled three Supply motions for debate. Through the first motion, I seek the Assembly’s legislative approval of the Executive’s final spending plans for 2015-16. As Members will be aware, these final spending plans are detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates. The second motion requests interim legislative cover for resources and funding for the first few months of 2016-17 in the form of a Vote on Account. The final motion seeks the Assembly’s approval of an Excess Vote for the Public Prosecution Service in respect of the 2013-14 financial year.

I request the levels of Supply set out in the motions under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make recommendations to the Assembly, leading to cash appropriations from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The amounts that I now ask the Assembly to vote in Supply for 2015-16 are substantial — some £15·8 billion in cash, £17·1 billion of resources and £2·6 billion of accruing resources.

These amounts are to be used by Departments and other public bodies in Northern Ireland to deliver public services. As I mentioned in the first Supply motion, they relate to the spring Supplementary Estimates, which reflect all in-year changes made since the Main Estimates were approved by the Assembly last June. That includes any funding surrendered by Departments, allocations received or other technical transfers of funding proceeded through the monitoring rounds in this financial year.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Newton] in the Chair)

That, of course, reflects not only departmental expenditure limit (DEL) changes agreed by the Executive during monitoring rounds but annually managed expenditure (AME) funding agreed by the Treasury since the approval of the 2015-16 Main Estimates. In that way, this legislation process simply ratifies budgets already agreed by the Executive.

When my predecessor, Mr Simon Hamilton, presented the spring Supplementary Estimates in the Assembly this time last year, he spoke of the difficult financial environment that the Executive had to deal with. He also spoke of the recently agreed Stormont House Agreement, which provided a sound basis on which to move ahead, not least on public finances. Unfortunately, as all Members are now well aware, the Stormont House Agreement unravelled in the months following my predecessor's speech. However, with the Fresh Start Agreement, we now have an agreed way forward, and I sincerely hope that this agreement will be honoured by all parties. We need to stand by and capitalise on this agreement to ensure that we continue to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

The Fresh Start Agreement reignited the plans for the Assembly to take on new powers to vary our rate of corporation tax. The Executive are now committed to a rate of corporation tax of 12·5% from April 2018. That is an important milestone and one that I believe can act as a powerful lever to transform the Northern Ireland economy. There is certainly a case to ramp up skills investment in the coming years to maximise the potential benefits associated with a lower rate of corporation tax. I also state my commitment to provide a further £20 million for skills after the May election. I am also supportive of an additional £20 million to help to address pressures in our schools. That will be funded from the first £40 million available in the next monitoring round in June. Although that allocation cannot be ratified until the incoming Executive consider their funding priorities, I am sure that they, too, will recognise the importance of the skills agenda and education. I believe that it is important to provide education institutions with this early indication of my commitment on extra funding.

The restructuring of our Departments was also confirmed with the Fresh Start Agreement. That will see the current 12 Departments reduced to nine from May 2016. That should help to rationalise our Civil Service and bring benefits of a more streamlined delivery of public services. Fresh Start also paved the way for an agreed Budget for 2016-17 on the new nine-Department structure. That was ratified by the Assembly only last month. The departmental restructuring also has an impact on the 2016-17 Vote on Account, but I will say more on that later.

For now, I will return to the detail of the 2015-16 in-year changes, which are the focus of the debate. I reiterate this to Members as we embark upon the debate: that is what we are debating, and, no doubt, I am sure that Members will pay heed to that advice as we proceed through the rest of the evening.

We began the 2015-16 financial year with much uncertainty over our public finances due to the ongoing political discussions around the Stormont House Agreement. That uncertainty impacted on the normal in-year monitoring process, which usually consists of three monitoring rounds in June, October and January. In this financial year, the Executive agreed a technical exercise in June, which did not address the wider departmental pressures. The main purpose of this round was to ensure that technical transactions within and between Departments could take place to ensure the smooth functioning of government. The usual October monitoring round was also cancelled due to the ongoing political talks, although it was replaced by a monitoring round in November.

A key issue in this round was allocations to Departments from the public sector transformation fund to finance the voluntary exit scheme across the public sector. In total, just over £183 million was allocated to the Departments for the voluntary exit schemes, with more than half going towards the Northern Ireland Civil Service exit scheme. It is estimated that the voluntary exit schemes in the public sector will exit some 4,000 staff during 2015-16. This is estimated to generate pay bill savings of around £39 million this year alone, with full-year savings expected to be £149 million. Of course, the actual savings figures will not be known until the end of the financial year.

As Members will probably be aware, these voluntary exits were funded through additional reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing, and there is an additional £500 million available over the next three years for this purpose, although the Executive agreed in its 2016-17 Budget to use £25 million of this towards capital projects.

With a significant number of public-sector workers leaving, business continuity planning will be critical. It is vital that we can continue to deliver essential public services in the context of reducing staff complements. I know that the Departments and the wider public sector bodies are working hard to ensure that this is the case.

The November monitoring round reallocated a significant amount of funding. There were reduced requirements on the resource side of £33 million and just over £20 million on the capital side. Funding was also freed up from the centre, not least from funding previously set aside for welfare mitigation measures. All of this meant that the Executive could make resource allocations totalling £87·4 million and capital allocations of £13·7 million. The bulk of the available resource funding — £47·6 million — went to the Department of Health to help reduce hospital waiting lists. There was also significant funding for the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Education.

Given that a reallocation exercise took place in November, the Executive agreed that the January round should be restricted to technical issues, again to allow the smooth running of government.

It should also be noted that the in-year monitoring process provided for a significant reallocation of ring-fenced financial transactions capital, with the Department for Social Development receiving some £94 million for housing schemes. I think that that was down to the previous Minister's work and lobbying on that issue.

All of these in-year movements have brought us to the position that I am presenting to the Assembly today in the 2015-16 spring Supplementary Estimates.

Before I conclude my opening speech, I would like to say a few words about the 2016-17 Vote on Account. As I have already highlighted, the second motion introduced today seeks approval to the issue of a cash and resource Vote on Account to ensure the continuation of services into the next financial year. The amounts of cash and resources proposed are an advance, which is necessary to enable services to continue into 2016-17 until the Main Estimates are presented to the Assembly for approval in June.

In normal circumstances, that advance would amount to 45% of the previous year's provision. However, this year's Vote on Account is complicated by the fact that the 12 Departments will remain in place until May and be replaced by the nine new Departments after the election. There is a need to ensure that all 12 existing Departments have enough cash and resource cover to see them through until May when they cease to exist. Equally, the nine new Departments will need to have cover from early May until the Main Estimates and associated Budget Bill receive Royal Assent in July 2016. In particular, that will affect the nine Departments that will effectively continue to exist as new Departments post May 2016. The Vote on Account figures provided for each of the 12 Departments reflect that position and will be necessary to ensure that our Departments can continue to function until and beyond the restructuring to nine new Departments.

The final motion relates to an Excess Vote for the Public Prosecution Service. On 19 March 2014, a fair employment tribunal ruled against the Public Prosecution Service on an equal pay and indirect discrimination case. Owing to the timing of the case, the Public Prosecution Service was unable to bid for funding cover during any of the 2013-14 monitoring rounds. The necessity to make provision for those costs at year end breached the Public Prosecution Service annually managed expenditure budget allocation for 2013-14. The Assembly is now being asked to provide the additional resources — some £6,031,448 — through an Excess Vote. The Public Accounts Committee has recommended that the Assembly approve that.

In conclusion, I commend to Members the 2015-16 spring Supplementary Estimates, the 2016-17 Vote on Account and the 2013-14 Excess Vote. I look forward to a lively and informed debate and will endeavour to deal with as many of the issues raised by Members as possible.

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin 8:00, 8 February 2016

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for his explanation of the spring Supplementary Estimates. It saves me doing the same.

I will make a quick personal comment. The Minister commented on corporation tax and 'A Fresh Start'. I am fully supportive of the Fresh Start Agreement, but I believe that we need a fresh start and a fair start. The Committee received a briefing on the latest developments with corporation tax. It is important to keep an eye on Scotland. At the moment, according to some newspapers, there is devolution deadlock on the funding proposals for further devolution to the Scottish Parliament. That comes down to the rival interpretations of the no detriment principle that was contained in the Smith commission report. It is important for the Minister, the Executive and the Assembly always to keep a wee eye on Scotland and Wales. If the British Government at Westminster cede principles to any of the other devolved Administrations, we should be demanding the same fair deal for here. We know that there will be tax consequences from any reduced rate of corporation tax, and we need to ensure that we maximise the benefits of that to our coffers here in Belfast.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel took evidence from DFP officials on the SSEs for 2015-16 and the Vote on Account for 2016-17. Those are routine requirements, although, by necessity, they are quite technical matters. I thank the officials for their assistance to the Committee in that regard. During the evidence session, the Committee examined the reconciliation between the departmental expenditure limit figures in the Main Estimates Budget position and the SSEs Budget position before us today. It was an informative exercise, during which the Committee received helpful clarification from the DFP officials on the extent of the in-year technical changes to the resource and capital allocations for 2015-16 for a number of Departments. In some instances, the figures involved were substantial. I shall not go into the specific figures for individual Departments on the in-year movement of money. The DFP breakdown of the figures has been shared with the other Committees. Suffice it to note that almost £256 million was made in resource allocations and £143 million in capital allocations.

