Budget (No. 3) Bill: Second Stage

Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 20 October 2020.

Alert me about debates like this

Debate resumed on motion:

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 3) Bill [NIA Bill 09/17-22] be agreed. — [Mr Murphy (The Minister of Finance).]

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I want to begin with an apology to my colleague Mr Paul Givan, who, I understand, I referred to as Mr Paul Girvan. As we know, Paul Girvan is in another place, so I apologise to Mr Givan.

Photo of Mark Durkan Mark Durkan Social Democratic and Labour Party

You should be apologising to Mr Girvan.

[Laughter.]

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

In the debate, Andy Allen asked a question as I was talking about the Minister's initiative to tackle underachievement. He, very rightly, asked about housing and whether it was a factor in underachievement. Indeed, I would make the point that, as the Minister develops the initiative on underachievement, I believe that two things will come out of it. I say to the Minister of Finance that we need to address urgently the issue of poor-quality and overcrowded housing, not just in my constituency but where it exists across Northern Ireland. Not to do so would be shameful for the future.

The work on underachievement will also require a need to work in partnership with the Health Department, and I believe that that will be in the report of the expert group on underachievement that the Minister has established.

My specific experience is around family intervention teams (FITs): helping families who are finding it difficult to cope, for whatever reason, and children who are finding it difficult to gain the benefit of education. Teachers are spending more and more time on social issues than on education. In that respect, Minister, I believe that tackling underachievement needs a partnership approach.

Budget line A-19 shows that the Budget will support the Middletown Centre for Autism. The Education Committee is aware of the major problems that parents have experienced when having children assessed. Assessment was a long process that frustrated families. We are investing — I cannot remember the figure — in Middletown, but the Education Authority needs to invest further in the diagnosis of and support around autism.

One of the Committee's first informal meetings was with a leadership group of principals from special educational needs schools. It will come as no shock to the Minister that I came away from the meeting feeling quite emotional about the work that they were doing and the circumstances in which some were having to do it. Even though some schools were in fairly modern buildings, the increasing number of pupils meant that they had outgrown them, and facilities such as store rooms had been changed into classrooms. I welcome the work that is being done on special educational needs. However, that is another area that deserves and needs investment.

It is very difficult when you have lost your momentum from the morning session to come back with the same momentum in the afternoon, but it is my intention to finish with this point. Emerging nations and economies across the world recognise the need to be educated, for the sake of the economy, their people and the health of their people. In developing countries, across the board, primary education tends to be the number one investment priority. Many highly skilled teachers from Northern Ireland are working in schools in developing countries, and, in many cases, they are much better rewarded there than they would be in Northern Ireland. That indicates the value of people who are from here. They could make a very positive contribution to the holistic education and wealth of Northern Ireland, and they are out there doing that. That is not a criticism; in many ways, it is a compliment.

We have got to recognise that education is not just about reading, writing and arithmetic; it is about much more than that. It is not about the cost of education; it is about us investing in education. Matthew O'Toole talked this morning about the need for the Budget to not just be looked at annually and said that there would be much better financial planning with a two-, three- or four-year cycle. I wholeheartedly agree with that, because the various Departments will then know what to expect further down the line, rather than just this annual cycle — in fact, we are not even in an annual cycle at this stage, but generally speaking — of investment.

Obviously, I support the Budget, with all the caveats and requests that I have made over that short period.

Photo of Maolíosa McHugh Maolíosa McHugh Sinn Féin

Whenever one thinks about Budgets, one immediately tends to think of measures that ask us to tighten the belts. Whilst this Bill is not in the same context as other Budget Bills, it is worth reminding ourselves that this is not the time for austerity. I highlighted yesterday the need for funding to be delivered to industry, to education, to meet the needs of our more deprived citizens and, in particular, to our health service. Alarmingly, it was announced today that our health service is almost at saturation point, with 1,700 staff off because of COVID.

In the past, our services have suffered from austerity measures, as the Minister stated himself. Those measures were implemented by successive Tory Governments after broken promises from the same Tory Governments. It is at a time like this that one can identify the benefit of the ability to control our own Budget. We should have the power to borrow or, indeed, the power to raise our own taxes. As a legislature, we should take control of our own finances. In many ways, we would be much better placed to handle many of the problems and difficulties that we face if we were in a position to do that.

Many other Members have noted their areas of concern, maybe ones that they have raised at different times, and I would like to diverge for a second into one area of concern that I have. This is an opportune time, with this new Budget, to seriously address those who have fallen through the net. That is a term that we often use, but yet and all they still seem to be there and, from March through to today, they do not seem to have been provided for adequately. I think of a free local newspaper in my area that operates from a private dwelling and whose workers are self-employed. That business depends on advertising, which is now greatly reduced as a result of businesses closing down, for its revenue and is unable to avail itself of any current grant. It is units like that that provide a community service and deserve our support. I am sure that there are many similar types of unit that are in the same situation. I hope that those responsible for designing the schemes that do not meet the needs of such businesses will make an effort to ensure that they are brought under the umbrella of support.

Yesterday, I noted that the virus knows no borders or boundaries. I note that, today, the Ibec-CBI NI Joint Business Council released a statement on the growing importance of collaboration, North and South, not only to combat the virus but to address the collective challenges in our economies; collaboration in relation to connectivity, the environment and investment, especially in the face of Brexit, should there be a deal or not.

Given the statements on the news last night, it seems that there is movement, slowly but surely, in the direction of a deal. It would be better for all our citizens that a deal is reached before they get to the stage of a crash-out, which is of benefit to absolutely no one.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the comments of my colleague, Colm Gildernew, this morning when he highlighted areas of social deprivation that required continuing and additional support, as they are the areas with the highest levels of contagion of the virus. While I accept that there are lies, damned lies and statistics, I suggest that therein — social deprivation — is a much more reasonable explanation for higher rates of infection than that offered by others. On that basis, resources should be applied to those areas, not only to attack the virus but to ensure that deprivation is addressed.

In Irish, we have a seanfhocal, which is a proverb. A proverb reflects the wisdom of a race or people. There is a seanfhocal that, I am sure, people in here have heard of, and it was mentioned on television last night:

"Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine."

It means, "In one another's shadow, we all survive". That is as true today as it was when it was first stated as a seanfhocal. We live in one another's shadow, and we truly depend on one another. We are in this together, and we hope that our Budget will embrace all our people and, in particular, all those in need.

Photo of Kellie Armstrong Kellie Armstrong Alliance 3:45, 20 October 2020

I start by thanking the Minister and his staff for what must have been a very interesting year working on budgets, since every week brought new amounts of money to their table. The Budget comes during COVID-19, and we can say with certainty that no sector, Department or family has been left untouched but that certain groups will bear a disproportionate impact of the virus. Unfortunately, this Budget will not address that.

One of things that I have noticed since joining the Communities Committee — the Infrastructure Committee is happy that I have shifted to Communities — is that we are failing young people under the age of 25. I refer particularly to labour market interventions. The Executive received Barnett consequentials of £6·116 million of resource DEL in 2020-21 to support the Communities Jobstart programme, which was announced on 8 July and is due to commence in November, only a few days away.

The Minister confirmed that she had bid for £4·8 million for labour market interventions in 2020-21 but, to date, had received no Executive allocation. Her Department is now seeking to manage that pressure internally through reprioritisation and the reallocation of funds. She intends to make a further bid in the January monitoring round for any pressure that remains in her Department for that matter through to 31 March.

I would like to draw everyone's attention to a very interesting Ulster University report, entitled 'Labour market implications of COVID-19'. It confirms that one in four say that COVID-19 is impacting on their household finance; 75% say that they face reduced income. Ulster University estimates that 258,000 people have been furloughed or laid off — 30% of all those employed here. People who work in the food sector, in retail, in elementary admin and services have experienced the most severe impact. Furlough saved their jobs, but it comes to an end on 31 October.

There will be a huge upsurge in applications for universal credit. Those most affected are people under the age of 25 who work in those areas. Thirty-six per cent of people who are employed in the accommodation and food sectors are under 25. Under-25s represent one tenth — 12% — of the total employment in Northern Ireland. Therefore, without a commitment to labour market interventions, we are leaving a generation of young people without a job or any hope of getting one for some time to come.

This so-called scarring effect will hurt us for a long time. We may see young people moving away from Northern Ireland because there are no options here for them. Young people and the least well off are more likely to lose jobs and to suffer from reduced income during this COVID crisis. It is worth noting that 57% of those furloughed are men and 43% are women. We need to consider the age profile of those who have been furloughed or who have lost their job. While I mentioned the under-25s, we have to consider that the apprenticeship scheme that has been brought forward by the Economy Minister needs to extend to older people too, because that is an age group of people who are losing jobs and who will not be employed again unless we give them support.

Departments have received a huge amount of money. There is a huge amount of money for the Department of Finance to work through this year, but I have to ask this: is there any headroom? I know that we have not seen the October monitoring round so far, but will all the unhypothecated amounts of money that have been given out be spent by each of the Departments? Will there be losers? The losers seem to be the under-25s and those over-55s who will lose their job as a result of the impact of COVID on our economy.

We need to support the so-called scarred youth. We need to support our unpaid carers, who are at breaking point at this stage. We need to support house building in order to meet the growing list of people who do not have a home. Short-term investment in Communities is needed in order to fund the 900 staff that will have to be taken on to address the number of universal credit applications that are just about to hit the Department.

We need investment in real-time monitoring. It is critical for us to understand the impacts. We need to plan ahead for the issues that may be coming because of COVID. For example, has anyone here thought to look at their pension fund and at how much the investment has been hit because of COVID? There are a lot of people in our community who are citizens who have worked all their life and paid into a pension fund and who may now find that it has been impacted because of investments that have been hurt as a result of the global economic crisis. That will be an important determinant of when they can retire.

I do not think that there is any safety net in this Budget, but I think that there is headroom. Health, for instance, has £600 million set aside. None of us in the House would deny Health money, but there is very little time left until the end of March. If any Department has any money that they can give to and share with where there are pressures in other Departments, I ask them to please do so.

Minister, are you investigating in depth whether all the money in all the Departments will be spent, and, if not, are you recalling it? I seriously hope that in the October monitoring round we have some good news for those who are under the age of 25 and those who are unemployed.

As I said, there is no safety net. This is a crisis Budget, but the crisis is not over yet, and we may have much worse to come.

That is all that I want to say on this. I will not take up too much time, because many people have spoken about the Budget and it was debated yesterday. A lot of money is knocking about in Northern Ireland. There are a lot of people who have not got that money, and there are a lot of people who are depending on it. We need to get it out the door quickly, and we need those Departments that are sitting on it and expecting to spend it to look to see whether there is an underspend so that they can share it out.

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

I rise to speak in my capacity as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Upper Bann. Like other Members who commented on the Budget, including Ms Armstrong, who just spoke, I am afraid that the picture is bleak. There is no doubting that. Just like COVID-19 has infected every element and sector of our society, every page of the Budget Bill is riddled with COVID-19 and its consequences. I do not say that lightly. I do not say that with glee. I say that with some concern about what the outlook is. While I stand here to say that I support the Budget Bill, and I agree with the Member that it gives us some financial headroom to face the immediate challenges, I have to say that it is all in front of us.

Does the Budget give us certainty as we face into the second wave? The £600 million for Health gives us breathing space, but the societal, mental and economic impacts of COVID will last longer than the money that has been put aside for us. We all know that; we all know the challenges that we face. Unforeseen circumstances have changed the financial landscape and will continue to for many years to come. I said earlier to a colleague that we are facing the bleakest economic period of my lifetime. I think that many Members will concur. COVID allocations have meant that there is a greater need than ever to scrutinise where money is spent and where it will be needed. That goes to the very heart of what Ms Armstrong said.

The very fact that, potentially, we have money in the system that is not being spent and returned to the centre will come as a shock to many Members and the wider public in Northern Ireland. Maybe that is testimony to some of our antiquated systems and financial arrangements. However, at a time when we are stripping money away from businesses as a result of the restrictions that are in place, the public will rightly ask why we cannot even spend the money that we have allocated in Northern Ireland.

As was mentioned by, I think, Mr O'Toole — it has been mentioned by others in the Chamber — there is a real need for long-term financial planning. I have no doubt that there will be multi-year Budgets in the future, but I have sympathy with the Finance Minister and the Executive on that point. Every time that we come to this place to discuss financial matters, we all agree that the idea of multi-year Budgets or otherwise is a good thing, but every time that we get round to preparing the road for an approach like that, we are hit with another crisis or circumstance that requires quick action. I have a lot of sympathy in that regard.

I will touch on a number of Committees on which the Budget has an immediate impact and some consequences that will cause us much concern on the road ahead. I speak, first, as a member of the Communities Committee, and I will focus on the level of need in our society for financial help. The Budget goes some way to addressing that in the short term, but we know that, in the long term, it is only scratching the surface. Other Committee members will agree that we have heard weekly cries for financial help, whether from the arts sector, charities or those who need social security payments. We recognise that those will only increase as we look ahead to potential redundancies and other potential impacts of COVID in the future. We also look at local government. Many of us can bear testimony to the work of local government in dealing with the COVID-19 response. Its Budget allocations, and what the Budget will mean for it in the future, will concern local government. Its services have been impacted like never before. COVID-19 has been a disruptor in every aspect of our life.

I will talk briefly about sport. Many members of the Committee will have heard me saying that I have serious concerns about the financial future of many of our sporting clubs across all sectors in the wake of COVID-19 and as we deal with the immediate pressures. We heard from the Northern Ireland Football League (NIFL), the Irish Football Association (IFA) and any organisations that wanted to put their concerns to the Committee about how concerned they are about their financial future. We have called for money to be allocated to those sectors. Grants of £1,000 or £2,000 will never cut it. We know that. Their long-term financial viability stands in the balance of the financial packages that the Executive, particularly the Communities Minister, working alongside the Finance Minister, provide to those sporting organisations. It caused me great concern that, at the weekend, hours before the Irish League was due to start, we had mixed messaging. The Communities Minister said that spectators would not be allowed in the club grounds.

They have no idea of the confusion and chaos that that causes for those in that sector as they attempt to do their best in difficult circumstances. The majority of their income is based on ticket sales. They have had no support from the Executive for the loss of money at the gates. We must react positively or we will not have a sporting future in this country. I say that with regret, but that is what they face.

I turn briefly to education. I know that, regardless of party, Members place the education of our young people at the very heart of our economic and societal future. Whatever it might be, it starts with education. To say that COVID-19 has placed challenges on them would be an understatement. School closures have placed the school estate and individual schools under pressure that they have never experienced before. Funding is required for essential infrastructure. We know that. A couple of weeks ago, I had an Adjournment debate in the House about the school estate in Upper Bann. It would scare you to look into the school estate — I am sure that any Member could do that in their constituency — and see the need for investment and what is required, but the money is simply not there.

