Supply Resolution for the 2014-15 Excess Votes — Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2016-17

Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 13 June 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Debate resumed on motion:

That this Assembly approves that resources, not exceeding £69,281,105.15 be authorised for use by the Department of Finance and the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, for the year ending 31 March 2015, as summarised in part II of the 2014-15 Statement of Excesses that was laid before the Assembly on 1 June 2016. — [Mr Ó Muilleoir (The Minister of Finance).]

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,986,369,200, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2017; and that resources, not exceeding £8,693,136,600, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman 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 3(b) and 3(a) of table 1·3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2016-17 that was laid before the Assembly on 1 June 2016. — [Mr Ó Muilleoir (The Minister of Finance).]

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

I call Pam Cameron. I beg your pardon; I call Mark Durkan.

Photo of Mark Durkan Mark Durkan Social Democratic and Labour Party

As a member of the Opposition.

I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister and to wish him well in what is certain to be an extremely challenging role. I listened to the Minister's speech earlier and was extremely heartened to hear him declare his opposition to austerity. I am hopeful that we will not have to remind him of that too often during his time in office.

The Minister spoke of the fix-all Fresh Start Agreement and pointed to the £500 million mitigation fund, secured to ensure that vulnerable people would not be left behind, in his words. Of course, though, that £500 million being spent in mitigation is coming from other budgets, and we must ensure that it does not create more vulnerable people or make life more difficult for vulnerable people by resulting in reduced services.

I would also like some reassurance that this fund, designed to protect against the worst impacts of welfare reform, will be sufficient to do so, particularly as the Fresh Start Agreement predated the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Act through the House of Commons. That Act, passed after the Minister's party voted with the DUP to hand responsibly for welfare issues back to the Tories, is a further attack on the vulnerable people the Minister says he is determined must not be left behind. It will see the benefit cap, for example, reduced from £26,000 per household per year, which affects fewer than 500 families here in the North, to £20,000 per household per year, which, I imagine, will affect a few thousand more households. Perhaps the Minister can clarify how these new cuts have been factored into the spending of the mitigation fund.

As the SDLP health spokesperson, I will move on to how much more wisely, as opposed to just how much more, money should be spent on health. We, as an Assembly, need to ensure that less money actually needs to be spent on health in the first place. We need to ensure that our population is healthier, and one way of doing that is to ensure that our population is wealthier. An improved economy is something we all want, but we are going to need a bit more than the magic bullet that is a reduced rate of corporation tax. I am not the only Member with questions about the trajectory of that magic bullet and whether it is or is not still on target. The confidence of Ms Little Pengelly earlier that the reduction of the rate of corporation tax will proceed when stated and as stated contrasts somewhat with the Minister's mysterious musings on the subject in the media last week. There is also an inevitable impact on public services with the reduction of corporation tax, and I know Dr Farry touched on that when he spoke.

We need to see further and cleverer investment in skills and education to create a ready workforce, and we need to invest properly in infrastructure so that companies can access that new workforce. In that regard, I am very pleased to see the commitment to the A6 and A5, but I am a wee bit cautious that these much-needed and much-welcomed projects will face further delays down the road.

The Minister spoke about the possibilities afforded by borrowing. Certainly we should look at what opportunities exist to draw down cash to invest in projects that will boost our economy and create employment, but we cannot just go around the banks, borrowing money just because we can and racking up debt for our and future generations. Unless, of course, the Minister subscribes to the fiscal policy that his party espoused not that long ago — it was just last year, in advance of the Westminster election — that all debt should just be wiped.

Also, when entering any finance agreement, it is very important that we read the small print. Members will recall the £100 million loan sought from the Treasury by the DUP and Sinn Féin to ease a budgetary crisis. That basically allowed the Treasury to dictate to us how we manage our financial affairs.

We heard an extremely positive piece of news last week about the money coming from the European Investment Bank for housing. That is to be welcomed, but if we are to meet the huge need for social housing across all our constituencies, we have to maximise the borrowing power that we have at our disposal. That can be done only by allowing the Northern Ireland Housing Executive the same access to borrowing as housing associations, maximising the value of its housing stock.

On health, I will reiterate the point I made last week that the redistribution of services from acute settings to community care as outlined in Transforming Your Care and costed at £83 million is essential. That will see a reduction in bed-blocking, as it is termed, although I do not particularly like the term, and our much-maligned, and rightly maligned, waiting lists will reduce in length.

Surely we can find the money to invest to save, if we can manage to find £30 million or £40 million every monitoring round to throw at the problem of waiting lists without ever dealing with the issue.

The Health Committee learned just last week that the number of GP training places is being increased to 85. That is very good, but, given the crisis facing general practice that we also heard about in the media last week, we do not believe that it goes far enough. We would like to see a further increase and, indeed, have costed proposals on that, which you will hear more about in the weeks and months to come. There needs to be further investment in early intervention in mental health, which will save our economy a lot of money in the long term and will save a lot of patients and families a lot of heartache and headaches.

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

This is my first opportunity to wish the Minister of Finance well in his new role and on his particularly significant speech today on the Main Estimates. The Business Committee could have timed it better, because it looks like he will be responding at exactly the same time as Sweden play Ireland. In future, when the North or the South are playing, perhaps sittings could be suspended whilst those matches are taking place.

There is a clear need to ensure that the money we spend on health goes further. As the Health Minister has said, it is not primarily about buildings; it must be about services and improving health outcomes, reducing health inequalities and ensuring that all Departments put a greater focus on prevention. Health, as I have said many times before, is not an issue for one Department alone. We need to do things differently when it comes to health, and there are a lot of tough choices to be made. Why? Because, as a population, we are getting older. The number of over-65s is to rise by 44% — nearly 50% — in the next 15 years. We are getting more obese: it is projected that 40% of the population here will be obese in the next nine years, according to BMA figures. More of us are being diagnosed with diabetes, and there is a rise in the number of people with chronic conditions.

The current health system here will not be able to deal with the changing public health make-up and, therefore, it needs to change. The significant reduction in our Budget as a result of Westminster cuts will make this all the more challenging. That presents a challenge not only to the Executive and to government but to all the political parties, because the future of our health service and the prize of a world-class health service is more important than petty political point-scoring. I look forward to Professor Bengoa and the panel reporting to the Minister very shortly. There is also a need to reduce waste in health, especially with regard to cross-border services in the border areas. Clearly, there are opportunities there to free up money by having more joined-up services. That money could go to other services that are in need. That, for me, is a no-brainer, and I look forward to the Minister looking at that and exploring solutions to it.

I will now move on to a couple of other issues. The Chair of the Education Committee mentioned the need for investment in the rural road network, and we look forward to the Executive delivering on the A5 and A6. Those are major projects that need to be delivered as soon as possible, but there is a concern in rural communities and in places that I represent, such as Dunloy and Loughgiel and up towards the glens of Antrim and Ballycastle, that the roads are in a bad state. That needs to be dealt with, and rural communities need to be assured that big projects such as the A5 and the A6 are not going to be delivered at their expense.

The previous Agriculture Minister delivered the Rural Needs Act, and the incoming Executive need to be cognisant of the fact that the rural community has acute needs to be protected. I look forward to the Finance Minister's comments on how we protect the rural community and the budget for rural areas.

I would like to congratulate the Executive on delivery. In the north-east, the A26 is progressing well. This is key, not only for the many commuters to Belfast from places such as Ballymoney and Ballycastle but for tourists. We want to see more people coming to the north coast, not only to the port but to Ballycastle and elsewhere, including 'Game of Thrones' country in north Antrim.

Another issue that concerns the tourism community is air passenger duty (APD) and I am heartened to hear that the Finance Minister has made it one of his priorities. There is a lot of talk about the need to deliver on corporation tax, but APD is key to tourism and affects us here more than it does those across the water because of the North/South differential, highlighted in a PricewaterhouseCoopers report a couple of years ago and by the Finance and Personnel Committee. If we get APD right, we can deliver more tourists, more business and more jobs. You always hear anecdotally of the number of local people flying to and from other destinations and, of course, when it comes to the price of flights, Dublin wins hands down. We need to address that. We need a level playing field to ensure that we can compete with the rest of the island and get our fair share economically, which is not the case at present. There is an opportunity to bring in more tourists, more business and more jobs, and I am sure that the Finance Minister will lead in that respect.

Finally, the Department will bring forward reliefs for sports clubs. That is a huge issue in rural areas. I know many GAA and rugby clubs that are affected by quite significant rates bills. In a lot of communities these clubs are the only show in town. They bring communities together and deliver not only on sport but on mental health and many other things.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker 3:45, 13 June 2016

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

I would like an update from the Finance Minister on how he will look at that issue.

Photo of Pam Cameron Pam Cameron DUP

I am pleased to speak in support of the Supply resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2016-17, which grants the Department of Justice the resources to enable it to fund its responsibilities and priorities.

As the Justice Committee has not yet had an opportunity to scrutinise the Department's budget in detail, I will, of necessity, keep my remarks short. We have received some general information on the key budget allocations for 2016-17 and the pressures and challenges faced as the result of a reducing budget allocation. We have also had sight of the Department's June monitoring round return. The Committee is due to receive a more detailed briefing on the Department of Justice budget at our meeting this week, and I have no doubt that, following the meeting, Members will wish to schedule regular updates on the budget position, the various monitoring rounds and the development of the draft budget for 2017 onwards.

The Department has continued to prioritise front-line policing and other front-line areas as far as possible in this year's budget, with the aim of protecting outcomes for the public and funding to the voluntary and community sector and the policing and community safety partnerships. I am sure that the Committee will be supportive in its approach in common with previous Justice Committees. However, it is clear that the Department of Justice faces substantial challenges in this year's budget, and that pattern is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Clearly, identifying priorities is imperative in this type of budgetary climate.

The development of the Executive's Programme for Government provides the opportunity to do that and to ensure that the available budget is spent to best effect and achieves maximum impact. It also provides an imperative to identify proactively new ways of working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system. The previous Justice Committee produced a report titled 'Report on Justice in the 21st Century' at the end of the previous mandate that included a range of recommendations for innovative approaches, including the use of problem-solving court solutions to address offending behaviour and reduce reoffending and the use of online dispute-resolution mechanisms for low-value civil claims. In my view, the Department needs to move to implement those and other new approaches swiftly so that the same or better outcomes can be achieved for the public at less cost. It is also essential that the Department develop robust plans and programmes to enable it to access funding that is available from the Fresh Start Agreement to assist with, among other things, legacy-related pressures and tackling paramilitarism.