As regards the in-year easements, roughly £343 million resource and £109 million capital has been released through the in-year monitoring process. When I questioned officials on that high level of easements, it was confirmed that the overall figure was higher than normal. However, the officials pointed out that that could be explained by the high amount of financial transaction capital (FTC) that needed to be allocated in year and also due to a resource reduction for student loans in the Department for Employment and Learning.

It is important for the Finance Committee to establish clarity on those significant technical adjustments as it exercises a cross-cutting scrutiny function in respect of Budget Bills. Moreover, the scale of these technical changes, combined with the cumulative changes resulting from the normal reallocations through monitoring rounds, will, in some cases, have resulted in significant differences between the opening and closing resource and capital allocations of Departments. In that regard, it is vital that all Statutory Committees have satisfied themselves as to the reasons for as well as the timing of any significant levels of easements or returns of moneys during the in-year monitoring process.

In the scrutiny of the Department's input into the in-year monitoring rounds, I can report that, while the Committee received briefings from officials on the June and November monitoring rounds, no briefing was received in relation to any technical adjustments made during January. Therefore, the Minister might take the opportunity to clarify whether the Department made any adjustments here. As regards the motion relating to the Vote on Account, the Committee has noted that some flexibility has been provided for Departments particularly affected by the restructuring process.

Finally, I turn to the issue of the Excess Vote for 2013-14. The Assembly is being asked to approve this and make provision for costs as a result of a fair employment tribunal ruling against the PPS on an equal pay and indirect discrimination case. Members noted that, due to timing, the PPS was unable to bid for that during 2013-14. Therefore, the Assembly is now being asked to provide additional resources through the Excess Vote mechanism. The Committee is content with that, bearing in mind that the PAC also recommended it on 25 March last year. The Committee has approved accelerated passage for the Budget Bill, which will be introduced by the Minister later this evening.

I will make a couple of brief comments in a personal capacity. I am sure that all Members have read the large SSEs document. The new net provision maintains the significant budget of Invest NI in DETI. Of course, Invest NI does a lot of good work in attracting inward investment to the North, but there is a significant challenge that it needs to meet in Ballymena. The Minister will be aware of the rally in Ballymena on Saturday, which was organised by Unite. It highlighted starkly the work that needs to be a priority for Invest NI and the new Economy Minister. We in Sinn Féin will certainly continue to support the relief for manufacturing. I hope that all other parties will maintain that position. There needs to be a change in approach and tack to Invest NI's current position. We need to see a beyond Belfast strategy that secures more inward investment for the likes of Ballymena. We always hear that the rationale for the existing position is that most companies are interested in Belfast and no further. I do not believe that to be the case. No good salesman or saleswoman would limit their sights in what they can —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP 8:15, 8 February 2016

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

— sell to inward investors. We will not be giving up on investment in Ballymena or the rural areas. We will not give up on manufacturing. We have a world-class manufacturing workforce that has a quality that trumps lower-wage economies. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that as well.

Photo of Alastair Ross Alastair Ross DUP

The Department of Justice faced substantial financial challenges in 2015-16, and that pattern is set to continue in 2016-17. It is therefore imperative for the Department to proactively identify new ways of working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system and implement them swiftly so that the same or better outcomes are achieved for the public for less money.

As usual, the cost of legal aid was identified as the main funding pressure early in the 2015-16 financial year. In June, the forecast shortfall in funding was £23·9 million. That was revised downwards to £21·2 million in September and £12·5 million in November. By January of this year, the estimated shortfall was £5 million.

The reduced legal aid pressure is not due to any action taken by the Department to reduce the cost of legal aid. Rather, it is due to the deadlock between the Department and some members of the legal profession in relation to the current rates of legal aid remuneration for Crown Court cases. The result of some solicitors and barristers coming off record and initiating a judicial review followed by an appeal has been a substantial reduction in the volume of Crown Court cases heard during 2015 and early in 2016. That has resulted in a backlog of almost 800 cases. Therefore, when the situation is eventually resolved and the cases start to move through the system again, the Department will be faced with a very large legal aid bill, which will create an immense pressure on its budget. Given that it has been unable to live within the legal aid budget in normal circumstances in any year since the devolution of policing and justice and that bids for additional resources have consistently been made to the Executive, that is of great concern. The stalemate has been going on for far too long and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. It is incumbent on the Department to engage with the legal professions to find a satisfactory resolution, and I urge the Minister of Justice to do just that.

Given the reduced pressure, the Department has been able to manage legal aid funding within its 2015-16 budget allocation due to a range of proactive savings and reductions in other areas, particularly from the PSNI, which committed to finding in-year budget cuts of 2·5% that provided savings of £22·6 million. That has meant that the Department has been able to fund all identified pressures and achieve a lower cost trajectory for any further reductions in baseline budgets in 2016-17.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland savings have been achieved largely as a result of capital investment in transport and accommodation, which has provided efficiencies, and a reduced number of police officers compared to the target figures, as recruitment is scheduled for 2016 rather than earlier in the financial year. Whilst the PSNI achieved those savings in 2015-16, its budget is still under considerable pressure, particularly given the need to maintain police officer numbers in line with the findings of the resilience review.

Whilst the decision to limit reductions to its core budget in 2016-17 to 2% and the provision of an additional £32 million for security funding from the Fresh Start Agreement are welcome, the police have outlined a range of likely impacts as a result of the 2016-17 budget allocation. The Committee will have an opportunity to discuss the PSNI budget and financial challenges with the Chief Constable when he appears in front of the Committee later this month. We will be looking to him to explore the options for availing of shared services as a means of reducing costs further in the PSNI budget.

Turning to the Vote on Account, the aims of the Department of Justice are, amongst other things, to prevent crime and reduce the risks of reoffending. The Committee met with the Minister of Justice last week to discuss the funding for voluntary and community organisations, particularly those that work with high-risk offenders in the community to reduce the risk of reoffending and help keep communities safer and that are delivering core services. The funding for such organisations is being reduced again in the 2016-17 financial year, and whilst the Committee appreciates the pressures faced by the justice budget, the proposed reductions are still a large decrease to relatively small amounts of funding. <BR/>Of more concern to the Committee is the fact that the reductions appear to have been decided without any proper assessment of the need for the services, the impact of the voluntary organisations reducing or being unable to provide the services and, if that happens, what the alternative delivery mechanism is and how much it will cost.

In relation to the 2015-16 budget, the Committee raised similar concerns and expressed the view that the closure or reduction of services provided by a range of voluntary and community organisations to address offending behaviour and provide support services to prevent or reduce the occurrence of reoffending and assist in rehabilitation would very likely result in increased costs elsewhere in the system, namely for the PSNI, the courts and, ultimately, the Prison Service.

The Committee believes that an approach to cutting spending that does not include a cost-benefit analysis and an analysis of the likely impact on, and cost to, other areas of the criminal justice system is a false economy and a flawed basis on which to proceed. The Committee continues to be concerned about the approach being adopted to reducing such budgets without proper analysis and discussion on the policy implications and the likely impact, and it will no doubt wish to highlight that as a key area to be scrutinised by the next Justice Committee.

Other areas of the budget that will require close monitoring include the Court Service and the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The Minister's statement to the Assembly earlier today outlined a number of court closures and the potential detrimental impact on court users and on the administration of justice, which, of course, the Lord Chief Justice has highlighted on a number of occasions. The Committee has concerns regarding the Minister's decisions, particularly in the absence of any plans to modernise court operations and improve the facilities that remain, which are already under pressure to cope with the volume of business.

The Committee has said, on many occasions, that the current court estate is not fit for purpose. Reducing the number of courthouses would, I think, strike some resonance with the public if there was additional money to upgrade the remaining courts, but that does not seem to be the case. Therefore, the public will find it difficult to see the rationale for closing courts for such a minimum saving.

In relation to the Prison Service, the difficulties, particularly with Maghaberry Prison, have been well aired over the past months. There are clearly issues with staffing levels there, and the need to replace and refurbish accommodation has been ongoing for a considerable time. The capital funding provided for 2016-17 is welcome, but difficult decisions will still have to be made on what the priority projects will be.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will leave it at that point. I look forward to going into some of those areas in some depth tomorrow during the Budget debate.

Photo of Claire Hanna Claire Hanna Social Democratic and Labour Party

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate as SDLP finance spokesperson and a new member of the Finance and Personnel Committee. The spring Estimates before us today are unique in these islands in that they are just a one-year Budget — and a one-year Budget that is being proposed by accelerated passage on the back of a partial two-party deal that has by no means got consensus in the House. I think that, procedurally, that represents a failure in the Budget system.