Budgets are about planning ahead, being prudent and providing a sound financial basis for the future, but let us face it: this Budget, as a result of COVID-19 and some actions by the Executive in placing restrictions on schools, is not providing the sound basis on which our children can look to the future with hope. Investing in their future is having them in the classroom being taught directly. That gets to the heart of the impact that this Budget will have. While we can throw money at online learning — we need to — there is no substitute for face-to-face interaction with a teacher in the classroom.

Do you know something, Mr Deputy Speaker? As you probably have, I have heard many criticise the teachers across this country who now face more time out of the classroom. Many of those schoolteachers are absolutely horrified that they are not in the classroom teaching pupils. They fear for them and for their economic future. They are fearful about the short-term impacts, whether it is being at home and away from the classroom or the complex needs at home.

They have absolutely got this wrong, in my opinion. Schools should be open because —.

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

I will, shortly. Schools should be open because it is a controlled environment and there is very little scientific data available that shows that schools are the cause of the transmission. I really feel in my heart, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, if we are serious about the economic viability and are serious about Budget allocations to education, we must act with common sense and put the protections in place, whether for the avoidance of transmission at the gate, or whatever is needed, to allow our children to have a future. I believe that that happens in the classroom.

Photo of Gerry Carroll Gerry Carroll People Before Profit Alliance

I thank the Member for giving way. Obviously, everybody agrees about the importance of education and it being face to face. Does the Member have any concern about today's reports that there are at least 1,500 cases of COVID-19 outbreaks in schools? That would warrant some action being taken by the Health Department and the Executive. He seems to be suggesting either no action whatsoever or very limited action in schools. That is concerning and may be in line with the Education Minister's approach.

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not shrug away what the Member said about the cases in schools, but what I am told and what I see is that there is very little impact in relation to transmissions in the wider school population. I say to the Member that, if the problem is not as outlined by the Chief Medical Officer in a meeting that I had with him, and if the problem is at the school gate and outside the school environment, yes, there is a communication issue. Let us look at that and see what we can do. I will now draw back to the Budget because that has maybe taken me off a wee bit. I agree that measures must be put in place, but the education of our children is paramount — paramount.

I will now comment on the economy. Although the Budget is welcome because it makes allocations to those parts of our economy that are undoubtedly facing disruption, Members will agree that there is no simple answer, because there is no money tree. We have seen what the first wave of COVID-19 did. Support mechanisms were put in place by the Executive, but they were also put in place by the grace of Her Majesty's Government through the financial package that was able to support and sustain not only livelihoods but businesses across the country.

This Budget simply will not go far enough, and I do not think that even the Minister will say that it does. There is simply not enough money in the system. We have to remember that, in the situation that we are in, with limited resources, actions taken have consequences. As I have said, our economy faces its bleakest period in my lifetime.

All Members will have received copies of the three-point plan, 'Finding a Balance to Protect our Community and our Economy', which was released by a number of businesses. Paragraphs in it certainly deserve to be quoted, because they are in line with what we are discussing:

"The Executive's decision to place large parts of the ... economy into another lockdown will, quite simply, result in another round of job losses", which will ultimately impact on future Budgets.

It continues:

"Those who have had to shut their doors are deeply concerned by the decision after following the Executive's own guidance and investing money they didn't have in making their business" life viable.

It goes on to say:

"They are understandably anxious about the viability of their businesses and the jobs they have created and so too are the many companies who are in their supply chain or rely on them for footfall ... Our economy is an ecosystem and closing down one part isn’t a limited intervention — it harms us all."

It concludes:

"Pursuing a path of lockdown, release and repeat will undo all of the good work we have done to build a strong and diverse economy and protect workers and their families ... A DIFFERENT WAY MUST BE FOUND."

I have heard Ministers, Chief Medical Officers, Chief Scientific Advisers and commentators at large say, "There may be a need for further lockdowns down the line". That simply will not cut it, however. You cannot turn the Northern Ireland economy on and off like a tap. You cannot put people in and then out if their business is to be economically viable. They are here today but gone tomorrow. Their jobs and livelihoods depend on the decisions that we make in this House.

In looking at this Budget, many people will come to the conclusion, "What is in it for me? I am being told to close my business". I have heard the compelling stories. Many of our self-employed are looking at another lockdown with no money in their pocket, their businesses closed at one of their busiest times, bills still coming in, mortgage repayments, staff costs, and furlough coming to an end. The situation is dire, and they say, loud and clear, that it may be all right for people in the public sector and for, and I do not say this in a personal sense in any way, politicians and medical or scientific officers. They say, "The decisions that you make do not affect your livelihood, but I have a child at home whom I have to feed and put bread on the table for. I have a business that relies on staff who have been loyal to me and worked with me, and they simply do not know where their next week's wage will come from". Those are the issues that this Budget has to deal with and that Members will have to grapple with as we go into the future.

We must bear that point in mind. There has been much discussion in the Chamber about the economic impact of COVID and this Budget on different sections of society, but we can all agree that it will be low-paid workers, in the hospitality industry or elsewhere, some of them in close-contact services, who will be hurt the most. We must have a compassionate response. We must bear in mind that, yes, COVID-19 kills. We all know that; we have seen its devastating impact, but restrictions and lockdown measures will also do the same.

Data is required for planning. In this and other Budgets, we require — and I am sure the Minister has it — information, forecasts and projections that will inform his decision-making on the Budget that he presents. Equally, that means that data on COVID is equally important to feed into his decision-making on where that relief should come from next. It has been released today, in a previous question that I asked the Health Minister, but the data has not been released quickly enough to inform Ministers at the Executive, Members of the House and, indeed, the wider public with regard to the measures that are put in place.

In closing, I will turn to the issue of health; the most important issue of all. I recognise the huge pressure on the Department of Health and the financial allocations that have been made to it in this Budget and others. I think that £600 million was set aside for Health. The impact of COVID on managing staffing pressures throughout the Health ecosystem in Northern Ireland is going to be incredibly critical in the days ahead. Craigavon Area Hospital has 500 staff who are out of the system when it is facing its busiest period. I welcome additional funding allocations to try to address those pressures.

I want to talk about non-COVID services and, sadly, non-COVID deaths, which this Budget will have to take into consideration in the days ahead. I read in a paper this morning that the Office for National Statistics reported a surge in non-COVID deaths in England: diabetic deaths are up by 86%; prostate cancer deaths are up by 53%; breast cancer deaths are up by 47%; Parkinson's disease deaths are up by 79%; and bowel cancer deaths are up by 46%. Never mind the potential impact on our health service from dealing with COVID, the significant allocation from this Budget to Health will also have to realise the pressures that are facing non-COVID services. COVID kills but so does lockdown. We need the data for Northern Ireland.

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

I am not a Minister, but I will happily give way.

[Laughter.]

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

I do not know what is going on in your party, you could be.

[Laughter.]

I think Agriculture is looking for a new Minister.

I thank the Member for giving way. One of the questions that we should be considering is the 10 years of active underinvestment in our health service; the last decade. It takes more than 10 years to train an anaesthetist and more than seven years to train an ICU specialist. We must reflect on how we manage to depoliticise Health, going forward, because we have to invest in it. We cannot invent staff, and that is the critical shortcoming that we have.

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

I thank the Member for giving way.

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

You gave way.

[Laughter.]

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

Yes, sorry. I thank the Member for his question. I will never shy away from the reality that faces the health service. The Member will have previous colleagues who served as Health Ministers in the last 10 years, as has my party and others. There has to be the realisation that we cannot play the health service like a political football. Equally, we must realise that the decisions that we make in this place have devastating knock-on impacts on people. GPs' face-to-face consultations are down by 92%. What have we missed in the system?

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

I appreciate the Member giving way. I have listened to several contributions from the Member today. He asked questions of the Health Minister, he made interventions when other Members were speaking, and, from my room, I listened to him talking about the response to COVID-19. He has spent considerable time telling us what we should not do. I agree with him that we have to learn to live with COVID. We have to create a situation in which our businesses and workers are protected, but our health service also has to be protected. Can the Member enlighten us as to what we should do?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP 4:15, 20 October 2020

I encourage the Member to link his response to the Budget debate.

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for Upper Bann for his question. I must have been saying something right, because he ran from his room to the Chamber to listen to me speak. I am all for constituency support, but I did not expect it to come from the Member opposite.

[Laughter.]

I am not shirking from the fact that, in the wider debate, a balance must be struck. However, when making a speech in the Budget debate, it would be negligent of me not to highlight the impact on businesses. I have said it, and the Member for Upper Bann has said it: we have to learn to live with this virus. There are no easy solutions. However, as I said earlier, show the people the evidence and the data.

Tough decisions lie ahead for this place. We have been dealing with a health emergency; equally, we have an economic emergency. In the mouth of Christmas, people are asking where the money to pay their next bill will come from. It is up to this place — to the Finance Minister and his colleagues — to provide a sound economic footing for their future and a sound plan to deal with the pressures that we all know are coming.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I encourage the next Members who speak to ensure that their contribution is linked to the Budget. A Budget debate offers much latitude but, please, link your comments to the Budget.

Photo of Mark Durkan Mark Durkan Social Democratic and Labour Party

After the inability of the last Executive to bring forward a Budget and three years of no government, when cut-and-paste Budgets were brought forward by civil servants with no political input, we all hoped that today's debate would be a much more optimistic affair. However, these are incredibly challenging times for families and businesses across Northern Ireland. Our ability to use devolution to respond to the particular challenges facing us should be at the forefront of our minds as we debate this legislation today.

As the SDLP's social justice spokesperson, I will focus my remarks on our housing crisis, social security, the dire situation facing our arts, culture and sports sectors, and local government. We are in the grip of a housing crisis. A roof over your head is the basis for a healthy life and for cohesive policymaking. There are few areas of public and social policy that housing does not affect. It affects education, social security, the labour market and health. What chance has a child who has to do their homework in unsuitable, overcrowded and unfit housing, or a child who regularly has to flit between different homes in the private rented sector, to fulfil their full potential? The absolute minimum that the Executive should be able to guarantee to everyone in Northern Ireland is a warm, secure home. Yet, nearly 22,000 households in Northern Ireland are homeless, with the greatest number of those — some 2,732 — in my constituency of Foyle.

The Minister's party, Sinn Féin, recently launched a policy paper detailing ambitious proposals for 20,000 social and affordable homes. However, I hasten to add that the proposals are for 20,000 new homes in the Twenty-six Counties. The SDLP is pretty disappointed that the Finance Minister and his colleague the Minister for Communities, who has responsibility for housing, have not set out similar, or anywhere near as ambitious, plans for the North in this Budget. Instead, the social housing build target has been missed by almost 60%, and the 2021 social housing budget has decreased by £19 million on the previous year.

Our housing crisis needs a multifaceted solution. We urgently need more social housing built to house the thousands of people on the Housing Executive waiting list. The low number of social homes built has left many applicants languishing on the waiting list for years, and we all know them. We also need to support people who have no realistic prospect of securing social housing but who will also struggle to buy their own homes, which is why I welcome funding for co-ownership. It is one of the success stories in our housing landscape, and one that must be integral to any housing strategy going forward. It plays a vital role in helping lower earners to get their own homes and to leave the private rented sector and all the associated precariousness that can come with that.

Unsurprisingly, applications to the Co-ownership Housing Association have surged just as banks have reduced availability and are requiring up to 20% deposits in light of the pandemic. I recognise the Department's support, but I urge the Finance Minister to give the NI Co-ownership Housing Association and other housing associations the certainty of multi-year funding through financial transactions capital so that they can more easily navigate the peaks and troughs in our housing market. Given the economic situation that we will face in the coming months and, let us be realistic, coming years, banks will only become more cautious. That multi-year funding could give them the confidence to lend to Co-ownership and other associations. It would also have the knock-on effect of stimulating the construction industry and encouraging private developers to build more homes that come in under that £165,000 mark if they know that the co-ownership initiative will enable more people to purchase them. That can only be good for the wider economy.

On that point, I must draw attention to the severe budgetary pressures facing Northern Ireland Water, which is essential to any new homebuilding programme. The Infrastructure Minister made this plain: homebuilding is being inhibited by a huge strain on our water service, with a lethal combination of the pandemic now increasing water usage manyfold. Around 100 locations in the North are reaching, or have reached, maximum capacity. I note that a number of in-year allocations have been made to Northern Ireland Water, and they are very much welcome. However, those are just about meeting statutory requirements. It is vital for our economy and our communities that there is a long-term strategic approach to this crucial investment by the Finance Department and the Executive as a whole. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be sustained and significant investment in water, as it is the key to unlocking crucial housing and business development.

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

I thank the Member for giving way. I support his call. I have no doubt of the future pressures facing NI Water and our infrastructure system, but will he agree with me that it is equally incumbent on the Finance Minister to look at the problems facing legacy developments because of a lack of investment in NI Water? We have a number of developments right across Northern Ireland that have been standing incomplete for some 10 years because of a historical lack of funding.

Photo of Mark Durkan Mark Durkan Social Democratic and Labour Party

Absolutely. I do not want to lay all the responsibility at the Finance Minister's door, but, obviously, it is the Budget debate and he is the Minister who is here.

Future funding determined by the regulator says that more than £2 billion is needed. Will the Minister commit to approving the investments to the right levels to ensure that water is on a sustainable footing for the longer term and avoid, as Mr Buckley said, the delay of future projects and the decay of existing services?

I will return to housing. As well as helping people to get on the housing ladder, it is vital that we help people to stay on it. There is no sugar-coating the effect that the pandemic has had, and will continue to have, on our economy and job market. We are likely to see many, many families struggling to pay their mortgages, and sadly, inevitably, we will see repossessions. That is devastating for families and puts even more strain on our already overburdened, drowning housing sector. Serious consideration must be given to a mortgage relief scheme. I recognise that the bulk of the Budget would have been prepared in the early days of lockdown, but, knowing what we now know, the need to look at such a scheme is blatantly obvious.

As I said, there are few policy areas that do not dovetail with housing policy, and chief amongst them is social security provision, which is the second area of the Budget that I want to touch upon. When the Minister's party joined the DUP in voting to hand our welfare powers over to the Tory Government that Mr McHugh has decried, it promised that no social housing tenant would be affected by the bedroom tax. Indeed, in February, the now Communities Minister took credit for Sinn Féin "binning the bedroom tax". Yet, in response to my question for written answer last week, she confirmed that there are 227 households being hit with that punitive measure.

