Debate resumed on amendment to motion:

That this Assembly expresses its grave concern at the significant budgetary pressures facing the Executive; recognises the severe impact of these pressures on the delivery of, and investment in, public services, including policing and justice, health and social care, education, housing, infrastructure and our environment; notes that these pressures have arisen as a result of a failed policy of austerity at Westminster, financial mismanagement by the previous UK Government and underfunding of Northern Ireland below its level of relative need; agrees that, while the interim fiscal framework agreed with the UK Government was an important first step, the proposed 124% relative need factor does not adequately reflect policing and justice need in Northern Ireland and the disproportionate squeeze on the Justice budget; believes that a baselined fiscal floor set at a level greater than 124% should be delivered without further delay; calls on the Minister of Finance to publish the Executive sustainability plan, including steps to tackle the cost of division in society, which leaves the Executive with hundreds of millions of pounds less to invest in public services each year; and further calls on the UK Government to depart from their austerity policy by reviewing the fiscal rules and pursuing a progressive taxation system. — [Mr Tennyson.]

Which amendment was:

Leave out all after the first "relative need;" and insert: "agrees that, while the interim fiscal framework agreed with the UK Government was an important first step, the proposed 124% relative need factor will, as things stand, only apply to future Barnett consequentials and cannot remedy the damage caused by core funding for Northern Ireland dropping below need, prior to the restoration of devolution in February 2024; stresses that this will have a significant, adverse and recurrent impact on the scale of the Northern Ireland block grant and therefore the delivery of vital front-line services; further notes that the proposed 124% relative need factor does not adequately reflect policing and justice need in Northern Ireland and the disproportionate squeeze on the Justice budget; believes that a baselined fiscal floor, set at a level greater than 124%, should be delivered without further delay; calls on the Minister of Finance to publish the Executive sustainability plan, including steps to tackle inefficiencies and duplication, which leaves the Executive with less to invest in public services each year; and further calls on the UK Government to depart from their austerity policy by agreeing a new, long-term financial settlement with the Executive, reviewing the fiscal rules and pursuing a progressive taxation system." — [Ms Forsythe.]

Thank you, everybody. As I was saying, Nuala, you are next up to make your winding-up speech on the motion, and you have 10 minutes.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am sure that everyone will be delighted to know that I will not take the whole 10 minutes.

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. It is important to highlight, first, that there is a recognition and consensus throughout the Chamber around moving forward and ensuring that we have the block grant that we deserve in Northern Ireland and which is overdue. It is important that we all get on the same page, and I thank everyone for contributing in such a way that we can build that consensus.

There have been a few recurring points and themes in the debate, and I want to touch on some of them before we close and move to the vote. To be perfectly clear and to reiterate what many people have said, it is Alliance's view, which is shared by many others, that austerity is not about saving money. It is not necessary, nor is it about being fiscally responsible. It is a damaging, poverty-inflicting political choice, and it is that policy that has resulted in the ever-increasing budgetary pressures that currently face the Executive.

We had hoped that, perhaps, the time had come for us to move beyond those austerity measures, but, unfortunately, as we have heard recently — the Minister highlighted it — through engagements with the UK Government and the removal of the winter fuel payment from a Majority of pensioners in the UK, that is not to be the case with the new Government. Nevertheless, that does not mean that we, as an Assembly or an Executive, should give up. Instead, we need to ensure that we do not lose our course and that we add further fuel as we hold the Government's feet to the fire on those issues.

I want to touch on the issues of health and education. The majority of Members who contributed to the debate discussed health and education, and particularly around the issue of transformation. When discussing health in particular, every debate that we have mentions Bengoa and transformation. Unfortunately, many political parties simply pay lip service to that idea, and we are well beyond that time. We need to ensure that what we do is true transformation. It is about ensuring that we use our resources in the most cost-effective way to save lives. It is about early Intervention and prevention before it is too late for many people.

In the discussion around education, we mentioned the £250,000 that is to be spent on electronic pouches for mobile phones. It is a pilot project, and surely that means that the Minister intends to roll it out to all schools at some point, wasting £25 million, in my calculation, so it is not about just £250,000. We need to get real when we talk about transformation and recognise that we need to put the money there to ensure that it is done for the long term.

There was a lot of discussion about working collaboratively across Departments to ensure that that happens. I touched on that in my speech yesterday regarding policing and its interdependence with Health. That is just one aspect, but this is across all Departments. We need to ensure that we work together so that money is not wasted or effort duplicated across Departments.