I think that this is the only governmental institutional on the islands that does not have an annual budgetary process, and we do not think that this system is serving Northern Ireland well. In part, that is why we voted against the 2011 Budget and the various subsequent adjustments. It is not, as many in the Chamber have tried to imply, that we are opposed to allocating money to Departments and the functions they perform but that we recognise the failures of the process. It does not mean that we do not want money to be spent in health, education and culture; we want more scrutiny over a Budget that is amounting to almost £16 billion. As we will debate further today and, again, tomorrow, at the Second Stage of the Budget Bill, we have a number of concerns with the allocations in the Estimates.

Obviously, we cannot blame the Ministers unreservedly in this regard, due to the long delay to get even partial agreement at Stormont House. We know that they were given very little time to bring forward their spending allocations to DFP. The almost inevitable result is that there are inconsistent increases and a number of unexplained cuts. In the period between the Main Estimates last year and the spring Estimates that we have in front of us, many allocations were not scrutinised by the relevant Committees. That diminishes the role of this body, and it diminishes the role, scrutiny and transparency that we are elected and paid to provide.

One worrying example that we notice is an increase in the OFMDFM support for government fund of £231,000, which takes it to £13·8 million. This means that we have allocated more money within OFMDFM to support government and administration than we have, for example, for the Victims and Survivors Service.

There is also £16 million for the Strategic Investment Board. During the debate last month, I listened to a Member opposite give a very strong defence of a £2 million project in his constituency that was funded by the Strategic Investment Board. So, this is not an attack, necessarily, on the work provided and carried out through funds like this. Rather, I am pointing out the need to have much greater transparency and scrutiny over amounts of that size.

Further, I think it is worthwhile to note that, in a climate of efficiencies across every public, private and voluntary sector body, the administration budget for OFMDFM has risen by 23% since 2012-13. We cannot consent to further administrative increases without knowing exactly what they are going to be used for. In the Finance and Personnel Committee transcript that I read, they are down as briefings and policy assistance. That is not enough detail.

I want to turn to the proposed SDLP amendment, which was not taken. We proposed to extract £880,000 from the OFMDFM government support silo —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I ask the Member not to speak about an amendment that was not accepted by the Speaker.

Photo of Claire Hanna Claire Hanna Social Democratic and Labour Party 8:30, 8 February 2016

OK. I will address a suggestion that might be made to extract money from administrative support to put into delivery. The amount projected to be required to maintain funding for the Women's Centre Childcare Fund is £880,000. The fund was established in 2007 and is due to run out of money at the end of next month. The money currently allocated to administration in the Estimates could secure up to 100,000 two-hour childcare slots that would remove a financial burden from working families, help with child development through structured play and help more women back into the workplace. Instead, we have spent it on administration. OFMDFM is supposed to lead on a childcare strategy, but the Department has become a black hole: it is all input and very little output. It is where strategies linger, consultations drag on and delivery is, in most cases, an eventuality, not a constant reality.

There are inconsistencies in areas other than OFMDFM. In DEL, there has been a substantial reduction in employment and skills funding and a significant cut in student support and postgraduate awards. I expect that there was an anticipated reduction in the student support required due to university places being cut, but we cannot understand the scale of the reduction. Much has been said in the Chamber and in Budget debates about the need to prepare properly for the much heralded reduction in corporation tax in 2018, but the SDLP has maintained that we have to invest properly in skills training if our workforce is to have any chance of aligning with the demands and needs of foreign direct investment and the new job opportunities that it could create. We recognise that there has been an extra allocation of £5 million for skills in the 2016-17 Budget, but the spring Estimates include a £10 million reduction in funding for employment and skills. These are contradictory points, and we cannot laud a £5 million increase while cutting £10 million. In skills investment, it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In last month's debate, there was a good illustration of the point that we need more clarity on and scrutiny of the Budget. The education budget has been given an overall allocation of £1·9 billion but with little or no detail of where, how and why that will be spent. In an ideal world, we would trust the leadership and direction of a Department of that scale. However, when we look, for example, at the confused and discriminatory policy on teacher training redundancies, which means, we think, a short-term gain but a very long-term detriment, we are not content to sign that budget over without a more detailed breakdown of how the money will be spent.

There is the same lack of clarity on infrastructure. We were told that there would be £1·1 billion for the A5 and A6. We have seen where the £100 million up front from the Stormont House Agreement will be spent, but not how that shortfall will be made up. We asked about that in January and still do not have an answer. We are in a state of uncertainty and perpetual flux.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I ask the Member to conclude her remarks.

Photo of Claire Hanna Claire Hanna Social Democratic and Labour Party

Reducing the number of Departments from 12 to nine presents opportunities, but there are challenges as well. We do not think that this budgetary process gives enough scrutiny or allows Members to properly challenge these budgets.

Photo of Leslie Cree Leslie Cree UUP

Once again, we have the opportunity to address the Supply resolutions, which, as usual, are debated together. The Finance Committee has taken evidence from departmental officials in the last few weeks. The timetable is even tighter this year, and accelerated passage has been agreed. The Chairman covered much of the detail, so I will not go into the specifics of the Committee's work.

The Supply resolution seeks the Assembly's approval of the Executive's final spending plans for 2015-16 as detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates, which include all the changes agreed at the monitoring rounds and are largely technical in nature. They require Assembly approval and are the final spending plans for the year. The figures in the Supply resolution and the Budget Bill are the same as those in the corresponding spring Supplementary Estimates. Both are routine requirements at this stage of the financial year to obtain legislative Assembly authority for spending resources and associated cash requirements for the revised 2015-16 position. The Vote on Account is needed to ensure that the flow of cash continues to Departments and authorises spending for the early months of the new financial year. It was around 45%, but I notice that that figure has been removed. Is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate cover until July 2016?

It is not an ideal situation when we have to approve a significant proportion of the Budget but are unable to scrutinise the detail. That problem and many others could be resolved by the adoption — I will try it one more time — and implementation of a modern financial process similar to the one that was approved by the House several years ago. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, as you will remember, the Executive have still to make a decision on that. I feel like John the Baptist: a voice crying in the wilderness.

The Public Prosecution Service has an indebtedness of £6 million arising from an equal pay and indirect discrimination case in 2013-14. A Supply resolution for an Excess Vote is before us today and will have to be approved, but I want the Minister to clarify why, as the ruling was decided on 19 March 2014, it was not brought forward before now. I would have thought that it would have been dealt with some time in 2014-15.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions about the spring Supplementary Estimates. The voluntary exit scheme anticipated significant savings in the current year against the utilisation of up to £200 million, and the Minister touched on that. How successful has the scheme been? Has it achieved the planned target? Are the savings for the next Budget year secure? Are any further tranches included in the various Budget projections? I notice that there are two easements in his Department's figures from VES: is that correct? There are two in the table.

The Minister recently confirmed that no overcommitment was contained in the current Budget. I notice that there is a considerable amount of capital allocation in easements. As it is rather late in the year, is he satisfied that those will happen according to plan and that no moneys will be returned to the Treasury? Financial transactions capital of £96 million has been allocated to the Department for Social Development as an in-year change. Will the Minister assure the House that those are actual projects that will be carried out? FTC seems to be used like pass the parcel between Departments. The existing Budget recognised that investment in infrastructure was a key driver of economic growth, and £100 million was included for that purpose. It is difficult to see whether that money has been spent. Will the Minister confirm that, and, if so, did it achieve the planned result of providing direct economic benefits to facilitate growth?

I also notice that the Public Accounts Committee reported last week on two further Excess Votes in 2014-15 amounting to over £69 million. The Northern Ireland Assembly Commission breached its net resource limit by £950,000, and the Department of Finance and Personnel did so by £68·33 million. Will the Minister explain from which reserve that money was taken — indeed, if it has been paid — and when the motion for the Supply resolution will be brought before the House? He will remember that, at the final stage of this year's Budget, the Executive had set aside £133·2 million to cover increased costs arising from the revaluation of public-sector pension schemes. A reduction in the pressure of £10·7 million was obtained. Is the valuation of the pension schemes now correct, and did the £68·33 million that I referred to play any part in that matter? Pensions are a major cost, and we cannot continue to have unexpected additional charges each year.

Photo of Judith Cochrane Judith Cochrane Alliance

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the 2015-16 spring Supplementary Estimates and the Supply resolution for the 2016-17 Vote on Account. As we approach the end of the mandate, it is a shame that we still have not moved on with the reform of the financial process and that the Finance Committee's report, which made many recommendations, seems to be gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. I will not dwell on that and will pay heed to the Minister's reminder to stick to the motions that are before us this evening.

Mr Cree said that he feels like John the Baptist: I feel somewhat like a parrot, in that most of my points and queries have been raised by others. Others have explained how, at this stage of the year, the Estimates include all the changes from the monitoring rounds and are largely technical in nature. Essentially, the spring Supplementary Estimates show how the Main Estimates have evolved through the year, and the Assembly must now give the final sign-off.

