Official Report: Tuesday 07 October 2014

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Before we begin our business, I wish to advise the House that the Speaker's Office has received a letter from Miss Sue Ramsey, giving notice that she intends to resign as a Member of the Assembly with effect from 3 November 2014. The Speaker's Office has notified the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Mr M McGuinness (The deputy First Minister): Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In compliance with section 52C(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we wish to make the following statement on the eighteenth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in plenary format, which was held in Dublin on Friday 3 October 2014. The Executive Ministers who attended the meeting have agreed that we can make this report on their behalf. Our delegation was led by the First Minister, Peter Robinson MLA, and me. In addition, the following Executive Ministers were in attendance: Minister Farry, Minister Foster, Minister Hamilton, Minister Ní Chuilín, Minister O’Dowd, Minister O’Neill, Minister Wells, junior Minister Bell and junior Minister McCann

The Irish Government delegation was led by the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD, who chaired the meeting. The following Irish Government Ministers were also in attendance: Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Charles Flanagan, Minister Noonan, Minister Donohoe, Minister Humphreys, Minister Reilly, Minister of State English, Minister of State Nash and Minister of State Phelan. Following reshuffles in both Cabinets, a number of new Ministers were welcomed to the Council.

As has been the case in recent times, there was a strong focus on financial and economic matters at the meeting. We had a good discussion on the employment situation in both jurisdictions and measures to encourage job creation. These included discussions on actions to build trade links with developing markets, attracting foreign direct investment and issues relating to banking, in particular lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. Progress locally on the disposal of the portfolio of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) was welcomed by Ministers. We also discussed economic and budgetary challenges facing both administrations and measures aimed at rebalancing our economy. We took the opportunity to recognise and welcome the success of the Giro d’Italia cycling event, which secured widespread global media coverage. We also noted the opportunities for tourism and trade through the hosting of all-island events, and we agreed to continue to cooperate on a joint bid for the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

Discussions then moved on to European matters. We were updated on the current situation with respect to the INTERREG IVa and Peace III programmes. Both programmes are fully committed, and the challenge will be to ensure full expenditure by the end of 2015. Progress on the development of the new INTERREG V and Peace IV programmes for the period 2014–2020 was also discussed. The Council noted that the draft programmes had been submitted to the EU Commission by the deadline of 22 September 2014. We noted several other new European programmes that may present opportunities for cooperation to maximise the drawdown of EU funding to the island, and we agreed that they should be further examined. That is particularly worthwhile; European funding is an important resource, and we should be doing all we can to maximise it. We also reviewed other EU-related developments.

The Council noted that discussions on sectoral priorities have now taken place following the decisions taken at the last NSMC plenary in November 2013 and NSMC institutional in January 2014. The discussions focused on efforts to support economic recovery, job creation, and ensuring the best use of public funds and the most effective delivery of services for citizens. We agreed that it had been useful to review progress and identify opportunities in the existing agreed work programmes, and we noted that a report on other priorities identified during the ministerial discussions will be brought to the next NSMC institutional meeting.

The next item on the agenda was the north-west gateway initiative. We noted the conclusion of the consultation process that had been carried out with regional stakeholders relevant to the north-west gateway initiative. The Council also noted the views of the north-west gateway initiative regional stakeholders on the directions and priorities for the north-west region, including the desire for a renewed and strengthened strategic focus endorsed by both Governments. We agreed that further consultation with relevant Departments should be undertaken on the issues identified during the consultation process. The Council also reaffirmed its commitment to a future meeting of Ministers and officials in the north-west to consider strategic approaches to the development of the region.

The Council then noted the progress report prepared by the NSMC joint secretaries on the work of the North/South bodies and in the other NSMC areas for cooperation. It welcomed the following key developments: cooperation is continuing on strategic transport planning throughout the island; opportunities for further cooperation have been identified in developing the strategic road network of the island; enhancing connections to the north-west of the island; the future enhancement of the Enterprise service; driving a shift to public and more sustainable modes of transport and the potential for shared cross-border public transport services in border areas; and the development of cross-border greenways.

At the NSMC health meeting in April, Ministers were informed that the business planning process for the radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin was progressing, with work almost complete on finalising a memorandum of understanding and a service level agreement for the operation of the unit. Since that meeting, contracts have been finalised, and building work started on site in July. An app to allow smartphone and tablet access to the North/South child protection hub was launched by Childlink in February 2014.

Both Agriculture Departments continue to work closely on the policy options arising from the reform of the CAP. A joint workshop on educational underachievement was held in Armagh on 25 March 2014, and proposals to scope a cross-border pilot in support of leadership development involving existing groups of principals in both jurisdictions was agreed.

The contract for the all-island research study into the issue of airborne pollution from residential solid fuels, particularly smoky coal, has been awarded. Both Enterprise Departments and InterTradeIreland are working to encourage support for research and innovation activities, and they recognise that there is potential for North/South collaboration to increase the drawdown of funding. At their meeting in January, Ministers welcomed the establishment of the Horizon 2020 steering group and the appointment of the NI joint chair to the US-Ireland R&D Partnership, both of which are positive developments in that area.

At the special EU programmes meeting on 30 May 2014, as I have already mentioned, the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) reported that all available funding under Peace III and INTERREG IV had been committed.

The second phase of the multimedia consumer campaign by Safefood to target childhood obesity is focusing on the importance of exercise in tackling overweight and obesity in children.

The Loughs Agency in partnership with Co-operation Ireland has developed the Foyle river ambassadors citizenship scheme. It is a pilot youth leadership project that brings together young people from across Derry city in a personal development and citizenship programme, the theme of which is to promote the recreational and educational activities provided on the river.

Foras na Gaeilge has selected the six new lead organisations, operating on an all-island basis, to take forward the new funding arrangements for delivery of its strategic priorities. The Ulster-Scots Agency recently awarded over £300,000 to organisations to promote and deliver Ulster-Scots music and dance. Plans to restore the Upper Lough Erne to Clones section of the Ulster canal are being pursued by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

Official figures and sentiment showed a positive year of tourism growth in 2013. "The Gathering Ireland 2013" and Derry/Londonderry UK City of Culture 2013 were cited as successes by the vast majority of those in the industry. Trade and industry feedback on 2014 prospects and sentiment are generally positive.

We acknowledged the ongoing work on the reform of the North/South bodies' pension scheme, including recently approved amendments to ensure that the scheme complies with employment legislation and best practice in both jurisdictions and to increase employee contributions. We also noted the current position on a North/South consultative forum.

The Council approved a schedule of NSMC meetings proposed by the joint secretariat, including an NSMC institutional meeting in autumn 2014 and the next NSMC plenary meeting in December 2014.

Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): I thank the Minister for the update on the meeting. On financial and economic matters, I ask the Minister about InterTradeIreland and the proposed cut in its budget of, I believe, £1·2 million, £400,000 of which was from the Executive and £800,000 from the Dublin Government. That would represent well over 10% of InterTrade's budget.

My question is twofold. First, why such a big cut when the Executive's commitment is to put the economy first? Secondly, what is the Minister's assessment of the impact on InterTrade's work programme and economic development, North and South?

Mr M McGuinness: InterTradeIreland has, as many people know, been a tremendous success in encouraging all sorts of collaborations and business enterprises on the island.

The whole issue of financing the North/South bodies is obviously critically important against the backdrop of the severe budgetary difficulties that we and Dublin face. The financial memorandum is there as a key document on the financial and accountability framework to which the bodies operate. Therefore, it is important that it remain current and reflect best practice.

The review has been ongoing for some time, but I understand that, with a little bit of effort, it is now at a stage at which it could be completed relatively quickly. It is important that officials, North and South, work together to ensure that working constructively and on a timely basis enables them to progress and complete that important review as quickly as possible.

The Member is right: there are difficulties in how we move forward with the bodies. It is important that each of the North/South bodies, like all other public bodies, delivers its objectives and programmes efficiently, particularly in the current fiscal climate. In that context, and given the pressures on public finances in both jurisdictions, the two Finance Departments agreed a further minimum cash release and efficiency savings programme of 4% in 2014, culminating in 12% over the period 2014-16.

Each body must deliver those minimum savings of 4% per annum, but each could go further if required or if agreed by the sponsor Departments. The resulting proportionality of funding, North and South, linked to the assessed benefit of the activities of the body to each jurisdiction, should also be kept under review.

Mr Moutray: At a time of budgetary cuts, many of them due to Sinn Féin's ludicrous position on welfare reform, can the deputy First Minister outline the levels of cuts that he will support in relation to the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mr M McGuinness: In the answer that I gave to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, I covered the agreements that have been made by both Finance Departments in relation to the bodies. Given that, no doubt, during the course of this session, people will refer to my party's position on welfare cuts, I just want to quote from a speech made yesterday by a British Government Minister, Vince Cable, who said:

It is a very revealing comment from a British Government Minister about how cuts in Britain, not alone here, are beginning to impact on the most marginalised, disadvantaged and poorest in society.

Ms McGahan: Can the Minister give us any information on the development of the new INTERREG and Peace programmes?

Mr M McGuinness: Obviously, a considerable amount of work has been done on that and agreements have been reached in recent times. The draft Peace IV and INTERREG Va programmes were submitted to the European Commission on 22 September 2014, which is in line with the regulatory deadline. Further negotiation will now take place between DFP, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Commission to agree final programmes. It is expected that negotiation with the Commission will last up to six months.

The NSMC will have the opportunity to consider both programmes before they are approved and open for calls. I know that there is an awful lot of interest in the community about how that is going to affect programmes in the time ahead. It is now clearly with the Commission and that will be an important negotiation, the outcome of which will have to be approved by the NSMC.

Mr Attwood: Given that the biggest issues on the agenda appear to have been financial and economic matters, given the scale of organised crime on the island of Ireland and mindful that the biggest illegal waste dump ever in these islands is two miles outside Derry, and that those responsible have £50 million out of that criminality, will you and the First Minister approach the Dublin Government about having a conversation at the next NSMC meeting about the threat of organised crime and waste crime on the island of Ireland?

Mr M McGuinness: I have no hesitation whatsoever in accepting that both jurisdictions face real challenges from organised criminals, North and South — people who are involved in all sorts of activities, much of which does enormous environmental damage locally. The Member cited what was a disgraceful practice outside the city of Derry.

In the cross-border movement of waste, the 2013-14 waste repatriation programme has been completed successfully. There is continued joint cooperation between jurisdictions on enforcement action. Of course, we welcome the ongoing work of the NIEA and other authorities, North and South, in their contribution to combating fuel laundering and dealing with the environmental impact of the waste generated as a consequence of that illegal activity in order to protect the environment and human health. A lot of work is being done between Departments and police services, North and South. If more work can be done — I note the comments of the Member — we will certainly take that into consideration at the next meeting of the NSMC.

Mr Lyttle: The First Minister and deputy First Minister recently received a letter from individuals in America expressing concern that the peace process is losing its power to inspire children with a vision of a shared future.

Therefore, in relation to discussions around the Peace programme at this session, what outcomes of the multimillion-pound EU peace and reconciliation programme III can the deputy First Minister point to in order to encourage us and what are the key aims of the EU peace and reconciliation programme IV?

Mr M McGuinness: First of all, the issue of a letter from America — certainly not that letter from America — did not come up during the NSMC meeting. I always welcome the interest of people who have made contributions to our peace process over many years. Of course, we are all very conscious of the challenges that we face in relation to the issues that are out there, which will hopefully be addressed during what needs to be a very genuine process of negotiation to resolve them and give further momentum to a process that certainly up until now has caught the imagination of the world, including many in the United States of America. I will not dwell much on that.

The 2007-2013 Peace III programme has a total budget of €333 million and is fully committed. Peace III has achieved its entire EU spending targets to date. The total programme expenditure to the end of August 2014 was €247 million against an EU target of €250 million by the end of December 2014. The 2015 target will represent the full programme budget. It is vital that EU income is maximised. The SEUPB must now manage the portfolio of projects to successful conclusion within the eligible programme time frame.

INTERREG IVa has a budget of €256 million. Eighty-eight projects have been issued with a letter of offer. That programme is now fully committed. INTERREG IVa has exceeded all of its annual expenditure targets to date. Meeting spending targets for 2014-15 will be challenging, but DFP is monitoring the situation closely and working with the SEUPB to manage the risk and ensure that no EU income is lost.

There will also be a process of developing the new Peace and INTERREG programmes for 2014 to 2020. They have been submitted, as I have said, in line with regulatory practice. Negotiation is ongoing.

Mr Spratt: In relation to the North/South bodies pension scheme and the ongoing work on that, can the deputy First Minister tell the House when that work is likely to end and when best practice of both jurisdictions in employment and increase to pension contributions by employees will take place?

Mr M McGuinness: We obviously welcome the agreement at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on 30 May 2014 to increase employee contributions with effect from 1 July 2014. Those increases apply only to members in the North pending the decision of the Labour Court in the South. The changes will help to ensure the sustainability of the pension scheme. We note that the wider reforms are on track for implementation in April 2015. We encourage the finance Departments and the bodies to work together to ensure that the changes are implemented on schedule.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat. Can the Minister give us any detail of the discussions regarding Horizon 2020?

Mr M McGuinness: An ambitious and challenging target of €145 million for the North under Horizon 2020 has been agreed by the Executive as part of the new innovation strategy. All the Northern contact points have now been put in place, meaning that there are now seven thematic experts housed in Queen's University and the University of Ulster with a regional remit for support under Horizon 2020. Invest NI continues the role as our contact point for SMEs given the continued focus of both the Commission and our Executive on encouraging SME participation in competitive EU funding programmes. A specific contact point for the agrifood area has also been put in place in the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). DETI is currently developing a new Horizon 2020 strategy that will identify our priorities in future areas for action. There is an ambitious and challenging target of £145 million for us under Horizon 2020, and that has been agreed by the Executive as part of the innovation strategy.

It is important to say that, at the meeting, it was recognised that Horizon 2020 offers huge potential for us to collaborate on a North/South basis to improve success rates in accessing this funding stream. InterTradeIreland is currently developing a strategic action plan for Horizon 2020. That is being prepared with the support and agreement of the all-island steering group for Horizon 2020. The strategic action plan sets out past performance under FP7, North/South, and maps that across onto Horizon 2020 for areas of greatest potential success.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an LeasChéad Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. Will he give us some more detail on the development of the north-west gateway initiative?

Mr M McGuinness: We noted at the meeting the conclusion of consultations with regional stakeholders in the north-west on the current relevance of the north-west gateway initiative to the needs of the region. That was a useful exercise that provided a great deal of information and insight into the needs and aspirations of stakeholders in the north-west. Taking account of the views expressed by regional stakeholders, we have asked that further consultation now be undertaken with the relevant Departments on the issues identified in the course of the consultation. Thereafter, we remain committed to a meeting of relevant Ministers and officials in the north-west to consider the future strategic approach to the development of the region. Just recently, I was privileged to officially open the new regional North West Science Park at Fort George. That is a very important development on that site and will, along with Ebrington, in the time ahead be an area where new jobs, which are badly needed in that area, are created. The linkages to the Letterkenny Institute of Technology are also important in the development of the science park. That is an example of how we can successfully work very positively and constructively together.

Mr Eastwood: I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement and his answers thus far. He talked about the north-west gateway initiative and mentioned the links with Letterkenny IT. Will he expand on what discussions were had around the very necessary expansion of Magee university in order to meet some of the difficulty around the unemployment crisis?