The main pressures emerging at this early stage of the Budget cycle for the Department of Justice relate to the NI Prison Service staff and pay pressures; the NI Courts and Tribunals Service fine-default hearing costs and the shortfall in income; and the perennial problem of the cost of legal aid. Despite the Executive allocating £15 million in the 2016-17 Budget to the Department in recognition of the ongoing pressures that it faces with legal aid, additional pressure is already emerging. Given the plans that are in place to address the backlog of Crown Court cases that have arisen as a result of the action taken last year by solicitors and barristers, there is potential for that pressure to increase during the 2016-17 Budget period. The Committee will undertake work on legal aid policy and legislation over the coming months and will wish to monitor and take account of the budget impact and pressure in that area as well. <BR/>There is also the potential for significant pressure depending on the outcome of test cases on fine-default imprisonment, which the Department of Justice does not have the capacity to fund. It will need to be monitored closely.
I turn briefly to the capital budget. Again, the Department has had to prioritise its spend in the area. The overview briefing by the NI Prison Service to the Committee on 9 June highlighted a range of capital initiatives that needs to be progressed to assist its reform programme. The PSNI also has a range of capital requirements. Further decisions will have to be made in the area. I am sure that the Committee will wish to assess the capital priorities as part of the ongoing budgetary process.

Briefly, on the Department of Justice's 2015-16 provisional out-turn figures, its non-ring-fenced resource DEL underspend of £10·6 million represents 1% of the budget. Of that, the PSNI underspend accounted for £3 million, which represents 0·4% of its total budget. The capital underspend of £1·2 million represents 2·7% of the budget. Those figures are encouraging and illustrate that the Department has worked hard over the past financial year to identify proactively and manage emerging underspends, in order to ensure that the budget is utilised as fully as possible to support the delivery of its priorities and objectives.

I conclude by adding some very brief remarks as a Member from the Democratic Unionist Party. The Department has shouldered some extreme budgetary cuts. We must ensure that we look for innovative ways in which to safeguard it from any further constraints, which, if they were to transpire, I fear would have an inevitable negative impact on front-line services. I am aware of the difficulties surrounding legal aid, which have gone on for some time and for which there is no easy fix, but we must look as a matter of urgency to resolve those issues to ensure that the already diminished budget is not put under any further pressures. I look forward to ensuring that we access the £32 million Fresh Start security funding for the PSNI and overseeing that it is allocated in a prudent, inventive and sensible manner to maximise its potential. I support the Supply resolution and Main Estimates 2016-17.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I will make just a couple of comments on some of the issues that were raised by Members who have already spoken before getting into the issues that I most want to talk about. Claire Hanna's assertion about hand-picked SIF organisations is just an assertion and is nonsense. It is one that she should desist from making, because it is wholly inaccurate. I put that on record.

I invite her to come and see some of the really good work that is going on and which is making a fundamental difference to the lives of children and will ensure that we have better education outcomes and reduce health inequalities as a result, as opposed to such negativity.

Mrs Cameron has just spoken about legal aid. I trust that it is something that Ms Sugden, our new Justice Minister, can get to grips with. In the last mandate, the Minister did not get to grips with legal aid, and we are still expending far too much on it. That really needs to be got to grips with.

As well as that, the Prison Service has been left in a dreadful situation; Prison Service staff morale has never been so low. That is a significant challenge for the Minister. Funding is a critical issue in the Prison Service, and it is an area that I think she needs to address. Taking money from the legal aid budget to ensure that prisons are safe environments where people come out with the opportunity of reform is something that we should all aspire to and have fewer people in the justice system as a consequence.

I want to make some remarks in respect of DAERA. It is a very interesting Supply resolution period, given that many Departments have come together, and it will be interesting to see whether the funding has truly followed the responsibilities. Miss McIlveen has many challenges ahead of her in DAERA, not least because of the inability of the previous Ministers to deal with TB. Tuberculosis is something that most of the general public do not hear much about, but we spend £30 million every year on it, and we are not reducing the problem. Interestingly enough, I sat in a North/South meeting where the last Minister, Michelle the second, wanted to have a greater all-Ireland strategy, and Simon Coveney challenged her on where we were on TB. We could not move forward on what Sinn Féin wanted — an all-Ireland health strategy — because of the TB situation, and the Government in the Republic of Ireland would not accept that.

The reason why Mrs O'Neill would not move forward with the Irish Government on TB was because of the protection of badgers. The Irish Government had a completely different attitude to that which existed in Northern Ireland. It is important that we have a healthy bovine population and a healthy wildlife population. Ignoring the problem or dealing with one section of the problem — removing the bovine population that has TB while not removing the badger population that has TB at the same time — will ensure that we continue to expend public money on not dealing with the problem. That money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on health, education and justice or on improving our farm businesses.

There are other significant areas of challenge. We have had a lot of focus on moving offices from greater Belfast to other areas. There has also been a notion of creating a new computerised system to replace APHIS. At one stage, the Department was looking to spend somewhere in the region of £40 million. I challenged it consistently throughout that period that it does not need to spend that amount of money on a computerised system to monitor the movement of animals and that it could do something considerably less. We managed to produce an electronic care record, which contains the records of 1·8 million people. It is transferable between the primary sector and the hospital sector.

That was produced for £9 million — very thick files. We will need to see an effort by the Department to move away from the grand spending scheme that was previously proposed and find a means of developing a more cost-effective system there.

NIEA as an organisation is detested in the rural community. It treats farmers as criminals until proven otherwise. We need to have a serious look at the role of the NIEA and how it conducts its business to ensure that those in the agriculture community, who have been the custodians of our countryside for many generations, are able to do their jobs in a way —

Photo of Mark Durkan Mark Durkan Social Democratic and Labour Party 4:00, 13 June 2016

I thank the Member for giving way. This touches on his comments regarding the image or perception of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency in the rural community. Does the Member agree with me that an independent or arm's-length environmental protection agency might be the way to go?

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Thank you.

No, absolutely not. If you give the same people that unfettered power, they will potentially be even worse in how they conduct themselves.

Last year, one farmer in County Down shot himself after an NIEA visit, such was the pressure that he was put under. That is the significance of what those people do. I was speaking to another farmer recently who has TB as a result of the inability to deal with the badger population in his area. In fact, it had been found that all the badgers that had become roadkill had type 2 tuberculosis, which is the one that is transmissible to cows. As a consequence of that, he has had six herd tests. When his animals went up over a certain level, NIEA came in and did a farm inspection and said, "You've too many animals on your farm for the slurry tanks. Therefore, we're actually fining you and are taking money off your single farm payment", in spite of the fact that, legally, he could not sell or move animals off the farm. Those sorts things need to be dealt with.

The wreckage of DOE has left huge challenges in that respect that have to be dealt with —

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

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

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

— and I wish the Minister well in doing that.

Photo of Michaela Boyle Michaela Boyle Sinn Féin

First, I welcome the Minister to the House and wish him well in his new role.

I wish to speak as a member of the Justice Committee on the Justice budget in the Main Estimates Supply resolution. The vast majority of Justice budget funding goes to policing, and that is accepted. However, the Department of Justice had a range of priorities in its previous budget, and I want to focus on the amount spent on domestic abuse through the PCSPs, the Public Health Agency, the PSNI and statutory agencies.

The newly appointed Justice Minister, Claire Sugden, has already given an assurance and a commitment that she will make domestic abuse a priority for herself and her Department, and I welcome that, as do others on the Committee. A recent PSNI report on statistics for domestic abuse motivation makes stark reading, with 28,287 domestic abuse incidents recorded in 2014-15. That is the highest level recorded since 2004-05 and is 35% higher than it was at that time. Indeed, 13,426 domestic abuse crimes were recorded in 2014-15, and that is also the highest number recorded since 2004-05. Given that and moving forward into the Budget, we have to reflect on those high levels and make changes, albeit that that will be challenging given the cuts to our block grant by the Tories.

The level of violence against a person with a domestic motivation continues to increase year on year, and it can involve a range of offences from minor assault that can cause physical harm to murder. There has also been an increase in breaches of non-molestation orders, with 972 recorded in 2014-15. While there has been a lot of good work in the Department of Justice and other agencies on domestic abuse, there is always room for improvement. With proper priority-based resourcing and a review of all services, not just those the Department of Justice delivers but those delivered by the PSNI, with a particular focus on domestic abuse, then and only then will we see a slight change and a decrease in the figures that have been recorded.

The overall budget for tackling domestic abuse is not enough. I could not find the overall figure either from PSNI or the Department of Justice, but, if the Minister is to make domestic violence a priority in her Department, it needs to be adequately funded. She needs to be supported in the call for funding to tackle domestic abuse and domestic crime so that the statutory agencies, along with Women's Aid, the courts, the PSNI and the PPS, can have the confidence and ability to protect vulnerable women, men and their families from those who commit these crimes against the person.

Any reduction to the budget in this area can and will have a catastrophic consequence. It will be felt mostly in rural areas, where they find it difficult to get access to the right and proper people who can provide that support to women and men. I am well aware of cases where the PSNI, for different reasons, has failed to fully carry out its duties when dealing with domestic abuse. That includes not recording or taking statements, not following proper procedures and not putting in place arrangements for a victim to get medical assistance and to access the right assistance at the time. There are areas within that that need to be looked at, and we need to ensure that the budget goes in the right direction.

We also need to look at the training of all our PSNI officers. I am aware that in all the districts of policing there is a domestic violence team, but it is essential and important to note that all officers have the ability to deal with domestic abuse. It should be one of the PSNI's strategic priorities for the coming year. I am aware of a corporate plan that the PSNI has for keeping people safe, but in that plan domestic abuse must remain at the top and high on the agenda of priorities. If it is not, we will be failing the public for generations to come. The PPS should also review how it treats cases of domestic abuse. I am aware of instances when the PSNI has forwarded cases to the PPS and the PPS has responded with "No case to answer". That can be horrendous for the victim and their family.

As I stated, the public need to have the confidence to report domestic abuse and crime, and there needs to be innovative ways of dealing with that. Although we have increasing numbers of recorded domestic abuse incidents year on year, the under-reporting of domestic abuse and domestic crime against the person still remains very high. Only when we have an effective and responsive justice system from the PPS and the PSNI through to the courts can we collectively address this scourge on our society.