Others have said that the Vote on Account, which is needed to ensure that Departments have the authority to spend at the start of the 2016-17 financial year, normally provides 45% of what a Department needs to get through to the Main Estimates approval process in June. This year, however, it is slightly more complex, with the existing 12-Department structure in place until the transfer of functions order in May, when the nine-Department structure becomes a reality. The Vote on Account percentage this year has been increased to give sufficient cover and manage any anomalies should they arise. While it is not an ideal process, it is one that we accept because of the changing circumstances.

We also have the matter of the Excess Votes before us. It is not a position that any Department or public body would wish to find itself in. However, I understand that, due to the timing of an employment tribunal, the PPS was unable to bid for funding in those monitoring rounds and, as a result, breached its annually managed expenditure allocation. The Public Accounts Committee looked at that and recommended that this be approved, and Alliance is willing to accept that proposal.

The Alliance Party wants to see a prosperous, sustainable and ambitious society in which there is opportunity for all. Our Ministers voted against the Budget when it was before the Executive as they did not think that it was strategic enough to deliver our aspirations for Northern Ireland. In tomorrow's Budget Bill debate, I will take more time to lay out some food for thought on how we could make our Budget more effective. For now, however, I will support the mainly technical motions before us.

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

It is a pleasure to speak as Chair of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee to make some initial remarks and subsequently to make some personal remarks as well.

The members of the Committee have looked at the budgets and have ongoing concerns about the adequacy of the finance for culture, arts and leisure. The Department is one of the smallest, and so is its budget, but we believe that it contributes much to the quality of life of people in Northern Ireland, to the sense of well-being, to health and to the economy and tourism. The Department covers areas of arts with the Arts Council; funding for the national museums and other museums; sports, through Sport NI; and languages. Members noted that there was pressure on budgets in a number of areas. There is a need for a dedicated art gallery and to redevelop Belfast Central Library, which is a regional library for Northern Ireland. They noted the inadequacy of provision at the Ulster Museum to display all the art that should be on display. They also noted, for example, that two vessels at the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum had been awaiting refurbishment for almost 40 years, so there are a lot of things that we see as pressures, and there is a concern about that.

Speaking in a personal capacity, I and, I think, most members of the Committee find it difficult to monitor and scrutinise the finances of the Department because of the way that it operates. The word "inescapable" has taken on a new definition. It normally means contractual commitments or a health and safety issue, but in the case of DCAL it seems to mean whatever the Minister wants it to mean. It reminds us a wee bit of the children's story where the character said, "Words mean what I want them to mean". There is also a large element of "ad hoc-ery" in the Department, whereby things are not really handled in a strategic way. That makes it difficult to monitor and scrutinise the finances and budgets. Programmes have been funded that have been neither advertised nor announced to enable applications to be made.

Mr McKay spoke about the need for a fresh start and a fair start. "A fair start" is a good phrase, but, sadly, it has been lacking in the area of culture, arts and leisure. We saw earlier this year the Minister carry out what can only be described as a smash-and-grab raid to fund her personal preferences and, in so doing, smash and grab money from long-established and well-performing arts organisations across Northern Ireland. Then, when there was an outcry, we saw her backfilling that money with other money but still keeping the money that she had smashed and grabbed to fund her pet projects, such as her cultural programme and so on.

The work of the Committee has also been heavily dominated by our inquiry into emergency exiting at Casement Park, which has taken up considerable time and raises concerns about budget lines in regard to the delivery of a stadium in due course. There are concerns about the difficulties faced by the Committee in monitoring and scrutinising the finance of the Department, and, speaking once again on behalf of the Committee, there is a concern about the adequacy of the funding for areas that are sometimes not given the recognition that they should be given. Those are the areas that are contributory to the well-being of society with sport and culture and the arts.

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin 8:45, 8 February 2016

I welcome the opportunity to address the House as Chair of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The motions, as is stated, deal with the moneys required by Departments for the remainder of the financial year and also the funds needed for the 2016-17 financial year.

We, as a Committee, sincerely hope that the Department of Health will be able to balance the books by 31 March 2016, despite the significant pressures that it faces and not incur an overspend, as was the case a couple of years ago. The motions today also look forward to the budgets for Departments for 2016-17, and the Committee welcomes the additional £128 million allocated to Health. However, even with that increase, the Department will face a difficult year of budgetary pressures. The cost pressures facing the Department continue to increase, year on year. They are roughly running at between 5% and 6% and are typically linked to pay and non-pay inflation, the costs of meeting the healthcare needs of an ageing population, and continued developments in healthcare technologies and treatments. That trend is expected to continue into 2016-17 and, indeed, beyond.

To meet those pressures and to supplement its baseline budget allocation, the Department is attempting to identify savings from trusts, from other arm's-length bodies, and from its own administrative costs. From what we have heard, that will prove difficult, given the savings that have already been made in previous years.

Of key concern to the Committee is how the Department will allocate its budget for 2016-17 across a range of spending areas. Indeed, when officials were before the Committee in January, we directly asked them for information on the Minister’s priorities. That information is crucial because, logically, spending decisions should be informed by ministerial priorities. However, officials were able to provide us with only a very broad-brush picture of the Minister’s priorities. They told us that the Minister's

"overall aim and vision is to build a world-class health and social care service"

Who would argue with that? They said that he wants to

"drive up the quality of health and social care for patients, clients and carers, to improve outcomes, to safeguard the vulnerable, and to ensure that patients, clients and carers have the best possible experience in every aspect of their treatment, care and support".

Those are laudable principles; nonetheless, there is no detail on a list of priorities. Nobody could disagree with those high-level objectives, but they provide us with absolutely no detail of how the £4·88 billion will actually be spent in 2016-17. The officials advised us further that the Minister’s priorities would be set out in the commissioning plan direction for 2016-17 and, indeed, that a draft of it would be forwarded to the Committee by late January or early February. However, that document has still not been received by the Committee for its consideration. That is extremely disappointing, as the commissioning plan direction should be the key document in setting out the services that the Minister wishes to fund in the coming year.

For example, members of the Committee were very keen to hear how the Department will approach the significant waiting times for elective-care appointments. Officials again could not advise us how much money was going to be allocated to that; they said it would depend on what savings could be found in other areas. In the Committee's eyes, the rationale behind that approach is certainly not clear. Surely if something is a priority, the money should be allocated to it.

Committee members were also concerned that, in the areas where savings would be made, there would be a tendency to look for quick savings, rather than taking a longer-term approach. For example, the Committee was firmly of the view that we did not want to see trusts cutting back on domiciliary care packages as a quick fix to balancing their budgets for 2016-17.

Key questions about the spending plans for 2016-17 remain unanswered — questions that are vital and of interest to Members, healthcare professionals and the wider community. Those are questions such as this: will a pay award be found for nurses within the 2016-17 budget?

To conclude, while the Committee welcomes the additional money allocated to Health, we remain disappointed at the level of detail available on how the Department's budget will be spent.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

First of all, I welcome that we have restricted time on this debate, because I have been here a very long time — I suspect that I have been here since before Ms Hanna was born — and every Budget debate in the 22 years that I have been here has involved a succession of MLAs standing up and pleading for more money for their pet project, their particular Department or some cause that they have been lobbied upon. I suspect that, today and tomorrow, we will have a succession of MLAs standing up and making a speech that, no doubt, will look wonderful in their local newspapers the following week but that will not actually add any light to the proceedings whatsoever.

If somebody stands up and says, "Yes, I want extra expenditure on x, y and z", they will never for one moment suggest where they feel that money will come from. The difficulty is — I do not envy the Minister's situation — that the Budget is fixed; it is allocated to us from Westminster. Whilst we can tinker round the edges in where it is spent, we cannot increase the quantum of that Budget. The actual number of sources that we as an Executive and an Assembly have to increase money are few and far between. Rest assured, if we did try to increase vehicle licensing testing, the regional rate, the charge for the MOT or whatever, there would be an outcry from those very same Members. Even if you doubled some of those sources of income, it would still be a drop in the ocean in comparison with the overall needs of Northern Ireland.

I believe that, as an Assembly, we need to mature. There is no sense in standing up and saying, "More money for my project", if you are not prepared to say where you want that money to come from. We have been here 17 or 18 years in this Assembly's present format, and I think that we need to exercise a degree of maturity. I have seen this now from both sides. I have been banished to the Finance Committee, probably for the rest of my life, for some misdemeanour in the past or in a previous life, but it has not actually been as bad as I assumed it would be. It can be very interesting at times, and it gives MLAs an interesting insight into how budgets work and the pressures upon the Minister of Finance. I certainly found it interesting because I was there at the other side for a very brief period as the Minister of Health. During that period, we had to land the spaceship of expenditure in the DHSSPS on a postage stamp called a neutral budget, and we did it. We did not get any credit for it, but we managed to land a £5 billion budget within one percentage point in income, expenditure and capital. I was expecting at least an OBE for that, but it just did not come. I congratulate the staff who were able to achieve that. I could see from that just how difficult a process it was. Given that it was almost half the entire Budget for Northern Ireland, it was an incredibly difficult process.