Mr M McGuinness: The One Plan sees the expansion of higher education in Derry as key to the city's regeneration. The number of undergraduate places in our two universities has increased by 1,210 during this Assembly period. An additional 377 higher education places have been created in our further education colleges. The University of Ulster received 652 places and has undertaken to deploy those at Magee. Due to budgetary pressures, financial support to the higher education institutions has been reduced by 3·95% in the current academic year. The strategy board in Derry has commissioned an economic appraisal for the expansion of Magee. Should the appraisal make the case that the campus should be expanded, the Employment and Learning Minister has undertaken to submit a bid for the expansion in the next comprehensive spending review. We understand that, at present, the University of Ulster is working on an economic appraisal for a new teaching block at Magee. Once that is completed and approved, it will be eligible to receive capital funding.

The future of Magee is of major importance and significance for the people of the north-west. Recently, I met a number of very important stakeholders, many of whom believe that Magee will only really flourish when it becomes, at some stage in the future, an independent university. We have not got to that point yet, but I certainly think that there is a strong argument that DEL and the university authorities recognise the responsibility that they have to contribute to the development of a university that will make a major contribution to the lifestyle of people in that area.

A number of years ago, in the company of the university authorities, I was part of an announcement for a major expansion of the university, which did not come to pass. That was disappointing, and I have to say that I have been very critical of the university authorities over that.

Dr McDonnell: I thank the Minister for the dialogue and discussion so far. I will stick with the north-west gateway initiative: what action can the deputy First Minister take to ensure that the commitments reached will be implemented speedily, including strengthening the strategic focus on the north-west, and to ensure that there will be an early meeting with Ministers and officials? I am specifically concerned about the A5, which is vital to that area. Is the plan to develop the A5 properly still afloat or has it sunk?

Mr M McGuinness: In an earlier answer, I made it clear that there is a commitment to a meeting of relevant Ministers and officials in the north-west to tackle all the issues that clearly relate to the north-west gateway initiative. Minister Kennedy was not at the meeting, so the A5 project was not discussed in detail, but it was raised. In the context of that initiative, we advised the Irish Government on the current position with the project. We are all very familiar with the present difficulties that arose out of the judicial review, which dealt with 12 points of objection, 11 of which were overruled and one of which was upheld.

At present, the Minister for Regional Development is processing, through others, an approach to satisfy the courts on the habitat objection that found favour with the judge. There is a lot of confusion in the north-west on the reasons why the A5 people are making the case that there is no commitment from the Executive. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council are absolutely committed to the A5. It was stopped not by the Executive but by the courts. An additional complication was the fact that the Irish Government, during the process of trying to move the project forward, told us that they had to take a decision to withdraw substantial funds from the project. So, the difficulties with the A5 were not presented by this Executive.

Mr Allister: I suspect that the deputy First Minister will not be much interested in this point, but maybe the First Minister will take it up. When this jamboree of self-congratulation about the worth of North/South cooperation was going on in Dublin on Friday, back in Belfast, not for the first time, the chief coroner of Northern Ireland was protesting the lack of cooperation from the gardaí on the inquest into the Kingsmills massacre.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member —

Mr Allister: Did anyone think to raise that on the fringes of the conference with the Taoiseach —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the Member direct his question —

Mr Allister: Or is that something that is just —

Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask the Member to take his seat.

Mr Allister: — to be swept under the carpet?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask the Member to take his seat.

Mr Allister: What is your problem, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker: That question was clearly not related to the statement.

Mr D McIlveen: My apologies that I was a little late into the Chamber this morning. The deputy First Minister mentioned small and medium-sized enterprises. One of the primary issues that SMEs raise about the drawdown of funds is that it is so cumbersome that it nearly prohibits them from applying. The deputy First Minister mentioned a specific contact for the agrifood industry, which we welcome. However, when it comes to other small and medium-sized enterprises, such as manufacturing and engineering companies, what does he propose that they can do to receive support from the Department in drawing down such vital funds?

Mr M McGuinness: The Member raises an important issue, which the First Minister and I addressed during our previous visit to Brussels when we met Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. She, on foot of that conversation, held a number of meetings in the North specifically for the purpose of advising small and medium-sized enterprises how they could more readily access funds from Europe and make what was a complicated system much more straightforward.

We now have a new Commission in place and will have to continue to do that work with the commissioner who replaced Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. It is certainly an issue, and we think that we can increase the drawdown of funds if we can ensure that our small and medium-sized enterprises have an ongoing relationship with the European Union. We hope that we can continue with that work, which is a process of education vís-a-vìs the knowledge base that small and medium-sized enterprises need to have to access Europe. That can frighten a lot of people off, but, when explained, we have seen over the last while an increased desire among small and medium-sized enterprises to engage with Brussels.

Mrs Foster (The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment): I beg to introduce the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill [NIA39/11-15], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to insolvency; and for connected purposes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

Mr Dallat: I beg to move

I am pleased to present this motion to the Assembly today. I am particularly pleased that the Minister for Regional Development is present and look forward to hearing his response and, of course, the contributions of other Members.

Members may be interested to know that it is almost five years to the day since Professor Martin Snaith, a leading authority in the field of structural maintenance and road condition assessment, presented a report of his findings on the state of the 25,000 kilometres of roads in Northern Ireland. The roads Minister of the day, Conor Murphy — you may remember him — welcomed the report, claiming:

Professor Snaith's report highlighted the case for significantly enhanced investment to carry out much-needed maintenance repair work across the roads of Northern Ireland.

In its findings, the report recommended that the overall structural maintenance budget should be increased to around £108 million per annum, which was considerably lower than that in England or Wales and about the same as in the Republic. In the intervening years, the road maintenance budget has relied on monthly monitoring rounds to a great extent to squeeze money out of the Executive to shore up what is, without doubt, a deteriorating situation when, clearly, the findings of Professor Snaith are long forgotten.

On the last day of July, our present Minister, Danny Kennedy, hit us with the bombshell that his budget was under considerable strain and that that would have an impact on the delivery of front line services to the public. This, according to the Minister, would include such services as street lighting repairs, road maintenance, grass cutting, gully cleaning and the maintenance of traffic signs and road markings. He went on to say:

Mr Kennedy concluded by warning us that he could not rule out curtailing winter services later this year. Certainly, Danny Kennedy was telling us that hundreds, even thousands, of people working in the various divisions of road maintenance and improvement would lose their job and that the companies that employed them would face potential bankruptcy because they would not have the regular income to make repayments on the new plant and machinery acquired in the expectation that they would have continuous work in the foreseeable future.

I will be surprised if there is no mention of welfare reform, but, before anyone gets carried away with that, I need to remind Members that our approach to road maintenance was fatally flawed long before the current Tory Government decided to rob the poor. In doing my research for the debate, I decided to go back in time to find out if things were done any better before the establishment of the Assembly, and my focus dwelled on the period of the Roman empire. Regrettably, the Romans did not get as far as this country to build their roads, which, in other parts of the world, have lasted for thousands of years. Yes, Principal Deputy Speaker, we had other visitors in the meantime: William and James came here, but they are remembered for crossing rivers, certainly not for building roads. Following the period of the Roman empire, many of the brilliant roads that they built disappeared during what some people might call the Dark Ages, when little or nothing was achieved; indeed, some roads were actually dug up. I seriously ask myself this question: are we now in another dark age when the current network of roads has been allowed to fall into disrepair to such an extent that some of them will become too dangerous to use? Anyone who reads Professor Snaith's report, which I referred to earlier, can reach no conclusion other than that we are sleepwalking into a future in which we will create a legacy of neglect that puts us on a par with those who allowed the wonderful Roman roads to become a legacy that no longer exists.

The motion is not simply about criticism of the shortfall in funding in road maintenance; it calls for a comprehensive annual budget process that provides for a more transparent breakdown of the allocation of resources. The point I wish to make is this: whether there are issues relating to welfare reform or not, there is an urgent need to reform how road maintenance is planned and budgeted for. It is my wish that that is where the focus of this debate is concentrated, because we cannot go on depending on monitoring rounds to fund critical road maintenance. That is failing and building only a legacy of neglect that a future generation will have to pick up some time. That is very wrong.

Recently, our Minister said that it takes 20 years from inception to the completion of a new capital project. I know that the people of Dungiven will immediately reject that claim, given that they have been waiting 40 years for a bypass. Anyway, let us say that it takes on average 20 years to put the finishing touches of tarmacadam on a new road. I wonder, seriously, how long it takes to destroy a road through lack of maintenance. You do not have to take my word for it. The Department, from its own findings, will tell you that there are already serious problems building up that will eventually result in massive amounts of money being needed to be spent shoring up roads that are already undermined through lack of routine maintenance. Of course, money is not the whole issue. Yes, I know that most road deaths are caused by human error, but there is no doubt that poorly maintained roads contribute to death and serious injury, particularly during the winter months, when, as our Minister has already warned us, he may have to curtail expenditure.

Getting to a conclusion, I wish to return briefly to the Romans to clarify a point. The Romans were not the first race to build good roads. Much of the expertise was copied from previous races, and I ask this question: are we going to learn from the past, or will we be part of a new Dark Ages that allows good roads to decline to such a state that they cease to exist and are no more? Will a new generation at some time in the future rediscover them, just as the Roman roads were rediscovered and, indeed, built over? The current Minister deserves the support of the Assembly to put in place a system that avoids the stops and starts that contractors and workers have had to live with. It is fast getting to a situation where some of the contractors may well go to the wall. No one expects the Minister to have the wisdom of Claudius, who conquered Britain — we certainly do not want him poisoned — but he needs the support of the Assembly to fundamentally change the way that we conduct our road maintenance.

Cutting corners on road maintenance to balance the books is only stacking up trouble for the future. As it stands, every road can expect to be resurfaced every 102 years on average. That is from departmental figures. Many roads are already undermined due to poor drainage. There is a massive bill every year for compensation for personal injuries and damage to vehicles. Road deaths are again on the up and up. People who did this work are on notice as we speak that they will be joining the unemployment register. We must not sit on our hands while our roads crumble under our feet.

Mr Clarke (The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion in my role as the Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. It was timely that, at my first meeting as Chair, the Committee received a briefing on the October monitoring round. This was the first time formally that the outcome of the June monitoring round was presented to the Committee. Of course, members will have been aware of the outcomes because the Minister had previously detailed them through the press through the use of, quite frankly, very emotive pronouncements during the summer and in the House. I will not use this ploy; rather, I will support the thrust of the motion by stating the facts as they are.

First, the overall annual budgetary requirement for just maintaining our roads is, as I think has been said, £133 million. That £133 million is to keep our roads as they are and to keep them in a condition where it was reported that, in 2009, 46% of the trunks roads were below the UK skidding resistance investigatory level. Almost half of the roads were assessed as being unsafe. On top of this, there was a substantial backlog in respect of the structural maintenance programme that currently stands at approximately £830 million. In a meeting that I had with the departmental permanent secretary and his senior management team last week, I was advised that for every pound below the £133 million required to maintain the network another £1·60 would be added to the backlog. On the basis that the starting budget for roads maintenance this financial year was £56 million, with £20 million or so being allocated in June, we currently have a deficit of £57 million, and this adds another £90 million to that backlog. Again, the condition of our roads is starting to decline.

At this point, I hasten to add that, between June 2011 and January 2014, the Minister and his Department made 72 bids in the monitoring rounds and the Executive honoured almost 62% of those bids. The Minister is on the record as saying that, in the past three years, the Department has been very successful in funding road maintenance. Of course, this success has coincided with funding being available, which we all know now is not necessarily the case.

The welfare penalties have impacted on all Departments. DRD differs slightly in the way that its budget is allocated, with the in-year monitoring rounds being used to top up the departmental budget rather than allocations being provided at the beginning of the year. That process, of course, was collectively agreed at the Executive, of which the Minister is a member, and, indeed, in his departmental business plan, he described that approach as strategic and a valuable opportunity to secure additional funding. As stated, the Minister and his departmental officials agreed that with the full knowledge of the audit report on structural maintenance in 2000 and despite the comments of the then chief executive on the 2009 annual report:

The Department has recognised in its business plan that less funding being made available during the in-year monitoring process might have an impact on its ambitions as set out in the plan. It is difficult, therefore, to reach any conclusion other than that the Minister and his departmental officials went for the soft touches when applying for his portion of the welfare penalties.

Mr Easton: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: I will.

Mr Easton: Will the Member agree with me that the cut to the maintenance budget is quite serious and that maybe the Minister's Department could have looked at other avenues to try to find funding through his Department such as savings to the £3,000 worth of taxis that his Department uses or looking at reducing the fuel costs of £2·4 million for the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and, indeed, the Translink reserves of £25 million? Surely there is room for savings there that could have helped without making these cuts.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Clarke: Thank you. I will cover some of those points as I speak on.

Nowhere in his business plan is there a suggestion that footway and carriage maintenance, cutting grass on verges, gully emptying, road marking, traffic light maintenance or the suspension of external contractors for street lighting are departmental ambitions. They are not, but they are easy and emotive and that is why they were chosen. There was no forensic analysis of the departmental budget lines and no assessment of the severity of the risk, and I think that Members will appreciate that those points were all raised when we had the briefing two weeks ago. The Department would easily have seen the cost increase in public liability claims and payouts that result from not cutting the budget but removing these essential services. They will have also seen that, for every million they have removed, between 13 and 22 specialist jobs will be lost to the sector, and that will hinder the recovery should the budgets become available in future.

My colleague referred to Translink. One of the interesting things that turned up in that monitoring round when we talked to the Department was that the accounts showed a cash balance of £56 million. Of course, that was reported in Hansard on 2 July 2014. My predecessor, Mr Spratt, had suggested in the past that there was a cosiness in the Translink/DRD relationship, and I have to say that I saw that during the October monitoring briefing. Yes, they need £15 million for in-year payments and are projecting a £9 million loss, but that still leaves a £33 million cash balance.

In closing, I will maybe make a few remarks as a member of the DUP —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, your time is up.

Mr Clarke: OK.

Mr Lynch: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. As the proposer said, the condition of the roads in the North is of vital importance to the economy, and, therefore, it is essential that the road network is properly maintained to provide a safer network. That is what all our constituents expect. As an elected representative from a rural area, I find that roads are one of the key issues that come to our attention on a daily basis. I have a continual list of roads needing upgrade and repair in Fermanagh, and, when a network is complete, other roads become priorities. I must acknowledge that quite a lot of money has been spent on the county over the last number of years, because there has been sizeable success in the monitoring rounds for the Department. I must add that they have been done to a high standard by the local Clarke's group. However, that is in the past, and we find ourselves in a different funding environment with budget constraints today.

I do not want to wade into the debate on how this has come about. The reality is that the block grant has been reduced. As a result, we had the Minister's statement at the end of July when we were in recess. It stated that there would be a:

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lynch: I will.

Mr Beggs: Does the Member acknowledge that policy decisions that he and his party have taken have contributed to that?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Lynch: Thank you. I said that I was not getting into the debate on why the budget was reduced.

The Minister went on to say that that would:

The question is this: did the Minister simply take the soft option — I think that the soft option came up a number of times in Committee — and cut front line services and target the external contractors who provide those services across the North of Ireland?

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lynch: I will.