Moving forward with this topic, we need to learn lessons from the 2014-15 Budget on how funding for front-line services like Women's Aid is prioritised so that groups and organisations can continue to deliver the good work they do in this area. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on that when he makes his final comments.

Photo of Paula Bradshaw Paula Bradshaw Alliance

I have two points to make before I get into the body of my speech. First of all, I pass on my good wishes to Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, my South Belfast colleague, in his role as Finance Minister. I would also like to address a comment made by Edwin Poots and the irony of his criticism of the Alliance Justice Minister for his approach to addressing the reform of legal aid and the Prison Service head on, despite the fact that successive DUP Health Ministers, during the last mandate, failed to make any inroads into the need for reform in the health and social care sector. It is rather ironic that he chose to do that.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

Does the Member also recognise that the issue was brought by the Justice Minister repeatedly to the Executive, but it was blocked by the two parties that controlled the Executive agenda.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Paula Bradshaw Paula Bradshaw Alliance

Thank you.

Earlier today and this afternoon, we have heard many issues arising from the Budget. I emphasise that I oppose the motion, but I wish to put forward a constructive viewpoint of opposition to it. It bears repeating that we are very concerned by the failure to consider the long term adequately, the failure to tackle vested interests, particularly segregated institutions, which means money is wasted on buildings that are not necessary, and the failure to invest adequately in skills and training where it is required, rendering it —

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

I thank the Member for giving way. She referred to the need to stop investing so much in buildings: is that a reference to Stranmillis University College? Is it still the view of the Alliance Party that it should close?

Photo of Paula Bradshaw Paula Bradshaw Alliance

We do not believe in buildings; we believe in services. We encouraged those institutions to work together to come up with a workable solution that would have saved money from the public purse.

As I said, the failure to invest adequately in skills and training where it is required renders pointless any attempt at promoting inward investment by taking a further chunk out of our public service budget to reduce corporation tax in certain cases.

The Programme for Government actually offers hope for the future. It is mystifying why some parties who were involved in the work that went into it have now turned their back on it completely. Therefore, I intend to take my time here to be constructive and ask questions about whether we are really aligning some of the better aspects of that framework with our Budget priorities, particularly around health.

The Programme for Government framework has 14 outcomes. A first step will be to consider how much of the overall devolved Budget is allocated to each outcome, perhaps also considering if there is any other money, for example through welfare expenditure or, dare I say, EU funding, that can usefully complement it. Doing that will not be an exact science, but it will usefully help allocate responsibility for each outcome and lines of accountability for delivery. That may be usefully extended to indicators. How much of the Budget is being allocated to reducing health inequality, for example? How much of that is being allocated in the most efficient manner? For those responsible for the programmes under each indicator, are they able to take a broad view, beyond their individual silo, to allocate the funds in the most efficient manner and with accountability?

We have already this term had a debate in the Assembly on illegal drugs, which particularly affect health in the areas where life expectancy is broadly lowest. Yet, this is not a Department of Health issue and nor is housing, welfare provision or education. All of those have an impact on health. The same applies to increasing healthy life expectancy, improving mental health and reducing preventable deaths, as they are all issues that go well beyond any Department.

The outcome-based approach that Scotland has been developing for nearly a decade is genuinely innovative. The fundamental question is whether this Budget is genuinely innovative too. Scots involved with developing the approach will tell you that it requires tackling vested interests — notably institutions — managing expectations and more local allocation of funding, often well beyond central government.

On the first of those, my colleagues have given an obvious example: it is clear that we do not need to train so many teachers in segregated colleges. Continuing to do so is the precise opposite of the outcome-based approach the Executive parties are now embarked on and supposedly supporting. The same applies, frankly, to education and health. An outcomes-based approach would see the notion of community-based schooling — allocating budgets not to the interests of individual schools but for the overall local communities they serve — taken seriously. We have supposedly been doing this for some time, but there is scant evidence of any actual outcome.

In health, of course, we have been told by reviews, reports and panels that we need to re-image the health service, yet absolutely no work has been done to explain that to local communities, who fear that reform, which would, in fact, be good for their health, is actually a loss of some sort.

The second of those — the management of expectations — again requires more realistic engagement with the public and local communities about how far the taxes and rates they pay will go. An outcomes-based approach requires more honesty from civic leaders, including politicians, that not every demand can or even should be met and that often the issue is not how much money is spent but how it is spent. I therefore ask how the Executive parties propose to openly and honestly engage with the public on the need to reform services, including merging institutions and relocating services for the greater long-term good.

There is also the issue of more local allocation of funding, which the Executive parties have not been comfortable with until this point. The failure, for example, to devolve urban regeneration to councils is a step away from an outcomes-based approach, not towards one.

For some of the reasons outlined, the whole purpose of the new approach is for communities to have a greater say in their health provision, their welfare provision, their education and everything else. The problem with the Budget is that it does nothing to demonstrate how the new approach outlined in the framework has been taken into account.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Is it not also the case that some councils are happy for regeneration powers not to be devolved at this time until they become accustomed and used to the powers that they already have? When the powers come, the councils will be in a better place to use them to the ultimate benefit of their constituents.

Photo of Paula Bradshaw Paula Bradshaw Alliance

I appreciate that that was the case, but we are now two years into the council term. Many of them should be up to speed by now.

How far, for example, will we travel in the right direction on a good jobs index if we are not adequately investing in skills? How do we increase the proportion of graduates moving into employment within six months if we continue deliberately to train hundreds of young people for careers that we know do not exist? Many more such questions arise from the Budget and Programme for Government process.

In conclusion, I summarise by saying that the Programme for Government framework requires a re-imaging of how we do public services, but I see little re-imaging of how we do the Budget. In principle, I have no objection to borrowing more money or raising more revenue in a fair way —

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

Will the Member bring her remarks to a close, please?

Photo of Paula Bradshaw Paula Bradshaw Alliance

— but I absolutely oppose doing that while leaving segregation in place and deliberately mismatching skills.

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

First, I welcome the Minister to his role. I will speak in my role as the Deputy Chair of the Economy Committee and as the opposition spokesman on the economy. I also extend my good views on his endeavours to achieve some form of control and direction over the Northern Ireland Government's financing, budgeting and forecasting process. May I also say that, having personally worked with you before, we, as an Opposition, look forward to seeing how much you can bring your business perspective to the Department and, hopefully, achieve a much more focused and fit-for-purpose Department and see if you can achieve some much-needed reform? While we may disagree on the degree of austerity that is coming from Whitehall, my party would point to the impenetrable state of our financial processes. As we have seen from the plethora of SpAds, inefficiency and quangos and a governing organisation that seems to be significantly overstaffed at some levels for its purpose, we believe that substantial savings can be achieved and passed on, not just to the Department for the Economy but to other Departments.

Our Committee and I have yet to see or be briefed on the detail of the in-year budget, spend, resource or cash and have not yet, regrettably, had the opportunity to discuss with the Economy Minister his plans and programmes for the future. I therefore apologise for making these limited observations based on the Statement of Excesses and the Estimates. While I am aware that some of these issues may have been raised before, we have some questions in relation to the presentation of the figures for the overall Budget and, indeed, for the Department for the Economy. Having looked at the Excess Vote, I have to ask how we manage to get the excess of resource expenditure to be close to £16 million or 15·8% out in our 2014-15 spring Supplementary Estimates. While that has been described as a technical accounting issue, I am sure that, in his previous roles, the Finance Minister would have found such a negative variation unacceptable, and we should not find it acceptable either.

As an Opposition, we would like to be assured that budgeting and accurate forecasting are now at the core of his Department. Again, I call on the Minister to institute a rigorous annual benchmarking of the delivery of our Government against those of the other regions and the Republic of Ireland so that we, the people of Northern Ireland, can assess whether we have a Government and Civil Service that are actually fit for purpose.

In the rather thin Department for the Economy part of the Estimates, I note issues that the Minister and his Department may wish to comment on. One of the most significant is that the Department for the Economy is also the managing authority for the Northern Ireland European social fund (ESF), which has a total value from 2014 to 2020 of £360 million. What contingency has his Department made to fill the shortfall in the event of a Brexit, and has other work been conducted across all Departments to see how much funding is being expected from EU funding lines and on the impact that a Brexit would have on those programmes? I suggest that we look at those issues fairly urgently.

I would also like to look at the Main Estimates for 2016-17 in his Department's resource-to-cash reconciliation, particularly when it looks at depreciation, impairments and revaluations. The 2014 out-turn had a negative variation of about £121 million and a provision of minus £131 million in 2016-17. In the 2015-16 presentations, it was a positive variation of £92 million. In the absence of any form of detailed explanation, can the Minister ask the officials to provide some detail? That looks like a variation from baseline of some £232 million. How could that possibly be? Unsurprisingly, however, the 2015 net cash requirement appears, miraculously, to be broadly in line with the other years. I do not understand that, and, Minister, using your experience in the business community, I think that you would probably like to have a close look at that one as well, because I do not understand it.

We also have concerns, among others, over support to the universities sector; the promotion of Northern Ireland plc by Invest Northern Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland; and the role of North/South bodies and their efficacy and value for money. I am sure that the Finance Minister will bring a greater rigour to future budgeting and forecasting, and, as an Opposition, we will be providing suitable scrutiny and vigour. For that, however, we need appropriate and timely detail, for not just us but, importantly, all the Northern Ireland community, and we need to do that as a matter of urgency.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I, too, congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well during his tenure.

I want to ask him a number of questions. I ask the Minister to look, sometime or other, at section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Act 2016, which refers to draft Budgets and the obligation that falls on him to table, in a financial year, a motion on the UK funding allocated for that year. That might be in the future, but my question is in the short term.

Section 9(2) refers to the fact that you would be required, if the Secretary of State so directs, to lay a statement if the amount of the block grant had been revised in-year. Therefore, my question to the Minister, and this was picked up earlier by the Alliance Party, is this: are you picking up anything that suggests to you that you might have to come before the House, under the legislation passed by the Westminster Parliament earlier this year, with a statement about a revised Budget block grant from London? I ask that not least because of the comments made by Mr Nesbitt on what Ulster Bank says today — not in May but today — about the economic circumstances for the next quarter; namely:

"a marked deterioration in business conditions within the construction sector" and that:

"a significant slowdown has been in evidence."