We did not run back, cap in hand, to Mrs Foster or Mr Hamilton, or whoever the Finance Minister was, demanding more money; we had to cut our cloth accordingly. It was extremely interesting to see that process in action with such a huge amount. Therefore, I empathise with Mr Storey who is trying to do that with a figure that is slightly double what we had to deal with.

The voluntary exit scheme has been mentioned. I recall at the time when it was introduced that the unions said, "Our members will not be bought. They will not queue up for the money. Our members will be loyal to the Department, and they will not take it". My understanding is that there have been absolutely no difficulties whatsoever in obtaining volunteers coming forward in order to reduce the budgets of the relevant Departments and produce savings. That has been a success, and the savings will accrue in future years. Whilst there may be some concern about who has left and who has not, the reality is that that has been well worth pursuing. That is probably one of the very few instruments that we have to save substantial amounts of money, and it has been very successfully implemented to date.

So, I do not envy the Finance Minister Mr Storey's role at all. There will never be enough money to finance Northern Ireland's needs. It is an impossibility, but the people of Northern Ireland will start to take us seriously when we start to take the really difficult decisions. After almost 18 years, maybe it is time that we sat down and had a look at ourselves and said, "What is best for Northern Ireland?" not, "What is best for my political party or my electorate?".

When we get the election in May out of the way, and we all come back, hopefully, with our substantial majorities, maybe we will feel that we can relax somewhat and start to make those difficult decisions, because we have been reared, to use an Ulsterism, under three decades of direct rule where we could call for the sun, the moon and the stars and blame the direct rule Ministers, confident that we would never have to take any responsibility for their decisions. Those days are over. Devolution is here and here to stay after many crises. Therefore, we are going to have to be much more mature as politicians and take the difficult decisions, and, maybe, come 6 May, we should start to do that.

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I am almost worried when I hear Mr Wells talk about how old he is because he is my generation, and if he is not mature by now, there may be a long wait ahead of some of the younger Members. I want to tease a few matters out with the Minister that we can come back to over the next number of hours, but, first, I welcome Claire Hanna to the Finance Committee as my new Deputy Chair. She was at the prayer breakfast in Washington last week praying for a financial bonus. It got mixed up, and the financial bonus was that they made you Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, which may not be what you had in mind.

In the round, I think that we have taken some difficult decisions in this Budget because the money was not what we wanted. The Budget could not meet all the needs that we identified, and one area where I am content with the settlement, although I would like to see the money increased in the time ahead, is for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, where we have managed to set aside £170 million for Invest NI, which is a considerable amount of money to give it the ability to do the job that we want it to do, which is building the economy; £27 million for Tourism NI; £11 million for Tourism Ireland; and a smaller amount of £3 million for InterTradeIreland. The latter two will be more than doubled; twice the money will come in from the South.

One of the questions that we need to ask in the time ahead, as we move towards trying to harmonise corporation tax levels on the island and trying to make that affordable, and it is my conviction that we will be able to do that, is how do we give Invest NI the extra marketing spend to get the message out that countries, especially in North America, should come to this location for optimum investment. We will have to work very hard to prepare for the introduction of a reduced level of corporation tax by skilling up our people and trying to provide more funding for universities, but we also need to put that message out there.

I did not make it to the prayer breakfast, but I made it to Boston at the weekend for a breakfast addressed by Invest NI, and it remains the fact that, no matter how good we are at trying to change the narrative, there is a chasm between many people's perception of this place and the reality. The Minister will have to get his pencil out and put his thinking cap on as to how we give Invest NI that extra boost to their budget in the time ahead. I think that it will have to happen this year if we are going to do a job of selling corporation tax harmonisation in order to attract more investment.

Mr Wells brought up another point that I would also like to tease out of the Minister. Can the quantum be increased? Having looked at the review of non-domestic rates, it is my belief that there are some who are getting a free ride, particularly in Belfast. I think of those who are sitting on derelict premises and those who are land-banking key sites in Belfast, such as the Sirocco site, which belongs to our friends in Cerberus. There are other sites across the city centre that we would like to see developed that speculators are sitting on. Of course, they pay no rates or taxes on those sites. That is something that we need to correct in the time ahead. The burden needs to be shared out. I look forward to engaging with the Minister and his successor on how exactly we do that.

If it is OK for small cafes such as Kaffe O on the Ormeau Road and the Arcadia deli on the Lisburn Road, or the Cambridge barbers, also on the Lisburn Road, to be carrying a fairly substantial rates burden, the large businesses — I think of the banks that own large sites across the city and of Cerberus and other equity funds — have to start adding to the quantum. We need to say to them that they need to put more money into the kitty and pay their way so that we can ease the burden on other people.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

In that respect, I read in the 'Belfast Telegraph' last week that the roof was being removed from Carryduff shopping centre in my constituency, which is, sadly, a veritable ghost town because it is being held by a developer who did not develop it. Of course, the roof being removed pushed out the last business, but, more than that, it is my feeling that parts of the roof were removed because you do not pay rates on buildings with no roof. If that has been done by the owner, it is a very cynical ploy. Our response to whoever is trying to game or play the system to avoid paying their fair share has to be to look at the system. We should say that, even if people take off the rafters to try to avoid their responsibilities and pay half rates for empty premises, we will make sure that they pay something and fulfil their obligations. I look forward to the rest of the debate tonight and tomorrow. I relish the opportunity to get into the issues.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Social Democratic and Labour Party 9:00, 8 February 2016

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas fosta leis an Aire as an ráiteas a thabhairt os ár gcomhair. When I was listening to the debate earlier and heard all the references to age, I did not know whether it was the spring Supplementary Estimates or the spring chickens Estimates, but anyway.

The Committee received an oral briefing from DETI officials on the departmental budget at its meeting on 19 January. Officials informed the Committee that cuts to the Invest NI budget reflect a decrease in selective financial assistance in 2016-17 as a result of the impact of a reduction in allowable aid intensity, effective from July 2014. A bid to promote Northern Ireland in the light of the decision to devolve corporation tax was not met, and the Department is aware that that will be an added pressure to be addressed in Invest NI. Invest NI’s budget has been cut by 7·1% from the 2015-16 baseline.

In many respects, this year's briefing from the Department was similar to the briefing that was received by the Committee on the budget last year. Last year, officials informed the Committee that the proposed Invest NI allocation meant that the organisation would have to scale back its targets. That was considered a key concern for both Invest NI and DETI, as around 93% of Invest NI's budget was already committed. That would have left little additional funding to attract new investment.

This year, the Committee was told that a significant amount of Invest NI's allocation reflects existing commitments. Officials said that DETI will work with Invest NI to make sure that all commitments for existing agreed projects would be covered through the allocation. They said that DETI is working with Invest NI to ensure that there is an allocation in the budget that would allow it to enter into new commitments if and when they come forward. The Committee was informed that the coming financial year will be challenging for Invest NI and that, if there are new projects that Invest NI is not able to cover from within its budgetary allocation, funding would be raised through in-year monitoring and could be covered "if money was available".

The economy is the number one priority. We are trying to attract inward investment to grow indigenous businesses and create jobs. We will also have corporation tax devolved from April 2018. However, year on year, Invest NI's budget is cut, and officials have informed the Committee that it will have to scale back its targets and that new projects can be covered only if money becomes available. There is no funding available to promote Northern Ireland as a destination for inward investment in a low corporation tax environment. We need to start attracting those businesses now, not in two years after corporation tax has been lowered. We need to have them up and running in two years, actually creating jobs and benefiting from the new tax environment.

That leaves me in a position, as Chair of the Committee, where I have to ask the same two questions that I asked the Finance Minister last year. The Committee has been led to believe that there is a guarantee in place from the Executive — the industrial development guarantee — that no worthwhile proposal for eligible support to economic development or investment would be lost through lack of funding. Will the Minister provide firm assurances that, first, the budget allocation is sufficient to ensure that Invest NI will not have to scale back its targets, and, secondly, that the industrial development guarantee remains steadfastly in place? I would also like to hear the Minister's views on how Northern Ireland can be promoted as a business destination, following the announcement on corporation tax, without any additional funding to do so.

I welcome the announcement from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that InterTradeIreland is to receive an additional allocation of £206,000 through January monitoring. When the Irish Government match this on a 2:1 basis, the result should be an uplift of £618,000 for the 2016 calendar year. Will the Minister confirm that this is the case? It should be noted, however, that this still represents a cut to InterTradeIreland's baseline budget, which has been cut by 30% since 2008. This has happened despite a high and growing demand for its services across the entire island of Ireland, and despite the good work of growing business and increasing exports that everyone recognises it to be doing. Further cuts to InterTradeIreland's budget can probably be expected in coming years, as the starting baseline for its 2017 budget will be the original baseline for 2016, not the uplifted budget following the new allocation. This will create further uncertainty for InterTradeIreland and, more importantly, will remove and diminish support for the small, growing and fledgling local businesses that rely on its services.