Mr Clarke: I know that the Member does not want to get into the depth of the argument on this — I acknowledge that they were a soft touch — but does he not accept that his party's position on welfare reform has left this Department and other Departments in a very difficult position in trying to find the £87 million? Yes, as I said, those may have been a soft touch, but, if your party would face up to the reality of welfare reform, that would be £87 million that Departments would not have to find.

Mr Lynch: I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, I am not getting into that debate, but you cannot conflate the issue of welfare cuts and the reduction in the overall block grant.

When the monitoring round was discussed at the Committee a number of weeks ago, officials told us that the Minister had no option but to make the decision that he did. When I asked them to detail the risk assessment process that the Department undertook in prioritising and drawing together the proposed bids, the answer was that the Department took all the money that it could out of other areas before it got to the contractors. Will the Minister take this opportunity to elaborate on what that process involved before they reached the contractors?

The Department was aware that funding restrictions and pressures were coming down the track, yet the contractors were not advised or engaged with before the Minister made his decision. I have spoken to some of the employees who have been put on notice and to the contractors, who said that, if the Minister had engaged, outlined the funding difficulties and reached an agreed reduction — that is, a percentage reduction — they could have planned a way forward for their staff and plant hire. The fact that the Minister totally ceased funding does not make sense. Why did the Minister not take that approach? The contractors are reasonable people who recognise that there are funding pressures. The recurring theme during the Committee meeting was that he took the easy option, as I said at the outset. Minister, your officials said that other options were considered, although little detail was forthcoming. You may want to respond to that and elaborate on what those options were. I spoke to people who will be paid off as a result of the Minister's decision, and they are people with real livelihoods and families.

The resource budget for small maintenance works is a small percentage of the Department's overall budget. I have no doubt that, if a thorough trawl had been undertaken, the savings could have been found elsewhere without job losses and without causing safety issues for the public.

Mr Beggs: There is a fatal flaw in the motion, in that it is targeted at DRD rather than at DFP and the whole budgetary process. I must admit that I welcome the comment made by the proposer of the motion, who said that he recognised that failings in the Budget process have contributed to this.

Planned road maintenance minimises the risk of accidents and the long-term cost of the upkeep of our roads. Expensive, repetitive temporary patching can often result in increased costs as opposed to the regular, planned resurfacing of roads. As others have indicated, there is also the problem of potholes and the increased risk of compensation claims against the Department.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I have just started.

In a recent answer, the Minister indicated that the structural maintenance budget needed to maintain the current roads standard and prevent deterioration is £133 million a year. Looking at previous figures, you will see that in 2008-09, and again in 2010-11, the funding was between £63 million and £88 million. In 2011-12, it increased to £120 million, and, in the following year, it was £110 million. In the last financial year, £130 million was spent on structural roads maintenance. I commend the Minister and the Executive for that significant increase in funding up until the current year.

When considering the motion today, I think it is important that we recognise how the current and previous Finance Ministers have largely allocated the funding to roads maintenance on the capital and resource sides. The increased funding was delivered largely as a result of increased in-year monitoring, money that was passed to Roads Service for structural roads maintenance as a result of failures to spend by others. The Department, working closely with contractors, could react quickly to make use of that funding and improve our roads infrastructure; and therein lies one of the current problems that contributes to the significant reduction in maintenance being carried out and to the funding of contractors. The June monitoring round was, of course, delivered late, at the end of July, limiting the time and ability to react to those decisions. While the bidding was for £77 million, capital funding of only £12 million was received. On the resource side, the DRD indicated that it could probably spend an additional £48 million, yet only £5 million was received.

Why do I highlight this? It is clear that, with tighter budgets in these current times, less funding from in-year monitoring can be expected in future. This approach can no longer continue if we wish to maintain our roads. The Budget approach of 2011 has clearly failed to account for this change, and other pressures have emerged in other Departments such as Health. However, the Finance Minister and the DUP and Sinn Féin, who lead the Executive, have refused to reprofile such issues in an annual Budget process.

We then, of course, have welfare reform, which is costing £87 million this year and will cost £114 million next year. When the proposers of the motion and Sinn Féin decide to oppose welfare reform, they are deciding to apply cuts to a wide range of issues including Roads Service and including the very contractors that they indicate they wish to support. Those cuts can be traced back to that.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way on that particular point. The previous Member who spoke said that people are losing their jobs because of these cuts, but what they are not recognising is the number of jobs that will be lost because of the non-implementation of welfare reform, which will have a much greater impact. While this situation is bad, it impacts on a small number of jobs. The impact of welfare reform will be much greater through jobs lost. The party opposite fails to recognise that.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Beggs: Thank you. I concur with much that the Member said.

As a result of that £87 million cut and the reduction in in-year monitoring, we did not receive any additional money that had previously been expected. In fact, the Finance Minister announced a 2·1% in-year reduction across a broad range of Departments, with a further 2·3% to come. That is the worst possible way to manage any Budget: to distribute money, plan resources and then, at the last minute, four months into the financial year, change direction. At that time, many contracts will have been signed, employment levels will have been determined and, I suspect, there would be very few options available. That is the worst possible way to run a Budget and it is something that we must not repeat in the forthcoming year. We should be sorting out the Budget for next April now by taking decisions. If Members wish us to adopt their views on welfare reform, they ought to reflect that in policy and expenditure decisions.

In cutting Roads Service expenditure, the subcontractors have borne the burnt. One aspect of the motion that I can agree with is that the Executive need to have a more transparent annual Budget process. Of course, it is Sinn Féin that stopped that. It was their Minister — the Education Minister — who refused to go with it. So, the reason why we do not have a transparent and easily understood Budget process is Sinn Féin. That is further evidence of voodoo economics and further meaningless motions that they appear to be backing. What we need is a timetable when these —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is almost up.

Mr Beggs: — transparent processes will be put in place so that we can make better use of our limited funds.

Mr McCarthy: I, first, thank Mr Dallat, Mr Byrne and Mr McGlone for bringing this very important issue to the Floor. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the motion. I welcome the Minister's presence in the House. I sincerely hope that he and his Department will be able to secure the funding to provide a decent roads maintenance programme. That, in turn, will assist contractors to do the work and, thus, prevent the loss of jobs.

I want to pay tribute to all those who are engaged in providing better and safer roads throughout Northern Ireland. It can be a pretty tough job being out there in all weathers. They do very necessary work, not always with the blessing of the travelling public. Repairing roads can be a dangerous profession, with traffic whizzing past and always in a hurry, without regard for the safety of staff who are engaged in that essential work.

Like all other Members, I was disappointed a few weeks ago when Minister Kennedy informed the public that his reduced budget would result in potholes on our roads network not being repaired and, of course, street lights not being repaired because of a lack of money for replacement light bulbs. What has this place come to? Northern Ireland cannot afford to keep our streets lit, as we cannot afford a few bulbs here and there. If it were not so serious, it would almost be a joke.

As a former member of the Committee for Regional Development, I attended a meeting a couple of weeks ago at which senior officials painted a very gloomy picture about funding shortages. That was despite the fact that DRD got some extra £12 million from the June monitoring round.

Our roads simply have to be maintained. The last thing any Member wants is to see further road deaths as a result of lack of maintenance or, indeed, whatever else. At this point, I am sure that Members will join with me in offering our deepest sympathy to the latest victim of our roads, a young man from Bangor called Mr Barbour, who lost his life on the road between Greyabbey and Ballywalter only last weekend. We are all too aware of the increased number of fatalities on our roads, and those simply cannot continue. We must always seek to make improvements where necessary.

At the Committee meeting I referred to, the senior officials went over the consequences of the Department not benefiting from the October monitoring round. All the Committee members were disappointed at the decision not to renew the contracts of contractors, who, as Mr Dallat informed the Assembly, are engaged in work on footway and carriageway maintenance, grass cutting, environmental works, gully emptying, road marking and traffic signals. Those are the basics that keep the roads at least half safe, and all that work is vital to ensuring road safety in all our areas.

Another important aspect of keeping our footways and roads safe is the gritting schemes that are carried out during the winter. Even those operations may now be cancelled. We all know of the outcry, some years ago, when the main streets in our towns were not gritted during the heavy snow.

Much depends on the outcome of the October monitoring round. We know of the huge demands on all the Departments, but let us hope that there is a fair distribution of whatever funds are available. We also have concerns about the annual Budget process, but, as we are now into the last year of that, we can accept it and a more transparent breakdown of the allocation of resources.

I thank Mr Kennedy and Stanley Lamb and Stephen Duffy from the Roads Service section offices for the new works that have been completed in the Strangford constituency, particularly in the Ards peninsula, where the roads had been neglected for so long. There is, however, one thing that I must express disappointment at. The Minister and Mr Lamb did not invite me or my Alliance colleagues to a photo shoot at the recent start of work on a footway on the Old Shore Road in Newtownards. We have campaigned for that footpath for years. We are delighted that it has gone ahead, but we might at least have had an invite from the Minister when he went to cut the first sod.

When other things are happening in our constituency in future, he might take a minute or two to invite those who have been campaigning for years for them. It seems from the local press that other people jump in and take the credit.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr G Robinson: Throughout Northern Ireland, the population is learning about the real-life impact of irresponsible decision-making by some parties, as we face having only urgent road repairs and limited street-light maintenance, which are absolute necessities, particularly at this time of year. I thank all the Roads Service staff and contractors who do a sterling job in the maintenance of our roads and street lighting. The impact will be severe and could cost the Department for Regional Development extra legal fees for claims due to the restriction in road repairs. I hope that those who have created some of the financial uncertainty by refusing to agree to welfare reform will be mindful of the consequences of their action. It is a disgrace, when Northern Ireland is putting forward all its good and positive points to attract new employment opportunities, to see our road infrastructure being denied the investment it so greatly needs to ensure that improvement and repair works are carried out. We must always remember that our incoming investors look for a good road infrastructure, so it is not a positive image for Northern Ireland.

Another concern that has been expressed to me has been the financial position when it comes to road gritting and snow clearing. Those are life-saving requirements and are therefore essential. We can all hope for a milder winter so that the roads budget is protected from that point of view.

The Minister has talked of how much stress his budget is under, and, I believe, he has already assessed forensically his budget to see where savings can be made. Does he have any reserves that he could use to offset some of the roads pressure or return to the central pot for redistribution to other needy Departments during October monitoring?

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr G Robinson: Yes.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member acknowledge that having in-year, last-minute cuts is the worst possible way to run a budget? It should be planned in advance, issues should be resolved, and this should not be repeated. Otherwise there is a possibility of similar issues occurring in this Department and other Departments.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr G Robinson: That is a matter for the Executive. The Executive, in the main, do a good job.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr G Robinson: Yes.

Mr Clarke: The Member who made the last intervention made a point about how bad in-year monitoring rounds were. However, does it not sound a bit hypocritical for the Member to defend his Minister, given that the Minister has already defended the good use of in-year monitoring and the valuable contribution that it makes? He is on record as saying that.

Mr G Robinson: I agree entirely.

The Minister is having to reduce front line services to keep within his budget. Are the sponsors of the motion suggesting that the Minister should make people unemployed to meet budget targets? Let us sort the entire Budget problem out maturely, once and for all and on behalf of all our electorate.

When it comes to instituting a comprehensive annual budget process by DRD, is the party of the signatories to the motion aware that, due to the Budget crisis they have helped to create, all Executive Ministers are having to make savings in their Department? I have some sympathy with the Regional Development Minister and find this debate distasteful, as it could be seen as political posturing rather than as a serious attempt to break the deadlock and ease the financial pressures on Departments. Despite my reservations, I support the motion.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin seo inniu. I welcome the opportunity to address the motion and to speak in its favour. Unlike others, I do not believe it to be meaningless, nor do those who work in the industry.

When Professor Martin Snaith, in October 2009, presented his independent report to the Committee for Regional Development, it was widely welcomed, including by the then Minister, Conor Murphy. He recognised the centrality of the road infrastructure and its upkeep to the North's economy. The professor recommended an increase of £108 million to bring expenditure up to a level comparable with the rest of Ireland to some £4,300 per carriageway kilometre, which is still somewhat short of what is spent in England and Wales. However, by June 2012, it was still estimated that the budget for maintenance was some £50 million short of what was required to maintain the structural integrity of the road network in its current condition.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ó hOisín: Yes.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member explain whose fault it is that the budget is £50 million short of achieving the target to maintain our roads?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Ó hOisín: If the Member looks at the withdrawal of the block grant, he might find some answers there.

By July of this year, Minister Kennedy warned about the impact that a reduction in the budget would have on services such as street lighting repairs, road maintenance, grass cutting, gully cleaning and the maintenance of traffic signs and road markings. Since then, many of us have been lobbied by many in the industry, including the Quarry Products Association (QPA), contractors and others. I commend them for that lobbying. They work on short-term contracts, often delivered at times of the year when a quick turnaround on the spend is required, and not necessarily in the best weather for the job. The industry works on low profit margins and often requires a large and flexible workforce to carry out the maintenance.

One thing that we are sure of is that maintenance of the road network is vital to the safety of commuters and travellers. Unfortunately, as of yesterday, we have seen a dramatic increase in deaths on the roads over the same period last year. Indeed, even on our best-maintained roads, we still see seemingly unexplainable and unimaginable accidents and carnage. I came on such a scene as I travelled on the M2 yesterday evening and was shocked at the extent of that accident.

A reduction in investment will have an economic impact, locally and regionally. Indeed, I recall the huge impact earlier this year that the demise of KPL had in my town, the wider County Derry area and further afield. Luckily, at that time, other contractors were able to take up the slack, and many subcontractors were relieved that their work could continue. No such slack exists at this time.

The motion rightly calls on the Minister:

The identification of those cuts, as per the July statement and since, however, outlines making savings on items that are essential for safety on the roads infrastructure. That is not a prudent or wise move. As well as the human cost, many more millions will be spent on personal injuries compensation and damage to vehicles. Indeed, in answer to a recent question that I put, I was told that 15,000 claims had been made in the last five years, 55% of which were successful. I support the motion and ask this: what price safety?

Mr Dunne: I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. As an MLA, I listen daily to genuine concerns about DRD road issues. Road maintenance, footpaths, weeds and street lights are amongst the most common issues raised with me throughout my many years as an elected representative for North Down. Ratepayers, who are also taxpayers, expect those services to be maintained to proper standards and to have safe and serviceable roads in our constituencies.

Since the June monitoring round, when Minister Kennedy confirmed an additional £12 million for the structural maintenance of roads and funding that, I understand, was for the development of the Belfast transport hub, there seems to have been a significant shortfall in the resources budget. The decision influenced many external contractors who were carrying out much of the DRD maintenance work. In return, DRD brought in its own in-house contractors to take over the work that other contractors had been doing. However, in a number of cases, they have struggled. In the case of grass cutting, they have struggled to carry out the statutory five cuts a year on the main carriageways, such as the A2 Bangor dual carriageway. Eventually, the third cut was recently completed by DRD in-house contractors.

Mr Ó hOisín: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dunne: Yes, will do.

Mr Ó hOisín: Does the Member also recognise that, particularly in rural areas, either one cut or no cuts were made this year? That caused concern, particularly at traffic junctions.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that, as I represent a partially rural area. I am very much aware that there are areas where the grass has not been cut at all. However, I understand that DRD has different criteria and standards for rural and urban areas.