One of the reasons for that is what? The slowdown in the construction business in Britain.

I come to my second question for the Minister. A motion on childcare was passed last week, endorsed by the Minister's own party and not opposed by any other party. The Minister of Education indicated that, although he may have some issues about when and how to roll out childcare, he did not appear to oppose the principle of the roll-out of childcare to 20 hours, and 30 hours thereafter, for three- and four-year-olds.

If the Minister of Education were to come to the Minister of Finance with a specific proposal in that regard in this year or in coming years, what would his attitude be? I ask that not least because, as the Minister rightly indicated, the roll-out increasing it to 20 hours a week even in this financial year would cost £15 million. That happens to be in and around the suggested figure that you will allocate in a June monitoring round to deal with the in-year pressures on our schools budget. Until the Chair of the Education Committee indicated this, I was not aware that £15 million will be released under June monitoring to deal with the in-year pressures on our school budgets and £5 million for special needs. Can you indicate whether, if that is the case, that is a quick fix for the problem this year or whether it will be an enduring approach over the lifetime of this mandate so that our school principals have certainty in respect of their budgets, not just for this year but for coming years?

My fourth question to the Minister is on the A5. As he will know, his predecessor tabled a ministerial statement on 17 December outlining spend on the A5 in each of the financial years up to 2021, the spend for 2016-17 being £13·2 million. The Minister may or may not be aware that the deputy First Minister said that, in respect of that spend, construction work would be commenced by the autumn of this year. Yet, as the Minister is likely to know, or will know soon enough, a public inquiry will not even be commenced or concluded by the autumn of this year. A recommendation will go to the Minister for Infrastructure some time in the spring or summer of next year, and the earliest possible date of any spend on construction works on the A5 will be the autumn of 2017. That matter was confirmed to us in our conversations with senior civil servants during the abortive PFG negotiations. Can the Minister confirm that the Budget allocation of £13·2 million this year for the A5 is substantially not going to be spent because there is not going to be substantial works completed in respect of the A5 during this year?

My fifth question to the Minister concerns the fact that he raged against austerity, and he was right to do so. I have spent many a long hour, maybe too many hours, in the Chamber — Mr Storey is laughing — raging against austerity and also making proposals to deal with austerity on the pensions, Budget and welfare sides. Mr O'Dowd also raged against austerity in his speech, and he was right to do so. Will the Finance Minister now confirm that, when powers on welfare were surrendered last autumn, just before Christmas, to London, the consequence of that was that there will be a freeze on benefits for the next four years and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can unilaterally change the rules on the benefit cap and reduce it without reference to you or to anybody in this Chamber and can make other malign welfare changes? Will the Minister confirm that, in all the rage against welfare reform and against austerity, you signed up to austerity with the legislative consent motion that was passed in the Chamber last year? So much for raging against austerity.

I have two final points. I go back to the point raised by Mr Nesbitt. Is it not time for even a notional budget line to be created to give victims of institutional abuse some sense that now, on the far side of Hart, there will be a redress scheme? If you meet the victims of institutional abuse, they tell you that they are dying as we speak. They deserve some certainty. Give it to them by even a notional budget line for a redress scheme rather than let it hang and hang and hang until the far side of Hart and beyond for many a long year —

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

They have, Minister, been waiting far too long.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I rise to make a few comments in relation to the onerous task that lies to the Finance Minister over the next couple of days. Having been in that post, I know all too well the challenges that he will face. I have to say, however, that I am disappointed that the previous Member who spoke did not go as far as he did when I was the Minister and accuse the current Minister of being employed by DWP.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

That will be tomorrow — or by the Treasury, because he obviously wants to take away the current Minister's capacity for independent thinking.

When you speak in the House on finance, it has to be set in a particular context. Sometimes, the comments that come from the leaders of the opposition parties really amaze me. I say the leaders of the opposition parties, not the leader of the Opposition, because we have a plethora of opposition parties, and, at the last count, I do not know how many leaders there were of the opposition. They all have their views on what should be done, but the one thing that they all seem to forget is that we are dependent on the fact that we are part of the United Kingdom; that we are part of the sovereign Parliament at Westminster, which gives a block grant to Northern Ireland; and that, for the last number of years, there has been a considerable strain on that particular Budget.

As Members and citizens of the United Kingdom, I think it would do us well to always couch what we say in reality, and not live in this constant world that is easy for people to live in, where a money tree grows at the bottom of the Stormont estate — a place where all they have to do is come to the House, make a few complaints, get a few petitions, have a few nice words, have the press statement out before you come to the House and, suddenly, the money will appear. Well that is not how it works in reality in the real world. I am surprised by people like the Deputy Chair of the Economy Committee, who, as he tells us regularly, having been in the business world would recognise some fiscal realities for how we have to operate in the political world.

I will move on to some of the issues that, I think, are of relevance for our constituents.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance 4:30, 13 June 2016

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does he recognise that the two parties that went into the last election making the single biggest promise on spending were his party and Sinn Féin with respect to an extra £1 billion for Health? All of the other parties' spending commitments were dwarfed by that.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Yes, and I also say that the electorate endorsed what my party did, and that is why we had the election result we did. I am not one of those people who believes that, as a senior member of the Ulster Unionist Party in north Antrim famously said, an election manifesto is only good for the day of the election and after that the world moves on. I still have a copy of our election manifesto, and the commitments that we made in it are not just words that are written to fill pages; they are things that we actually believe should happen to ensure that Northern Ireland keeps moving forward. That includes the creation of more jobs. In my constituency of North Antrim, I know all too well what it is like to deal with the consequences of the closure of JTI; the closure of Michelin; the devastating impact that Pattons had in relation to the difficulties that were created; and many other jobs that have been lost.

If it is now down to the two parties in the Executive, and it is, I say to the Minister to work with his colleagues in other Departments and that our focus needs to be the creation of jobs. I do not just want jobs created in North Antrim for my own constituents — I want them wherever the need exists. We have seen a slight increase in the unemployment figures recently. We have the news today coming in relation to the Ulster Bank. Those are issues of concern. They are issues that we ought to be worried about, but let no one be foolish enough to think that somehow coming into the House and making throwaway comments — making good headlines if you can get on 'Newsline' at 6:00 pm — will somehow, automatically, fix the issue.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He refers to the context of these things, and, of course, the context is that we now have a Tory-majority Government, which only one party in the Chamber campaigned to put in office. If fingers are to be pointed anywhere for the constraints in the Budget in Northern Ireland, who campaigned for them in 2010, and who put them in?

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I also happen to be one of those individuals who keeps —

A Member:

[Inaudible.]

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Does the Member want me to give way?

I happen to be one of those people who keeps a lot of election memorabilia, and I have the UCUNF document. That was that failed political process with the Tories. If we want to see where the problem lies, I think one of the leaders of the Opposition need not look any further.

Let us come to some issues that have been of benefit to our business community. I refer to employment and the need to create new jobs in Northern Ireland. That has to be for us a priority, whether it is in Loughguile or Loughgall, or whether it happens to be in Ballymoney or Banbridge. Wherever it is across Northern Ireland, the focus has to be on creating good, sustainable jobs for our constituents. It is also about those small and medium-sized businesses that are the backbone of our industry and our economy. In the previous Executive, let us not forget that we helped over 35,000 properties through small business rates relief; let us not forget that a total of 530 properties benefited from the empty property relief scheme; and let us not forget that it was this party, the DUP, that gave the commitment to, and delivered on, industrial derating, which benefited a total of 4,443 properties. That, I think, was a commitment not only to what we want to see in new investment but to what we have.

I know how important small and medium-sized enterprises are in my constituency. I ask the Finance Minister to continue to do the work that needs to be done to underpin those small and medium-sized enterprises and the large manufacturing companies. I am delighted we now have a number of those large companies in north Antrim, such as Terex, which is a world leader in the manufacturing industry. I want to see those companies progress and prosper in a way that benefits not only them as companies but the people of Northern Ireland.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

I am pleased to speak as the Chair of the Committee for the Economy. I say that with the caveat that most Committee Chairs have felt or expressed today, namely that the Committees have only recently begun to meet and are involved in high-level briefings with departmental officials. So, in detailed matters such as those in front of us, the Committees have yet to take a view. However, the Committee sees its roll in scrutinising the Department's budget as a key function. We look forward to closely engaging with the Minister on that.

The Economy Department's activities underpin a great deal of what is in the draft Programme for Government. The Department is pivotal to the development of greater prosperity across the North and ensuring, as people have been referring to, that there is the benefit of well-paid jobs for people right across the North, including an improvement in skills and innovation.

Members are aware, of course, that the debate allows detailed scrutiny of spending plans for Departments and seeks the authorisation of Members for that funding to be provided. The Committee notes that the provision sought by the Department for 2016-17 is 18·5% higher than the final net provision for 2015-16. However, as we have not yet seen the detailed outworkings of the reasons for and the impact of that increase, it is difficult to comment on it. The Committee is also aware that a significant proportion of the Department's budget is controlled through arm's-length bodies and other core-funded partner organisations. In addition, the Department has considerable annually managed expenditure in the form of demand-led programmes.

The Committee is, I am sure, in agreement that the Department for the Economy should be properly resourced, but we also recognise that there is a difference between adequate resourcing and money well spent. In the debates last week on the draft Programme for Government, the manufacturing strategy and the economy strategy, we highlighted that the Committee would be undertaking a detailed analysis of the models of resourcing that the Department and its key arm's-length bodies use. Members want to ensure that the Department is responsive to the needs of the North and our need to work as part of a global economy.

We have asked the Department for more information on a range of issues, including budget and finances, and we look forward to engaging with the Minister on all that. We also look forward to engaging with the stakeholder groups, industry, businesses, unions and others that have a very strong industry. Of course, the further and higher education sectors are now part of the Committee's remit on the outworking of the Department's work in the time ahead and the budget that will, hopefully, match that.

I have a couple of points on my own behalf. I have been listening to the debate, waiting for some pearls of wisdom to come from those who criticise and, in the case of the Alliance Party at least, intend to vote against the motion. Stephen Farry, in fairness to him, did put forward some suggestions — none of which I agree with, but at least he put forward some suggestions. I have not heard much from others. I heard the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee saying that the Minister must learn to slice the money more effectively. I certainly hope that he has much greater ambition than simply fine-slicing the pie that we already have. He is on record as looking for ways to raise further money and increase the spending power of the Executive.