The New Decade, New Approach deal set out a commitment to review welfare mitigations and agree new measures before March 2020 — it is now October 2020 — when the existing package was due to expire. Of course, events overtook us, and the only option has been to extend the current scheme under regulations. However, it is vital that primary legislation be laid before the Assembly as soon as possible for us as MLAs and, indeed, stakeholders, to scrutinise, alongside the funding commitments and requirements. If any questions about or criticisms of last-minute accelerated passage are met with accusations of trying to sabotage the legislation or trying to sabotage mitigations, those will be seen through and dismissed.

I sympathise with the Communities Minster's explanation to the Committee that responding to the pandemic has dominated her Department's workload, and I commend her in her dedication to addressing the plethora of issues as they have arisen. I urge her, however, to recognise that this legislation will be part of that response. The latest figures show that there were an additional 89,250 universal credit claims between March and July of this year. As the current incarnation of the furlough scheme ends, and as our businesses face the double challenge of the pandemic and leaving the EU, the Economy Minister has estimated that up to 100,000 people will be unemployed, while the Communities Minister envisages a worst-case scenario of up to 125,000 claimants. Families will badly need an extension of the current mitigations, but the rise in new applicants highlights even more starkly the gaps in the current package: the five-week wait; the two-child tax credit rule; and the benefit cap. People receiving those benefits, and those making their applications now and in the coming months, need the certainty and assurance that they will be protected against the sort of system that the UK Tory Government would impose upon them.

In order to deal with the anticipated avalanche of people requiring that support, DFC has identified the need for 1,400 new posts, but it is only getting funded for 900. There is no capital bid associated with it, because, apparently, capacity exists in the Northern Ireland Civil Service estate to accommodate those new workers. I do not know whether that takes into account social distancing. I would like to know where they will be based, and, Minister, please do not say, "Belfast". Government must take this, and every, opportunity to decentralise and to tackle ongoing regional imbalance.

I turn now to our arts and culture sector, which has been uniquely affected by the pandemic and the regulations.

I welcome the original £4 million and, indeed, the more recent £29 million that was allocated as a result of Barnett consequentials, but, given the delay in the announcement of that second tranche, it is vital that that money gets out to the affected industries and individuals without delay. I was glad to read in the paper today that that is happening at last. They must be supported not just throughout this circuit breaker but beyond. Mr Buckley described COVID-19 as a "disruptor", but we have to do everything across every sector to make sure that it does not become a destroyer.

These people and these industries cannot simply press pause. It is not just the livelihoods of the thousands of artists, performers, sound engineers and set designers and such that the industries employ that are at risk. When they go, whether it is into unemployment or, if they follow the Chancellor's "Let them eat cake" advice, to retrain, many of the aspects that we all miss so much during the pandemic — going to concerts, to the theatre or to museums — will not be there when we overcome the pandemic, and we will overcome the pandemic. It is incumbent on the Minister for Communities and the Executive not only to ensure that those people get the financial support that they need from the Executive but to support them to adapt to the regulations, for as long as they exist, to allow them to continue, whether that is through live streaming or using venues for other purposes in the interim to supplement income.

Our sports sector is struggling, from our elite sportsmen, sportswomen and clubs down to the grassroots. Sports clubs and activities play such an integral role in all our communities and in the development of our children as well as in our own physical and mental well-being. Sponsors have been hit very hard, and restrictions on attendances deprive clubs of much-needed revenue and supporters of the pleasure and, in some cases, the pain of getting in to support and cheer on their team, whatever their sporting code. Perhaps, as a suggestion, Northern Ireland's share of the revenue generated through the sugar tax or the soft drink levy, which has been hovering at around £12 million, I think, in Barnett consequentials over the past few years, could be invested in sports, which do so much to promote healthy living and to tackle obesity and the associated problems.

Local government is on its knees too. We need to work more closely with councils to ensure that they have the capacity and the financial wherewithal to carry out their vital services and support communities.

None of us doubt the difficulties ahead, but now is the time to front-load support and to provide protection against the looming economic carnage. We must invest in our communities to offset the worst of this fallout and to prevent the problems that we can see coming down the track. Our constituents will demand no less, and our constituents deserve no less.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP 4:30, 20 October 2020

I have sat in for most if not all the debate today, and some valid points have been made. There has been some rough and tumble, as you would expect. I will try to be the voice of reason, as I always am.

This is an important Bill. Anybody with any experience here has seen Budget Bill after Budget Bill, and there is a tendency to take them lightly, but it is fundamental to the governance of this place that finances are placed in the correct columns and for the correct Departments and that, when that money gets to those Departments, it is used in the appropriate way. Scrutiny of a Budget Bill and a process are vital, but it does not start and end in the Chamber. It is vital that our scrutiny Committees get to see the information that they need to see in order to do their job right at an early stage and then to support and advise their Department on how that revenue should be spent. Scrutiny Committees are very useful things, not just for scrutiny but for advice and support. Believe me: our Departments need all the help that they can get.

The Estimates are published, and we go through them here. The Finance Committee does its part. There will be sufficient dialogue and scrutiny there. Then, at last, we get a Budget Bill on the Floor. A Budget Bill is treated differently from any other Bill — most other Bills, anyway — in that, in most cases, it is given accelerated passage. I want to put a marker down — the Chairperson of the Finance Committee suggested this earlier — that no Minister or official in any Department, not least the Finance Minister and his Department, should ever take it lightly or for granted that the Finance Committee, whoever populates those chairs and benches, will give accelerated passage to a Budget Bill as a matter of course. If departmental officials fall into that trap, they may well get a rude awakening some day, because, during my time on the Finance Committee, I have been less than impressed by what I have witnessed of the engagement and information flow that goes from the Department to the Committee. There will be many things that we will miss and many that we do not request, but, when we request information, the fact that we do not get it, that there is delay or that we have to put in the same request over and over again, which is then treated as multiple requests — as if that would get them off the hook for the late delivery of documents and emails — is not good enough. Let it go out loud and clear from the House: no official should take for granted the accelerated passage of a finance Bill. We do it for the greater good, but, some day, the balance of greater good might tip and it might not be for the greater good any more to allow a finance Bill to go through without proper Finance Committee scrutiny, like the scrutiny that we give to every clause of every other Bill that goes through the House. I put that marker down.

Again, even this week, the Finance Committee asked questions about authority. As the Committee Chairperson stated, we saw a scramble whereby authorisation was given at late notice and after we had requested to see the authorisations. It is clear that not all is well in the Finance Department. I have no reason to believe that it is working tickety-boo in any of the other Departments either. There is a lot to learn and a lot for those of us on Committees to scrutinise.

The Bill is the Budget (No. 3) Bill. The title itself sends a signal that we are not in normal times. These are strange times. I suppose that I have a certain sympathy for the Department and the Minister over the massive influx of moneys into the centre that have to be distributed to Departments. I have a lot of sympathy for the fact that the Finance Minister, along with others in the Executive, has been fighting a crisis on many fronts, not least COVID, and there is a lot of uncertainty, which increases the crisis and escalates the emergencies that we all face. Therefore, I have a certain sympathy for everyone who is mixed up in that process and has to work in it.

I see the blue pages, and may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is great that the Bill Office is starting to publish Bills again? Imagine a legislature that was not even publishing Bills. It is an absolute disgrace, if you ask me. It is good to have a Bill in your hand. In the Bill, I see figures; I see big figures. I see where there has been a massive increase for some Departments, where it is needed, and I see less of an increase in others, where it is not needed. Of course, that is good, because we need that money. That money has been drawn down from Barnett consequentials, and it is good that we can get money directed to help to fund the support schemes.

Today, we are approving additional spends and flexibilities to finance the support schemes and so on, but it is also to ensure that Departments do not run out of money. Some Departments are getting dangerously close to doing that. That is why we are at the Budget (No. 3) Bill and why we have had to have a couple of such processes in-year. I understand that. However, today is also giving approval to do the same thing over and over again. It is doing the same thing, and it is giving approval to carry on, to carry on like the greatest 'Carry On' movies, but this one is not funny. There is no strategic thought here whatever. We are in the midst of a crisis and an emergency — we are being forged by fire — but we think that we can do the same thing over and over again.

We are thankful for the massive lump of Barnett consequential money: it was £2·4 billion, I think, at the last count. It has been invested in schemes that we required, but we cannot even spend all of it. We are sitting with, I think, £55 million in the centre, and we have £600 million going to the health service. We cannot spend that money, and we cannot maximise borrowing. We cannot even spend or draw down the financial transactions money that is there for us. If everything was running smoothly, you could argue that we did not need the financial transactions money, but look at the crisis in COVID. Beyond that, look at the crises in housing, in NI Water and in Translink, and look at the support required for businesses and sports clubs. I could go on. We have an inability to spend money that is there for us to spend, so who are we letting down? We are letting down the people of Northern Ireland. That is where the buck stops. That is who feels the impact. The Executive are failing those people.

The Member from the party opposite talks about Tory austerity: how much more money do we need to prove that we are not very good at spending it? We have £2·4 billion, but we cannot even spend all of that money, which we surely need. The Member talks about more fiscal power. Why should we have more fiscal power when we cannot handle the money that is given to us here and now? Why would we need more fiscal power if we cannot spend the money that is coming down from Barnett consequentials? Why should we need more fiscal power when we keep doing the same thing over and over again, year in, year out, and when we do not have any creative thoughts on how we could spend our money more efficiently?

The party opposite has not made a hard fiscal decision yet. It has never brought forward a live Budget for the following year. We are still waiting. How does the Member think we should get more fiscal power? It is bizarre. Why would we put that pressure on a Finance Minister? Should we really have tax-varying powers? "What way would the taxes go?", I wonder, Who would it impact on most? How would the money that we raise through tax-varying powers be spent? Would we spend it on doing the same thing over and over again, like we do every year?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I will, yes.

Photo of John O'Dowd John O'Dowd Sinn Féin 4:45, 20 October 2020

The Member's comments on the ability of the system to spend money are valid. It is something that the Executive and the Civil Service need to tackle, because getting money out the door to spend is a vital part of what we do.

When talking about fiscal powers, the Member used the example of the money that we got from the Barnett consequentials but cannot spend. One of the difficulties with getting money in-year is that it is very difficult to spend, because you do not have the schemes, operations or staff in place to do so. If you have fiscal powers, you can plan for the long term. You can plan your monetary outworkings.

I will finish on this point: how would the money be spent and the tax raised? The Assembly would decide. Have a bit of faith in yourself as well as in others.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Member for his intervention. That is a good and valid point, and there is a good fiscal debate to be had on that. Would it not be better, however, to go to a multi-year Budget plan than to have tax-varying powers? At least you would then have the scope, space and time in which to spend money effectively and efficiently.

I take the Member's point, however, and it is something that I do grapple with. I know that the Member who made the intervention will grapple with it as well. Yes, let us see how we can do things better. He mentioned the Assembly, but look at the way in which the Executive work. The Executive work on how they spend money. The Finance Minister has said over and over again that he is waiting for bids and that he cannot spend money until he sees those bids. The Departments are saying, "It's not my place to bid. It's somebody else's place to bid". Another Minister says, "No, it's your place to bid". There we go on that merry-go-round.

I am not blaming the Finance Minister for that, by the way, but there has to be a more strategic layout of how the Executive work a Budget and how Departments then bid mid-term and even in monitoring rounds. We see it every time. There is failure upon failure, and we keep doing the same thing not only in the Budget process but in the way in which we spend money. Sooner or later, whether it is me or you or some other Member, party, grouping or Committee, we need to stop the cycle. We need to get off the merry-go-round and do things differently. We need to make decisions that will result in money being spent efficiently, and I just do not see it happening. It has been a long time since I have seen it, to be honest, and that needs to change.

A good lot of the money in this Budget is having to go, and should be going, to the Department of Health. Let me therefore pay tribute to the nurses and the other people who are at the coalface of this emergency as we speak. Let us think about the grievous shifts and long hours that they are putting in, the horrific sights that they see and the bad news stories that they face daily. No one in the House can fathom what they are going through. Some of us have experience in a care setting, including my colleague Paula Bradley. I am sure that those Members think at night about the horrendous situation that our healthcare workers find themselves in daily. We must do everything that we can to prevent the spread of this disease, to take the burden off the health service in other ways and to make sure that it has the money in this Budget that it requires.

Sometimes, in the heat of battle, forged in fire, out of necessity we can become a different animal on a different plane. That is where our health service needs to get to very quickly. It is not the people who work in the health service who will fail us. They never do. It is the system in which they work that fails the staff. It has to become a different animal. It has to be on a different plane. Sometimes, in the heat of battle, forged in fire, is the only time, through necessity, that that can happen, and it needs to happen. Have we the leadership to do that?

A total of £600 million is set aside for the health service, with £55 million of that still sitting at the centre. Woe betide any Department that hands back money at the end of this financial year, because the people will ask why. They will ask why we are giving money back when we desperately needed it in our Departments.

I get it when the Health Minister says that he cannot just magic up staff, facilities, buildings or equipment. However, I wonder if the Health Minister is going to spend all the money that he receives and if it is not going to go back to the centre at the end of this financial year. I wonder whether there are any other Departments that should have got, and could have spent, that money. I know that there are Departments that may not need the money either, because they have stopped doing some worthwhile things, and that is also criminal. I make this plea: where is our strategic vision? Where is it being displayed that we are doing things differently, more efficiently and with more agility? Where is it? Can we see it?

Not only are the Executive not supporting business and communities at this time, they are working against them. We have an anti-sports Minister. We have an anti-arts Minister. We have a Communities Minister —.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I draw the Member back to the Budget Bill, which we are debating.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

In this Budget, the Department for Communities is being funded to support vulnerable people who need oral hearings and tribunals for the employment and support allowance (ESA) and personal independent payment (PIP). Some of those people have been refused tribunal hearings, which has knocked their benefits off. Some people have received no benefits for months because they cannot get to an oral hearing. That is a disgrace. It affects the most vulnerable in our society: the people who have ill health and the people who cannot work. Those people have been let down.

We have an Infrastructure Minister who, it seems, did not want to furlough Translink staff to help that company to have the agility to operate efficiently through this crisis. In this Budget Bill, there is money going to Translink. There is a further request for more money to go to Translink. Is that money being spent well? Is it being spent efficiently? Is there not a better way to operate Translink through this crisis than by throwing money at it like that?

We have swathes of people and businesses that, it seems, we cannot support in this Budget, yet we are able to shut them down within hours and turn off their supply chain and their custom. It is simply not good enough. We had a junior Minister saying on the radio, last week, that driving instructors could continue to work. Two days later, they were told that they could not and would have to stop. How can anyone operate a business with an Executive that change their mind day in, day out and that, even before they have drafted the regulations, have changed their minds twice or thrice? It cannot continue.