I made a point about DRD taking on the work of contractors. I wonder how cost-effective that decision was when you consider the overtime involved and the weekends that DRD staff have worked and continue to work to meet the demand for services such as grass cutting. Every year, we struggle to get the grass cut five times on the A2 Bangor dual carriageway. This year, there were serious road safety issues, and local farmers had to cut sections of grass to create an appropriate sight line for entering their farms. Those were serious road safety issues and need to be addressed as a priority.

The Minister could see that the decision to cut the resource budget would have maximum impact on the public across all our constituencies. Other relatively small-scale and often non-essential capital schemes that would have had less impact on ratepayers could have been considered, but I understand that the Minister cannot flex between his capital and resource budgets. Surely, though, stalling some small capital schemes would have made more sense.

Street lighting continues to be another major issue as the winter months approach. I have seen for myself that contractors often need only one man with a lift to do the work, but DRD in-house workers often require two or three operators to carry out the same job. I wonder how efficient that is and how real savings will be made in the long term. It is unacceptable that fewer than a quarter of the street lights reported out over the last few months have been repaired. As mentioned, winter gritting and snow clearance are other major issues of concern to elected representatives. Will they be prioritised? Are we prepared for a harsh winter? What services does DRD have available under its present budget?

Despite this dark picture, some positive work has been carried out. As an elected representative, I continue to work regularly with local section engineers and officers who work hard in difficult circumstances. In the North Down area, we have seen positive resurfacing programmes locally, and parts of the A2 Bangor dual carriageway have been resurfaced. A number of residential areas have had new footpaths and street lights, and their roads have been resurfaced. We appreciate the work done and the fact that it is carried out to a good standard. I put it on record that, in the main, the work done by our contractors is to a good standard, and residents certainly appreciate that. However, the public rightly expect these services to be delivered and not to be left in the dark.

Mr McAleer: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank those who tabled the motion. I represent a rural constituency, and we all know well that infrastructure is very important in rural constituencies because most accidents and fatalities occur on rural roads. In areas such as West Tyrone, which I represent, many are employed by contractors who carry out maintenance and other types of work on the 25,000 miles of infrastructure throughout the North.

The Minister's sudden announcement at the end of July or the beginning of August about works on street lighting, gullies and grass trimming came as a shock. It instilled fear among certain sections of the community, particularly the older and more vulnerable, who had the idea that the lights were going to be switched off. Like all Departments, DRD is expected to trim its budget. There is a very strong view that maintenance is one of the most important aspects of DRD's work because of the implications for road safety. It seems to have been hit quite hard, and there is certainly a view that the subcontractors who were laid off at short notice were a soft touch.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Go ahead.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member indicate how he would have made savings at this late stage in the financial year, given that in-year cuts were required as a result of his party's policies?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McAleer: Thank you for that. Members who spoke previously indicated areas where there is surplus money that could be used. We talked about Translink, for example. It is important to say that, rather than sniping from the sidelines and trying to get a debate on welfare cuts going, Members have been invited to bring the issue of welfare cuts to the House to have a discussion about it. Feel free to explain to your constituents your apparent willingness to slash hundreds of millions of pounds out of the welfare budget, which will affect the working poor —

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: — and the most vulnerable in our community. Perhaps that is what you should do, rather than sniping from the sidelines during debates such as this one today.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: I am not going to give way, OK?

Before I was interrupted, I was saying that the plans are considered to be very short-sighted. It is widely accepted by experts that planned maintenance is cheaper than reactive techniques such as patching. Indeed, we will face more public liability claims, which will have economic implications.

Going back to the contractors issue, it is important to say that a lot of them were given just days notice to terminate works. This is people's livelihoods that we are talking about. We just cannot turn on and off people's livelihoods like a tap; that is not possible. A lot of the contractors have invested heavily in equipment and the upskilling of workers, so it is very unfair to expect to just turn them off at short notice. Going back to the point that was made a second ago, areas have been outlined in the DRD budget where funding could be got at instead of attacking the maintenance budget.

I congratulate the Members on bringing the motion before the House today. I will —

Mr McMullan: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the party across there that talks about budgets gave no consideration to rural isolation and the problems that that causes? This will further add to those suffering from rural isolation. It would be interesting to know how the party will feed into the review that will take place through the ARD Committee on the question of rural isolation.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member. I was just in the process of concluding my remarks.

Mr Eastwood: This is a very important motion in front of the House today. We brought it because we believed that the impact of the cuts were very serious in terms of the economy. We have heard about the issues around road safety and the future budgetary concerns that will arise from the fact that we have not done the work now. I am glad to support Mr Dallat and his very eloquent history of how road networks across Europe came about. He talked about the great work done by the Roman empire. Some of us here will ask, "What have the Romans ever done for us?". In some constituencies across the North, such as mine, we really understand the benefit that good roads would have for our economy, so we ask, "What have this Government ever done for us?". We are still waiting — Mr Dallat mentioned this — for the Dungiven bypass, the A5 and a proper dualling system from Derry to Belfast. Without those important pieces of work, we will never, above and beyond any current budgetary crisis, meet the needs of the people in our areas because far too many of them are not able to contribute to the economy or soften some of the blows of the cuts because the jobs just do not exist to allow them to do that.

This particular decision is understandable in a way, but it is short-sighted. What is not done today will have to be done at some point. We are looking at a false economy. Contractors are being put out of business, and people are being put out of work. We are also looking at potential road safety issues. However, before he stands up, I agree with Mr Beggs: the problem is not just about welfare reform, although I will talk about that if you want; it is about the budgetary process that we have here, which does not make very much sense. The last time the budgetary process was debated, which was at the beginning of this mandate, we proposed that we would have a system that would look year on year at the budgetary process and interrogate the Budget on a rolling basis.

For me, that would be a much more transparent way of looking at how we allocate our people's resources. We would like to see a zero-base budgetary process where we could look at every programme at issue and make sure that Ministers justify how they spend our resources.

We would also like to see the Public Accounts Committee working in the same way as the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, where they are able to properly scrutinise and interrogate the work of Departments on a permanent basis. That would be a far better way of looking at the budgetary difficulties that we have.

At the end of the day, it does not make very much sense for one Minister to be told that they have to take this amount off and another Minister to be told that. We need to look at these things in the round and if a crisis does arise, then we can look at it in the best way possible. We can find efficiencies, rather that what has been happening. I am not accusing this Minister of it, but what has been happening is that because of the political debate around welfare reform, issues like the expansion of Magee have been floated as not now going to happen, even though that was never proposed in the Programme for Government. Things like that are being floated as a political tool to try to pressurise others.

Let me put it on the record: the reason we oppose welfare reform, and the reason we are going to have to, as a whole and as a society, oppose what the Tory Government are planning to do if they get into power again, is because what is happening here is not cuts to just Danny Kennedy's budget. It is going to be cuts to people's very livelihood. Money is going to be taken out of the pockets of the most vulnerable in our society because the Tory Government who are here today and the one who could be here after the next election blame poor people for poverty — they blame poor people for poverty, and they give tax cuts to richer people.

That is the situation we are in and are going to be in unless everybody around this Executive —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Mr Eastwood: — and this Assembly gets together and stands up to them, because I have seen people around here talking about walking out of Government over far less.

Mr Kennedy (The Minister for Regional Development): Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I thank you for chairing what has been an interesting debate. I listened carefully to 10 Members. I want to say at the outset that people at home, I think, will perhaps have a greater understanding and see clearly the reasons why I have made decisions. I will outline, as part of this presentation, why I and my party will be opposing this motion.

People will understand clearly that you cannot spend what you do not have. As a result of the June monitoring exercise — which concluded, as we know, at the end of July, and that in itself speaks volumes — I no longer have, and therefore I can no longer spend. It gives me no pleasure to see contractors put on pause, and it does not please me to see the implications for employees and their families. I do not want the public to receive a lesser service, but that was the inevitable consequence of the June monitoring cuts — something, of course, that I did not vote for.

As I say, people at home well understand the need to budget. These have been difficult years for many, with real pressures on household budgets. The public know that you must pay your compulsory bills first: your rent or mortgage, your heating and your electric. Some people save on the areas where they can. Maybe they no longer can afford satellite or cable TV, maybe make fewer phone calls, buy fewer clothes or even buy more basic food. Government is no different. There are areas in which we simply cannot make savings and areas in which we can.

I absolutely assure the sponsors of this motion and others that I have already looked forensically at my budget. That is nothing new — I have been looking at it forensically as an ongoing process since I took office, and there are a number of real problems with the approach adopted by the Executive when they considered June monitoring at the end of July.
The first problem is that the savings requested were not on proper notice; that meant that we did not have proper time to prepare. It therefore limited the options available to Ministers and Departments.

I remind the House that some savings actually cost. We might all like the most fuel-efficient boilers for our homes, but they come at an upfront cost, with our savings being made through reduced bills over a number of years. Likewise in a Department, for example, internal redundancies may be made as opposed to pausing work issued to contractors. Both save money, but one comes with an upfront cost that must be planned for and must be paid for.

To date, roads maintenance, grass cutting, gully emptying and street lighting repairs were sensibly undertaken by a mixture of internal and external staff. I deliberately retained a mixed economy, but June monitoring called time on that option. We need to remember that the savings asked of Ministers and Departments could and should have been spread over the four-year period to provide more money for the likes of health.

For the person at home, June monitoring felt like being told halfway through your usual monthly spend that you had to give part of your salary back and just do your best with the bills. It is not a sensible way to operate. It would understandably provoke anger, knowing that you could have coped better had you been told at the beginning of the month, but it makes you even angrier when you know that it could have been spread over a much longer period. The way that DFP and the Executive handled June monitoring is making cuts deeper than they need to be. It made cuts take place in areas that might have been better protected had we been given proper notice.

The second problem is more specifically related to my Department, often referred to as the valve Department or, as I refer to it sometimes, the mop Department. I call it the mop because we are often asked to clean up other Departments’ messes. When they fail to spend and money is returned, the Department of Finance calls on DRD. The absence of opportunity to bid for returned funding is a huge problem for my Department, which has been deliberately underfunded by the centre to provide the rest of the Executive with cover and to prevent money being returned to Westminster. With funding certainty, better value for money could be achieved; for example, by allowing more resurfacing work to be done in the summer months.

A fundamental realignment of Executive budgets is therefore necessary. However, that can be achieved only through a mature debate that considers the relative priorities of all Departments. That has still not taken place, and, for me, that is unacceptable.

Having commenced the year with a significant shortfall in funding, I submitted bids of £48·4 million resource and £130·3 million capital in June. Those are additional sums that could and, in my view, should have been spent on regional development this year. With only £5 million resource being allocated for concessionary fares and £26·3 million for a range of capital projects, huge pressures still remain.

Importantly, capital allocations cannot be used for resource purposes. I have to continue to stress that, because there seems to be either an ignorance or an unwillingness to face that fact. Capital allocations cannot be used for resource purposes and will not allow me to reinstate roads and street lighting maintenance activities. Those are resource accounting and budgeting restrictions that all Ministers have to operate under. I am simply unable to use capital funding to meet the running costs of repairing potholes and street lighting. Of course, that is of little comfort to the public, who may understandably ask how capital projects can continue but the running costs of maintaining our infrastructure cannot.

Unlike others, I have sought to manage my budget. To meet the 2·1% running costs reduction applied at June monitoring and in preparation for a 2·3% reduction at October monitoring, I conducted a robust forensic analysis. At the start of the year my Department’s running cost baseline was deliberately underfunded by the Executive at just over £344 million. Expenditure in 2013-14 was £381 million, making DRD again reliant on monitoring. Over the last three years I have been working to deliver savings, not least with Northern Ireland Water.

By the end of the Budget 2011-15 period, NIW will have delivered over £35 million of public expenditure savings.

Let me say that I also make no apology for my strong support of the concessionary fares scheme. This year, the scheme cost £9 million more than its central allocation. It is more expensive because it is so popular. I have to say that the concessionary fares should never have been forced to be the subject of monitoring bids; they should be fully funded by the Executive. They should not be politicised by some simply to put pressure on an Ulster Unionist Minister. Our older citizens deserve better than that.

Mr Dallat: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kennedy: No. I have to make progress.

Rail services in the UK and the Republic of Ireland would not be possible without a running costs subsidy from government. Locally, the subsidy has been gradually reducing with passenger growth. I have further reduced it by £1 million. In the light of the baseline reductions that I have faced, I have further reduced the fuel duty rebate to Translink by £1·3 million. Those reductions in funding mean that, this year, the company is required to work to an increased deficit of over £9 million funded from its reserves.

I have to say that there has been much interest in and quite a lot of ignorance of the reserves held by Translink. Translink is no different from any private company: it must maintain a level of cash in order to meet its working requirements. Translink is not some piggy bank to shake when we are short. I have stretched Translink. There is not a cosy relationship between the Department and Translink, but its accounts must reflect a going concern over any three-year period. I again make no apology for protecting over £9 million of grant funding for rural transport, transport for the disabled and the Rathlin ferry.

I have looked carefully at my Department's admin budget, the majority of which relates to staff salaries. Reductions in permanent staff numbers cannot be achieved quickly or without significant investment by the Executive in a Northern Ireland Civil Service-wide scheme, but I have made reductions of £2·5 million in admin funding. I have done that through a range of measures including robust vacancy management, a reduction in temporary workers and applying downward pressure to overtime. I have also identified further measures to release £3·1 million, including funding that was previously held for Translink and public transport authority funding.

The steps that I have outlined have provided almost £8 million of funding towards the baseline reductions. No area of my Department has been beyond scrutiny. I have looked carefully at the running costs that are necessary to manage, maintain and develop our road network. Of the £125 million of funding available to me to meet annual running costs, over £100 million is contractually or otherwise committed. It cannot therefore be cut in-year. That includes £40 million to meet public-private partnership (PPP) contractual commitments; almost £12 million for energy costs for street lighting and traffic signals; £10 million for parking enforcement, charged car parking services and Strangford ferry services; £5 million for the maintenance of traffic signals; £19·2 million for the management and maintenance of road drainage infrastructure; £4·5 million to meet public liability obligations; £1 million for the new street lighting carbon reduction commitment; over £4 million for fuel and fleet maintenance; £2 million for essential tools and supplies; and over £2 million to meet unavoidable charges from other public bodies. Limited options remain available to me to realise a further £7 million of budget reductions. Do not tell me that I have not looked forensically at the issues. I have protected street lighting inspection, testing and emergency repairs, winter services to ensure roads are gritted this winter and operations —

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kennedy: No. I have to make progress. It is time to listen.

I have protected operations and maintenance supplies.

No option remained —

Mr Clarke: There is £33 million left in Translink.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Kennedy: No option remained other than to put our external contractors on pause for general road maintenance and the repair of street lights that fail unless they pose an electrical hazard to the public. In taking those measures to manage a 4·4% reduction, I have sought to minimise the risks to public safety and the economy. None of the decisions that I have had to take has been of my own making or desire. None of the decisions has been taken lightly or without the forensic examination of all the options.

I listened carefully to the presentations made by the 10 Members who spoke. Mr Dallat, who opened the debate, reminded us of what the Romans did for us and of the Emperor Claudius. I am more reminded of Julius Caesar — it is not quite Shakespeare — and "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" from the Carry On film.

These decisions have not been taken lightly. They are important decisions, and I realise the impact they have on small firms, many of them struggling to get contracts. Options were narrowed down, given the time limit available to me. Mr Clarke thinks that we were going for soft touches. I have explained through this statement the essentials that we had to and sought to protect and where we have to go to find realistic savings. There is also the issue of welfare reform. Two parties in the Chamber today conveniently ignore the impact that that is having, not only on my budget but on Executive budgets generally.