Photo of Claire Hanna Claire Hanna Social Democratic and Labour Party

Did you just walk in halfway through the sentence? The Member will recall that, prior to the part where I talked about more effectively slicing the pie, I talked about growing the pie and seeking some information on the revenue raising that would be part of that.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

I assure the Member that I was here for the entirety of her speech. That was the remark that stood out for me. As I said, I hope that —

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

— the Minister displays more ambition than simply the slicing of the pie in a better way.

A number of Members raised the issue of corporation tax. That strikes me as amusing. It was also raised at Question Time with the deputy First Minister. The position around corporation tax is in the Fresh Start Agreement; it outlines the target figure, the target date and the negotiation that has to take place in and around affordability. Interestingly, during the negotiations, the British Government wanted to remove the affordability part of that discussion, because they wanted a done deal there and then and no further negotiations to try to get the best deal possible for the Executive and, consequently, the people of the North. It seems now that people want to return to that position; they argue that we should just settle now and that the Minister should not involve himself in a negotiation to try to get the best deal possible but just have the matter settled and accept what is on the table at the moment. That would be an absolutely unwise strategy. I wonder why people who purport to represent constituents out in the community, who want better spending and who criticise the spending of the Executive want to shut down an important negotiation that the Minister of Finance and the Executive will have with the Treasury ahead of the process.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I appreciate what he is setting out and that there is an issue, in his mind, about affordability. Certainly, from our perspective, there is an issue around skills. However, the potential problem is that your colleagues in the DUP are saying that this is happening — no ifs or buts. Invest Northern Ireland is out selling Northern Ireland as an investment location today on the basis that this will be in place for certain in April 2018. There is a mixed message coming from the two parties in the Government.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

It is not the case in my mind; it is the case in the Fresh Start Agreement. A caveat in the delivery of that is affordability. If we were to simply say, "Let's scrap the bit about affordability and just go ahead with the target date and the target rate", we would be going against what is in the Fresh Start Agreement. There is no contradiction between what is in the Fresh Start Agreement and the certainty that people want to provide. We are certain that we can make it affordable and make the date and time frame. However, there is a negotiation to be had with Treasury. It leaves me somewhat bemused when I continuously hear people raising the question again, as if to close down that negotiation, settle for what is on offer now and just say, "This is happening; what's on the table at the moment is good enough". What is on the table is not good enough. The Treasury wanted to close the negotiation down. I do not understand why other people in the Chamber want to assist it in doing that. It certainly was not doing that in the interests of the people whom we represent in the Chamber.

This is an important issue for us. I wish the Finance Minister well in the negotiation that he will be involved in. Regardless of whether the parties here consider themselves to be in the Opposition or in the Executive, or whatever their particular position happens to be, we have a collective responsibility to ensure that we get the best possible deal so that we have the maximum amount of finance available to us to deliver a step change in growing the economy and the other key planks of the Programme for Government: well-being, public services and protecting the most vulnerable in society. We need to arm ourselves with as much as we possibly can to try to deliver on those objectives.

I wish the Finance Minister well. The position in relation to corporation tax is in the Fresh Start Agreement. It was negotiated by all the parties. That is where it sits, and that is what needs to be delivered. I do not doubt that we have the right person in the job to try to do that.

Photo of Jo-Anne Dobson Jo-Anne Dobson UUP 4:45, 13 June 2016

I welcome the opportunity to speak today from a health perspective. First, however, I register my bitter disappointment at the information — or, rather, the total lack of information — that we received from Health officials at last Thursday's Health Committee. Presenting before us for the first time in the new mandate, officials were scheduled to brief us on the June monitoring round. However, despite the Minister referencing this bid in her statement to the House last Monday, they told us that they were unable to discuss or answer any questions on the June monitoring round, which was the very reason why they were attending the Committee in the first place. <BR/>While other Committees have had Ministers and permanent secretaries before them, the Health Committee has had departmental officials who were unable to take questions from us on the very reason why they attended. At a time when the crisis within all levels of the health service is felt dearly by staff and patients alike, this does not bode well for the future; neither does the apparent lack of commitment from the new Minister and her Department to see an end to short-term funding of the health service. That is an aim that the Executive should work towards. When you speak to the trusts, GPs and health managers at all levels, you find that the one thing that they crave, but do not have, is stable finances. I was initially heartened that the Minister included that very phrase in her address to the House last Monday. She talked about attaining:

"the prize of stable finances and sustainable services" — [Official Report (Hansard), 6 June 2016, p2, col 2]

while continuing to seek short-term funding from the Executive. However, it now appears that "stable finances" are to receive only lip service. Officials told me on Thursday that they are working on just a three-year budget for capital and four years for resource. That does not show the forward planning that is needed in our health service, and, indeed, surely when we receive the findings of Professor Bengoa and the subsequent response from the Executive, the long-term budget will become clear. Would it not be more sensible for that budget to look to the future, across the next 10 years or so, as is happening in other regions of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland? On the one hand, we have the promise of stable finances and sustainable services that can only come with reform; on the other, the wheels of government grind slowly.

It looks as though our health service vision is already being set for just the next three to four years, before we even see the findings of Professor Bengoa. We should be looking seriously at proper, costed, future planning to achieve the best healthcare system for all our people. I know that the Finance Minister has a business background, so he will know the importance of future planning. I encourage him, in speaking to his Executive colleagues, especially to his colleague the Minister of Health, to seek to forward plan, not to budget for the short term but seriously plan for the long term. Failure to do so could result in yet further headline-grabbing, multi-million-pound figures that, whilst giving short-term confidence to patients, do little to fix the problems experienced by one in five of our population and by the very dedicated healthcare professionals at all levels who seek to care for those of us who are ill.

Health is arguably the most important Department in the Executive, though, apparently not when it comes to choosing it during a d'Hondt process. It consumes half the Executive's Budget, which should be reason enough to ensure that its future is planned and is, therefore, stable, rather than being held together and managed for the short term. There are undoubtedly many challenges that our health service faces: an ageing population; the increase in the incidence of diabetes; the delivery of autism services; the promotion of public health and healthy eating; and, from my perspective, the continued promotion of the life-saving power of organ donation.

Last year, as a result of the chaos in our health spending over recent times, the Minister of Finance and the Executive were given unprecedented controls over the Department of Health's expenditure. I ask the Minister for an update on those powers, and whether he is confident that the contents of the Estimates before us mean that this summer will not see a repeat of the bizarre scenes from two years ago, when our then Health Minister went on the airwaves in some sort of internal party pincer movement.

Looking at the document before us, I find that the figures in it are effectively impenetrable, given the extremely limited information accompanying the spending lines.

That, along with the failure of the Department to brief the Committee, makes genuine scrutiny almost impossible, and that is something that, I hope, the Finance Minister will consider. Nevertheless, with the new Health Minister in place, an opportunity exists to address some of the long-standing concerns over the management of her Department's finances, not least the levels being spent on administration — something that, I see in today's Estimates, is set to increase yet again — but also other more practical steps, such as, once and for all, giving the Fire and Rescue Service the front-line status that it deserves. Those are not challenges that can be forgotten about; they must be addressed head-on. To do so, they must form part of the planning for the future system of healthcare in Northern Ireland.

Without a sure and stable financial footing, our health service will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis. Its staff continue to work in unprecedented conditions, and, as patients, our constituents are left to wait, worry and risk coming to even greater harm. If the Executive are serious about tackling the number one priority that they face — the deepest crisis since devolution was restored — I implore the Finance Minister to seek to set a sure footing for the finances of our health service for the long term.

Photo of Trevor Lunn Trevor Lunn Alliance

Like everybody else, I welcome the Minister to his new post. I am sure that he will bring his normal energy and enthusiasm to the role. We may not see quite as many tweets from the towpath, although I am sure that he will get his exercise all the same.

This is a question of balance, is it not? It is about balance between promises and commitments made and resources available, with the need to eliminate waste and inefficiency thrown in. I am interested in the various views, particularly those that the Minister put forward in his opening remarks. He has indicated that he has no intention of allowing any revenue-raising opportunities. That is how it sounds to me. He mentioned student fees and water charges: we will not give him an argument there. However, is he opposed to all forms of revenue-raising, such as the removal of the rates cap, prescription charges or the removal of the link between the regional rate and the rate of inflation? There are opportunities there, but he seems to be very much in favour of borrowing; indeed, if the Minister has met him, I am sure that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is still recovering.

Borrowing has its place; of course it does. The recent announcement of funding for housing associations from European funds — just to make the point, Mr Deputy Speaker — is very welcome. The more of that, perhaps, the better. It comes at a very advantageous rate of interest from the central bank. That is fair enough.

Mr Storey majored on job creation being the ultimate priority for the Assembly. I do not disagree with that at all, but the main lever — the silver bullet — for job creation remains corporation tax. No matter how many times I listen to Sinn Féin talk about corporation tax, I remain doubtful about what is going on.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I appreciate the comment that the Member made about the money recently secured from the European Investment Bank by Choice and Apex. Does he agree that, if we can get the issue of housing right, through a structure for the Housing Executive, the private sector and the housing associations — I trust that the Finance Minister will take this into account with his colleague in the Department for Communities — we will unleash the construction industry in Northern Ireland? Given the comments of the Ulster Bank today, the construction industry needs that help, and it will certainly be to the benefit of our constituents.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Trevor Lunn Trevor Lunn Alliance

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank Mr Storey for that. I know that those things interlink: one benefit produces another benefit. That is sound thinking.

The impression from the DUP is that corporation tax is a done deal, and the impression that I get from Mr Murphy is that corporation tax will be a done deal. The comment from the Minister, I think, on the radio recently was that corporation tax was not yet a done deal.

If I were a businessman in charge of a multinational company and was approached in America, let us say, by Invest NI with a proposition, I would be looking years ahead at these arrangements. In less than two years, this thing is supposed to be devolved, but we are not there yet. We should now be touring the world, as Minister McGuinness and the First Minister will obviously be doing, to promote this as a huge advantage to doing business in Northern Ireland, and we are not there yet. This thing could easily be postponed.