Earlier, a Member opposite asked my colleague Mr Buckley for solutions. Of course, we do not have all the information that the Executive have, but we have met the Chief Medical Officer. Even after meeting him, I have yet to see the evidence for picking on some sectors as we have. As for solutions, I point Members in the direction of the three-point plan that 23 business organisations launched today with regard to information, messaging, confidence and support. It should say all of that in this Budget. It should be transparent, and it should have information. It should have people's confidence and support. I do not see that it has much of any of that.

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree with me that information is paramount in the budgetary process? Information feeds into the process where relief is needed and where it should not be provided. Therefore, the lack of data, to which you referred, should be every bit as important to the Finance Minister as it is to the Health Minister. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Yes. The Member makes a valid and correct point. How can we ever think strategically if we do not have the information at hand to make these tough decisions? We do not have it. The data presented to me by the Chief Medical Officer does not tell me where the disease was transmitted or in which venues. We cannot proceed like this. We cannot keep throwing a dart at a dartboard while blindfolded. That is just not the way to do government. It is just not the way to proceed. The Budget Bill refers to none of that.

I will give credit where credit is due. Today, a chart from the Republic of Ireland has been circulating, and it shows the very information that we are talking about. It shows that the transmission of the virus has taken place in households, retail, sporting venues, pubs, bars and restaurants, and it displays that information in the form of a long chart.

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Yes, I will.

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

For clarity, if the Member and other Members cared to check www.health-ni.gov.uk and the detailed evidence papers that are available online, they would realise that that information is now available. I thank the Health Minister for allowing that to be published. I also thank the members of the Northern Ireland Executive, whose decision it was to put that information out there.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Member for his timely intervention. I would love to know from the Member — I will give way to him again if he can tell us — what date that was published.

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

Just today.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Just today. That sort of proves my point about the Budget Bill that we are debating today.

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

I do not want to chunter from a sedentary position, because I have already been told off for that today. The papers were within the purview of the Executive — the deputy First Minister and First Minister in particular — and it was up to them to decide whether they should be released. The Health Minister has made it very clear that he was more than happy to release the papers and has been for some considerable time. I am glad that the First and deputy First Ministers have decided to allow that information to go out.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, it is not like the Member to point the finger at other Ministers. He has made a very good and valuable intervention, and I welcome it. I welcome getting as much information out there as possible. I will take considerable time to go over it in great detail to see whether I can somehow link the information that is now displayed with the decisions that the Executive made last week. I want to see how they came about. I want to see the linkage to that information. I look forward to looking at that in great detail.

Make no mistake about it: our people are experiencing a lockdown. People have talked about it as a circuit breaker. I am a spark by trade, and I know what a circuit breaker is. A circuit breaker is a useful thing. It is there to save people's lives. If you are hanging on to the power and in danger of being electrocuted, it turns off the power. If you have a damaged piece of equipment, a circuit breaker turns it off so that it does not cause a fire. A circuit breaker is very important. This is not a circuit breaker; this is a lockdown. It is a lockdown because our economy is an ecosystem. If you close down one part of our economy, it affects it all. When it comes to the economy, there is no such thing as a partial lockdown. What we cannot do is to have lockdown after lockdown after lockdown. It is simply unsustainable.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

May I request, again, that the Member come back to the Budget?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

In the Budget Bill, we should have a strategy to counter this emergency. It is the Budget (No. 3) Bill.

This Budget really took hold last April, and yet here we are, in October, and we still have no evidence on paper of how we are dealing with the emergency properly.

Are we at the stage where our only strategy is lockdown? The first time we locked down, we had financial might. We had Barnett consequential money, and we were able to fund the business support schemes and the various aspects of that. We were able to give the rates holiday, which was very important and was a game changer, and we were able to use and avail ourselves of the furlough scheme, which was important. Those measures are now not in play. The rates holiday is a good thing for the full year, but those businesses have no more reserves or capacity left, and you are asking them to immediately shut down without putting any package of support in place. The only package of support that has been put in place by the Finance Minister just will not cut it. It is just not enough, and it is based on the rate base. There are so many other businesses that will not be able to avail themselves of it, and it is simply not enough.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I will give away, yes.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

The Member should know that, as long as he includes the word "budget" in every sentence of his contribution, he will not catch the ear of the Deputy Speaker and will be able to continue regardless.

Speaking about the Budget, will the Member accept that there are many businesses in Northern Ireland that, unfortunately, have had to close but are not on the list of those that have been told to close? Typical examples of that are ferry operators and dog kennel owners: they cannot survive in the absence of other aspects of the economy. They have to close, but, because they are not on the list, they do not get a penny.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

The Member makes a valid point. It goes back to my ecosystem point about the economy: if you close down one part of the economy, you affect it all, and you affect more of it to varying degrees. The Member is right. Applying a strategy of "Lockdown, release and repeat" is no strategy at all. It will lead to ill health, ruined lives, destroyed businesses and wrecked livelihoods. Doing it without just and timely financial support is unforgivable, and we should have seen that financial support in the Budget Bill.

In 2020, hotels will sell one million fewer rooms than they sold in 2019, and each day of closure will see a further 7,000 bedrooms slip away, with a loss of around £50,000 per night to the local economy. That does not take into account the loss of food and beverage sales, conference income or the moneys generated from weddings. How will they survive a second lockdown without any financial support? There are businesses that have contacted me over the last few days, and not one of them is in good shape. There is nothing in the Budget (No. 3) Bill that will give them any comfort: none whatever.

Coffee shops and restaurants within wider retails units or golf clubs have had to close: where do they stand? They cannot avail themselves of the rates-based scheme, for the little amount that it is worth. We had a junior Minister who said that driving instructors could carry on: two days later, they were told to close. That cannot keep going on. Personal trainers are reduced to one person at a time and do not have a commercial base: how does the Budget support them? Do you know the way that we used to talk about entrepreneurs and how we would encourage them, how we would help them on and how this country would be built on entrepreneurs? One girl who I was talking to today had turned her garage into a studio for skincare: she has no capacity or funding left. She is left high and dry and has been told to close nearly immediately. She gets no support, and there is no sign of any support.

Look at the money that hairdressers have spent on their premises. It probably does not range into the thousands, but it is certainly in the hundreds. The problem is that they have no more savings or capacity left because of the first lockdown. Yet they have been told to shut down, even though they have implemented all the safety gear and safety apparatus and with all of the measures that they have put in place. There is nothing in the Budget (No. 3) Bill for them. It is not even about what a hairdresser does — hairdressers do many things — but they might be the only point of contact for a vulnerable elderly person who gets their hair done once a week, once a day or every other day. That is the only contact that that vulnerable elderly person, who is isolated in their home, gets. Where is the support in the Budget (No. 3) Bill for the vulnerable people living at home and sometimes shielding? It is non-existent.

There is a lady who provides a service and space for disabled kids and their parents, a sensory room. It is a good, cutting-edge business. It is entrepreneurial, but it provides a dedicated service for disabled children and their parents and much-needed respite. All the equipment is in the room, and the kids have great fun with their parents out of the house, where all the pressure comes. For that business owner and those disabled children and their parents, where is the support in the Budget (No. 3) Bill?

I could go on. Soft-play areas thought that they would close. They have not, but can they really open safely when all the businesses around them are closing? It may be only a matter of days until they have to close too. If they close and do not get support, will the Budget (No. 3) Bill support them? Will the Finance Minister or the Executive put in place a package to support them? I have seen nothing yet. All I have seen is confusion.

Photo of Caoimhe Archibald Caoimhe Archibald Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he accept that the Economy Minister also has responsibility for bringing forward proposals for some of the businesses that he has highlighted?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Yes, I acknowledge that. That is why I go back to my point about a strategic thought and process. This is not the way to do government in a crisis. The Finance Minister took a collective decision, with the Executive, to close businesses without having information about the impact of that decision to hand. Ministers scurried about for days afterwards seeking clarification of the impact on businesses. That is no way to make a decision. Making that decision without the financial support and mechanisms in place to back it up —.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Yes, I will.

Photo of Andrew Muir Andrew Muir Alliance

Does the Member accept that the regulations that he refers to, which have had a financial impact on our public finances and businesses, were made by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and could have been made in a much more timely manner?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I am not sure what point the Member makes. I will let him make another intervention if he needs to. We have been told clearly, even by the First Minister, that it was a decision of the Executive, a decision by the Executive to bring in the measures last Tuesday.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Again, Members, this is not a debate about the measures; this is the Budget debate.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Thank you for your guidance. I get waylaid by the Members around me. It is terrible.

I conclude by saying this: we must do much more and do far better. The Member across the way made an intervention that I did not get a chance to respond to. This has to be a strategic thought process that works in quick time, aligned with the emergencies that we face. There is no way that we can justify closing down branches of the economy that affect all of the economy without having in place a strategic plan to fund and support those businesses. Even if we had a programme that had not been launched, it would not be so bad, but the fact that we do not have a programme is criminal. Allowing businesses, entrepreneurs, business owners and employers to fall by the wayside like that is not correct, it is not right, and it is no way to do government.

The Budget (No. 3) Bill will be passed. There may be some shouts from the corner, but it will be passed. We have yet to see a draft Budget for the next financial year. That will have to include measures because COVID-19 will not be done by then; it will not be finished. We will still have a crisis in housing and in welfare, and we will still have all the other crises, such as those in NI Water or Translink and all that. We have not yet seen a Budget for that year, and we need to see it soon. If we do not, how will Committees, the Finance Committee included, do their work? How will we consult the public so that they can inject their thoughts into the Budget process? It is simply not good enough to allow the drift to carry on at the heart of government in Northern Ireland. The Executive and the Finance Minister must do much better.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

I did not intend to speak today, because I spoke in yesterday's financial debate. I made, I think, three points, all of which the Minister acknowledged positively, and I am grateful to him for that.

I was listening to the debate up to Question Time, and I had two issues with it, the first of which was the tone of some of the contributions and exchanges. If there is a public mood, I think that we missed it by a country mile. The second issue is that it seems that the debate on the Budget (No. 3) Bill is not being joined up to the other aspects of Executive government.

I will not argue that money is not tight or that we could not use a lot more, but we are talking about a lot of money. Once we go beyond tens and hundreds of millions and into billions of pounds, people find it hard to understand or to contextualise it. If we had that money in cash in £20 notes, would it fill the Chamber? Would we need the Great Hall? I have no idea. It is a lot of money, and the question is this: how do we agree that we are spending it to best effect? That is difficult. If you are running a business, it is relatively easy. Your board of directors will tell you your purpose in two words: "Make money". You minimise the amount of money that you spend, and you maximise the amount of money that you invoice: that is called profit. But what is the profit that the Budget Bill aims to achieve?

When I came here, I had worked in the private sector for quite a long time, and what surprised me was the lack of focus on outcomes. It was all about doing stuff. It was all about inputs and spending budgets, but there was little focus on what we were achieving. I will give you an example. We have what we call "super output areas" — in other words, we measure communities in terms of poverty, dereliction and deprivation — and we draw up league tables. We then, quite rightly, put resource and funding into those areas. Over the 20 years of devolution, there are some areas in the top 10 areas of deprivation that have had tens of millions; in fact, there may be one that has had over £100 million. Guess what: it is still in the top 10 on the league table. Does that not tell us something? Does that not tell us that what we are doing is not achieving the outcome that we were trying to achieve?

The problem is that we are debating the Budget (No. 3) Bill without a Programme for Government, which is the measure of success. The draft Programme for Government for 2016-2021 was published four and a half years ago on 26 May 2016 and is still not agreed. It was a marvellous document, because it put a focus on outcomes. It said that we were going to stop just doing stuff and go forward with what we were calling an "outcome-based accountability" approach.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

The Member makes a valid point, which I omitted to mention in my speech, about the Programme for Government. The beauty of the Programme for Government, with its outcomes-based design, is that it wedded Departments together to complete outcomes. Without an outcomes-based Programme for Government, those Departments drift apart.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP 5:15, 20 October 2020

I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree totally. There is no point in pointing the finger at the Minister of Finance, the permanent secretary or her staff at the Department of Finance or anybody else in government if we are not operating that joined-up approach. I have previously used the example of educational underachievement. Traditionally, what we do is to point the finger at the Minister of Education and say, "That is your problem. You have to fix it". We know that healthier children will do better at school, so the Minister of Health has a role to play. We know that children in better housing conditions are more likely to do better at school, so suddenly the Minister for Communities has something to say. There are three Ministers. You could make the argument that every Minister in the Executive has a role to play and that the Minister of Education is only the lead in that effort. We are making an effort. The Minister and his staff work hard.

Interestingly, the man who devised outcomes-based accountability (OBA), Mark Friedman, identified why that is not good enough by writing a book entitled 'Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough'. We can all try hard but fail to achieve the outcomes that we want to achieve.

Let me refer you to the Hansard report of a meeting on 11 October 2016 when Mark Friedman came here and presented to the then Committee for the Executive Office. He brought some colleagues with him, including an American consultant called Phil Lee. He gave us the example of a community with a population of one million people and how, before OBA, the Departments of the Government all did the same thing: they lobbied for money and resource. After OBA, they hit a point at which the Government said, "We need a bit of austerity here. Everybody needs to take a haircut on their finances". Six public health and safety agencies, courts and jails etc got together. They had been told the overall figure that they had to cut and how it was to be cut. They went away, sat down together and had a discussion. They went back to the Government and said, "We are going to cut the overall amount that you want us to cut, but we want to do it differently". Five of the six agencies took an even bigger cut than they had been asked to take so that they could reinstate a programme that worked in the jail system. They all realised that it worked so well that they all benefited from it. As Phil Lee told us, instead of hoarding resources or lobbying for their own piece, they stepped back and saw the bigger picture. They realised that this was the right thing and the best thing to do.

We have had devolution for 20 years, but we are nowhere near that level of maturity yet, are we? When we look at the Budget (No. 3) Bill, it is not only a question of how we intend to spend the money but a question of whether we are spending it on the right things. It is not just about whether we are delivering government programmes as promised but about whether those programmes are the right ones to deliver. Under OBA, we have promised that we might be going out to community groups and to the voluntary and community sector that are delivering a programme for us and saying, "Our monitoring and evaluation says that this is not working, so I am very sorry, but we are stopping your funding". That could apply to a community group in your constituency that you have been photographed with for your local paper and quoted as saying that it is doing a great job. Do we have the courage to do that, because that is what we committed to in 2016?