There were other contributions. I thank Mr Beggs for reminding us that the monitoring process and how we conduct our Budget is a matter that needs review and urgent change. Whilst I can welcome outcomes from monitoring periods, as I have done in the past, I see that there is an underlying and fundamental problem with the way we shape our budgets.

Mr McCarthy talked about the impact in his area. He thanked everybody, except me, because apparently I did not invite him to some photo opportunity, which the Alliance Party so much enjoys. I thank George Robinson for his sympathy, if not his vote. Mr Ó hOisín, again, refused to take on board —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is almost up.

Mr Kennedy: — the criticisms of and the impact of welfare reform.

These are the facts that I have had to deal with. This is the real world of DRD.

Mr Byrne: I thank all 10 Members who have partaken in the debate, and I thank the Minister for being here. I ask this question: why is the Minister opposed to the motion, given that we are trying to be helpful to him and the Department? Maybe there are certain intricacies in there that are more difficult to understand than is apparent.

We brought the motion to the House because, with the onset of the winter that may lie ahead, there is serious concern among the public about what might happen to the condition of roads. People are concerned about whether there will be gritting or lack of maintenance of the roads and, as a result, increased road deaths. As the winter months approach, we face the life-threatening neglect of our road infrastructure. The underfunding of structural maintenance will have severe consequences for the sustainability and safety of our roads, with knock-on effects on our economic competitiveness. It is an essential area that simply cannot afford to be insufficiently funded in the way that it has been.

Many Members who spoke referred to the fact that roads maintenance has largely been funded from monitoring rounds for the last three or four years. It is welcome that some attempt has been made to tackle the backlog in road maintenance, but, unfortunately, that has been done via the monitoring round process. That raises this question: why do we continue with the monitoring round process and the funding of budgets like the DRD budget for roads in such a way? There has to be a fundamental review of that. That is the reason why this party has, for so long, advocated a year-by-year Budget assessment re-evaluation, to make sure that there is more effective public expenditure on the issues that matter to people.

Mr Dallat: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the core element of the motion is that the stop-start way of financing the Department is wrong?

Our Minister Danny Kennedy, who normally displays a high level of intelligence, has completely missed the point of the motion. Instead of opposing it, he should be enthusiastically endorsing it.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Interventions should be short, as you know.

Mr Dallat: When in this Assembly do you get opposition parties applauding a Minister from another party, and he rejects it?

Mr Byrne: I thank the Member for his statement. It reinforces what I said earlier about the confusion that I also have about the Minister and his party's position on this issue. However, as I said, maybe not everything is fully apparent to us. It is obvious, however, that the budgetary process is at the heart of the problem. Look, the reality is this: people drive cars. When they buy a car, they pay car tax, VAT and excise duties. Our motorists paid £927 million in fuel duty between 2011 and 2012, providing 18% — that is, £76 — more revenue per person annually than the UK average. That is what we have for a very rural environment. Motorists have, quite simply, been ripped off. The average car tax is £250 per annum. The average road tax for a 40-foot lorry is £1,200 per annum. So, the question is this: why is the road user who is paying tax being so handicapped in relation to the quality and condition of the roads?

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Byrne: Yes, indeed.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member acknowledge that that fund does not go to the Department for Regional Development, and it is, in fact, the Department of Finance and Personnel that determines the budget that is given to the Minister to spend?

Mr Byrne: I do recognise that, however —

The point, Mr Beggs, is this: it is reinforcing the budgetary process and the allocation of moneys. As a public representative in a rural area of West Tyrone, where people greatly rely on road transport because we do not have one mile of railway, I know that people feel very angry that they are paying all that duty and taxation relating to their car, lorry or van, but they are getting very little in return.

We also feel that there is such a lack of balance in the Department for Regional Development's expenditure on roads. We feel very annoyed about that. We feel that the A5 road has been sacrificed. However, the A8 was a priority, and there was no problem about EU directives. These are the real issues that affect people.

Road deaths are an apparent and real issue for many people. Mr McCarthy referred to the fact that there was a road death involving a Bangor man over the weekend, and Mr Ó hOisín referred to an M2 accident yesterday. Let us be clear: before the last general election, I had more representation from people about potholes and damage to cars and wheels than on any other issue. Thankfully, the potholes have largely been solved over the past three or four years with the monitoring round moneys, and I commend the Minister for prioritising that road maintenance work that has been done.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Byrne: Yes, indeed.

Mr Clarke: I am listening closely to the Member. Whilst we support the motion, it is more about the forensic analysis of the Minister's budget and how some of us see it as an easy touch. The Minister will defend that. I accept the point about safety, and I think that is why I can support the motion. However, when you are addressing the rest of your comments, Mr Byrne, will you tell the House how your party can prop up Sinn Féin on welfare reform and what weight you are adding to that in respect of safety, potholes and all the other issues that are raised in all our constituency offices? It is your party that is helping to prop up Sinn Féin to prevent welfare reform coming to the House.

Mr Byrne: I thank Mr Clarke for his comments, but all I can say to him is that we are propping up nobody. We are standing up for the public at large. I do not want the welfare issue to be flogged to death. For the past three or four weeks, it has been flogged to death, and it is not the real issue. The real issue is the overall budgetary process, the budgetary allocations and the budget going forward, which begs the question about this regional economy: do we want to have an economically viable, sustainable economy into the future? Those are the real issues that we will have to start examining going forward. The reality is that there will be cuts in the Budget from the Treasury. We have heard that. Until we make this region more economically sustainable, these are the sorts of problems we are going to face.

It is a fact that road safety issues and road fatalities are intertwined with the economic competitiveness and efficiency of this region. If we go back to a situation where we add to an £800 million roads maintenance backlog, it will be a disaster for the future. I accept that Mr Kennedy has said that he has analysed critically his Department's spending. He says that the cuts that he had signalled in July were inevitable and that they were the soft-touch cuts that were more amenable to immediate decision-making.

Mr Kennedy: I did not say that.

Mr Byrne: The Minister said, or at least I understood him to say, that the process he was —

Mr Kennedy: Will the Member give way? This is important.

Mr Byrne: Yes.

Mr Kennedy: At no stage did I regard these as soft-touch cuts; they are not. They are the inevitable consequence of the financial position that I have been placed in as a result, not only of June monitoring but of the overall economic situation, including the issue of welfare reform.

Mr Byrne: I accept the sentiments of what you were saying, Minister, but the reality is that you said that there were some things that you could cut because of the long-term financial implications involved. You said that DFP landed you with this difficulty in June and that there was no time to properly examine or scrutinise the situation. That was the same for all Departments. I recognise that and sympathise with the Minister in that regard but it goes back to the budgetary process.

Many Members took part in the debate, and there were some common themes, including the welfare issue being kicked around once again. There is genuine concern among all Members about street lighting, footpaths, grass cutting, the repair of roads and smaller capital schemes that are crucial for the overall state and condition of our infrastructure.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is almost up.

Mr Byrne: I would like more time to go through all the issues that different Members have raised, but there were a number of common themes. There is a genuine concern among all Members about roads maintenance going forward. We will have to examine how it can be addressed in a better way to make sure that our road users, who are paying a lot of taxes, are not ripped off any more.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Allister: On a point of order. I wish to refer the House back to the incident during the Ministers' statement on the North/South Ministerial Council. I ask that the House might examine why I was gagged and why it was that one Member was allowed to pass way outside what was in the statement to ask questions about dumping, but when it came to this Member asking about something that was allegedly outside the ambit of the statement, I was immediately gagged at the behest, I have to say sadly, of the Clerk at Table. Why did that Clerk not equally give advice in relation to the other Member?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. I reject that as a point of order. I happened to be in the Chamber at that time and what I quite clearly witnessed was that the Deputy Speaker pointed out that you had digressed from the debate and the subject matter in hand and he asked you to resume your seat, which you defied. That is something that I intend to revisit after this sitting.

Mr Allister: Further to that point of order, can you explain why the other Member, who equally digressed, was not called to order and why only this Member was called to order? That is the point.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I will review those parts of the debate that I was not personally witness to, and that includes the subject matter that you have just discussed. However, I have pointed out to you something that I know you, perhaps more than many other Members, are very acutely aware of, which is that you cannot defy the Speaker when the Speaker asks you to resume your seat.

That is a very serious issue. I think that it is a bit rich that you think that you can raise points of order about earlier issues. I am taking exception to it. Let me warn you that I intend to study that very carefully.

Mr Spratt: Further to that point of order, I ask you to examine the comments made by the Member who has just spoken on the integrity of a Clerk of the Assembly in giving advice to the Speaker. That, in my view, is totally out of order. Will you examine that? It has been commented on before. Will you look at whether it is in order for the Member to make such comments?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I reiterate: I will examine the record. I am not accepting that the Member raised a valid point of order. I think that, in the presentation of it, he may well have raised other issues that should be considered.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately after the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2·00 pm, when the first item of business will be Question Time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: We will start with listed questions. Questions 6 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education): As Minister of Education, I have continually highlighted the need for significant investment in our schools estate to tackle the high backlog in maintenance. I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that the schools estate is appropriately maintained to prevent unacceptable deterioration of the buildings and to ensure that our young people and teachers have a learning environment that is fit for purpose and safe for use. Due to budget pressures, the maintenance budget has been reduced this year. However, I have ring-fenced some capital budget for facilities improvement schemes that should assist in improving the condition of the schools estate. The initial maintenance budget allocation for this year was £17 million. In June monitoring, I allocated an additional £5 million. Furthermore, £15 million of capital has been earmarked for facilities improvement projects. Over the last three years, a total of £134 million has been spent on school maintenance.

Mr Givan: I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the many millions of pounds that need to be spent on the planned maintenance backlog. Can he assure the House that concerns about the health and safety of the young people in these buildings will be a priority and that the estate will not deteriorate to such an extent that their health and safety is put in jeopardy?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for the supplementary. Yes, there is prioritisation in the maintenance programme. The money for the maintenance backlog is to make good the work necessary to bring school buildings back to their condition when built. The maintenance backlog includes any urgent work to address health and safety issues and avoid the serious deterioration of the fabric or services to the building. I add the caveat that many of our schools are of a significant age, and I can assure you that we improve those buildings rather than restoring them to their original state.

Over this last number of years, we have invested significant amounts. The maintenance backlog figure comprises the elements that deem conditions to be category 1, which is very poor, or category 2, which is poor. Health and safety is paramount in these matters, and we have made significant improvements to many schools across the schools estate through the school maintenance programme. I will continue to make money available to that and to make bids to the monitoring rounds for maintenance budgets. In fairness to the Executive, we have been quite successful with those over this last number of years.

Mr Rogers: I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Minister, given the strong emphasis on factors such as floor area and pupil numbers in determining eligibility for minor works, how do you ensure that small schools get the right allocation of the minor works budget?

Mr O'Dowd: The minor works budget is different from the maintenance budget, which is for maintaining the character of a school and tackling health and safety issues. Minor works are about significantly improving the facilities in a school, which may include the addition of classrooms or office or toilet space. Any project costed below £500,000 comes under minor works. There is a formula, and I do not accept that small schools are discriminated against by that. Over this last number of years, we have invested significant amounts in our minor works programme as well as our maintenance works programme.

Mr Swann: The Minister referred to the deterioration of the schools estate and buildings. Nothing deteriorates quicker than an empty building, and the Minister is well aware that Ballee Community High School in my constituency is now empty, and 30 mobile classrooms are being used in surrounding schools. Has the Minister any intention to put Ballee to use as a proper part of the estate?

Mr O'Dowd: Ballee school is the responsibility of the relevant board, which is the North Eastern Education and Library Board. It is up to the board to decide what future uses the school should be put to. I understand that, when it gets to that stage, the first call will be to other education providers to see whether there is an educational use for the school. If not, the call will go out to other Departments, and the process will follow from there. It is a matter for the North Eastern Education and Library Board.

Mr O'Dowd: The results of the progress in international reading literacy study (PIRLS) and trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS), which were published in December 2012, showed that a high proportion of our P6 pupils were performing at the highest levels of proficiency in reading and mathematics. It is clear from those international studies and our own inspection evidence that the characteristics of a good school are being embedded in our system. The policies that we have been implementing in recent years are working, and our young people are reaping the benefits.

Count, Read: Succeed, the literacy and numeracy strategy, makes it clear that teachers and school leaders are best placed to identify pupils requiring additional support and the most appropriate action to meet pupils' needs. However, we know that many children face barriers to fulfilling their potential, and more needs to be done to ensure that every pupil leaves primary school with adequate literacy and numeracy skills. The Learning to Learn framework recognises the importance of delivering high-quality education services for children before and in the first years of compulsory education.

Funding has been allocated to specific programmes to further improve outcomes in literacy and numeracy, particularly focusing on disadvantaged pupils. I also focused on the important role that parents and local communities can play in addressing educational underachievement. The Education Works campaign, the community education initiatives programme and the extended-schools programme are all aimed at delivering positive educational outcomes.

Mr Attwood: I thank the Minister for his information so far. Given the welcome moneys that you announced last week in respect of barriers to early learning, could you confirm what discussions you have had with the Health Minister in relation to ensuring that, once a language acquisition problem has been identified, there are sufficient therapists in schools to respond to those in need?

Mr O'Dowd: I have had no discussions to date with the current Health Minister, but I did have regular discussions with the previous Health Minister, Minister Poots, about a wide range of programmes, including programmes that his Department is involved in through Delivering Social Change and regular programmes of the Health Department. I can assure the Member that my officials and the Health Department officials meet on a regular basis to discuss such initiatives and how we can support each other in ensuring the well-being of the young people we serve.

Mr Newton: Where there are problems with numeracy and literacy and a school is therefore deemed not to meet the standard and goes into intervention, what is the minimum level of support that a principal might expect from the education and library board or the Department of Education?

Mr O'Dowd: The first responsibility for ensuring numeracy and literacy levels at a school rests with the principal and the board of governors of that school. They are the first anchor in ensuring that education is being provided appropriately to the young people in that school. Schools will enter formal intervention for different reasons, and, when that happens, different aspects of the coursework or curriculum being delivered in the school are called into question. It will depend on which elements of the curriculum are being called into question and where the weaknesses are in the school, whether that be in classroom teaching or leadership in the school. So, in short, the support will be delivered on the basis of the needs of the school. There is no one-size-fits-all approach in these circumstances. It is about the support that the school requires, but the first responsibility lies with the principal and the board of governors to deliver the education in the school.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Could the Minister give us an update on the Delivering Social Change programme, which is aimed at improving levels of literacy and numeracy in our schools?

Mr O'Dowd: The Delivering Social Change programme has proven very popular and, in my opinion, very effective in delivering change in our education system and delivering for the young people it serves. In recruitment, for the entire programme, 266·3 teachers are in post — I am not sure how they work out the 0·3 — out of a total of 269 planned posts. That is 165 in post-primary schools and 100 in primary schools. So, there are a significant number of additional staff being deployed in schools. They are working to a plan that is agreed between the school and the education and library board. That is being delivered effectively. We hope to carry out an evaluation of that programme in the months ahead. That, of course, will depend on finances being available at that time. At this stage, I am focused on ensuring that services are being delivered in the classroom rather than the evaluation of those services being delivered in the classroom, but it is important to evaluate it at some stage in the near future.