Mr Ó Muilleoir will know perfectly well that there is nothing that business hates more than uncertainty. You have to have certainty. You have to have infrastructure, a low wage base and all the factors that feed in, but uncertainty is the killer.

Look at the promises that have been made. A reduction in corporation tax is one; the abolition of air passenger duty is another. Somebody mentioned earlier £1 billion for the health service. Another figure that I saw recently in the 'Belfast Telegraph' was £1 billion for roads infrastructure. In fairness, I have not heard that from the Minister, but I have heard promises galore, particularly coming up to the election, when it seemed as though every substandard road in Northern Ireland was to be improved. It was promises galore; big money. I wonder how all this will balance.

Should we borrow first — borrow our way out of trouble — or should we be engaged, perhaps, in trying to eliminate waste and improve efficiency? I know that we bang on about this, but look at the costs of a divided society; they are there for all to see. Deloitte and various authorities come up with figures. I do not know what the correct figure is, but I imagine that if it was eliminated, it would cover that £1 billion for the health service for sure.

Look at the education system, and I am sure that others mentioned it today: we have maybe 70,000 empty desks in a school population of just over 300,000. That is close to 25%. I am not saying that eliminating that number of empty desks would eliminate the same proportion of schools that we do not need. If it did, it would be upwards of 200 schools. Now, I am not for one minute suggesting that that is a way to go, but there has to be some rationalisation eventually. Those are the decisions that we keep putting off. Here we are, after an election, with three years clear, perhaps, in which people do not need to worry quite so much about being re-elected, and it is really time to move on some of these things.

Others mentioned the health service and the clear demand there to take rational decisions and try to work within its budget. We cannot keep increasing the health service budget by whatever the required figure is — some 6% a year. We just cannot do it. That is on top of the £1 billion, apparently. The money is not there; it will not be there. I do not believe that we can borrow our way out of that situation. In fact, it would be totally incomprehensible to me if we tried to do so.

Somebody mentioned the Prison Service, and there is a clear requirement to put more money into it; it has been starved of finance for far too long. I could mention Desertcreat. Where does that stand now? As far as I can see, it has gone from the Department of Justice, and now the Department of Health has to look after it, as it will be a Fire Service facility. How much money has been spent on Desertcreat already, and we have not yet cut a sod? Actually, we may have had a sod cutting; I am not sure, but, figuratively, we have not done anything about it.

Is the removal of the headquarters of what is now DAERA to Ballykelly to go ahead? Does anybody think that it actually makes sense in the present circumstances? We should be trying to merge those Departments —

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

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

Photo of Trevor Lunn Trevor Lunn Alliance

— not build a grandiose new facility in Ballykelly. It just does not make sense. Those are my questions to the Minister.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

I call the Minister of Finance, Mr Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, to conclude and wind up the debate. The Minister has 47 minutes, and he kicks off, coincidently, with events in France.

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

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin 5:00, 13 June 2016

Kick-off, perhaps, is the correct metaphor. If it has not kicked off yet, I wish Martin O'Neill and na buachaillí glasa — his team — well in their match. The good news is that those of us who wish to see the second half of the game will certainly see it.

I thank all those who took part in the debate. There were many brickbats for other Ministers, and I will let some of those Ministers respond to those, whether it is the Economy Minister, the Health Minister or others, but I will try to address the issues that are central to my remit. If I may, I also thank the Committee Chair and the Committee, the Opposition and members of the DUP and Sinn Féin who allowed accelerated passage of this Bill.

I will start at the end, which means that Mrs Dobson can go and watch the game if she wishes. First, however, I appreciate Mr Lunn's candour, and I differentiate between — I do not know what to call it; maybe Mr Nesbitt can inform me — the junior coalition of the SDLP and the UUP and the Alliance Party, because the Alliance Party today had a raft of alternatives to the spending plans that we have and a series of suggestions. I am not saying that I agree with any of them; as you know, I am vehemently opposed to many of them, but still, there is in the Alliance Party an alternative way forward that is lacking in the other parties. I will begin at the end with Mr Lunn if I may, and I want to respond to as many points as possible.

In relation to corporation tax, I concur with my colleague Mr Murphy. We want to see corporation tax reduced. We have set the date and the rate, but everyone here agrees that we want to do that to create as many jobs as possible. Therefore, it is in our interests that the reduction to the block grant is kept to the minimum. There is no one here, in opposition or in the Government parties, who would like me not to get the best deal. Have the negotiations on that best deal started? No, they have not. This may be no surprise to those who followed the income tax discussion in Scotland. The deal on income tax with Scotland was made one month before the election. When I say that we should reboot or refresh the negotiations, my entreaty has gone off to the British Chancellor, Mr Osborne, to say that we need to start those negotiations. Mr Lunn is right; we need certainty and to bring those negotiations to a conclusion about the reduction in the block grant. That is where we are. Am I confident that it is achievable and affordable? Yes, but everyone here expects me to get the best deal possible, and that is what I intend to do.

I will move on to what Mrs Dobson had to say. She is right, although she and Mr Storey may disagree about the most vital issue for the Executive moving forward. Jobs and health are the building blocks, and while I am neither the Minister for the Economy nor the Minister of Health, it is my intention to ensure that when those Departments come seeking support, we find a way, with Executive colleagues, to support them. I echo Mrs Dobson's sentiments, and she can be sure that I will support the Health Minister in particular when she comes forward. However, let me say this: everybody here agrees that money is not the solution. It is not a case of throwing more money at Health. I have heard Members from every party saying that. We all agree that Professor Bengoa from Euskadi, the Basque country, is setting in front of us an alternative to the blank cheque. The blank cheque will not work in health.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he also accept that herein lies the difficulty? I appreciate the comments he made in relation to the Alliance Party, one of the parties of opposition. However, in terms of what the Ulster Unionists are saying, if there is — there may be, and that is an issue for the Health Minister — at some stage a reduction, for example, in bureaucracy in the health service, the first people who will be standing on the picket line, signing a petition and putting out the press statement are the very same people who came into the House today and said that we have wonderful professionals but there has to be change. How do you square that circle? When will those parties start to be honest and tell us who it is that they want to sack or take off the payroll and the benefits that that will bring us?

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

I have more faith in the positions of everyone in the Chamber than my colleague. It is important that they have said that it is not just about money, and we will hold them to that. That said, we made a commitment pre-election — we will hold to it — to provide £1 billion extra for the health service, but in the context of understanding that there has to be real reform. We need to do this better, and we cannot continue to put more money into the system without better outcomes.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I thank the Minister for giving way. He takes the position that no party wants to throw money at the health service, but we are committed to £1 billion. How does the Minister know it will be £1 billion? It could be more, or, if the reforms are very successful, it could be less. Why stick a stake in the ground that it must be £1 billion at this stage?

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

We have made that commitment. I would be surprised if we could not improve the health service with that extra money, never mind stand still. If they are improvements, that is what they will be. We will spend the money on them, because there can always be enhancements to the health service. I have to say that the pressures in health make me believe two things: first, there will be calls for extra money, and, secondly, we need to get to grips with this and progress Professor Bengoa's proposals as quickly as possible.

Mrs Dobson referred to the "impenetrable" Estimates: I thought her colleague Steve Aiken did a fairly good job of penetrating the Estimates and drilling down and almost performing an audit on them. That said, it seems to me that — I do not know whether we refer to them as the junior coalition; I presume I am allowed to — the UUP/SDLP coalition, if I was able use some of the language of Steve Aiken and compare the balance sheets, is weak on cohesion. There are no proposals on what we should do differently. It is very weak on costings, because there were no suggestions from our colleagues in the UUP or SDLP about where we should take money out of and move it to.

We have been there previously. My South Belfast colleague Ms Hanna, at the last debate on the Budget, proposed taking £800,000 from the Executive Office, which would have led to the closure of the victims and survivors unit. Of course, we faced that down. This time, however, they have not made one proposal to move money round in a £10 billion-plus budget. Although Mr Nesbitt called —

Photo of Claire Hanna Claire Hanna Social Democratic and Labour Party

First of all, in the previous debate I did not say that; I proposed taking £800,000 from the extensive administration budget in OFMDFM, which had gone up year on year. We have made proposals, and tomorrow we will again. You choose to ignore them. My colleague in health set out some. We have set out things for childcare, and you ignore them as well. We also made a suggestion about zero-based budgeting. It should not be a case of "This is what we will do, because it is what we have always done"; we should start from day one. Will you respond to that specifically, rather than cherry-pick the things that you will and will not listen to?

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

I do not mind: the SDLP can have its cake and eat it on this one. If it was not to close down the victims and survivors unit by removing £800,000, it was to make 20 people redundant. You can take your pick, but removing £800,000 arbitrarily from what is now the Executive Office would have ended up with that conclusion. I am happy to take recommendations from Members on all sides about how we can do this process better. If they are about zero-based budgeting or a revised process, let us hear them all. However, this is still the core question for the junior coalition: where would they take the money from? I will respond later to Mr Attwood. If we said we wanted —

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. The Minister is right in the sense that, to be fair to the Alliance Party, it has had the gumption to outline some proposals. I do not agree with many of them, but at least they had the gumption to do so. In our constituency, the Minister will be aware, there are many elderly people who, although asset-rich, in that they live in expensive houses, are cash-poor. Does the Minister agree that the proposal to remove the rates cap would not hit millionaires but would, in a constituency like ours, hit pensioners, who can least afford it?

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

We may come to rates later. It was interesting that, in a long debate on finances, Mr Lunn was perhaps the only one who touched on rates. No one else touched on rates, which is the one area where we can raise taxation.

In my view, the balance sheet of the government parties is strong on costings. The policies are there, and the costings are there. We are saying that this is what we want to do. It is strong on vision for a prosperous, shared society. It is strong on operations. We are saying that we think we can be more efficient as a Government and as Departments, and we will push Departments hard to see where savings can be made, such as by moving from 12 to nine Departments. We are prudent in borrowing, but we are also imaginative, and we will not close anything down.