We have committed to a lot of things that we have not delivered on. We are not joined up. How deeply ironic it is that we are not joined up when 84 of the 90 Members of the House are aligned to parties that are members of the Northern Ireland Executive. Our equivalent of 10 Downing Street or Government Buildings is Stormont Castle down the hill, but there is a big difference. Downing Street is for one man: a Prime Minister. Government Buildings is for one politician: an Taoiseach. Stormont Castle is for two politicians: the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Yet woe betide anybody who says that you should use your single transferable vote to express an opinion about who you want to be First Minister and who you want to be deputy First Minister.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I encourage the Member to come back to the Budget Bill.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

I will, but I am trying to make a point, Deputy Speaker, about how the Budget Bill relates to the governance that we signed up to in 1998. The point is that you can be rivals in an election, but, once the votes are counted, you are supposed to be partners. There has been no sign of partnership working in this debate. I think that people expect us to get over ourselves, not to reduce a global pandemic to a sectarian headcount.

A mile or less from here, if we go out on to Stoney Road, we end up at the Ulster Hospital, where, in the maternity unit, I suggest that at least one child is being born as we speak. I hope that that child never watches this morning's debate or any other debate until we learn to be the partners whom we committed to being in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and we focus on spending the money in this Budget Bill in a way that will improve the lives of those newborn babies.

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will finish by going back to 1998 and what the parties to the agreement said:

"The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all. We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships".

That is the leadership that we are expected to offer from this House. I regret that we did not live up to that at times during this debate.

Photo of Justin McNulty Justin McNulty Social Democratic and Labour Party

I begin by passing on my condolences to the families of the 16 people who have, sadly, passed away with COVID on this island over the past day.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate. As legislators, we have a number of key roles, including to shape public policy and public spending and to scrutinise the implementation of that public policy and spending by Departments, public and arm's-length bodies.

I will focus my remarks on a number of areas. I am a member of the Education Committee and SDLP spokesperson on sport and public health. I will also refer to Brexit and the COVID pandemic and how we, as an island, respond and build our way out of it.

Nelson Mandela said:

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."

That quote encompasses everything that we need to understand about education and the way in which we should approach everything that we do in life. We often hear in this place and beyond that we have one of the best educational systems in the world. I am sorry to say that I do not believe that. Just ask any parent of a child with special educational needs who has been failed by our system. They have to fight for every little bit of additional help and support that they can get, be that literacy support, speech and language therapy, physiotherapy or emotional support. They wait too long for a diagnosis, and then, when a statement of special educational needs is eventually produced, it takes too long to put in place the support that is needed. Children are being failed.

There are also children in disadvantaged areas who, during the pandemic, are struggling to cope. Homeschooling has been difficult. The Executive have had to supply electronic equipment to allow some children to continue their education at home. However, that is a societal issue. Although I welcome the Education Minister's efforts to raise standards, particularly for children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, we must recognise that educational underachievement and disadvantage, just like COVID-19, does not discriminate on the grounds of religious or political background. We need to build capacity, resilience and ambition for all our communities.

Our school estate is in dire need of real investment. Too many children are being taught in substandard facilities. How can we really aspire to deliver a world-class education system if we expect teachers and school leaders to work in cramped and outdated accommodation?

Teachers got their just pay rise this year, but we really need to do much more. We have all witnessed how flexible and adaptable teachers and schools have been, upskilling and adopting new approaches as they switched to remote and blended learning.

As we hopefully move from lockdown back to a new normal, we need to address the impact on people of school closures and periods of isolation from school and communities. We need to see a proactive approach taken to an education catch-up programme, but we also must address mental health and well-being. If we fail to address the issues of emotional health and well-being, our society will suffer the consequences of COVID long after a vaccine is found.

We are in difficult times. Businesses are closed, and we do not know what further restrictions may or may not be imposed in the times ahead. If we are to see an economic recovery, however, we need to ensure that businesses are retained and supported through these difficult times. Although the support announced by the Minister this week for businesses impacted on by their having to close is a good start, it is nothing more than that. We need to have more support for those closed and restricted businesses and, indeed, for those who have not had any support as yet, after more than six months, such as mobile or work-from-home hairdressers and beauticians; those in the arts and entertainment sector; those in the bus, coach and transport sector; those who work in gyms; those who work in retail and in hospitality; and the self-employed. Too many businesses, individuals and families do not know where the next pay cheque will come from.

Let there be no more fumbling about in the dark, no more dilly-dallying by Ministers and no more passing the buck. We saw the Economy Minister abdicate her responsibility for the bus, coach and taxi industry. Other attack dogs in this place pointed the finger at Minister Mallon for months, only for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to intervene. For the First Ministers to intervene —.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Member to refer —?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Order. During points of order, Members should take their seats.

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

Is it appropriate for the Member to refer to MLAs as "attack dogs"?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Sorry. Can you repeat that, please? I did not pick it up.

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

Is it appropriate for the Member to refer to MLAs as "attack dogs"? He said:

"Other attack dogs in this place".

The only people in this place are MLAs.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

In the course of debate, much language is used. I will review the setting of the words and ask the Speaker's Office to comment.

I ask Mr McNulty to continue.

Photo of Justin McNulty Justin McNulty Social Democratic and Labour Party

The First Minister and the deputy First Minister then intervened and stripped the Economy Department of the powers and handed them to the Infrastructure Minister. What will be the cost of that delay to the bus and coach operator industry?

I was always told to be careful if you point the finger, because there are always three pointing back at you. In all seriousness, we need to see every Department, led by the Executive Office, plan our way out of this pandemic, from Health through to Education and the Economy, and even Communities through sport.

Our health service had changed and adapted. Society has learnt to value like never before the work of our healthcare staff in hospitals, in care homes and in the community. Where would we be without our healthcare workers? We have all learnt the true meaning of saying, "Your health is your wealth". Among all the clapping and applauding of our healthcare staff, it is forgotten that it took the nurses taking to our streets earlier this year to get this place back up and running.

The Health Minister has performed admirably throughout this period, but if we are serious about valuing our health service, we need to see it transformed. We need services to be available to those who need them and available where they need them, and we need to see specialist services delivered outside the outer ring of Belfast. We need to see all-island specialties developed without delay, especially for cancer services.

As someone who has been steeped in sport all my life, I value its importance, not just as a game but as a means of building a person, building character and building and binding communities. I was so delighted last night to hear that the restrictions announced in the South will not impact on our inter-county championship, which will continue. The importance of the GAA and sport to the national psyche was brilliantly encapsulated by David Brady, a Ballina man, and Colm O'Rourke, a Skryne man, on 'Claire Byrne Live' last night.

We have seen our sporting organisations right across this island and in every code step up when this society needed them most. They set up food banks. They provided support to the vulnerable in our communities, and they did so with joy in their hearts. They reached out beyond their communities.

Sports clubs and organisations have seen their revenues collapse. Most of those are amateur sports, based in our communities, and they draw their financial support from our communities. They cannot fundraise, yet their costs continue. Support already given is welcome, but it needs to be much more if they are to survive.

I plead with the Minister and the Executive to support sport. I would have loved nothing more — I am sure that the Minister is the same — to have been at the Athletic Grounds last Saturday night. However, not being at matches is a sacrifice worth paying for public health during this pandemic. Whilst the result was not what we wanted, sport, even from the sofa, gives a release and a sense of community that is good for people's emotional health and well-being. With sport — Gaelic games, rugby, soccer, horse racing — continuing, the national mood will be improved, and it will help brighten up the dark days of winter.

That brings me to Casement Park, Páirc Mhic Easmainn. I, like every other Gael across this island, was delighted when Minister Mallon approved the plans for the redevelopment of Casement Park last week. However, now the finances must follow, and I urge you, Minister and the Executive, to bring certainty and clarity to the revised financial support package on offer from the Executive. This is crucial for the delivery of the project, but also the jobs in construction that it will bring will be so important in the time ahead. Will the Finance Minister commit to ensure that the entire funding will be available to construct our stadium of dreams in Ulster?

Brexit is still on the horizon. We need the Executive to plan our way through COVID-19 and Brexit. A no-deal exit would be catastrophic for this place, especially for border constituencies like my own. I will not rehearse old arguments, only to say that I remain of the view that membership of the European Union was our best economic and social way forward, and to walk away was a foolish act of self-harm by Brexiteers.

"The European Union is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution."

Words from my former leader John Hume, RIP. We cannot stand by and allow Brexit to destroy our economy and prosperity. I hope that Departments are making necessary preparations for what I still hope will be a deal. Our public services and economy have come through a rough time in recent months. We need to build resilience and support for businesses, services and communities in the times ahead.

I support the Bill. I hope that the Assembly can live up to the expectations that our people had earlier this year when, at long last, it was rebooted.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP 5:30, 20 October 2020

I have been in this Chamber 26 years today, so this is my 26th Budget, and I have to say that I have heard it all before. What we have had is a succession of MLAs using the Budget as a platform to pursue their particular pet projects, be it issues in their own constituency or a wider concern. What I have not heard this afternoon — it is rapidly becoming this evening — is anybody suggesting where the pot of gold is that we are going to obtain to fund all these demands. We, as an Assembly, have to be realistic and suggest that we must raise more money if we are going to fund additional services. Barnett consequentials are limited; yes, extra funding has been made available because of coronavirus, but that is for particular, targeted purposes. The Minister cannot grab a couple of hundred million pounds that has been ring-fenced for coronavirus and use it for a new road scheme or extra provision within education.

There are areas where extra money could be raised, and I urge the Minister to address these, potentially for next year's Budget. I will give a few examples. The aggregates levy takes roughly £19 million a year out of the economy of Northern Ireland, and it is sent to the Exchequer. I have close contacts with the quarry industry, and I met two quarry operators from Northern Ireland this year who have paid over £1 million per quarry in aggregates levy. That is a huge amount of money that is being taken out of the economy. The irony is, of course, that, despite coronavirus, our quarry industry is doing exceptionally well.

All of those to whom I speak say that they have never been busier. Why is that? Some suggest that, because people have not been able to take holidays, they are carrying out improvements to their homes or, if they are farmers, to their land. Certainly, the quarry industry is very busy, which means that even more money is going to pour out of the economy through the aggregates levy. When the levy was introduced, the idea was that this money would be used for projects to ameliorate the damage to communities caused by quarries. Quarries, generally, have a very good track record in Northern Ireland of dealing with their local community. However, it is irksome that this money has been confiscated by London — or, probably, by Southend-on-Sea — yet, as far as I can see, not one penny has come back to Northern Ireland. This is important because although Northern Ireland makes up only 4% of the population of the United Kingdom, it accounts for nearly 12% of the quarry aggregate industry. We are a great success in this particular field. I ask the Minister of Finance to find out where that money has gone and why none of it, not even 4%, has come back to Northern Ireland, where it could be spent on important projects.

We have had the success of the plastic bag levy, which has reduced the use of single-use plastic bags by 80%. There is certainly room for that to increase, because it is a voluntary tax. People like me go to the supermarket and do not want to pay a shilling. For the benefit of younger people, that is 5p, but only about three people in the Chamber know what I am talking about. People can avoid paying that by bringing their own multiple-use bag. Why not consider increasing that to a more realistic level?

My point on MOT fees might be controversial. I am a regular visitor to the MOT centres in Newry, Downpatrick and Lisburn. You have only to see my car to know why. Just over £30 for an MOT is an absolute bargain compared with the rest of the UK. I can take a vehicle in — mine is normally worth about £250 — and, if I am fortunate and it passes, I walk out with a vehicle that could be worth treble that amount. All for a £30 fee. Maybe there is scope to address that figure. Of course, the Minister will say that this is all small stuff compared with what is needed to keep Northern Ireland going.

In the 26 years that I have been here, during every discussion on making the water service — Northern Ireland Water — a more effective model for the delivery of that essential service, there have been arguments about privatisation. It has been extremely unpopular. I am sure that even mentioning the word "privatisation" would have Mr Carroll jumping on me and threatening me with all sorts of sanctions because I had sworn. The halfway house is the Welsh model, Hyder, which was very successful in taking the funding of water out of the relevant Department. Here, of course, it is the Department for Infrastructure. The Welsh model funds water and enables adequate capital investment without being a burden on the economy. Today, several Members talked about the chronic underinvestment in water. There are so many examples of developments that cannot take place because of the lack of sewerage infrastructure and because many of the pipes supplying water to our community have long since passed their sell-by date. We need investment in our water, but it does not necessarily have to come from the public purse. In next year's Budget — it is important to keep mentioning the Budget, Mr Deputy Speaker — the Minister should consider a new way of funding our water service.

Several Members said that we need a radical change in how we provide hospital services. Every Member of the Assembly agrees with that statement, as long as it does not effect their local hospital. That is the problem that we face. When I was Health Minister, there was a proposal to change the configuration of the Northern Trust and the Western Trust. What was the reaction? The MLAs representing Coleraine arrived up with a petition signed by 23,000 people, saying, "Do not lay a finger on our hospital." That was the level of buy-in from that community. When there was a proposal to close Dalriada Hospital, I received, as Minister, a petition signed by, I reckon, 97% of everyone in the Moyle District Council area who was aged over 11. In fact, we could not find anybody in the area who had not signed that petition.

I remember going up to see the hospital — it was an excellent provision — and there was a tractor cavalcade in the town. They said that, if I tried to close Dalriada Hospital, the tractor cavalcade would ensure that I would not be leaving Moyle for many months, and I think they meant it.

The difficulty is that important health decisions need to be made. Health can be delivered in a much better way. We are spreading a limited resource over far too many buildings. Others who look at the provision of health in Northern Ireland are aghast at how many structures and buildings we require to deliver the service. Leicestershire has the same population size as Northern Ireland: two hospitals. Yorkshire is the same size: half the number of hospitals. However, if you suggest that to anybody in the Chamber, they will be on their feet immediately saying, "Yes, but don't you dare touch my facility".

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member makes an interesting point that I have heard him make in the House before. Will he accept that, potentially, there is the ability to have that public conversation and make that change in light of the pressures facing our hospitals due to COVID-19?

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

As you should know, the Bengoa report was one of many. We have had Compton, Donaldson and Bengoa. All three — and many others, such as Gerry Burns —.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I ask the Member to link his comments about COVID and hospital reform to the Budget.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

They obviously outlined the concerns they had about the budgets for health service provision in Northern Ireland. All of those reports said that, if we were to try to bring the budget down to a sensible scale, a major realignment of hospital service provision in Northern Ireland was absolutely essential. Indeed, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister signed up to the Bengoa report and said that they wished to see it progressed. That is fine until you try to close one broom cupboard in one hospital in Northern Ireland. Watch the reaction of those who represent that area. Indeed, gone are the days when political dissension will bring 10,000 people onto the streets of Northern Ireland. Those days are over. However, touch a hair on the head of one hospital in Northern Ireland and you will have the entire adult population on the streets. How can we keep within a budget if that is the attitude that we have as a community?