Initial reports are very positive in that it has had a significant impact on our young people. The scheme is very popular with schools.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister for his answers to date. During those answers he talked about the importance of the role of parents. Does he accept that grandparents may also have an influence both on parents and pupils? If so, what programmes are in place to tap into that valuable resource?

Mr O'Dowd: In the most recent Education Works campaign, we focused on the role of the broader family — not just the immediate parents or guardians — whether that is siblings, aunts and uncles or, indeed, grandparents of those children, because they are a valuable resource for any family and a valuable resource in the community. We encourage the family unit, including grandparents, to become involved in a child's education, not a specific individual within the family unit.

Mr O'Dowd: The proportion of male teachers in primary schools has remained fairly constant at around 15% since 2010. The reasons for the relatively low proportion of male teachers in primary schools are complex and not unique to our system. There is a perception that women are more suited to teaching young children. Societal attitudes and the focus on child protection issues may also discourage males from entering the profession, particularly in the primary sector.

However, I continue to encourage the providers of initial teacher education (ITE) to take steps to address the issue. They are ensuring that males are well represented in publicity materials for courses and are targeting all-male schools, and male groups in mixed schools, for careers talks and presentations. As a result, the proportion of males enrolling in primary ITE courses has increased from 17·4% in 2008-09 to 20·4% in 2012-13.

Mr Anderson: I thank the Minister for that response. Will he outline the extent to which he is working with the Minister for Employment and Learning on a cross-departmental basis to help to address the gender imbalance in our primary schools?

Mr O'Dowd: As you know, we are involved in a joint review of our careers services. Clearly, one of those careers is teaching. We have been working closely with DEL on the programmes to which I have referred, and it is through DEL that initial teacher education is provided. In particular, we have been working closely to ensure that the colleges are going out and speaking to young males in post-primary schools who are at the stage of deciding career pathways. We have seen some success with that, with a 3% rise in the past four years. I would like to see that rise again. However, as I noted in my commentary, there are societal attitudes around this that are required to change, and there is also a role for my Department and the Minister for Employment and Learning. However, we are working together on it.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for a high-profile campaign to increase the representation of males in the primary-school workforce?

Mr O'Dowd: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I agree that a high-level publicity campaign would prove beneficial. Publicity campaigns cost money, and unfortunately at this stage our advertisement budget across the Executive has been curtailed to allow us to deliver services to the front line. Therefore, I will not be providing such a campaign in the near future, unfortunately.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline the benefits that increasing the number of male teachers would bring to the system? With that in mind, what is DE doing to achieve that?

Mr O'Dowd: I think that it is important that our young people in primary schools come into contact with responsible adults of all genders. Look at the learning patterns of young males in particular: if they have a male teacher in the classroom, someone whom they can look up to and someone to aspire to as a responsible male in their life, then that will assist them in their learning journey. Primary-school education is a very rewarding career pathway for anyone. It is vital that we allow and ensure males to feel comfortable in entering primary-school education and that they know that they have a valuable role to play in primary-school education. They must also know that their presence in the classroom can and does motivate young boys to do better in education. I know that many young people have responsible male adults in their lives, but we have to accept that that is not always the case in our society.

Mrs Dobson: What plans does the Minister have to help our newly trained teachers who are still unemployed to find employment, irrespective of their gender?

Mr O'Dowd: The primary objective of the Delivering Social Change programme, which I mentioned in response to Mr Sheehan earlier, was to improve numeracy and literacy and educational outcomes for our young people in schools, but it was also to allow newly qualified teachers to have real-time teaching experience in schools. That project has been successful.
Our education budget continues to face significant pressures. We have seen a reduction in teaching staff over the past four years in our schools estate, and, as education budgets continue to face pressures, I suspect that we will continue to see a reduction of the teaching workforce in our schools. It is a very difficult time for all teachers, but particularly for newly qualified teachers. I will continue to push the Delivering Social Change programme forward, and I will continue to push the education budget at the Executive table, but, at this moment in time, our budgets remain very constrained, and I do not expect an increase in employment in education any time soon.

Mr O'Dowd: The foundation stage curriculum is designed to allow teachers the freedom to ensure that very young children should be allowed to learn at their own pace, reflective of their individual needs. For certain children in specific circumstances, there may be reasons why a child may be considered not ready to start school. It is for that reason that, following meetings with the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) and associates, I agreed to look at options for introducing a degree of flexibility in certain circumstances around the compulsory school starting age here.

There is no flexibility in current legislation that would allow parents to defer their child’s entry to year one, and the introduction of any form of flexibility would require a change to primary legislation. Officials are now working to finalise the detailed arrangements that arise as a consequence of making such a change. I have instructed my officials to complete this work as quickly as possible. I expect a consultation to be launched this autumn, and I have asked that these changes be in place by September 2016. This is a tight and challenging timetable and is subject to Assembly approval of the necessary legislation.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Minister for that answer. I think that many parents will be reassured that the Minister and the Department are on track to introduce legislation that will help to create flexibility. A further issue that I wish to raise with the Minister is that some children who attend school and who are young for their years, as it were, underachieve. Has the Department done any work on that particular problem?

Mr O'Dowd: Again, I return to the comments that I made in response to the original question: the foundation stage curriculum is designed to allow teachers the freedom to ensure that very young children should be allowed to learn at their own pace. It is about individual teaching for the individual child in the early stages of their educational development. I have accepted that there are some children who, for whatever reason, are not ready to start primary school at the required legislative age as set out currently, and that is why I propose to make changes to legislation, although it will ultimately be up to the Assembly to approve.

Our primary-school curriculum is designed to allow teachers to teach to the individual pupil rather than setting out a pathway that instructs them to teach a class at the same level, at the same time and at the same progress. We allow the professional judgement of our teachers to fit the curriculum to the child rather than the other way around in order to help those children in school who, for whatever reason, find the curriculum challenging.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What measures can be or are being taken to ensure that the proposed changes will not have any unintended negative consequences for schools?

Mr O'Dowd: That is one of the reasons that the work has taken slightly longer than I first expected. When you start to change the school starting age for some children, it may have an impact on preschool and primary school provision. The question also has to be asked about whether it will have an impact on the leaving age for post-primary schools and so on. My officials have spent considerable time going through the relevant legislation and policy documents to ensure that, when we go out to consultation, as many of those questions as possible will have been answered and that we give the public and Members a full picture. As I said, it will then be up to the Assembly whether it agrees with the legislative proposals.

Miss M McIlveen: I welcome the Minister's comments about flexibility. That has been raised with me in my role as an MLA. Will he expand on whether any criteria will be set against that? There is flexibility and there is flexibility.

Mr O'Dowd: I am not proposing an open book, whereby parents can state that they do not believe that their child is ready to start school and therefore will not start until the next year. I am interested in some examples in councils in and around the Scottish borders and in some English councils, where they have brought in criteria that allow children to start school a year later. However, that decision is assessed against criteria.

I have not finalised the criteria that I will put out to consultation. They will be example criteria, and, if others have ideas, I am more than willing to listen to them. It is important that we get the legislation right and get agreement on it through the Assembly. There are examples out there. I will propose a number of those examples in the consultation, and, if others have any other ideas, I am open to listening to them.

Mr O'Dowd: The current rules governing the home-to-school transport policy are laid down in departmental circular 1996/41, as amended, which is available on the DE website in the section dealing with transport. The policy requires education and library boards to make such arrangements as they consider necessary to facilitate the attendance of pupils at grant-aided schools. Eligibility is determined by two qualifying criteria: distance and suitable school.

Under the policy, transport assistance will be provided only to pupils who have formally sought and been unable to gain a place in all suitable schools within the relevant eligibility distance of their home. That is two miles for primary age pupils and three miles for post-primary pupils. There are six categories of schools within the definition of "suitable school": controlled and other voluntary schools; Catholic maintained schools; integrated schools; Irish-medium schools; denominational grammar schools; and non-denominational grammar schools. If a pupil is eligible, the ELB will decide the most appropriate form of assistance to provide. That may take the form of a seat on a Translink bus, an ELB bus or a private operator bus, a private operator taxi or a monetary allowance.

As Coleraine to Limavady is a main arterial route, the most appropriate form of transport assistance is likely to be a Translink sessional ticket — a bus pass — although each case is considered individually. The ELB response will be dependent on the number and distribution of pupils travelling to a particular school and will take account of the possible interactions that exist with public bus services.

Mr G Robinson: I hear what the Minister has said. Does he agree that the choice of school can be an important influence and factor in a child's educational attainment?

Mr O'Dowd: Sorry, I missed some of that, Mr Robinson. Would it be possible for you to repeat the question?

Mr G Robinson: Does the Minister agree that the choice of school can be an important influence and factor in a child's educational attainment?

Mr O'Dowd: It depends on the reasons for choice. We have several different sectors out there. The main concern for me, as Minister of Education, is that, regardless of which school or sector a parent or pupil chooses, it should provide a high-quality education and look after the educational well-being of pupils.

Ms Sugden: Further to the Minister's decision to amalgamate Coleraine High School and Coleraine Academical Institution, does he have any plans to work with the Department for Regional Development to provide suitable bus provision and infrastructure for the proposed new school?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of all the transport issues surrounding the case that you referred to. However, first and foremost, I would encourage the schools or the interim board of governors to engage with Translink and other service providers in the area to see what transport facilities are in place and to engage with the education and library board to discuss transport facilities in the area, eligibility etc.

Mr Kinahan: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. When it comes to transport charges in the future, will he promise that he will not place some form of transport charge on children travelling to voluntary schools in Belfast?

Mr O'Dowd: I assume that the Member is referring to one of the issues raised as part of the transport review that I commissioned. I have received a copy of the report, and I am studying the part that relates to transport provision going into the future. I am not in a position to respond to any of the recommendations in that report at this stage, although they cover the issue of charging all pupils. It does not specifically refer to one sector or area. All those matters will be dealt with fully when I publish the report and make a statement to the House in due course.

Mr O'Dowd: Following approval of the Rossmar economic appraisal in October 2013 by my Department, a professional team was appointed to progress the design of the new 100-pupil school building. The Western Education and Library Board is discussing the level of accommodation to be provided, and an addendum to the economic appraisal will be submitted to my Department for consideration by mid-October 2014. It is anticipated that the new build will begin on site towards the end of August 2015, with completion by March 2017.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. I am aware that the accommodation requirement has gone to the Department, but will the Minister acknowledge that Rossmar School and other schools in the area for which construction projects have been announced wait with anticipation, as does the construction industry locally?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. It is quite a journey from the announcement of a new build to the start of construction. Each site and school throws up its own complexities. With Rossmar, while there were some hiccups at the start, we are making good progress and are working towards a start date of August 2015. So, all the major hurdles have been crossed.

I am also aware of the interest of the construction industry in my school-building programme. For different reasons, they want to see sites opened up to ensure that construction workers are on site, that jobs are there and that finances are going into the economy. While that is not the primary responsibility of my Department in this case — my primary responsibility is to provide new facilities for schools — I welcome the fact that investment by my Department assists the construction industry and the wider economy.

Mr Campbell: The Minister has been down at Rossmar School. I welcome the fact that by this time next year we should be well on our way to a new school being finished there. Has account been taken in the preparation of the capital programme required there of any likely change in the first year or two in the number applying to be accommodated in the school?

Mr O'Dowd: In the preparation for a new school build, projected entry numbers are taken into consideration as best they can be. They will form part of the deliberations of the Western Education and Library Board and of my Department before final approval is given for the size of the school. If the Member has any specific information that he believes would be valuable in our deliberations, sharing that with my Department or the Western Education and Library Board would prove beneficial.

Mr O'Dowd: First, I am sure you will agree with me how relieved we all are that no pupils were seriously injured or killed in last week's bus collision. That was largely due to the fact that a high proportion of the children were, thankfully, wearing seat belts. As I confirmed at last week's safe transport awareness conference in Stormont, I view safety as the main priority in the provision of home-to-school transport policy.

Existing safety standards are already of a high level, following the implementation, since 2007, of a number of key safety measures by my Department, the education and library boards and Translink. They include not seating three children to two adult seats; no standing on school-designated services except in exceptional circumstances; and all designated school services to be fully seat-belted. Board vehicles and board-contracted private hire vehicles have been compliant for a number of years with all those measures, as pupil numbers are matched to vehicle capacities. Schools are also regularly reminded by ELBs and DE of the importance of the use of seat belts. The latest letter issued in January this year, and a further letter is being prepared by my officials.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We move to topical questions. Topical question 8 has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd: In the settlement of the Executive Budget for the period 2011-15, the resource budget was cut by £125 million, as compared with 2011. That translates into a £255 million cut or 13·6% in real terms. Late in 2011, around November, I met the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the then Finance Minister and outlined to them the impact that losing £255 million would have on resources in education. They agreed that we could not travel forward on that trajectory, and I secured a further £120 million for the education budget. However, as I have said in answer to several questions, we still face significant budgetary pressures in education. They are curtailing the services that we deliver, and they are stopping services expanding, including the employment of vital front line staff in our classrooms.

Ms Boyle: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he confirm whether those cuts predate any potential fines linked to the Tory-led coalition's plans to cut welfare spending? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr O'Dowd: The current resource budget for 2011-15 was set on the basis of a block grant from the Treasury of approximately £10 billion and distributed among Departments. When that was done, the current Welfare Reform Bill was not dreamt of or heard of. Although welfare reform was being brought through the Assembly under the auspices of the then Labour Government and the then Social Development Minister, the current Welfare Reform Bill was unheard of. The cuts to services and the job losses in education have everything to do with the coalition Government's economic policy, and the continued implementation of that policy will have a detrimental impact on all our public services.

Mr O'Dowd: The project for St Patrick's Academy is progressing well, with a notice in the 'Official Journal of the European Union' for construction tenders, published in September 2014. It is hoped that, in this case, construction will commence on site in 2015. My officials are actively engaged in taking forward the Edendork Primary School project. To date, a site search has been completed by Land and Property Services, and suitable sites have been identified for the location of the new school. The next stage will be the preparation of a technical feasibility study to address the suitability of those sites, and that information will be utilised to inform the economic appraisal.

Ms McGahan: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his response. Will he detail the wider benefits of those capital build projects to the local construction industry and the community in terms of social clauses?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said in answer to a previous question, while my primary responsibility is to provide new facilities for schools, I am acutely aware that the significant investment that I have made over this last number of years is having a beneficial impact on the construction industry and, therefore, the economy. The UK Contractors Group estimates that, for every pound that I invest in new builds as a Minister, there is a positive impact on the economy of £2·84. Every pound that I generate creates another £2·84 towards the economy. I welcome that. In the case of St Patrick's Academy in Dungannon, the estimated cost of £27 million, applying the multipliers, will result in an estimated potential investment to our economy of £77 million. In the case of Edendork Primary School, £4 million, again using these multipliers, will benefit the local economy by somewhere in the region of £11 million. Not only do the schools benefit from this; certainly, the construction industry also benefits, as does our local economy.

Mr O'Dowd: We have to get the balance right. ICT is a reality. It is becoming an increasing reality in every aspect of our daily life, so it is only right and proper that we use it in our school environment as a learning tool and a subject in its own right. We have support mechanisms in place for our teachers. Some schools decide to invest in packages from their own budget, as they are perfectly entitled to do, and have brought in various devices to assist children to learn. I always caution them that that is OK, as investment in devices is a good thing in many ways, but they also need to invest in a training programme to ensure that they maximise the use of such devices.