Officials informed the Committee on 19 January that North/South bodies such as InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland can make bids in the usual way through monitoring rounds. However, with the need to receive match funding from the Irish Government, this could present difficulties because there seems to be no formal mechanism for allocating funding, North and South, through monitoring rounds to synchronise the effects. The Committee understands that InterTradeIreland was able to avail itself of January monitoring because its budget is based on the calendar year and that this can be matched by the Irish Government in their 2016-2017 Budget. It is unclear, however — this is the challenge — whether there is a mechanism for match funding through other monitoring rounds. The Committee has commissioned some Assembly research into that, and I will ask the Committee to share that research with other relevant Committees because this will apply not only to InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland but to all North/South bodies. We need to be absolutely clear about what these bodies can and cannot do to obtain in-year allocations, and subsequently resolve any problems that we identify.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

I thank the Minister of Finance and Personnel for bringing forward the debate on these important issues. The Committee is normally briefed in advance of monitoring rounds, but because of the way in which the rounds took place this year, we had only one advance notice, which was for June monitoring. The updates on the November and January monitoring rounds, or technical exercises, did not come our way until January.

At the June monitoring, the Department declared an easement of £5 million capital for the social investment fund (SIF), advising the Committee that £9·5 million would be sufficient for the commitments for the year. However, a further £7·2 million was returned in November, meaning that £12·2 million of the £15 million capital allocation for SIF had been returned in-year. Officials advised us that this was because the processes to bring projects forward take considerable time. We will continue our scrutiny in that regard in the coming year.

Of the £5 million easement declared for SIF in June, £3·2 million was reallocated to Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) to provide funding for work towards creating the 10 shared education campuses, the removal of peace walls and the creation of urban villages. Allocations were made in respect of centrally held funds for T:BUC and Delivering Social Change (DSC) in June and further allocations in November and reallocations in January resulted in the full expenditure of £14 million for DSC.

OFMDFM incurred a 7% increase in administration costs, as the Member for South Belfast mentioned, between the opening position and November monitoring. During our briefing on 13 January, the officials advised that the Department has taken on a number of additional significant functions that require administrative support, such as T:BUC, Delivering Social Change and support for the historical institutional abuse inquiry (HIAI).

Committee members were informed that OFMDFM surrendered £1 million resource from the funding for the historical institutional abuse inquiry in the January monitoring position. The Committee sought assurances from the Department that, in future, the HIAI will continue to receive its required resource. At the meeting on 13 January, the departmental officials also addressed the 2016-17 Budget allocation for the new Executive Office. Unfortunately, a breakdown of proposed allocations in the Department and its arm's-length bodies was not available.

Members heard that the Department’s key objectives will be to protect programme spend and ensure that the Department’s statutory functions are protected. There may be further staffing reductions, but officials believe that these will be achieved through an ongoing embargo on the filling of vacant posts. Members heard that consideration will be given to individual factors affecting the Department's arm's-length bodies, including the extent of reductions to their budgets last year, the impact on statutory functions and the amount of underspend for each body.

While unable to give detailed breakdowns of allocations, officials confirmed that £5 million will be allocated to the historical institutional abuse inquiry and that the Department will meet extra costs should they be required. The inquiry chairman, Sir Anthony Hart, is considering the issue of redress to victims. However, officials advised that there will be no budgeting plans with regard to potential redress until after the inquiry report is finalised.

Officials confirmed that they expect the allocation of £6 million in capital funding to be spent on Urban Village projects, the Ebrington site and Maze/Long Kesh. Financial transactions capital (FTC) of £6 million has also been allocated, and that may be used to develop the Ebrington site, although it is not yet clear whether FTC can be used for that purpose — perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.

A number of funds will be held centrally, including £14 million resource and £15 million capital for Delivering Social Change and the social investment fund. A further £8 million will be held for Atlantic Philanthropies under the DSC agenda. Twelve million pounds resource is provided for 'A Shared Future' to deliver on the T:BUC strategy and, finally, £30 million for dealing with the past will be held until agreement is reached on how this issue is to be addressed. The Committee is now awaiting clarification on whether this funding can be carried forward should it not be fully utilised in the 2016-17 financial year.

I would now like to make some remarks in a personal capacity. I hope that I will please Mr Wells, as he exits, by not asking for money from somewhere for some sort of a project. In fact, I will do quite the opposite.

I suggest that, when we say that we are going to spend money, we actually spend it. The prime example is the social investment fund. As I said in my remarks as Chair, in this year 81% of the proposed capital allocation was returned, not spent. Indeed, if you look at the Programme for Government, you see that what the Executive promised was that people living in dereliction and deprivation and people living in poverty could expect the Executive to spend £80 million and have it all spent by the end of March last year. Actually, £1·5 million was spent, less than 2% of the budget. Pro rata, that is the equivalent of David Cameron saying to the people of England, "I am going to spend £2·4 billion on poverty". If he spent less than 2%, his backside would not touch the floor on his way out of Downing Street. It would not be tolerable in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Dublin, so why is it tolerable in Belfast?

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP 9:15, 8 February 2016

The Member knows that any money not spent in-year is returned via the monitoring rounds to other equally deserving projects. The £80 million he talks about was no doubt diverted into Health or Social Development for the alleviation of poverty or to some other needy cause. DUP Finance Ministers have been extremely adept at using monitoring rounds to meet the demands for essential services in-year, so the money has not been lost to the people of Northern Ireland; indeed, it has probably made a major contribution to the alleviation of poverty in Northern Ireland.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

I thank the Member for his intervention. I admire his loyalty to the DUP Ministers, but I put this point to the Member from South Down: we promised people living in poverty that we had £80 million to spend on them, on their poverty, on their deprivation and on their dereliction and that we would do it in a given and published time frame. It was a horrible and a titanic failure, and a little humility might go a long way to restoring the public's faith in this devolved institution.

Very briefly, the other point is that Sir Anthony Hart has made it clear that he will recommend some form of redress for people who were subjected to institutional abuse. Let us remember that there were many people who were subjected to clerical abuse in non-institutional settings. This is a game changer for them. They need their own process, and I urge the Executive to give that urgent consideration.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I now call the Minister for Finance and Personnel to respond. You will be aware that you have a significant proportion of your allocated time available. It will be for you to decide whether you need it.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Thank you Mr Speaker, and I thank you for giving me that bit of latitude on time. I am sure that there are a lot of Members watching this in their offices who will be delighted to know that I have more time because, I think, earlier on, they were taking wagers on how long I would take for my winding-up speech.

The process we are engaged in tonight raises a variety of issues. While I would not call myself a spring chicken, as I was referred to and as some of us were referred to earlier on, I have been in the House long enough to realise that there are no systems that any Government have that are in any way perfect.

If Members would just pause for a moment and reflect on where we have come from as a society, they will see that Northern Ireland today is a different place. As someone who grew up in the Province and has enjoyed his 51 years living here, I realise and recognise that we are in a different place today. My colleague Mr Wells has left the Chamber, but he talked about maturity, and it has been referred to by a number of Members in the past: I think that we are making progress on that issue, but I have to say that there is a great sense of immaturity in parties that are in the Executive — in particular, on this occasion, I refer to the SDLP — voting against the Budget and allowing themselves to have the best of both worlds. Not only do they have the privilege of being in the Executive but they take for themselves the privilege of being in opposition. Really, it is time for the SDLP and others to be honest with the electorate. It will be interesting to see what happens when other parties in the House go to the polls in a few weeks' time. When they are asked at the doors, "Are you going to be in government or in opposition?", maybe political maturity will dawn, and they will at least have the honesty to tell their electorate what faces them.

Returning to the purpose for which we are here this evening, I thank the Members who have contributed and, in particular, those who spoke on behalf of their Committee. I pay tribute to the Committees, whose work indicates to the House the maturity that we have in our process. I was Chair of the Education Committee and, as I said in a previous debate, a member of the Finance Committee. My colleague Mr Wells seemed to think that being put on to the Finance Committee was retribution, but he should know that, when I was appointed Minister of Finance, I wondered whether that was some form of retribution. The Committees have done an immense job. I will not pick out an individual Committee because all have done a job of work. You have only to look at the amount of work that they do in the reports that they produce and the scrutiny that they give. That is to be welcomed, and, as Minister of Finance, I place on record my appreciation of that work.

I will now attempt to respond to the issues raised by Members during the debate. I want, first, to refer to the comments made by the Chair of the Finance Committee, Mr McKay, and say a word of appreciation and thanks to him and the Committee for their work and support during the process that brought the motions before the House. Mr McKay referred to the January technical exercise and the moving of money by the Department. There were 36 technical moves between DFP and other Departments, and the most significant of those was £2·7 million to the Department for Social Development for the Strabane jobs and benefits office.