Here we are 26 years on, 25 Budgets later, and still we cannot grasp that we are pouring a large amount of the very scarce resource contained in the Budget down a black hole, because the structure is fundamentally wrong. I do not believe that a democracy in Northern Ireland can deliver these changes, because the pressures on the individual representatives are so intense.

I listened with great interest to the comments made by many Members criticising Departments that have not spent the money allocated to them in their budget. They have failed to remember what are called the monitoring rounds. We have a series of monitoring rounds every year — three or four per annum — where the resources that have not been spent by particular Departments, for various legitimate reasons, are brought back into a central pot and redistributed amongst those Departments that are experiencing pressures.

Quite frankly, there are times when Departments could never have made ends meet had it not been for the monitoring rounds. Certainly, when the monitoring rounds are published, there is no shortage of safe havens for the unspent money. It is unfair to say that there is anything particularly wrong in Departments voluntarily giving up money to provide extra funding, rather than trying to keep it within their bailiwick, to meet pressures that are emerging elsewhere. I have been involved in that process. I reckon I must have been involved in about 100 monitoring rounds over 26 years. Therefore, do not be critical of Departments who readily identify unspent funding and give it up. The tendency would be to try to spend it rapidly on some hasty project where there may not actually be a need.

Mr Frew made the point that it is unforgivable, after a series of monitoring rounds, to still be left with unspent money at the end of the financial year. Obviously, that is totally wrong. However, some of those who spoke today clearly do not understand the funding mechanism that the Assembly has to live within. We all face very dark times, and I detect in the Chamber that many Members are very uneasy with the present restrictions that have been implemented and the Budget set out for the implementation of those policies.

I agree with Mr Frew. The landscape for support, and the Budget that has been outlined to support companies in this particular period of restrictions, is very different from that which was available in April, May and June when there was the luxury of 80% furlough payments for employed and self-employed people. There were grants of £10,000 and £25,000, and there were bounce-back loans. We now face a totally different situation. I believe that many companies will not see a resumption of trading in four weeks' time, and we have to accept that.

I accept that the Minister has a small budget in comparison to fund that. Compared to what was available to the Executive at the start of the financial year and what is available now, it is very small beer indeed. It is a very small amount and it will not save businesses from going to the wall. I ask him to include in his Budget companies that have not been asked to close but which will have to close because of the restrictions. No cognisance has been taken of their needs. I mentioned ferry operators earlier. The Carlingford ferry operator has not been told to close, but it will close.

The business model for soft-play areas depends not only on paying customers but on cafes. Their business model indicates that they have to have their cafes open to make them pay. The cafes are closed; therefore, soft-play areas are in great difficulties. Dog kennels depend on the holiday trade, which has absolutely died. They have not been told to close, but they will have to close because of the situation. The Minister should include in his Budget a scheme similar to the hardship fund in the earlier package that kept some of those businesses —.

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP 5:45, 20 October 2020

I thank the Member for giving way. This is a problem that I face daily in my constituency. I have been liaising with the Minister on dog kennels, for example, for a long time. The knock-on impact of locking down the economy has budgetary impacts on many different sectors. To date, the Minister has relied on research, and I understand the need for it at the time, carried out by the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre, to establish the sectors that should be awarded rate relief. However, that has not taken into account those sectors that have had no support, and because of the sectors that are closed, there is essentially no business there for establishments that have been asked to stay open.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

I think that that is very relevant to the Budget being discussed this afternoon.

The final category that I would like to highlight is that, in the Budget, there is protection for the Department for Infrastructure's transport division and Translink's coaches. They will be protected in the present situation, but what about the hundreds of drivers and owners of private coaches in Northern Ireland who have seen their business dry up to absolutely nil since March? They still have to pay insurance, maintenance, rates and, more importantly, they have to pay the capital repayments for leasing the vehicles. A coach can easily cost £200,000 or £300,000. They have not been ordered to close down, but they have to close and they face wipeout. We could find that, eventually, the private sector is ruined and goes to the wall, which will provide Translink with a monopoly, and, of course, it will have been helped financially.

The Minister obviously committed some sins in a previous life to deserve the position of Minister of Finance at this juncture. There are many difficulties, but until we mature as an Assembly and stop saying, "Please give me, give me, give me" and suggest to the Minister and the Department of Finance where we feel this money can come from, I could be here for another 26 years listening to exactly the same debate and getting absolutely nowhere.

Photo of Colin McGrath Colin McGrath Social Democratic and Labour Party

Maybe this could be a constituency double act: my constituency colleague detailed the ways to raise money, and I will detail the ways to spend that money. That would work well. I took the time yesterday to speak as Chair of the Executive Office Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to speak today as an MLA for South Down so that I can illustrate a number of the needs that are felt acutely by those living in my constituency.

The Budget is, indeed, a difficult business. The Minister responsible for its implementation is in an unenviable position. MLAs from across the North have spoken at length today, some at more considerable length than others. They also spoke yesterday to outline their constituents' needs and the areas where the Budget can deliver for them. Ministers will defend the financial need for their portfolio, so all Departments must work together, as I mentioned yesterday, to deliver on a genuine cohesion of purpose.

Our Executive must move beyond the continued silo mentality that prevails. Such an approach stops our Executive being strategic and planned and developing interventions that have the greatest impact. Such a joined-up approach will stop duplication and, worse, interventions being missed. We must work together to see unity of purpose and spend. However, that works and is justified only when those who request moneys take responsibility and accountability for what is delivered. From those who have been given much, much shall be expected.

To place that in context, as I mentioned yesterday, the Executive Office received half a million pounds to work with the press in light of COVID. Initially, we saw how the COVID messaging was working. The public bought in to that up to the point where political leaders began taking the regulations and public health into their own hands and determining what was and was not in the spirit of the regulations.

While our Budget up to this point has been viewed through the lens of COVID, just as our politics have been viewed through the lens of Brexit for so long, we have to at least attempt to look at how we rebuild. I should say that it is absolutely regrettable that we see moneys allocated to the various Departments all too often go towards:

"expenditure on activities that are required as a result of the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union."

I imagine that this was another caveat that our resident Brexiteers failed to mention in the run-up to the referendum: "We will take back control, but, by God, it won't half cost you".

Brexit aside, we need to think big. I am a proud Irish nationalist, and l believe that we should think beyond our borders and the limitations of Brexit and COVID. As I detailed yesterday, we now have the commitment to the medical school at Magee. I want to see the medical school act as a driver for future development. Given that close to £1·5 billion is being allocated to the Department of Health, who is to say that we could not have a state-of-the-art nursing school at the Downe Hospital, as staffing is apparently the reason for the prolonged closure of our emergency department? The Downe Hospital is a fantastic facility and has great scope for further development. The adjacent Downshire complex has scope to be developed for classrooms and as a learning environment, and we could see, once again, a generation of medical practitioners graduate from Downpatrick. Yet that will need investment, and, yes, it will mean effort and work, but the payback could be immense, with more local people being able to avail themselves of the opportunity to train, more supply going into the much-depleted pool of nurses that our health service so desperately needs and a strengthening of our health service so that it serves all our communities and is fit for purpose.

The lesson of the Downe Hospital in recent months serves as a reminder to the Executive, going forward, that, when you place investment for the public at the heart of your portfolio, you win every time. Think of the positive ripple effect of Minister Mallon's delivery of Casement Park for west Belfast and for the wider community that benefits from it. Think of the benefits of the Ballynahinch bypass, which we have waited for for so long and will, hopefully, see starting soon. Think of the benefits brought about by her continued commitment to the Strangford ferry. Think of the delivery of the Downpatrick park-and-ride facilities, although it must be said that I would gladly continue to campaign for upgrades to the A7 from Belfast to Downpatrick. Such a move would only further the connection of communities and people and provide stability through sustainable jobs, a bit like the exciting news that we heard today about the expansion of Finnebrogue Artisan in Downpatrick at the Down Business Park. It is creative and innovative thinking that will only go from strength to strength, but it is done with the skilful work and financing of its managing director, Denis Lynn, with little to no public investment. How much more could be done with the right support from our Department for the Economy? Today, that was an announcement of 300 jobs in the Downpatrick area. It is very welcome, but there is not much support from the public purse. Those are just a fraction of the benefits that we will be able to enjoy because of infrastructure that Minister Mallon has delivered. However, if we fail to do that —

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

The Member says that the Minister has delivered: the Minister delivers a planning application that either meets the criteria or does not. How does the Minister for Infrastructure deliver those projects?

Photo of Colin McGrath Colin McGrath Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, it is taken in the round of my conversations that, when you deliver for the public and deliver public investment, you deliver for jobs. I do not think that the idea was directly to connect two separate parts of my full speech.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Can I draw the debate back to the Budget, please?

Photo of Colin McGrath Colin McGrath Social Democratic and Labour Party

Certainly, because it is all about spend, Mr Deputy Speaker.

If we fail to spend but take the approach of the current occupier of Number 10 and try to progress such hare-brained schemes as a bridge to Scotland, disaster will follow and public confidence will plummet as vital public funds are flushed down the drain.

I welcome the fact that moneys have been allocated in the Department of Health to the Fire and Rescue Service, which protects all of us daily but often with little or no thanks. It is my hope that we will see, as part of this investment, the development of an all-island strategy to combat wildfires, which severely impact places such as the Mourne mountains in my constituency. Much like COVID, the fires do not recognise borders, so our response to them must reflect that.

In this year's Budget, over £300 million is committed to the Department for the Economy. While some of that money will undoubtedly be spent on the response to COVID, I welcome the fact that it will also be used for the delivery of city deals. If we look at ongoing work in Newry, Mourne and Down, we will, hopefully, soon see the delivery of the Mournes gateway project. While the project cannot be completed without the funds, it could not be delivered without innovation and creative thinking from individuals working on the ground in local communities. Be under no illusion about the transformative power of the Mournes gateway project. We all know that County Down is the most beautiful county in Ireland, and the gateway project will cement its position as the number-one tourism destination in Ireland. The power of tourism is widespread across my area. Downpatrick has the wonderful product of ecclesiastical tourism as the home of St Patrick, world-renowned and pursued. The Lecale coastline is breathtaking, yet we have one of the smallest hotel headcounts in the North. Such investment could bring ripples across our economy.

Budget Bills are a long process, and they are not often the spiciest debates in the Chamber. However, they afford us the opportunity to think creatively and essentially to put our money where our mouth is. I look forward to seeing the North begin to rebuild after the devastation of COVID and, hopefully, find a way through Brexit. In future Budgets, I would like consideration to be given to a small towns budget to help towns like Downpatrick to regenerate and develop. With appropriate investment, even at a modest level, we could see the transformational power of public spending helping towns to have bespoke attributes that would make them attractive to residents and visitors, both those from the local area and from far-flung places. Such investment is always recouped manyfold by the local economy and is a worthwhile investment process. With about 20 to 30 small towns across the North, a rolling programme of a few million pounds each year could see them transformed in a short time.

I want to mention mental health, specifically youth mental health.

Young people are struggling, be it through the trans-generational impact of the Troubles; the prolific nature of drug abuse in communities; the peril of paramilitarism, which is still alive in some communities; or the evolving stress of modern life and the adjustment in online existence with bullying and cyberbullying. We need to tackle that matter now or we will store up problems for the future.

I would like to see a well-resourced, ring-fenced fund to tackle youth mental health, both in schools and in communities. We have a well-run and well-equipped Youth Service across the North that is well placed to deliver that work. The Facilitating Life And Resilience Education (FLARE) project has had a fantastic impact on young people's lives. Such initiatives should be developed and enhanced. Their reach could be much greater if they were given the chance to enhance their work.

I reiterate: placing investment in the public at the heart of the portfolio wins every time. Investment in young people is investment in the future. Such investment is clearly strategic and beneficial. We can do it if we are willing to work together. I support the Budget (No. 3) Bill.

Photo of Gerry Carroll Gerry Carroll People Before Profit Alliance 6:00, 20 October 2020

Yesterday, I spoke about the way in which the Executive were using the current crisis to drive forward policy in a way that ignores basic processes of scrutiny, accountability and transparency. The Budget Bill was laid late yesterday afternoon. By the time that I and other opposition MLAs got out of the Chamber and got sight of it, we had only a matter of hours to look at the relatively scarce detail that is in front of us, making it, in real terms, impossible to amend or influence the process. As was pointed out yesterday, the way in which revenue Estimates and, indeed, the Budget are presented poses more questions than answers and offers little by way of understanding the financial need and projections of support that have existed over the years that proceeded the mammoth health and economic crisis in which we now find ourselves.

The whole process says a lot about how the Executive, effectively, expect people to put up and shut up with regard to what advisers have told them and what they present. Frankly, the Executive, their advisers, the layers of management and chief civil servants who sit at the helm of the public sector have shown little ability for independent thought or action outside of what the Tories across the water have presented to them throughout the crisis since March. The Chamber has form in that regard in accepting years of Tory austerity, the privatisation of public services, schemes such as RHI and every other scandal that has engrossed some of those who sit in the Executive now. That Executive are presiding over what may well be the biggest disaster in their and, possibly, my political life as COVID cases surge, workers lose jobs as a result of the mismanagement of economic restrictions, the NHS struggles to provide basic things like the flu vaccine, and we peer into a very bleak winter indeed.

When the history books are written about the turbulent year that we have faced, there is no doubt that one area of agreement among historians will be that, on this island, we entered into the crisis with somewhat of an advantage because we are on an island and had the benefit of witnessing the virus spread across parts of Asia and mainland Europe. However, that advantage was wasted by a political elite of decision makers who are wedded to a for-profit neoliberal model of politics and economics. The same economics that decimated the NHS, cut ICU beds and reduced the public sector in the run-up to the crisis has seen the Executive, effectively, sacrifice public health and preside over a shambolic COVID strategy since March. As I said yesterday, the Executive wasted an important opportunity to reach a zero-COVID strategy in the spring/summer by rushing to reopen the economy before we could control the virus in any real sense.

The extent of the health and social crisis has, of course, seen Governments step in to intervene in their economies in a way that has contradicted the decades-long prevailing economic orthodoxy. Even the British Tories stepped in to pay workers' wages for some limited time because they knew that they needed to keep alive the political and economic system over which they preside.

In that context, there are, obviously, budget increases in some Departments compared with last year's expenditure. We have heard about that already. Anything else would be completely and utterly catastrophic in the period that we are in.