Mr Rogers: I thank you for that. Minister, do you not think that smaller rural schools are particularly under added pressure because they have limited hardware and space to put computers but also lack fast broadband?

Mr O'Dowd: The issue of fast broadband is a matter for other Departments. A number of those Departments are involved in programmes that are delivering broadband services to our rural communities. We provide quite a significant package to schools through the C2k programme. Over this last number of years, we are well advanced in the investment that we have made in computer equipment and connectivity for our schools compared with other education Departments across these islands. We have certainly taken into account the needs of small rural schools moving forward, but the broadband issue is for other Departments.

Mr O'Dowd: No, not as I stand here at this exact moment. However, I will provide the Member with as much information as possible.

Mr Nesbitt: I appreciate the Minister's candour. Constituents come to me annually as families to say that this is happening to them in Newtownards and Comber. The child wakes up, can see the local school out of a bedroom window but cannot get a place and has to travel somewhere else. Those parents are greatly frustrated because they believe that your party policy is that children should attend their local school. What can you do for them?

Mr O'Dowd: A number of factors come into play in this issue. They include, first and foremost, the school's enrolment policy and how the local primary school and its board of governors have decided they will operate that enrolment policy. If their top priority is that children in the immediate vicinity of the school should gain entry to it, should a child be looking through the bedroom window and saying that they have not got in to that school? That is a matter for the board of governors. If a school has an entry policy or entry criteria and finds that there is still a significant demand on the school, it can ask for an increase in its yearly intake for one year only. It can come to my Department and present a case that it needs to allow x number of pupils into the school for a stated reason. My Department will deliberate on that, and, where it agrees that the school has presented a valid case, permission will be given for those numbers.

If that is happening regularly, the school should bring forward a development proposal that calls for the school to be expanded by x amount of pupils, which would be decided on in consultation with the school and its managing authority. Such a development proposal would go out to eight weeks' consultation, and it would then come to me for a final decision. If it fits in with area planning, and the school shows that there is a required demand for an increase in places, I will approve the increase. The first port of call should be the school to ask it about its entry criteria.

Mr O'Dowd: While the final business case has yet to be submitted to the Department of Finance and Personnel for its inspection and approval, it is estimated that the savings will be similar to those forecast for the education and skills authority (ESA), which were in and around £185 million over its first 10 years.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for that answer. We know that the target is 1 April 2015, which is when the new councils will kick in. What would the impact be if the Bill were not introduced and made law by that time?

Mr O'Dowd: The driving force behind the Bill and the single education authority is the looming deadline of the review of public administration and councils, which, as you said, is 1 April 2015. The current legislation sets out that our education and library boards are connected to the councils through legislation. If the councils are no longer in place, they are no longer legal entities as envisaged in the education and library Bills. There is then a serious question mark about the locus of any boards that continue after that.

There is an onus on the Assembly, my Department and Ministers to make a decision about the way forward for education. The new body is not ESA; it is a single education and library authority based on the 1986 Order that modernised the education and library boards. This is the best way forward at this time. Future Education Ministers and Executives may wish to return to ESA and use this legislation as a platform to build on, but the Assembly and the Executive need to make a decision and move forward with the Bill, give certainty to the education structures and our teachers, support staff and education and library board workers on the shape of the body for a considerable period. If in the future someone wishes to return to ESA, so be it.

Mr O'Dowd: I have instructed my officials to bring forward a policy for looked-after children, which they are working on. I will keep the Education Committee and the House informed about the policy's progress.

Mr G Robinson: The need to improve the educational outcomes of looked-after children is an area of concern. What assistance is being given to teachers to help them to identify and address the sometimes complex needs of those children?

Mr O'Dowd: That is without doubt. One of the driving forces behind my decision to formulate a policy specifically for looked-after children is because of the educational challenges that they face. Educational outcomes for many of our looked-after children are far from what they should be, particularly given that many are in the care of the state, and there is a responsibility on the state to ensure that their educational outcomes are good.

During the recent common funding formula changes, I changed the formula to increase funding for looked-after children going into schools. I think that that has been received positively. My Department, the boards and I are working more closely with the Health Department and social workers to ensure that looked-after children are properly identified and that their needs are put in place in a plan. There was some initial slippage, but communication and discussions between my Department and the Health Department have greatly improved, and progress is being made.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, and this goes back to a number of questions for oral answer on how we improve educational outcomes for young people. We have to start at the earliest stages of a child's development, and I have made available £200,000 for 94 non-statutory preschool settings in 2014-15. That is based on the extended schools principle already in place in primary schools. I think that it will be a welcome addition to the funding for those settings and assist them in delivering extra-curricular and curricular activities for the children whom they look after.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Questions 1 and 2 have been withdrawn.

Mr Kennedy (The Minister for Regional Development): On 27 August, I published the draft bicycle strategy for Northern Ireland for a 12-week period of public consultation. An ongoing series of public consultation events will end in the middle of November and includes a number of events in rural areas.

My strategy recognises that there are differences between using a bicycle in an urban area and a rural area. It clearly states that we will continue to make provision for the bicycle in rural areas where opportunities arise, especially where there is demand.

Once the bicycle strategy is finalised, a delivery plan will be prepared. This plan will be subject to a rural-proofing exercise to ensure that the needs of rural communities and areas are considered as part of the policy development process. I look forward to the Member's response to the consultation.

Mr McMullan: I thank the Minister for his response. Has his Department engaged with its counterpart in the South to look at cross-border cycling provisions?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary. We are looking at areas where we can learn from each other or compare schemes. That level of cooperation, and the potential for it, are there. I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this at ministerial level with my new counterpart, but I think that there are areas where shared information would be of use. I am hopeful that we can make progress on that.

Mr Swann: Minister, what prospects are there for securing EU funding for cycling projects?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary. This relates to my response to the previous question. There is that potential for cross-border projects, such as the Newry to Dundalk project and, in County Armagh, the project along the Ulster Canal. My Department is working with various Departments and district councils to explore the opportunities for EU funding.

It is early days in this process, but I am hopeful that we will be able to secure funding for sustainable transport projects, including walking and cycling projects. Officials continue to work with colleagues in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland to secure funding for cycling infrastructure, including greenways and the Waterside hub in Londonderry.

Mr Campbell: I appreciate the Minister’s support for the proposals and the intention behind them, but will he examine, where practicable, the possibility of coordinating cycleways with newly placed 20 mph traffic zones, particularly in urban areas, to minimise traffic accidents and their impact on pedestrians?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I think he makes an important point. My ambition is such that I want to see improvement to the overall existing infrastructure. It is not simply a matter of planning with new schemes. I think the existing infrastructure is quite weak in many ways. The cycling lobby — if you like — continues to make representations, which I am very sympathetic to. Of course, those issues are not without cost, and it is important that I feel that I have the political support going forward in securing much-needed finance for schemes of that nature.

Mr Lyttle: The Minister recently announced drawbacks in relation to roads maintenance connected with budgetary reductions. Are they likely to impact on cycle network maintenance also?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member. I know that he is a keen cyclist. I think that he has been newly appointed to the Committee for Regional Development, and I look forward to a positive contribution in relation to all those issues. I want to emphasise my desire for a cycling revolution as we go forward. Yes, there are short-term funding issues that we need to be aware of, but on the wider aspects of it and our wider ambitions, we should not lose sight of where we want to go to improve the infrastructure, new and existing, and to encourage more sustainable modes of transport that will enable people to feel safe as they cycle, or, indeed, as they walk through our urban areas, but also our rural areas.

Mr Kennedy: The value of my Department's resource contracts for roads maintenance that are dependent on additional resources being allocated is some £12·5 million. The following activities will be affected: footway and carriageway patching; grass cutting and environmental maintenance; gully emptying; repair of street lighting outages; road marking maintenance and renewal; and traffic sign maintenance and replacement.

When bidding in October, a deduction has to be made for the value of work that could be delivered within the available time. The value of the February 2015 bid will largely be dependent on the outcome of October monitoring making further allowances for what could be delivered by the year's end. Roads maintenance works are undertaken by external contractors and my Department's operations and maintenance staff. Therefore, any additional requirement is a combination of what is required to allow my operations and maintenance staff to operate efficiently plus what is required to pay external contractors.

Mr Wilson: I can understand the importance to the finances of the Executive of having contracts that can soak up money if it becomes available at the last moment, but does the Minister not agree that such core areas of his Department should not be financed on the basis of a hope, on a wing and a prayer that money might become available in monitoring rounds? Why has he organised the financing of those projects in that way, rather than have them as part of his core budget where he can be assured of the money?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I am slightly curious in that, in the not-too-recent past, he was Finance Minister and operated the system that I have inherited and have tried to make best use of. The Member was not in the House for the debate on the financial position, particularly the pressures on my resource budget, which took place this morning. We had 10 contributions in all, all of them — with the exception of one, that of Mr Beggs — critical, but no one provided ideas or alternative solutions. Indeed, had he been here, he would have heard my assertion that I do not believe that that is the way to do business with the Budget generally or specifically for regional development and road and transport issues. I think that we would be better to plan at the earlier stage for the amounts that we should and are entitled to receive. That would give us more value for money and more bang for our buck. I am glad that, now that he is out of office, the former Finance Minister recognises that.

Ms Boyle: Go raibh maith agat. What proportion of the cuts is from outside contractors and what proportion is from Roads Service staff? How much money is involved?

Mr Kennedy: I have indicated that the cutbacks for the savings that we have had to make have principally had to be directed against the use of external contractors. Of course, that does not come without impact on those businesses and indeed those employees. These are not decisions that I have taken lightly or that I would want to have made but, at the time, almost halfway through the financial year, these cuts were imposed. Frankly, it is bonkers that any Department should be asked to effect savings of this nature at that point in time. It highlights the fundamental flaw in the way in which budgets are arranged and confirmed, as well as the issues that have compounded that, ie the controversies over welfare reform. All these issues are in play. I found myself having to deal with a situation. The only course of action that was available to me was to cut back the use of external contractors. I will continue to bid in the remaining monitoring rounds, and I will continue to remind Executive colleagues of the impacts that these cutbacks are having.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. How does the Minister ensure that health and safety standards are maintained under the current funding regime?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful for the supplementary question that the Member has asked. Clearly, I have to be aware of the issue of health and safety. It is the paramount issue with regard to how we continue to protect people in both the work that we do and the way in which it is done. My operations and maintenance staff will endeavour to keep the road network in as safe a condition as possible, but they have only the resources to complete around three quarters of the total routine maintenance workload on roads. Again, in the case of street lighting outages, in-house staff can complete only a much smaller percentage of the overall workload. I consider that to be a serious issue, and I have asked my officials to seek formal legal advice on it.

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for her question. The design process was completed at the end of August 2014. To ensure that some off-street car parking was retained by Transport NI, Translink has been trying to acquire a small corner of land from an adjacent landowner. The negotiations for this piece of land are ongoing. The site is leased to a local well-known retailer but is privately owned. This necessitates Translink having to get agreement from the retailer and the owner. The retailer that leases the site has agreed to the layout supplied by Translink.

The current design plan is based upon the use of most of the car park at Kenlis Street — some 53 of the 74 available spaces. Given that there is some uncertainty about the landowner's intentions, Translink has proactively discussed with Transport NI an alternative option to the potential use of nearly the full car park. It is my intention that work can begin on the project in 2015.

Mrs Dobson: I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the action that he is taking to progress the project. It is the first time that the people of Banbridge will have a bus station, a facility that has been lacking in the town for far too long. Does the Minister agree that this is an example of the Ulster Unionist Party listening to the real priorities of people in Banbridge and, through this and other projects, holding good to its promise to deliver?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary question. I pay tribute to her for her doggedness in pursuing this. It is a very important issue, not only to the people in Banbridge, particularly those who use public transport, but to people in the wider area, given the important network that Banbridge serves in that part of Northern Ireland. The Member is right. I take considerable pride that, having listened to the representations made by Banbridge council and other representatives over the years, including herself, we are at last beginning to see progress. I am determined that we will continue with that. I hope very much that the Ulster Unionist Party will get the credit that it duly deserves.

Mrs D Kelly: I look forward to the cutting of the sod next year. That is really what we are hearing.

Minister, you said that there would be a loss of car parking places. There was hope that there would be an extension of the number of places throughout the North for park-and-ride. Therefore, are any additional facilities planned to offset the spaces that will be lost to Banbridge bus station?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her encouragement to see the scheme brought successfully to a conclusion. Who knows, she may even get an invite to the sod cutting.

We got into trouble earlier with Kieran McCarthy, who objected that the Alliance Party had been overlooked on a previous occasion.

The issue of park-and-ride is an important one Province-wide, not just in the Banbridge or general upper Bann area. We are always looking at opportunities to improve those facilities, because we see the benefit to the travelling public of providing such facilities. If the Member has particular sites that she wants to pass on for us to investigate, I am happy to hear from her.

Mr Anderson: I thank the Minister for those responses. Any of our towns in upper Bann getting a bus station certainly has to be welcomed, and I welcome anything going into Banbridge. However, there are other major towns in upper Bann, Minister. Much lobbying has gone on in the likes of Portadown and, I am sure, Lurgan. Can you tell us what future there is for those towns? I am sure that you and your Department well know the lobbying that has gone on for bus facilities. I just want to say that I and others in my party were at the forefront of lobbying for bus facilities in Banbridge.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. Success has many authors; failure is an orphan. I assure him, and Members from other constituencies, that we are seeking to improve the overall infrastructure for the travelling public by upgrading stations, be they bus or rail stations. We have had some success in that. Members will remember Ballymoney and Antrim as examples of that. So, we continue to roll those forward. Some of it is largely dependent on finance. As I said earlier to his party colleague, we would be very pleased indeed to see you and your party put your money where your mouth is. I remind the Member that talk is cheap, but it takes money to buy whisky.

Mr Kennedy: As the Member will be aware, to meet pressures in my Department's resource budget, I had to take difficult decisions to stop issuing new work instructions to external contractors for routine maintenance activities, including gully-emptying. In the Fermanagh area, gully-emptying on urban and main roads was carried out by an external contractor, with operations and maintenance staff providing the service on the minor road network.

Operations and maintenance staff will endeavour to fill the gap left by the unavailability of contractor resources. However, that will mean that service levels will be reduced to around three quarters of normal. All gullies in the area were cleaned as normal before the cuts were imposed, and I am hopeful that the area should remain fairly free of drainage problems in normal circumstances in the short term. My operations and maintenance staff will endeavour to prioritise gully-cleaning and dealing with known flooding area problems. We seek to prioritise those areas to ensure that they are protected as far as we can. If flooding does occur, operations and maintenance staff will be deployed, as resources permit, to deal with any problems that may arise across the county.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. He said that he had to take difficult decisions, but I challenge him and say that he took the easy decision. That was the easy cut to make. It would have been much more progressive for the Minister to say, "We are going to stop giving the redcoats a handout to give people a fine for parking in our town centres" —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You are well off the question.

Mr Flanagan: Does the Minister accept that the decision not to carry out gully-cleaning leads to road safety issues, where there is now water lying on the side of our roads, and people travelling on our roads at speed will end up in a hedge on the other side of the road by accident as a result of hitting lying water?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member. I respectfully say to him that I am not sure that he is in a position to lecture on economics, given his performance on 'The Stephen Nolan Show' yesterday.