The issue of duplication brings me on to another issue that was mentioned, and that was the cost of Division. I want to respond to the Leader of the Opposition's comments that the cost of division is not in the Programme for Government. Surely the leader of the Opposition will recognise that that is a four-party Programme for Government. Also, the Opposition's plan for change did not reflect the cost of division, and it is an Opposition of just one party. We need to be realistic; we will not get everything that we need in the Programme for Government. However, our party is not a party of quitters, and we will consistently raise the issue of tackling the cost of division. It is important that we do so, it is financially responsible to do so, but we also owe it to the many people who see that division across society.

I thank the Minister, in particular, for coming to the Chamber, and I welcome the work that the Minister has been doing to ensure that engagement with the UK Treasury is ongoing. I think that the relationships there are becoming more positive than they were with the previous Government, but I will highlight again some of the points that the Minister made, particularly on Departments living within their budgets.

I appreciate the Member giving way. I agree with her on the need to keep good pressure on the Treasury. Will she urge the Finance Minister to put pressure on the Irish Government, who have just come into £13 billion as a result of Apple's non-payment of tax? Does she think that that would go some way towards covering some of the gaps that we have in our public services?

I am sorry, I missed the end of your statement, but I agree that we have to work with the Republic of Ireland Government because it is important that we make sure that any money that is spent on a shared-island basis is spent cost-effectively.

I did not quite catch the end of your statement, but I will move on because I have a few points to answer. I hope that the Member does recognise that, when it comes to tackling the inefficiencies of our system, the reason that we do not have the budget settlement is about options; it is about how we can move forward, and the choices that we have in front of us.

I was going to move on to some of the Member's points around the fact that austerity has hurt people in Northern Ireland. I absolutely agree that it has hurt people in Northern Ireland. However, the reality is that Departments need to live within their budgets, otherwise, as the Minister said, we would be repaying the £550 million that the previous Government wrote off. Whilst we would like to step forward and say at every opportunity that we will not do x, y and z and we want to implement absolutely everything that is on every party's wish list, we simply cannot do that right now. Until we get that proper settlement from the UK Treasury and Government, we are going to be coming back to this, and that is why is it so important that we all speak from the same platform. We all need to ensure that we work collectively. Whether we are part of the Executive or not, the onus is on us all, because this is for every citizen of Northern Ireland. When everything has been cut time and again, you cannot keep making cuts when there is nothing left to cut.

I welcome the Minister's contribution to the debate. I also welcome the contributions of Members, and I highlight again that we will not support the Amendment from the DUP because it removes the cost-of-Division element. One Member mentioned the need for a baseline and for it to be retrospective. We support that, but our issue is specifically around removing tackling the cost of division. We simply cannot do that. We in Alliance will always call for a shared future and for ensuring that there is that transformation in society, and one of those elements is tackling the cost of division.

Thank you, everyone, for contributing to the debate. I hope that we can continue to build consensus around ensuring that we have a fair and appropriate settlement for the entirety of Northern Ireland.

Question put, That amendment No 2 be made. The Assembly divided:

Ayes 50; Noes 24

AYES

Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Boylan, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Crawford, Mrs Dillon, Mrs Dodds, Ms Dolan, Mr Dunne, Lord Elliott, Ms Ennis, Mrs Erskine, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr Kingston, Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mrs Mason, Ms Á Murphy, Mr O'Dowd, Mr Robinson, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart

Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew

NOES

Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Dickson, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mrs Long, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Toole, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Guy, Mr McMurray

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly expresses its grave concern at the significant budgetary pressures facing the Executive; recognises the severe impact of these pressures on the delivery of, and investment in, public services, including policing and justice, health and social care, education, housing, infrastructure and our environment; notes that these pressures have arisen as a result of a failed policy of austerity at Westminster, financial mismanagement by the previous UK Government and underfunding of Northern Ireland below its level of relative need; agrees that, while the interim fiscal framework agreed with the UK Government was an important first step, the proposed 124% relative need factor will, as things stand, only apply to future Barnett consequentials and cannot remedy the damage caused by core funding for Northern Ireland dropping below need, prior to the restoration of devolution in February 2024; stresses that this will have a significant, adverse and recurrent impact on the scale of the Northern Ireland block grant and therefore the delivery of vital front-line services; further notes that the proposed 124% relative need factor does not adequately reflect policing and justice need in Northern Ireland and the disproportionate squeeze on the Justice budget; believes that a baselined fiscal floor, set at a level greater than 124%, should be delivered without further delay; calls on the Minister of Finance to publish the Executive sustainability plan, including steps to tackle inefficiencies and duplication, which leaves the Executive with less to invest in public services each year; and further calls on the UK Government to depart from their austerity policy by agreeing a new, long-term financial settlement with the Executive, reviewing the fiscal rules and pursuing a progressive taxation system.

I ask Members to take their ease while we change personnel at the top Table.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)