Mr McKay also referred to the challenge in manufacturing. Like him, I was present at the rally in our constituency on Saturday. I was glad to be there as a public representative. No one can overestimate the sense of loss in Ballymena as a result of the JTI and Michelin announcements. It is a reflection of the calibre of the people of Ballymena and the wider area that they have always risen to challenges and difficulties and have always endeavoured to ensure that, whatever comes their way, they face those difficulties with the fortitude that is at the heart of that community. However, we have to set what has happened in recent days in context.

I do not want in any way to lessen the genuine concerns expressed at the rally, but we have to set them in context. Northern Ireland manufacturing is rich in knowledge, skills and experience, and it is founded on a strong heritage.

It drives exports, research and development, all of which are key to generating wealth. We have seen those two companies do that in Ballymena. I would, however, say this: we need to be careful about the use of the word "crisis". While the focus has been on the big job losses — that is not to lessen them or in any way diminish their impact — it should be noted that some 830 jobs were added during the last quarter of 2015, bringing the total number of manufacturing jobs to over 80,000 for the first time since 2008. I might also refer, for example, to recent announcements, even in my constituency of North Antrim. In my home town of Ballymoney, McAuley Engineering announced some 87 jobs. Not far away, in Kilrea, Hutchinson Engineering made another announcement. We have also had some announcements from Lisburn. Of course, let us not forget what Ballymena has in Wrightbus and the help and support that it is continually given to ensure that it remains at the forefront of bus manufacturing. Local manufacturing output has recovered by almost 20% since its low point in the third quarter of 2009, almost three times the growth of UK manufacturing output over the same period. That sets some context for manufacturing.

The old saying "eaten bread is soon forgotten" is very true Since the start of this Programme for Government in 2011, Invest Northern Ireland has provided a total of £254·6 million in assistance to manufacturing firms in Northern Ireland, more than to service-based businesses. That gives us some sense not only of the importance that is placed on manufacturing but of the challenges in manufacturing.

I move on to other comments made by Ms Hanna on the one-year Budget and related issues. Of course, the reason for that process is the electoral cycle. It would be unwise to agree a multi-year Budget when we are reducing the number of Departments in May. We have had to take a pragmatic and practical view, so that, when the House returns with a refreshed mandate, those Ministers and Departments will be able to set their priorities for the way they spend their money.

When I was in DSD, I made it clear that the childcare fund was a priority. I went to great lengths to have discussions with my colleague in the Department for Social Development, Lord Morrow, and I believe that the issue will be addressed. It is only right and proper that, until we have agreed the way in which the childcare strategy will be funded, we do not, as it were, pull the rug from under the feet of those who continue to make an invaluable contribution to the provision of childcare. I am quite confident that my colleague Lord Morrow will be able to deal with the concerns adequately.

Ms Hanna also raised concerns about the allocation of an additional £16 million to the Strategic Investment Board. I can assure the Member that this increase in financial allocation was subject to Committee and Executive scrutiny through the normal in-year monitoring process. There were two financial transaction capital allocations totalling £14·5 million for Queen's University Belfast, plus a £2 million allocation for the Urban Villages programme under Together: Building a United Community .

The Member made reference to the detail in the Budget. Whilst the Budget document did not provide much detail on the Department of Education budget, as expressed by a number of Members, it is expected that this detail will be provided in the summary once the new Education Minister is in place after the May elections. Indeed, it is expected that all new Ministers will have an opportunity to reallocate their Budget allocations internally and that revised positions will be published thereafter. I trust that this will provide the transparency that the Member is seeking.

She also rightly raised the skills agenda, which is an important issue. In the 2016-17 Budget, there was an allocation of an additional £5 million to the Department for the Economy for the skills agenda. As I have already said, I will support a further £20 million being allocated to the skills agenda in the June monitoring round on the return of the new Departments after the election. These allocations will go a long way to addressing the skills agenda.

However, I have to say to the Member that all this comes from a party that voted against a Budget. That party tells us what we ought to do in preparing for corporation tax but was not prepared to support us on the reduction of corporation tax. That highlights again the unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in in the House, where there are those who want to have their cake and eat it. They want to salve their conscience somehow that they have put it up to us. As Mr Wells referred to, they come into this House and tell the Finance Minister and every other Minister about their ills and shortcomings, but they have not been able to identify to the House or the electorate how they would spend the money differently, how they would deal with the political challenges and how they would deal with the crisis. Let us remember that there are parties in the House that had that opportunity when they were in the Executive and these institutions collapsed and collapsed and collapsed —

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

That is the difference between the current Executive and the one that her party was part of. Yes.

Photo of Claire Hanna Claire Hanna Social Democratic and Labour Party

Tomorrow, we will outline that. Today, we are addressing the deficits and the failures in this Budget, as is appropriate when dealing with the spring Estimates. Tomorrow, we will set out some alternatives with the limited information. Does the Member agree that part of the reason for the failure in the initial years was that the two parties that are now leading the Executive did everything in their power to pull down and wreck the power-sharing institutions in the first two to 10 years of their existence?

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

No, what my party was engaged in was ensuring that we got a fair deal and a better position to build for the future than an infrastructure that could not give us the stability that we now have. I will speak only for my own party; it is up to others to say what they did. Let us remember that, while we have made progress, there is still much more to be done, but it is immensely better than where we were previously when we had the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party in power. Of course, the proof of that is that, in successive elections, the people of Northern Ireland have said who they prefer to have governing. I have no doubt that, come the election in May, the people of Northern Ireland will give their verdict yet again. As a democrat, I will accept their verdict because, ultimately, they are the people whom we are here to serve.

I welcome the fact that the Member is now on the Finance Committee. I trust that she will continue to make a positive contribution, along with her colleagues, and that, collectively, we will endeavour to bring to Northern Ireland days of better prosperity and better outcomes.

Let me move on to my friend, Mr Leslie Cree. One thing that you can always be sure about is that he will ask very specific and pointed questions. That is appropriate and right; it is what the process is about. He raised a number of issues, and I will try to go through them. If I do not cover them all, I promise that we will pick them up in Hansard and reply to you in writing. He made reference to the Vote on Account and said that he had concerns about whether there was sufficient cover. In order to ensure sufficient cover for resource and cash, it is necessary to increase the Vote on Account over some Departments. That is what we have done. It will help to minimise any risk of Departments running out of cash in the first part of the 2016-17 financial year. That is an issue. I appreciate the concern that he has. That is why it has moved from somewhere in the region of the 45% that we would normally have to nearer 69% or 70%. We have to have a degree of flexibility. We appreciate that there will be a greater demand in some Departments, given the nature of the business that they are engaged in. However, we have it adequately covered. I am reasonably confident about what we have done in that regard.

He made reference as well to the delay in bringing forward the PPS and the 2013-14 Excess Vote. That was also raised by some other Members. I will take some time to set that in context. The fair employment tribunal did not announce its judgement until 19 March 2014. That meant that the PPS was unable to secure the required funding through in-year monitoring, and thus it breached its budget provision for 2013-14. As per the process, the PPS wrote to DFP Supply and the NIAO to notify them of the breach. A breach of any of the budgetary control limits or the cash limit results in the need for expenditure to be regularised through the Assembly Excess Vote process. The Public Accounts Committee scrutinises the reasons behind each Department's excess of allocated resources and reports to the Assembly on whether it has any objections to making good the reported excesses. Once the Committee has reported, a Statement of Excess will be presented to the Assembly to be voted into the Budget Act. The passing of that Act authorises the additional grant by the Assembly to regularise the excess incurred by the Department.

The Public Accounts Committee completed its report in March 2015 and recommended that the Assembly agree the additional funds. Following that, DFP Supply put forward the Excess Vote to the Assembly, and so the 2015 spending review announced by the UK Chancellor on 25 November 2015 set out the Government's long-term economic plan in relation to that. I trust that we have covered the rationale as to why it was necessary for us to do it in that particular way.

Mr Cree raised an important point about the Northern Ireland Civil Service voluntary exit scheme (VES) and asked about the benefits that can be delivered through it. I assure the Member that the objective of the exit scheme is to deliver an immediate and permanent pay bill reduction that is necessary to allow Departments to live within their 2015-16 Budget allocations and beyond. The scheme business case estimated a reduction of about 2,551 full-time equivalent posts, which is about 11% of posts in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, delivering a pay bill saving of about £94 million a year. I think that that is a significant amount of savings. I pay tribute to all those who have been involved in the process. It has been challenging, and I am well aware of the challenges that there have been. I have to say, however, that I have been pleased by the very small number of issues that have been raised. Obviously, in a process like this, when you are dealing with a considerable number of people, you will find that particular issues are raised from time to time. However, in the overall scheme of things, having got to where we now are and having had this success, I think it is something to be welcomed. To have the £94 million a year pay bill saving is of benefit to the overall financial position of the Executive.