In that respect, I note that Mr Durkan would like us to find a way for the Housing Executive to borrow money to build homes. I am in favour of that, but, of course, if it is on the balance sheet, it does not make any sense. The question and challenge for us as Members is this: do we have the genius and imagination to find a way to allow the Housing Executive to borrow hundreds of millions of pounds, if necessary, and then to pay that back on the basis of the homes and the income streams they create? I believe that it was the view of one of my colleagues on the Finance Committee that we should close up shop and go home because we could not do anything and Westminster held all the cards. I do not actually believe that. It has always been a truism in civil services across the world — I say this with respect to the Department for the Economy, the Department of Agriculture and everybody else — that the real cream is in finance. I believe that that is what we have here. I have no doubt that the team that we have in the Department of Finance will find the ways to grow the funding pie, borrow prudently and give us the funds that we need to invest in the prosperous and shared job-rich future that we wish to create.

My friend, colleague and constituency comrade Claire Hanna made the comment that we are in the driving seat now. That is true: the government parties are in the driving seat. We have the responsibility and the obligation to make the numbers add up. We have the duty to deliver for all people, no matter whom they vote for, but there are also back-seat drivers who can chirp up. They can say, "Go this way" or "Go that way", but, when it comes to the tough terrain, it is up to the driver to make the judgement. When it comes to the tight corner, it is up to the driver to make the right call. When it comes to ensuring that we have vision and we can see straight ahead, again, that is for the Government. That is why we are in the driving seat. Those who wish to be in this seat have to do more than just speak and carp from the back seat. I look forward to that in the time ahead.

I will move to some of the many comments. I commend my young colleague Philip for making his maiden speech here today. Mr Smith makes a number of strong points. Having heard his maiden speech, I look forward to returning to those points and engaging with him in the time ahead. While he has been critical of the government parties, I think that we will find common ground on some of the things that he says. I will work with him. I went to the Finance Committee at the earliest opportunity. This is where we will part ways, Philip, if I may: your party was the enabler of austerity by supporting the Conservative Party in the 2010 election. That lit the fuse on this austerity nightmare that we have been enduring for the last six years, which has, as Nicola Sturgeon recently commented, added great burden and hardship for ordinary people. In my mind, whether you be Tory, Tory-lite or Ulster Unionist, it lacks credibility to come into the House and comment, carp and criticise the Government's policies when you enabled the Tory Government to wage this ideological austerity assault on our people. Yes, we will work together. Yes, I will take on board the points that you raised, especially, as Mrs Dobson said, with regard to health. However, I think that you are holed below the waterline with regard to credibility because of the endorsement and support that you gave — perhaps now you regret it — to the Conservative Party in the 2010 election.

I thank my colleague, the Chair of the Finance Committee, for her constructive remarks. I expect to be challenged by the Committee in the time ahead. We had a useful exchange. I hope to be back to consider other issues. You talked about hope: we are here to give hope to our people. We intend to do that. You talked about a new energy that you feel in the Assembly, and I agree with that. I sat through the year of limbo here when some of you, like Mr Stalford, were lucky enough not to be here, but I see now a completely different approach in the Assembly. I welcome the fresh injection of energy that that has given to all our people in opposition and government parties.

Christopher Stalford talked about the social investment fund, which endured a number of brickbats from some of our friends. Mr Nesbitt described it as a disaster. Ms Hanna criticised how the decisions were taken. I have asked for the figures on the social investment fund. In my view, we are getting it right. Was it good enough or fast enough? No. Do I intend it to be better? Yes. But we are getting it right.

So, was it a disaster? Taughmonagh healthy business centre — £1·1 million, commenced and detailed design, and the cost being finalised prior to contractor procurement; Sandy Row resource centre — £1 million, commenced and contractor procurement due to commence; increased community service at Sure Start Taughmonagh — £51,000, letter of offer issued; increased community service at Sure Start Belvoir and Milltown — £329,000, letter of offer issued. That is only in south Belfast. I could go on and read some of the other areas, and I note that, in east Belfast, Bryson Street surgery got £1 million, and the build is complete and operational. Am I, as Finance Minister, going to insist that procurement is done more quickly and that we find faster, more efficient ways, while being very careful with the public purse to do these things? Yes, I am going to insist on a fresh approach to this, but to describe that sort of money going into working-class communities as a disaster beggars belief.

The Survivors and Victims of Institutional Abuse (SAVIA) came up several times today. I have worked with that group and consider some of them friends and all of them heroes. I believe that it is incumbent on us to find a way to make sure that we offer redress for the terrible horror that they suffered from those who were given positions of responsibility by society. Discussions are continuing. We are following the inquiry. It is up to the Executive Office to come forward with plans, and I look forward to this, but I say to my colleagues and friends in SAVIA that we are with you, we support and admire what you are doing. We can never bring the horror that they suffered to a close, but I hope that we can bring to a conclusion the inquiry and some proposals around that as soon as possible.

There were some questions about Excess Votes and so on, which were technical matters. I think that we will leave those.

I note that Mr Nesbitt mentioned the pay claims of former NIO staff in the settlement of the Northern Ireland Civil Service equal pay claims. He is right: those are works in progress. Discussions are continuing, and if Mr Nesbitt or anyone else wants to come and meet me on those issues, which came up on the doorsteps, as we all know, I am very happy to do that.

Maidir le mo chomrádaí, Barra Mac Giolla Duibh, nach bhfuil anseo anois, creidim; tá sé ar shiúl leis ag amharc ar an pheil ar ndóighe, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Ach ba mhaith liom a rá go nglacaim ar bórd gach rud a dúirt mo chara atá ar iarraidh anois. Agus tá súil agam, de bharr an chaiteachais atá leagtha amach sna Meastacháin Soláthair seo, go ndéanfar an infheistíocht i seirbhísí poiblí ar ardchaighdeán, agus, ar ndóighe, mar a dúirt seisean, sna bóithre agus i gcúrsaí oideachais. Déanfar sin. Barry McElduff's absence is noted. There must be a football match on. I do not believe he calls it football — there must be a soccer match on. I am committed to doing what I can to ensure that rural roads maintenance gets the funding it needs within the constraints of budgets because we cannot and do not have enough money to do everything we want to do.

John O'Dowd is giving up the football match and is still here. That is a fealty that I have not seen very often in politics, but I take on board his remarks about the financial restraints that we are under, and if we are going to talk about teams, I should say that, in joining up with our colleagues in Scotland and Wales, I will be meeting Derek Mackay, the Finance Minister of Scotland, on Wednesday evening and Mark Drakeford, the Finance Minister of Wales, on Thursday morning. When are they playing the English? Does anyone know? I do not know what sort of mood Mark Drakeford will be in Wales, but I believe very much in this trilateral approach. We have many things in common.

Taking on board what Mr Attwood and Mr Durkan said about austerity, no one should think that we have stopped the austerity juggernaut from Westminster and the Tories. There are all sorts of ways, and Mr Durkan touched on some of them, in which they will continue to pick at and try to undermine our Budgets, but, for me, one of the important things is that we are in frequent contact with our colleagues, friends and fellow Celts in Wales and Scotland so that we can push against the people who got fewer than 10,000 votes in the last election.

I note that Mr O'Dowd also mentioned the extra money, which is mentioned elsewhere, for shared and integrated education capital build, and I welcome that.

Stephen Farry wants the process slowed down; the Budget is too fast. I have spent the last 16 months in this place asking people to do things faster while maintaining that they have to be done properly. So I would have thought that everyone would welcome the process of the Estimates and the Supply resolution being speeded up, but not so.

I think that the Committee agreed to the Bill getting accelerated passage because it studied the proposal that we put in front of it and realised that that was the best way forward. Therefore, although I may agree with some of the stuff that Mr Farry says, I cannot agree to slow the process down. I think that we need to move on.

Some Members mentioned the monitoring round. I am sworn to secrecy. Although Mr Attwood indicated that Barry McElduff may have let the cat out of the bag, I cannot say what will be in the monitoring round. It will be announced tomorrow. Mr Farry made some commitments. I know that he would be pleased if those commitments that he made before leaving office were honoured, because he, like me, believes in investing in higher education and that having corporation tax without skills and infrastructure is not good enough. I will be doing, and have been doing, my very best on that, not for Mr Farry or me but for our young people, to ensure that we get the jobs that we want to see. The issue of skills is very important for me. He is aware that, in the 2016-17 Budget, we committed an extra £5 million for the skills enhancement agenda. The previous Finance Minister stated that his intention was to make the first £20 million of resource DEL available in June monitoring. That is an IOU that the former Minister left for me. Hopefully, we can make some progress in that regard tomorrow.

Mr Farry said that there will be a Division, which caused some dismay to Members who were maybe hoping to get home for the football or to watch it somewhere else. I saw the alert go out — no one is allowed to leave the Building — and he will be voting against the motion. The interesting thing is that this is not the first debate, and some Members — those who were fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, to be here in January and February — will realise that some of the arguments have been rehearsed. At that time, although the SDLP, the UUP and the Alliance Party voted against the motions on the Budget, the Supply resolutions and the Vote on Account, Stephen Farry abstained. I do not know whether it is progress or whether we are going backwards that, tonight, you are going to vote against the motion, but we will take that —

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

Ministerial code.

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar — tá sé i bhfad ró-fhada, mar a thuigeann tú. Jonathan Bell, when speaking publicly, has twice now addressed the issue of housing waiting lists and the very real hardship and misery that lie behind not having a home. Those of us who support families realise that you cannot really have a family unless you have a home. We talked about the big issues of health and jobs, but housing is a priority issue. When it comes to borrowing prudently, I think that all of us will welcome the European Investment Bank loans to Apex and Choice last week to enable them to build more homes. People here who have concerns about borrowing should allow us to see whether there are ways in which we can make sure that, for example, the Housing Executive can borrow so that we build more homes. I take on board Mr Bell's comments on homelessness. I hope that we return to the issue, because we need reminded at every turn about how important it is. I also take on board his other two comments. One was about the challenges in the Budget: that we do not have enough money to do what we want to do. The other was about our determination to make sure that jobs, and the creation of jobs, are central to everything that we do.

Mr Durkan, I think, opened a door and agreed with me that we need to find a way of maximising borrowing for organisations such as the NIHE that cannot borrow at the minute. I think that he had a swipe at the Fresh Start Agreement, but, of course, not so long ago, we all supported the Fresh Start Agreement. I am not sure at the minute where the SDLP is on key elements of the Fresh Start Agreement. Certainly, those of us who signed up to the Fresh Start Agreement and the Stormont House Agreement are going to honour them.