That expenditure clearly does not go far enough, however, if we consider how chronically underfunded this place has been for decades and the deep crisis that we are in, and probably will be in for some time. Increases for the Department for Communities, for example, will no doubt be welcomed by the Minister and the Executive, but they do not go anywhere far enough if we are to overhaul our benefits system so that people are not falling through the cracks. Where is the payment for hospitality workers who are losing income? Where is the self-isolation fund for workers if their employer does not, or will not, pay them while they are needing to isolate? Where are the greater statutory sick pay levels for all workers who are unwell and have to take time off work?

As figures have shown in recent days, COVID is fundamentally a class issue. Workers are forced to work on the front line whilst billionaires can self-isolate on their private island. Since yesterday, many more workers from the same workplaces whose workers contacted me in March have done so again. They are worried that their employer is not taking the necessary precautions to protect them at this time and is, in fact, prioritising the maximisation of profit over the safety of staff and other people. What measures will the Executive take against non-compliant or obstructive employers? We have fines for individuals who breach the guidelines. Where is the same reproach for big companies that put staff at risk?

After this Budget, we are peering at the disaster of a chronically underfunded health service, if it is not a disaster already. On top of the massive COVID costs, people are concerned about surgeries being postponed or cancelled. As I said, our vulnerable population is being told that there is a shortage of the flu vaccine. That is largely down to the fact that our health service is overstretched, underfunded and understaffed. The Budget, as presented, will not fill that void, nor will it make a serious dent in the mental health crisis in our communities. We learned today that one in eight of our young people is facing anxiety, depression or some other form of mental health problem. How will the Budget tackle that? I do not think that it will.

Today, I was contacted by Civil Service workers who are worried about a lack of mental health support. They do not know where to go to or how to get help. They are worried about paying extra as they follow the guidance and try to work from home. Those issues need to be addressed, but it does not appear that they are addressed in the Budget. On top of that, and as I mentioned earlier, workers from Bombardier, Royal Mail workers in Derry and workers in other workplaces are up in arms about health and safety. I salute those workers for not going into work and for taking action to protect themselves. There is not a major injection of funding into the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). In fact, yesterday's Estimates indicated an actual reduction in spending. That is disgraceful beyond belief.

As I said yesterday, there has been a significant reduction in spending and in public-sector superannuation for Civil Service pensions as a result of the changes in the workforce that have been driven by years of austerity and the disastrous voluntary exit scheme, both of which have put massive pressure on staff, increased expenditure on agencies and impacted on trade union membership.

As some Members have said, the Westminster Government need to step up to the plate. We have been disrespected and underfunded for too long, and all parties should be shouting loudly about that. It is not good enough, however, simply to blame Westminster, when parties here have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on such schemes as the renewable heat incentive (RHI), PFI schemes and austerity schemes, and when they have agreed to increase expenses at the same time as job losses are happening.

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

The Member rightly talked about workers' rights. The increased expenses that he refers to are to pay his staff, and my staff, a proper wage, however. Is the Member objecting to that?

Photo of Gerry Carroll Gerry Carroll People Before Profit Alliance

I refer the Member to debates that took place several months ago. One of the first things that the Assembly did on its return was increase pay for Members' staff. Why was sorting out their own staff, who in some cases are family members, the first thing that Members did, when there were workers waiting to be paid? Healthcare workers are still waiting for strike pay that they are owed. There is a list of workers as long as my arm who are waiting for fair pay. Why were party staff paid before those other workers?

Getting back to my point, there is also the issue of borrowing money to cut public-sector jobs and lower corporation tax but not to fund jobs and services. Mr Frew, if I heard him correctly, spoke of money not being spent by Departments. What is going on with that?

The Assembly has revenue-raising streams, including powers to borrow and to lift the cap on rates for the wealthy. These are, as has been said in many debates, extraordinary times, so extraordinary measures must be taken.

Yesterday, the Minister pointed out the need for alternative proposals to address some of the issues that I raised yesterday and today. That requires serious thinking outside the box, which the Department and Executive have not done or do not seem willing to do. Those measures should include an emergency wealth tax to pay for the COVID crisis and shaking the magic money trees that exist in the back gardens of the very wealthy who reside here, in the South and in the UK to ensure that those with the largest shoulders carry the heaviest burden.

We need to make a radical break from the failures of the free market to put people and health before profit. The Minister may say that it is not in his remit to do that, but I would ask him whether he agrees with the point. If he does, he needs to project that, as he has on other issues, with Finance Ministers in Scotland and Wales. A Sinn Féin Finance Minister should be fighting and arguing loudly for the rich to pay their way in a greater sense.

Household wealth has risen by 13% from 2016 to 2018 and stands at £14·6 trillion, or £221,000 per person. That enormous wealth should be used to avoid the austerity disaster that was implemented last time. Why are the Executive not highlighting and trying to reduce that massive inequality that is screaming out in front of us?

Rishi Sunak, the Tory Chancellor, is pressing for corporation tax to rise by 5%, back to its pre-2010 levels, I believe. Why is this Minister, and the Executive as a whole, not pushing for a higher rate of corporation tax, even beyond the 5% that Rishi Sunak is proposing? UK companies are already able to exempt £160 billion of their profits from taxation, in addition to receiving one of the lowest headline rates in the OECD. If that pre-2010 tax rate was implemented, if that £160 billion — even a significant proportion of it — was collected, we would be in a different situation entirely. The Executive and the Finance Minister should emphasise these points. Does he agree with these points? If not, why not? If so, what is his strategy to press, fight, articulate and argue for them?

Given the extent of the crisis that we are living through, it is unhealthy to have such a lack of political opposition in this place. It is an unfortunate reflection of our political system and situation. For our part, we are elected to be a socialist opposition, to hold the bigger parties to account and to build an alternative in our communities and on the streets. For that reason, we do not, and I do not, go along with this Budget. Whilst I might find it hard to divide the Chamber today, I want to put on record my opposition to the Budget for the reasons that I outlined.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

I thank Members for contributing to the debate. I noted down many of the issues that were raised. I know that we are not time-limited, but I do not intend to keep people any longer than I have to.

A lot of Members, as is always the case, have mistaken this debate for a debate that is setting a Budget, rather than one that is approving and legislating for expenditure that was approved in the March Budget, which we debated and passed. Indeed, some Members seem to be highly critical now of the content of what they voted for in March. That probably underlines the central point of the necessity for the review of the financial processes, so that people who come into these debates understand what they are taking about and what is in front of them rather than what they imagine it to be.

A number of points were raised that I wish to address. The Chair of the Committee raised the issue of the sole authority of the Budget.

Yesterday, in response to a question or a point during the debate — I am not sure which part of yesterday's proceedings it was — I said to Mr Allister that I accept that there needs to be a consistency of approach to approval. The fact that the amount was put into the Estimates and voted on is, in effect, approval. However, for good practice, we need to ensure that there is a formal letter of approval. There has been a variety of methods of approval — emails, letters and verbal approvals— and all those are included. He asked about the legislative competence. They are all included in the Estimates, so they are, in effect, voted on anyway. However, for consistency and transparency, we need to see that. The Department will put in place that process from here on in, and I thank the Committee for drawing that to our attention.

The Chair of the Communities Committee raised a number of issues in relation to the impact on the monitoring round. It will not be delayed for much longer. We faced into a very busy fortnight in which a lot of emergency activity had to be undertaken. The intention is to do the monitoring round. Releasing financial transactions capital (FTC) is not so much about monitoring; it is more about obtaining a decision from the Office for National Statistics on housing associations. That decision is expected in the coming weeks. That will have a marked impact on improving our access to financial transactions capital. I also recognise the request that was made on behalf of Supporting People and the need to process the sign language strategy. I will discuss those issues further with the Communities Minister.

Matthew O'Toole, who is no longer with us, raised a number of issues, one of which was FTC. The Departments are aware of the potential that FTC offers to provide support for the private sector. I have always encouraged all Ministers to consider how best to use funding in that context. Given its nature as financial transactions, it is not possible under Treasury rules to recategorise it as resource or capital. He asked whether I was seeking flexibility from Treasury, particularly on switching unused capital to resource. At the moment, we anticipate full capital spend. However, I am seeking additional flexibility to transfer funding from capital to resource to allow us flexibility within our existing budgets and to respond dynamically to any unanticipated challenges in this year.

Matthew O'Toole also raised the issue of a review of financial process. From my opening remarks, he will know that I think that that would be very helpful. I have now been to several Budget debates in the Chamber. It is rare for them to be responded to in the way that they should be. Possibly, the one in March was, as Members recognised that that was the Budget. However, in responding to the rest of them, Members have been telling us what we should not be doing, even though they voted for it back in March. Ironically, as he will remember, back in 2011, when I was Chair of the Finance Committee, the Committee did a piece of work to review the budgetary process to try to streamline it and make it more transparent and accessible. That work needs to be continued. The more I listen to these debates, the more convinced I am of that.

Andrew Muir and others — including Mr Wells, who made related points — asked about the work to establish a fiscal council. This will also answer some of the points that Mr Carroll made. Of course we want to have tax-varying powers here and to be able to set our own policies. One of the central differences between Mr Carroll and me on this is that he thinks that, if you advocate these things enough, you will get fairness in the system at some stage. I do not believe that we will. I think that the only way that we will ever get fiscal fairness is to create our own constitutional future on this island, not within the current constitutional framework.

Photo of Gerry Carroll Gerry Carroll People Before Profit Alliance 6:15, 20 October 2020

Thank you for giving way. I agree in broad terms with what, I think, he is outlining. However, does he agree that, as part of the united Ireland approach that he describes, the wealthier must pay a lot more? Positions that the Minister and his party have advocated previously did not seem to indicate that they were for that.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

No. We have often indicated that we are for a much more radical approach to taxation and a fairer sharing of the burden. Even though I petition the Treasury for fairness and flexibility in its approach, I do not think that that is its instinct. It has not been the Treasury's instinct to take that type of approach for several hundred years. That is why I primarily advocate constitutional change on the island. I think that we can adopt our own approach to those matters.

Mr Muir asked further questions about the money that was set aside and ring-fenced for the health service. We recently received some detail about the spend of that money. I know that other Members raised that, and it brings me to the question about why we are not spending COVID money and are not going to spend it. I do not know where that comes from. We have ring-fenced £55 million out of £2·4 billion for something that everybody in the Chamber has spent the last two days arguing for: to help those who have been left behind. If propositions are not brought forward very quickly by the responsible Departments to help those people who have been left behind, I will allocate that money elsewhere through the Executive. Of course, they will have to approve that. There is no question of not being able to spend the money.

We have received some detail on the money for the health service. It knows the time frame within which the money has to be spent and it will, according to itself, take up the lion's share of that — over £500 million — and release some back for further allocations within the Executive. That is what it asked for. Of course, in their response to the pandemic, the priority of the Executive has been to protect and support the health service, and that money was quite rightly ring-fenced for its use.

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his comments. He raised an interesting point, particularly on the cash totals that we have to be able to deal with in what is now a remarkably short period, bearing in mind that we are rapidly approaching the end of the financial year. We must be able to put those bids in place. On behalf of the Assembly, I ask the Minister to encourage the rest of his ministerial colleagues to expedite that process. We do not have time to waste, and we must be able to support our economy and our businesses as well as our health service.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

Of course. I have said that repeatedly, and I have said that I want to see that at recent Executive meetings. I have listened to all the arguments about "Our Minister is good" and "Your Minister is bad". That stuff does not get us anywhere. I want to see projects delivered. People have now decided who is responsible for what, and I have asked them to bring propositions to me as quickly as possible. Of course, I have also asked that they bring propositions to me for the additional £200 million, which we received only last Friday.

I recognise that the COVID money that we have received — the £2·4 billion — has to be spent in this financial year. That is why we gave Health the time to have a proper look at that £600 million that was available to it and to make sure that it could bring forward properly costed proposals and understood the time frame in which the money had to be spent. That was clearly my intention. In the middle of all that, we have had monitoring rounds for the ongoing allocations to Departments outside of COVID. The October monitoring round will be brought forward very quickly, and we will have a further monitoring round in January.

I am not sure if it was Mr Wells who said that the biggest sin is to return money at the end of the financial year, but I agree with that. That often does not lead to the best spending when we are in an annual Budget system and Departments are forced into trying to spend money because it is a bigger sin to hand it back than spend it on something that, perhaps, is not so strategically important. However, that is the situation that we are in until such times as the comprehensive spending review allows us to move into a multi-annual budgetary situation and plan that better. That is why we have asked for carry-over flexibility if we end up not spending all the money. From my time as the Minister for Regional Development, I know that Roads Service was always ready to spend all the unspent money in January, February and March on road improvements. That was welcome and needed, but it is not a strategic way to spend our money. Of course, we want to make sure in relation to that.

Mr Givan raised a variety of points, but one question that he asked was about money that had been returned by the Health Department. It returned £2·5 million of capital funding for the mother and children's hospital flagship project. It also returned £6·3 million of resource in the October monitoring round because of a reduction in the Agenda for Change pay pressures. It is not that Health was unable to spend the money, but it is a fact that sometimes either projects do not cost as much as originally thought or money that was anticipated for things such as the Agenda for Change is not used.

Mr Givan went on — Mr Frew raised similar points yesterday and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Mr Buckley raised them today — to challenge the decisions that were taken by the Executive in relation to the interventions that were necessary for next week. I am not getting into that. Arguably, from a benign point of view, that debate is within the DUP. Others might categorise what is going on within the DUP in relation to these measures much more stridently. He said that members of the Executive had wanted to close schools for six weeks. That is not true. Apart from the Health Minister and the First Minister and deputy First Minister, Executive Ministers do not bring proposals to the Executive about restrictions. They are brought forward by the Health Department and are transposed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister into a paper for the Executive. We do not come to the Executive with propositions about the length of time of restrictions, the severity of measures or what is required to reduce the R number. Those are brought forward to us.

That mischaracterisation has gone on for over a week, and I will take this opportunity to clear up the matter, as it was repeated in some media outlets as well, as it was briefed last Monday. We did not, and do not, propose for any longer restrictions because we do not bring propositions to the Executive. We listen to advice, to discussion and to debate, and we take in what the medical experts tell us, what we know the impact will be on society and the economy, and then we take our decisions. There is a responsibility on all of us — not just on those of us who are in the Executive — to argue for those decisions if that is what our parties have backed. If people have a different view in their party, that is a matter for their party discipline.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Minister for giving way. I hear what he is saying. I do not pretend for a moment to think that his job is not highly difficult. However, can the Minister explain to the House how you can make such an impactful decision on a Tuesday night yet have Ministers running about on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday not knowing the implications of Tuesday night's decision?