He also raised the Budget exchange carry forward and the financial transactions capital. As always, we aim to remain within the Budget exchange scheme limits, and, this year, those amount to some £59·5 million for the resource, £9·6 million for capital DEL and £1·9 million for financial transactions capital. I confirm that all the financial transactions capital has been allocated and that no funding will be returned to Her Majesty's Treasury.

Let me move on to the issues that were raised by the Chair of the Health Committee. She raised a number of issues on the detail of the Health budget, and while I will not attempt to respond to all the issues raised, I assure her that my colleague the Health Minister and I agree that our staff in the health service are our greatest asset in delivering health and social care. I think that goes without saying, but it needs to sometimes be rehearsed and reiterated because, in the midst of all the toing and froing that goes on in the Chamber and in the public debate on our health service, we could easily lose sight of the importance of our staff and the service that they deliver to us as a community and as the people of Northern Ireland on a day and daily basis.

While the Health Minister fully recognises the hard work and contribution to health and social care of all staff, his first priority is to protect front-line services and ensure that they are properly staffed to secure the provision of safe and effective services. I believe that the Health Minister made a statement to the House on 8 January 2016 setting out the 2015-16 pay award for health and social care staff. That will allow for a 1% non-consolidated payment for staff at the top of their pay band and an average spine point rise of 3·7% for those not at the top of their pay band. Salaried doctors and dentists at the top of their pay band will also receive the 1% payment.

The Health Minister is aware of the RCN decision to ballot its members in Northern Ireland for industrial action, and he is, of course, disappointed by it. While the right of members to take industrial action is fully recognised, it is regrettable that we get to the stage of industrial action on these issues.

Reform across the health service and the social care services is ongoing, and I remind Members that Transforming Your Care is not about reducing our investment in health and social care services; it is about making the best use of the resources that are available to us.

That leads me on to the comments that were made by my colleague Mr Wells, who gave us all a reality check. We have to live within our means. As Finance Minister, I would like to be in the position to give more resource to Departments. However, we have to recognise that, as a devolved Administration within the United Kingdom, we are the recipients of what comes to us from the Government at Westminster. We have to then make choices.

When speaking to some at the rally in Ballymena on Saturday, I said that we all will have to live with the consequences of our decisions. I have no doubt that there are decisions that parties will have advocated and been seen as the champion of, but on which, in the cold light of day, they would have preferred to have made other choices. However, we are all subject to the choices that we have made, and we, therefore, have to live within the means that are at our disposal.

I have to say that Mr Wells has a better prospect than Mr Cree. Mr Cree made reference to the fact that he thought that he was maybe John the Baptist. I remind Mr Cree in a very friendly way that John the Baptist was beheaded. I trust that that is not the fate of my friend Mr Cree.

I move now to the comments of Mr Ó Muilleoir. I welcome those comments; I will come on to some of them in a minute or two, particularly those in relation to Invest NI. Let me deal with the business rates review, first. The Member raised the issue of the business rates and an issue that, for many of us, is always prevalent in our constituencies — derelict sites. My Department is engaged in a comprehensive review of the area, which was the subject of a 12-week public consultation process. The consultation lasted for a period of 12 weeks up until 25 January, but I said that I would not be prescriptive about that if other comments came in after that. During that time, we have sought the views of interested parties and invited them to provide their views on the future direction of business rates in Northern Ireland. The review has been wide-ranging. The aim is to focus on how best to raise revenue from the business community in Northern Ireland. It will include consideration of the current system of rating relief and exemptions. My Department is also keen to understand whether there are any other forms of taxation that could be used to replace or supplement a portion of the revenue that is currently raised from the rates. That debate has commenced. We have had a number of public events at which views have been expressed. This is not a vain, empty consultation process; it is a genuine attempt to ensure that we get the best possible outcome and an agreed process on that issue. It is important that we get an agreed way forward to deal with an issue that is prevalent in our constituencies.

The Member also raised the Invest Northern Ireland budget. He welcomed the budget that was available to Invest. I share the Member's views that that is money well spent. Invest Northern Ireland's 2015-16 mid-year performance update highlighted the outstanding progress that was made, with the agency on course to exceed the majority of its corporate plan targets by 31 March 2016. The Member will also recognise that skills investment is vital to our economic development and note that, in addition to the additional £5 million that was made available to the new Department for the Economy as part of the 2016-17 Budget process, a further £20 million will be made available for the area as part of the June monitoring round. Of course, he made reference to the ability of Invest to be able to market and promote. I would be very sympathetic to looking at that element of the Invest budget for promoting, particularly in relation to being prepared for the introduction of corporation tax.

On that issue, the Member will be aware that, in his constituency today, I had the pleasant opportunity to make an announcement regarding the investment that has been made by Alert Logic, in what is a growing portfolio of global ICT firms choosing to establish their offices here in Northern Ireland. The company is expanding. Its decision to locate in Northern Ireland will contribute a total investment of £3·9 million into the local economy. Of those 88 jobs, 30 people are already in post and the remainder will be in post by the end of 2017. That has been done and delivered by Invest NI prior to the introduction of reduced corporation tax. Let us remember that the average salary of those who will be employed is £44,000, contributing, as I said, nearly £4 million annually in salaries to the local economy. That is success in another growing element of the economy. Invest NI needs to be given every encouragement and support to continue the good work that it has done.

Let me turn to the comments made by the Chair of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. He referred to the fact that funding had been returned to central funds during the monitoring round. That is exactly the purpose of the monitoring rounds; to reallocate funding. It ensures that no funding is lost and that we make good use of all our resources. I know that he raised particular issues as to why certain things were not achieved. However, with regard to overall control of the budgetary process, these monitoring rounds are important. There are issues that we need to ensure that we keep constantly under review. I heard the comments about the process of looking at the overall way in which the Budget is delivered to the House and through the Assembly. Monitoring rounds are an important element of what we do so that we can re-evaluate, recycle and reallocate the resources that are available to us.

Therefore —

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

The Minister has been talking about the importance of monitoring rounds. They are very important and have been in previous years when there has been an overcommitment in the Budget. Surely it is worth mentioning that this Budget is balanced; there is no overcommitment and that gives us even more scope in monitoring rounds to give money to those Departments that are in need.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I thank the Member for his comments. Obviously, I am endeavouring to do what I can to ensure that that is the case.

As I conclude, I remind Members of this: had we not got to the place where we now are with the Budget process, many Members in the House would not be here today. In fact, I doubt whether there would be devolution. I think that we would have seen the process come to end. However, good sense prevailed, and we have been able to find ourselves in the position that we are in today.

I want to thank —

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to assure him that I am as glad as he is that we have monitoring rounds to ensure that moneys that cannot be spent for whatever good reason are not lost. Would he express any regret whatsoever that 98% of the social investment fund was not spent in the allocated time as defined in the Programme for Government?

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I thank the Member for that. Obviously, I would like to see processes in place so that, when money is allocated, we are able to deliver what the allocation was for. However, with regard to the particular issue of SIF and the challenges that there have been, sometimes those challenges are not always within the control of the Executive or sponsoring Department with responsibility for particular amounts of money. Unfortunately, we then find ourselves in situations where planning issues and other practical issues come along that become an impediment and a hindrance to the way in which we would have originally intended the money to be spent.

I share the Member's concern, and I have to say that all Departments need to make every effort to have the allocations delivered in the budgetary framework we have set. However, I will put in the caveat that that is sometimes not possible because of other pressures that are brought to bear from without in trying to deliver these issues.

I have been in some areas recently to see the moneys that have been delivered to projects, and it has been worthwhile to see some of them on the ground. SIF has made significant progress, with commitments in the region of £58 million, and 25 projects have been delivered and are now well under way. If you go to the areas where those projects are being delivered — I am sure that the Member has visited some of them — people will tell you about the benefit they see as a result of the money that has come from government.

I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I ask Members to support the motions on the 2015-16 spring Supplementary Estimates, the 2016-17 Vote on Account and the 2013-14 Excess Vote.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

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

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

That this Assembly approves that a total sum, not exceeding £15,770,704,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2016 and that total resources, not exceeding £17,135,765,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2016 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3(c) and 2(c) of table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2015-16 that was laid before the Assembly on 2 February 2016.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

We now move to the motion on the Vote on Account, which has already been debated. I remind Members that this vote also requires cross-community support.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,899,052,800, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund on account for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2017 and that resources, not exceeding £8,680,276,400, be authorised, on account, for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2017 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4 and 6 of table 1 in the Vote on Account 2016-17 document that was laid before the Assembly on 2 February 2016. — [Mr Storey (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

We now move to the motion on the Excess Vote, which has already been debated. I remind Members that this vote also requires cross-community support.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That this Assembly approves that resources, not exceeding £6,031,448.89 be authorised for use by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2014, as summarised in Part II of the 2013-14 Statement of Excesses that was laid before the Assembly on 2 February 2016. — [Mr Storey (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]