We should make it clear that the European Investment Bank loans last week are very welcome. We should have a really positive and almost daily dialogue with the European Investment Bank. It is involved in the NI investment fund, but there are other ways in which to work with the EIB, and I have already asked my officials to start looking at the potential for European Investment Bank framework loans to support local council investment here. I take on board what Mr Storey said about some councils being at different levels. I agree with Paula Bradshaw, who said that Belfast City Council is leading the way on those matters, and we should not hold it back. In fact, I think that we have a lot to learn from Belfast City Council. I am not saying that because Christopher, Claire and Paula were on the council not so long ago, but I do think that we have a lot to learn from Belfast City Council's alacrity in getting things done.

Mr Durkan referred to the welfare reform mitigations, but Mr Attwood attacked the deal that we did on welfare mitigations. In my view, we set aside over £500 million, and we have a panel that is making recommendations on how that money should be used. We know that tax credits did not go ahead, so we have a bit of space there. Someone said earlier — maybe from the Ulster Unionist Party — that it is a big commitment from our society to say that we will have the most generous welfare mitigation package in these islands. It is a big commitment from the supporters of the DUP, the supporters of Sinn Féin, and the supporters of the other parties that support that package. Those who do not support it should say what they want it reduced to. If the Ulster Unionist Party wants to attack the welfare mitigation deal, it can say how much it wants to take off. If Mr Attwood or others think that we should be doing more, let them state how much more we should put into the welfare mitigations and where it should come from. That is the missing element again and again today, with the exception of the Alliance Party, which dealt in broad strokes. Neither the UUP nor the SDLP, when they called for more money, including £20 million for childcare, said where we will take it from. Does it come from the universities, the arts or the hospitals? Who will provide the money for us to do all the things that we want to do? Thus, those of us who are in the driving seat have to make those tough decisions, and we have made them in this Supply resolution and in these Estimates today.

I do not know whether mo chomrádaí Daithí McKay is still here, but it would be above and beyond if he is missing the football match to be here. He raised important points about the delivery of health services, and I take those on board. We have made very bold commitments to health, not only in trying to provide extra money to the tune of £1 billion but in insisting that we will stand by the need to restructure and reform health along with Professor Bengoa. It is vital, therefore, that any reforms identified as a result of the work led by Professor Bengoa be implemented with the support of the Executive. I would go broader than that and would like to see the support of the Opposition for those reforms, but let us see how that develops.

Barry McElduff and Daithí McKay mentioned rural communities. I have not had an official visit yet to a rural community, but it has come up. That is unless we think that Enniskillen is a rural community. It did come up at a meeting in Enniskillen with the chief executive of the council who said that — you will understand this, a LeasCheann Comhairle, as it is your constituency as well as that of others — we have to ensure that rural communities get a full share of this peace dividend.

The derating of sports clubs is an issue on which Mr McKay has majored and which the Finance Committee spent most of last year discussing. I can update the Assembly on it. My Department recently completed a consultation to inform drafting regulations to allow 100% rate relief to be given to unlicensed community amateur sports clubs. The new legislation will be presented to the Finance Committee prior to my asking the Assembly to approve it in September. Qualifying clubs will then have to apply for enhanced relief. At the very latest, this will take effect in the next financial year, but I will be asking Land and Property Services to explore options for implementation for the remainder of the current year, bearing in mind that, legally, it cannot be backdated.

Looking beyond that, I will also ask my officials to look at more fundamental changes that can be made to the treatment of amateur sports clubs as part of the wider review of rating policy to ensure that reliefs are better targeted. All of us realise in our constituencies that the sports clubs do absolutely magnificent work. Perhaps that was undervalued in the past. Part of building up strong, vibrant, dynamic communities is, I think, getting behind sports clubs even more vigorously, and hopefully these proposals on rate relief to sports clubs will help.

Michaela Boyle spoke about domestic violence. That issue came up in a discussion between the new Justice Minister and me earlier today, because it is an issue that she has expressed a real interest in and is determined to focus on. I am happy to work positively with the Justice Minister if she comes forward with additional proposals that need further funding.

I take on board all Paula Bradshaw's points about the Programme for Government, the main thrust of which was that the Programme for Government and the next Budget need to be aligned. We will come forward in the autumn with a Budget for resource from 2017-2020 and for capital from 2017-2021, and we need to make sure that there is joined-up government.

People will have different views about the priorities in the Programme for Government, but one thing that the public will not forgive us for is if we come forward with a Budget for the period ahead that is not wedded to the Programme for Government. I like the word "reimagining". I might steal that. I might not use it in exactly the same context, but I think that we have to reimagine. It is a new era, it is a fresh start, and there is a new look and feel to the Assembly. If that means reimagining the way we approach all the tasks ahead, I think that we should do so.

Steve Aiken had the temerity to mention Brexit, which, as Minister, I will not comment on, but you know the Sinn Féin position that it would be a severe setback to our society if Brexit were to succeed. He made fair points about how we prepare for the outcome on 23 June. It is around the corner and is on top of us, but let us follow that carefully and see what happens. We will then be able to take our counsel on 24 June. Members have their own opinions, and, of course, the House is split on that issue.

I have a very complex response on Excess Votes, which Ms Hanna and Steve Aiken brought up. Claire, I think that you should ask for a meeting with me or the officials rather than me reading that out tonight. They are technical matters; they are paper transfers. Would you like me to —

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

I will email it to you. OK.

Alex Attwood — I think that two people suggested that budgets are going to unravel — I do not know whether it was Mr Farry who used that word — and that there is maybe a need for additional statements. I can assure you that we are in control of the budgets and that I am content with where we are, with the caveat that we do not have enough money.

Budgets, especially resource budgets, are continuing to be squeezed, and the austerity juggernaut has not stopped. I do not use that just for the rhetoric; I use it because, when we unite with one voice, we can halt that juggernaut. You saw that in Britain, where one voice united against an assault on disability payments and stopped the austerity agenda. I want to elevate the commentary about austerity above rhetoric and stress to my colleagues that, with one voice — hopefully with our colleagues in Scotland and Wales — we need to say to London that that is not the way to build the peace or strong societies and that they cannot come back and cut budgets. I assure Mr Attwood that there will not be a further statement to the House. I am content that we will have an interesting monitoring round in the morning and will then push on towards the next big challenge with the Budget in September.

Mr Attwood mentioned the Ulster Bank index and said that he was talking about today and not May, but of course, it is the May index. That is why we mentioned it. Mr Nesbitt mentioned it. I did not mention it. Actually, I did because I have the email, but I read the bit about April. I always take cognisance of economists, but we should not let them be the only source for our policymaking or our strategies. As we are in the throes and the maw of the Brexit referendum, no one will be surprised that there is a lack of confidence, but I note from the Ulster Bank index today that we are still moving forward.

I look forward to the June monitoring round tomorrow. I do not know where the feeling that there may be some issues came from. I think that there will be a positive June monitoring round in the morning. I reiterate what I said about SAVIA: my commitment to SAVIA continues.

Mr Attwood also asked about the budget for the A5. I am confident that if we do not spend that money this year for different reasons, especially if they relate to the Planning Appeals Commission's public inquiry, that it will be spent in this mandate. That is a bold statement: we will deliver the A5 and A6 in this mandate.

We are surely coming to the close. Mervyn Storey is more laudatory of the British Government than I would be. That may surprise people. He lionises their commitment. It is my view and conviction — we mentioned it at the Committee last week — that the link to Britain is not to our advantage and that our economy would be much more prosperous if the decisions were not made outwith this place, but we will move on from that. The one thing that I will agree with Mervyn Storey on is that we will focus on jobs. The Estimates are not just Estimates for health and education. They are also Estimates for entrepreneurs, for small and medium-sized enterprises, and for larger investment.

I note the hammer blows that his constituency has suffered over the last 18 months, with major manufacturers closing.

Lastly, I do not know whether we have any news from the football game.

A Member:

Nil-nil.

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

Nil-nil. In that case, I want to draw my remarks to a close. I thank Members for their good wishes. I am sure that you will not be just so temperate and considerate in your comments in the time ahead, when we get into this role properly. It is a big privilege, and I believe that I have the good wishes of all of the House. We may disagree, but it is my conviction that, at the end of the day, we want the best for our people and our constituents.

Assembly approval of the Supply motion today and the associated departmental expenditure plans laid out in the 2016-17 Main Estimates is a crucial stage of the existing public expenditure cycle. Failure to pass the 2016-17 Supply resolution at this juncture would have serious consequences for the ongoing provision of public services.

I do not think there has been a Division on the Estimates in some time, Mr Farry, but that is what democracy is all about. Le do chead, a LeasCheann Comhairle, sílim go dtáinig mé isteach beagán faoin am, ba mhaith liom an rún seo a mholadh don Tionól, agus tá súil agam go nglacfar leis. I commend the motion to the Assembly and beg to move.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

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

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

That this Assembly approves that resources, not exceeding £69,281,105.15 be authorised for use by the Department of Finance and the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, for the year ending 31 March 2015, as summarised in part II of the 2014-15 Statement of Excesses that was laid before the Assembly on 1 June 2016.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

As there are Ayes from all side of the House and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated.

We will now move to the motion on the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2016-17, which has already been debated. Glaoim ar an Aire Airgeadais. I call the Minister of Finance.

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

Le do chead, a LeasCheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom an Bille Cáinaisnéise uimhir a dó a chur i láthair an Tionóil. I beg to introduce the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Have we agreed the previous one?

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

No. Can I ask you to move the motion on the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2016-17, le do thoil?

Photo of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Sinn Féin

I beg to move:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,986,369,200, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2017; and that resources, not exceeding £8,693,136,600, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman 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 3(b) and 3(a) of table 1·3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2016-17 that was laid before the Assembly on 1 June 2016.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

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

Question put. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 56; Noes 10

AYES

NATIONALIST:

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

UNIONIST:

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

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr O'Dowd, Mr Robinson

NOES

UNIONIST:

Mr Allister

OTHER:

Mr Agnew, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Dickson, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle

Tellers for the Noes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Dickson

<TR><TD>Total Votes
66Total Ayes56[84.8%]
Nationalist Votes25Nationalist Ayes25[100.0%]
Unionist Votes32Unionist Ayes31[96.9%]
Other Votes9Other Ayes0[0.0%]
<BR/>

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,986,369,200, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2017; and that resources, not exceeding £8,693,136,600, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman 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 3(b) and 3(a) of table 1·3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2016-17 that was laid before the Assembly on 1 June 2016.