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

First, if the Member wants context, he should ask his own Ministers, including his party leader, who brought the propositions for those decisions to the Executive. These things are done at pace. The rate of transmission, as he knows, was going through the roof, particularly in certain areas, but right across the North.

We got advice from the Department of Health that we needed to take action immediately. That did not allow people to figure out how to get all their ducks in a row, because the virus, by that stage, had spiralled further out of control, and people would say, "Why did you not take action sooner?". It is a balancing act between taking the necessary interventions and making sure that we have all the regulations lined up, with all their implications for all the various businesses. It is not a clean or clear-cut process; it is one that requires speed of action and as much clarity as we can possibly bring to it.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

On a point of order, Mr Wells.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

Mr Deputy Speaker, you have admonished many humble Back-Benchers throughout this debate because they had drifted from the Budget to a debate on coronavirus. Can I suggest that the Minister is doing exactly the same thing?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

The Member is attempting to do the job of the Deputy Speaker. This can be a difficult one, but you tend to allow some latitude. In fact, I was doing that so that the Minister could respond to comments. However, I was about to encourage him to come back to the Budget debate.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

I am certainly happy to take your advice, a LeasCheann Comhairle. However, I am responding to the points that were raised after you gave latitude in the first instance,

[Laughter]

so it would hardly be fair to allow Members to raise points with me without allowing me to respond to them.

As I said, that debate has raged on in the DUP. I hope, for all our sakes, that some meeting of minds happens in that party, because the more clarity we have on the public message, the better for all of us.

Declan McAleer, who spoke on behalf the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, raised the issue of EU exit costs, and, of course, we have continued to press the Treasury to meet those in full, as they have committed to do. We have not yet had that confirmation, but we will continue to press for it. There are concerns about the future of farm payments, and I wrote recently to the Treasury to express my concern about how that is planned to be rolled out. That is a matter of concern for us all.

Robin Newton mentioned EU funding for education programmes. That funding was supposed to be replaced under the shared prosperity fund, but we have yet to receive any clear detail about that.

Caoimhe Archibald asked about the Treasury engagement for the job support scheme. We have rehearsed that many times here. Initially, the job support scheme was not intended to provide any assistance, other than to those who were working for at least one third of their normal hours. That has been changed in recent times to recognise that the further restrictions require greater support. That is welcome. However, it is nowhere near the scheme that had been advanced with regard to job retention earlier in the year. I think that it will inevitably cause people to lose their jobs, and that is a concern for us. She also asked, again, as did many Members, about the sectors that have been left out. As I have said, the £55 million was set aside some months ago by me in a proposition to the Executive to allow space and time for those schemes to be brought forward. It is a matter of regret that some of them have not been brought forward. Again, I encourage Ministers to get down quickly to providing some support there.

Many points were raised about education, with Robin Newton raising a number. I understand his passion for the subject and do not doubt his sincerity, but I know that he will recognise that 10 years of austerity Budgets mean that schools are in the red with their budgets and that classroom assistants are being paid a pittance on part-time contracts for doing vital work. Those, along with the special educational needs (SEN) budget, which we increased this year, were low-hanging fruit and were the first areas to be hit by austerity. The impact of that cannot be overestimated in the context of the ongoing situation. I agree with him about the value and importance of education for young people. It is not just about the three Rs, as he said; it is about the sense of worth and of having a chance in society that education can provide. We cannot set aside the impact of that.

Some Members, including Kellie Armstrong — I see that she is not with us — and Jonathan Buckley raised the issue of underspends by Departments. Mr Wells made point that I was going to make: monitoring rounds are a necessary process. If we did not have them, we would be rigidly fixed in our budgetary spend to what we agree at the start of the financial year. For a variety of reasons, some projects do not go ahead as planned, and some budgets are allocated on the basis of anticipated spend and some on on-demand spend that may not materialise. We have to have the ability to reshuffle money as the year goes on, and the objective is to make sure that we spend out, against our own agreed priorities, that money before the end of the year.

Kellie Armstrong asked about the labour intervention. The Executive were unable to meet the bid from the Department for Communities for £4·8 million for labour market interventions due to needs from other COVID pressures that presented at the time. The Department for Communities has funded the initial pressure internally in the short term and is open to bid again in-year and as part of the forthcoming budgeting exercise.

In relation to Mark Durkan's contribution, one of the benefits of being about here long enough — I have been here since 1998 — is being able to remember the positions that parties have taken over the years. One of the downsides is that, over time, one loses tolerance for listening to them. He waxed on about the welfare mitigations and threatened that the Minister should not expect accelerated passage to be accepted. The first Welfare Reform Bill that came through here was brought in by his party colleague Margaret Ritchie, and she asked the Assembly for accelerated passage to bring it through. I remember, because I was part of the negotiations on welfare mitigations between five parties, and it was us that held out for the welfare mitigation package. Sometimes people like him operate on the basis that if something happened more than a week ago, the public will not remember it, but, thankfully, I have been around here long enough to remember all that.

He criticised the Budget for not having a housing plan. Of course, he went on to recognise that the Budget was the same one that he voted for and agreed in March and that had been set in train before the Executive came back and needed approval within a number of weeks of their coming back.

In relation to investment in infrastructure, I assure the Member that the Department for Infrastructure has received its biggest capital budget so far this year. It is up to the Department and the Minister to prioritise that capital budget. I do not disagree about the need for capital investment in water and sewerage infrastructure, but, of course, that is a decision for her. The Department has a capital budget of £558 million, which is by far the largest capital budget of any Department and represents more than 36% of the Executive's total capital budget.

It is a matter of prioritisation. I do not go into the Department for Infrastructure, nor would anyone there expect me to, to dictate how that money is spent. I also recently allocated an additional £15 million in capital that has enabled Northern Ireland Water to bring forward investment in sewerage infrastructure, including a number of waste water treatment works, this year. Of course, I will meet the Infrastructure Minister in the near future to talk about budgetary requirements for next year.

I assure him that we are tracking the location of jobs. The estate that is needed by the Civil Service has reduced and will probably continue to reduce as a consequence of COVID and of more people working from home. However, we also want flexible arrangements, which is why we have been looking at regional hubs so that civil servants can work there. That is more accommodating to their lives, and it also reduces their carbon footprint and the need for transport in and out of Belfast, as many of them work there every day. That will help us to deal with some of the problems that arise in that regard.

I have already said that I am not sure where Mr Frew gets his information that we are not spending the COVID money. We are spending that money, and the plan is to spend it all out. We now have figures from Health about the largest chunk that is left. We have had an additional £200 million and we need economic intervention. Economic interventions are in this Budget. The Member kept asking about the Budget (No. 3) Bill and where the money is; it is in the Bill and he should read it. He has misunderstood the Bill, because the money that we agreed, which he voted for last March, is in the Bill, and the money that we received for COVID is also in it. We have allocated more money to businesses this year than probably ever in the history of the Executive.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

The Minister has made that specific point many times. He knows the circumstances that we faced in March, when things had to be rushed through and we were just at the start of the pandemic. I am sure that he will accept that much has changed in the intervening six or seven months. Do honourable Members not have the right to reconsider their position, given the historic events that we are now facing?

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

Of course, and it is up to the Member whether he votes against the Budget (No. 3) Bill, as can Mr Wells if he wishes to do so. However, he must bear in mind that we brought the Budget (No. 2) Bill through since March, so we have been trying to manage the situation. Of course, these are unprecedented times, but the Member argued that there is no money for this or that in the Budget. We have given more money in business support than has ever been given out by an Executive in the history of this place, and it is all in this Budget.

More money has now been allocated for business support. It might not be enough as far as the Member is concerned, but we have more money allocated and we have more money to allocate. I have asked people, such as his colleague in the Department for the Economy and other Ministers, to bring forward propositions to spend that money as quickly as we possibly can. We recognise, having talked to businesses and dealt with them, that, as well as the key issue of supporting wages, which is about keeping workers in jobs, businesses need cash to keep them afloat. That is what we have been trying to do.

Photo of Andrew Muir Andrew Muir Alliance

Throughout the debate today, we have heard lots of people calling for action for different sectors and for different Departments to bring that forward. It would bring transparency to know what bids the Finance Minister has received from Departments. Could those be proffered as part of the October monitoring round? It is important to know whether those bids are there; otherwise, nothing will happen.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

There are two exercises at play and there is an overlap between them. That is just the way that this year has gone. In a normal year, all the action would be in the monitoring rounds because that is when Departments bid for any money that is surrendered. We have also had injections of COVID money that have come across from London, so we are trying to manage both things. The bids are in for the October monitoring round, but there is also COVID money to be allocated, so it will be seen in the totality of all those bids. Of course, when it comes to an allocation, we produce the chart when we make a statement — the Executive agree it — about the money that was bid for and the money that was allocated. Members will be able to see that chart at that time.

As I said, the Budget process for next year will begin as soon as we can get the information from London. The Member berated me at one stage for not going away and setting that Budget. I do not know the time frame for a Budget, nor do I know the amount that I will have, so it would be quite irresponsible of me to start to set a Budget now. That is why we have pressed the Treasury for information about the comprehensive spending review. That will dictate how much money we will have and over what time frame we will have it.

As soon as we have that information, we can start to set the Budget and consult on it. That is the time to have that debate when all the Members who have ideas about what should be in that Budget can have their say about what we should be spending our money on. That is a debate that we should, perhaps, have had this time last year. It was rushed through because the Executive were back only in January, but that is a debate that we will have in the time ahead. I look forward to all the contributions and suggestions coming forward at that stage.

I agree with Mike Nesbitt's point about an outcomes-based Programme for Government. That is infinitely preferable, and I fully support it. He made a point about no leadership being shown in the debate. Again, I have been long enough about here to remember all those issues. The Good Friday Agreement happened in 1998, and it was 1999 before an Executive was formed. Questions about a dearth of leadership have been about this place for a long time and at various stages.

Jim Wells made various points relating to the fiscal commission issue, the aggregates levy and other things. That is the sort of debate that we need. That is why I want to establish a commission that will look at all those issues and generate a debate in this institution that will allow us to decide whether we can take more tax-varying powers and, if we take them, what we can use them for. That is how all those ideas can be brought to the Floor.

The Member made the point about companies that have to close, as opposed to ones that are obliged to close, as a result of the restrictions. We can consider being more generous, and the Economy Minister has talked about the supply chain and businesses that have been severely impacted. The initial run of money — certainly in the scheme that I brought forward — was to get it directly to those who were obliged to close. Further schemes should try to have a broader support in the economy. The job support scheme that will pay the wages of those people is fairly rigid and is based around businesses that are obliged to close. If people in ancillary businesses decide that it is not profitable enough for them to remain open, we can try to get some support to them, however limited that is, but the job support scheme from Britain will not apply to their staff if they go off.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

There is a variety of —. I will go for Mr Buckley since he

[Inaudible.]

Photo of Jonathan Buckley Jonathan Buckley DUP

I thank the Minister for giving way. On that point, the University of Ulster carried out economic analysis on the important rate relief that is so essential to the budgets of businesses of that type. Will you consider widening the scope of that to cater for businesses that, unfortunately, may not have been forced to close but are facing the impact?

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

Quite a lot of retail and hospitality already has the rate relief for the full year. They continue to benefit from rate relief, as do a lot of retail businesses. As many people have told us, the effect of COVID will still be with us beyond the end of this financial year. We are already considering rate relief beyond March of next year for targeted sectors.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I am grateful for his time. On the job retention scheme, which he says is quite rigid, there are a number of scenarios in which a large retail unit has a restaurant within it and it is the restaurant that has been forced to close but not the retail unit. Will they still be able to apply for the job retention scheme to pay the wages?

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

It is the job support scheme. The job retention scheme is the original scheme, which is more commonly known as the "furlough scheme". We have been told that the job support scheme is for businesses that are obliged to close under the regulations. If that is a portion of the business within a larger business, it may well apply to the workers who are in that portion of that business. If others in the supply chain decide that it is not profitable enough and that there is no point in staying open and that there is no business to be done, they may not qualify for the job support scheme. In whatever support that we can put out to schemes, we need to bear in mind that the key thing of the retention of workers for many businesses will not necessarily apply in circumstances where they have closed when they have not been obliged to.

I will give way one more time. I am sure that everybody else wants to get home tonight.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

The Minister is dealing with a very important issue that every MLA has been approached on. I give him one example that he will be very aware of: the Carlingford lough ferry has not been told to close, but its business has collapsed as a result of the lockdowns on both sides of the border. I have been approached by a lady whose job is to supply hotels with equipment and furniture. Again, she has not been told to close, but her business has completely dried up. Would he consider a scheme where, if a company or a business can show that 90% of its trade has stopped as a result of the latest restrictions, they could qualify for funding that comes out of the Northern Ireland block grant rather than it coming from the job retention scheme?

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

There are two difficulties with that. The Economy Minister will bring forward some hardship schemes for businesses that are in what might be considered to be the supply chain and that are affected by the general economic downturn. There are two issues. One is the cost of the wage, which, if we brought in all businesses affected, would be beyond the means of the Executive. The other thing is the data. We do not possess the data to support us to be able to do a job retention or job support scheme. That data is held by HMRC. It has been asked whether it would assist in the development of such a proposal from here and has given a point-blank refusal to that. We do not have the data, and I suspect that the cost of such a scheme would be beyond what we have left of the COVID money.

A range of other points were raised, and I will try to finish those points. One of the questions that Gerry Carroll raised was about the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) staff reduction of cost. Ironically, it is a reduction of cost due to COVID-19, because the events that the HSE staff would have run or attended, such as the Balmoral show or awareness events, have not been able to take place.

All the outreach work that they would have done has therefore not been able to happen. That has reduced the cost. It is not about safety issues but about some of the outreach work that the HSE does. The programme spend has been utilised in other ways, however, such as for online and media campaigns targeting areas of high risk, such as falls from height in construction and aspects of agriculture and manufacturing. It has re-profiled its expenditure in that way.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I have tried to answer as many questions as I can without wearing out your patience and that of the rest of the staff here. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. It is imperative that the legislation debated today continue its passage through the Assembly so that public services here can continue to be delivered to our citizens. I ask Members to support the Bill, thereby authorising spend on public services by Departments for the 2020-21 financial year.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP 6:45, 20 October 2020

Before we proceed to the Question, I advise Members that, as this is the Budget Bill, it is established practice that the motion requires cross-community support and that that support be clearly demonstrated.

Question put.

Some Members:

Aye.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

It would be preferable if we did not have to move to a Division.

Question put a second time and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 3) Bill [NIA Bill 09/17-22] be agreed.

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

Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.]