He seemed to have a serious issue understanding finances —

Mr Flanagan: You are certainly well away from the answer now.

Mr Kennedy: — and how finance works.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I remind everyone that it is my function, and no one else's, to chair the meeting. Continue, Minister.

Mr Kennedy: I will not accept that I took soft-option decisions at the end of July. If the Member had been present for the earlier debate and had any knowledge of or interest in it, he would have heard a full and detailed explanation. Rather than the Member fulfilling his ongoing desire to fill the airwaves and social media with his views, it might pay him to listen a little more.

Mr Kennedy: The £130 million,14-kilometre long A8 dualling scheme is 25 months through its 34-month programme. Construction is progressing very well and is approximately 75% complete. To date, approximately two million cubic metres of earthworks material has been excavated, including over 500,000 cubic metres of rock. The road-paving operation is continuing, with around 180,000 tons of material laid to date. All eight bridges along the route of the scheme are now substantially complete, and three of the eight structures are open to two-way traffic. It is expected that the new A8 dual carriageway will be open to traffic by the end of May 2015. Landscaping work will continue until December 2015.

Mr Beggs: The investment will improve transport linkages from the port of Larne to the M1, the M2 and throughout Northern Ireland, and even into the Republic of Ireland and the trade that exists between there and Scotland and the north of England in particular. I hope that new jobs will develop in the Larne area. Can the Minister outline what health and safety improvements we will see for road users as a result of the investment, and what will be the effect on journey time to the port of Larne?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question, and I pay tribute to him and the lobbying that he undertook to ensure that the scheme has finally been brought forward. It has been a long time in the making.

Indeed, his father was a very strong advocate and supporter of this particular scheme. I see it as having huge potential, not just for the port of Larne but for the economic regeneration of, and better connectivity to, that area of Northern Ireland. I am sure that that will improve business opportunities and I am very hopeful that we can move forward on that basis and that it will improve the economic lot of the people who live and work there.

Mr Clarke: There are benefits from the A8 and everyone should welcome that. Will the Minister outline the additional cost of bypassing Ballynure? How much would have been saved by keeping it on line?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I congratulate him on his recent appointment as Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development and I pay tribute to the former Chairperson, Mr Spratt.

I have to say, respectfully, that we are past the issue of the Ballynure bypass and the route chosen. Careful consideration was given to all those issues at the time, including through the public inquiry, and I am satisfied and optimistic that, when the scheme that we are bringing forward is completed, people will see and understand the full benefits.

Mr McAleer: Go raibh maith agat. Along with fellow Committee for Regional Development members, I visited that site last week and looked enviously at the wonderful carriageway. Speaking to the contractors, I was intrigued by some of the complicated environmental issues that had to be dealt with, including rerouting a river from its traditional route. Were any particular lessons picked up from that scheme that might be applied to other large-scale schemes such as the A5 scheme and others in future?

Mr Kennedy: Thank you for your question. I will resist the temptation to infer that you may have learned more about traditional routes and about not seeking to change them on a political, rather than a road-building, basis; we will not talk about that. We have been very careful to ensure that environmental issues have been dealt with. I am satisfied that they have been given proper consideration and that, perhaps, even the additional expense incurred as a result of such environmental changes was worthwhile and worth bearing with in terms of the overall benefits to the wider community.

Mr Kennedy: As you will be aware, following the announcement on June monitoring, my Department’s resource budgets that are used for the day-to-day maintenance of the road network have been cut. As a result, I have had no option other than to stop issuing new work instructions to our contractors, who currently undertake around one quarter of our essential work in the following areas: footway and carriageway patching, including potholes, grass cutting and environmental maintenance; gully emptying; road marking maintenance and renewal; and traffic sign maintenance and replacement.

As I said, my Department’s in-house operations and maintenance staff will endeavour to keep the road network in as safe a condition as possible. However, as they have only the resources to complete around three quarters of the total workload, they will not be able to provide the service that the public would expect in normal circumstances. In addition, I have been left with no funding to pay contractors for the repair of street lights that fail, unless they pose an electrical hazard to members of the public. Currently, 7,900 street lights are out across Northern Ireland and outages are rising at a rate of around 1,000 a week. My operations and maintenance staff are dealing with outages on a priority basis but they have only around one quarter of the resource required to provide normal service.

These have been difficult decisions to take, but they are necessary to try to protect areas such as winter service, where withdrawal of our work would have an even greater impact on the Northern Ireland economy and the public. I realise that these measures impact on contractors, road users and the public, but I have to make the best use of my Department's limited resources.

Mr Anderson: I thank the Minister for that very detailed response. He has given us alarming statistics. There are issues that need to be addressed urgently. Does the Minister agree that a failure to repair potholes and similar road defects and damage, mainly on the small, rural roads, would, and does, lead only to more accidents and, therefore, more insurance claims and, as such, that it would be prudent to ensure that adequate funding is used to carry out the maintenance and repairs to potholes as soon as they are discovered?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I cannot disagree with the sentiments that he expresses. It might well be that I will print the Hansard report of his supplementary question and direct it towards colleagues in the Executive, perhaps, even to his party colleague the Finance Minister, because I believe that the cuts and savings that have to be effected at this time have the potential to cost even more in the future. That does not make good economic sense. So, I welcome the sentiments that he has aired, and I hope that he will follow those through, even with his party colleagues.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. He doggedly pursues this issue; I know that he is also a keen cyclist. I also welcome his support for my vision of increasing the use of the bicycle throughout Northern Ireland. From his cycling experience, he knows, as will others, that the Comber greenway is one of the best pieces of cycling infrastructure that we have in Northern Ireland, and I am very keen to see it developed further.

The draft bicycle strategy picks up the theme of a comprehensive network for the bicycle and highlights the need to create a network of high-quality and direct joined-up routes. My cycling unit has started working on scoping out a bicycle network for the city of Belfast, and it will, undoubtedly, include the Comber greenway. I am keen to ensure that the Comber greenway links more effectively from the area around Holywood arches to the city centre. That would include improved links into the Connswater community greenway in the vicinity of the Ballymacarrett walkway and improvements to the greenway at various points along its length.

Mr Douglas: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister may be aware that there are rumours going about that there is the potential for a road to go through that area. Can the Minister confirm his commitment to retaining Ballymacarrett walkway as a walking and cycling route?

Mr Kennedy: I have been made aware of some of the rumours. It is unfortunate that such rumours have emerged. Certainly, under my watch, I have no intention of changing the status. I do not see it in any way other than being a walkway and a cycling highway.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. It is timely. Of all the services that Transport NI and my Department provide, I think winter services are looked upon as essential. Certainly, this is a challenging budgetary period. Discussions are not yet concluded. He will know that the Executive are to have further discussions, even within the next 24 hours, and they will, presumably, be ongoing.

Certainly, it is my intention to protect winter services because I understand that, whilst there is no statutory obligation to provide them, they are important. The general public expect to see that winter services are provided to the maximum that they can be. That remains my position.

Mr Spratt: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Province has already suffered 62 fatalities this year. Last year, he and I stood in the House during the winter programme having sent our condolences to the family of a man who was killed just outside Saintfield in County Down. Given that, will he try to ensure that staff continue to look at the weather reports and make sure that gritting takes place? On a few occasions last year, that did not happen.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member. Clearly, all the fatalities on our roads represent real tragedies to the families involved, and we should never underestimate that. I extend my personal sympathy and that, I am sure, of the entire House to all those who, even in recent days, have lost loved ones as a result of road fatalities. Obviously, investigations take place into each accident or fatality and into the reasons and the causes, so it is not proper for me to comment on that. I think that it is essential that we provide the winter services that people look to and expect but also benefit from. Of course, a salted road does not absolutely mean and ensure that it will remain free from accident. So, it is also essential that due care and attention is taken by road users at every opportunity.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her question. There has been some correspondence through Assembly questions by her on this issue. Obviously, the new scheme that is in place will benefit local householders and local businesses. It is not yet clearly established that the cause of the flooding incident that took place recently in that area was solely the impact of the works that had been carried out. I am still waiting on final confirmation from that investigation, and I will, of course, make that available to the Member.

Mrs McKevitt: If the pumping station proves effective, Minister, in the Charlotte Street and Newry Street area and it is no longer considered to be at risk of flooding, will your Department support the amendment of the flood maps for the area so that the families who live there and businesses can avail themselves of full protection through their insurance companies?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary question. Of course, it is an important consideration that, while new waste water treatment works improve the services that are provided on waste and sewage, water supply and all of that, they alleviate but do not completely eradicate the risk of flooding. The Member, I think, will be conscious of that. Nevertheless, I do, of course, sympathise with anyone whose home has been impacted as a consequence of internal flooding. I would not wish that in my house, and I certainly would not want to see it imposed on others. That is why bringing forward schemes is important, not only in the Warrenpoint area but in other parts of Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that we maintained the budget of NI Water going forward so that it can provide and improve the facilities, not only drinking water but waste water facilities, so that we can alleviate the risk of flooding.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. In June monitoring, Executive Ministers, excluding the Health Minister and the Education Minister, were asked to make reductions of 2·1% and 2·3% this year to provide more money for health, to cover the cost of the non-implementation of welfare reform and to patch over poor financial management at the centre of the Executive. The failure to give notice of cuts or to allow them to be planned for over a four-year period has made those cuts deeper than they otherwise might have been and has meant that areas that could otherwise have been protected are now at risk. That has meant, as I have said in answers, that I have had to pause the issuing of work to external contractors, and that has impacted on street light repairs, gully emptying and grass cutting. I do not take any pleasure in having to take those tough decisions, but I have done so in the full knowledge of the potential implications. Let me make it absolutely clear again: I bid for an additional £48 million in resource funding in June, and that funding could have been properly spent in my Department this year. I received less than the shortfall on concessionary fares, and, I have to say, Departments headed by Sinn Féin and DUP Ministers did much better than that.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister for that answer. I also acknowledge his exchange with Mr Spratt on the winter service. Will he go further and specifically tell the House that the winter service and concessionary fares are red lines for him going forward?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I could not sustain and could not advocate with due conscience any cuts that would savage the winter service programme or, indeed, affect the concessionary fares scheme. Therefore, I am very happy to signal, as a member of the Executive, that they are red-line issues as far as I am concerned.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. Indeed, it is timely because, just yesterday, in the Long Gallery and at the front of Parliament Buildings, we were able to join with others to celebrate 30 years of Guide Dogs NI. It was a real delight for me to share in that and to witness at first hand the work of the association. I know that the Member has been closely identified with that, as other Members have. On that occasion, I was also pleased to be able to announce that my Department will progress audiovisual services on our Metro bus services. It is hugely important that we make public transport available and accessible to as many people as possible. It is important for positive health benefits and for the reduction of social exclusion. I am proud to be the Minister delivering that important investment in public transport.

Perhaps if that is more interesting, I could listen, too.

Anyway, I am proud to be the Minister delivering that important investment in public transport and in supporting those who are blind and partially sighted.

Mr Beggs: Previously during Question Time, the Minister indicated the significant financial pressures that he and his Department have faced. How has he been able to afford this expenditure?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his question. I have made it clear to the Regional Development Committee that I plan to use any revenue generated from those who commit moving traffic offences and to reinvest it to support audiovisual systems. I hope very much that the Regional Development Committee will support me in that as we move forward. The provision of audiovisual services on buses will not only benefit the blind or partially sighted, it will be of use to visitors and tourists. I see it as a real enhancement to our public transport system, and it will help many passengers in the years to come.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Members will take their ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Nesbitt: I beg to move

Perhaps I should begin with what I consider to be a key word in the motion. It is a word often used and abused — crisis. Let me assure the House, in case there is a Member waiting to pounce and accuse the Ulster Unionists of being sensationalist, that we are not using it in any way to try to tug at the heartstrings. We are using its dictionary definition as "a time of great difficulty or danger". So, question one is this: can the case be made that victims and survivors are facing a time of great difficulty or, indeed, danger? What is the evidence?

First, they cannot rely on the services of the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. She resigned earlier this year, leaving OFMDFM to seek its sixth commissioner in as many years. Secondly, there is no permanent chair of the Victims and Survivors Service. He resigned earlier this year. Thirdly, there is no chief executive of the Victims and Survivors Service. She resigned earlier this year.

Next is the PSNI, which has made clear that it can no longer afford to run the Historical Enquiries Team. Next is the Police Ombudsman, who said that, because of the cutbacks, he will have to go back to families to whom he made promises about historical investigations and tell them that he is sorry that he can no longer afford to deliver on those promises.

Finally, it is clear that OFMDFM needs to secure over £3 million from October monitoring. Otherwise, it will not be able to fulfil ministerial commitments to victims, survivors and their support groups. I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the case has been made that this is a crisis in the sense that it is "a time of great difficulty" for victims and survivors.

Often, when talking about dealing with the past, we debate it in terms of truth, justice and acknowledgement. This is a day to discuss other issues, but, for the record, let us mark the fact that the HET and the historical aspects of the Office of the Police Ombudsman are very nearly effectively on hold across the piece. There will be those who will argue that that is a breach of human rights. The Ulster Unionist Party has no difficulty with taking a human rights approach to how we deal with the past, but it is clear in today's environment that that has to be balanced by a resource-based approach. We have to consider what we can afford to do for victims and survivors. One of our criticisms of the Haass process was that there was never any mature debate about the resources that would have been required to implement his proposals on dealing with the past. Until we factor in resource requirements, there will always be a difficulty in that we will disappoint victims and survivors. We will raise their hopes only to dash them through the inability to deliver for them.

I would like to be as positive as possible in this debate. I congratulate OFMDFM for creating what I would describe as a virtuous circle. What do we have? We have a 10-year strategy for victims and survivors; we have expertise in OFMDFM and a funding stream; we have the Commission for Victims and Survivors, which advises the Executive on issues of merit and interest to victims; we have the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), which is there to administer and hand out funds; and we have the victims' forum, which is there to offer advice, particularly in the first instance, to the commissioner. We have what should be a circular flow, a virtuous circle. Unfortunately, though, it is not working at the moment. The big issue is funding.

When I raised the issue of funding with the deputy First Minister in the Chamber, he seemed to disbelieve me, but I have since received a letter of clarification from him and the First Minister. Last year, in 2013-14, the baseline figure for the VSS was £11·3 million. After monitoring additions, it went up to £12·4 million, according to this letter. Currently, the Victims and Survivors Service is working on £10 million, but a bid of £1·3 million has been made in October monitoring. If successful, they say, this will put it at the same level as the opening baseline allocation for 2013-14. That sounds good, but the fact is that the VSS's projected out-turn for 2013-14 is likely to be £12·8 million, not £12·4 million, and it is currently working on £10 million. That is down over 22% on the projected out-turn for last year. That is 22%, not the 4·4% mentioned in the letter.

The letter refers to a bid of £1·3 million in the category of inescapable bids, but there is a second bid, not mentioned in the letter, in October monitoring. It is a high-priority bid of £1·7 million. The inescapable bid was not met in June, and, if it were to fail again, I suggest that it would be a criminal fault on our part. The victim support programme for groups is already heavily oversubscribed. The VSS has commitments to groups and individuals of £10 million plus £800,000, and there is an additional £350,000 for successfully assessed bids, such as the one in my constituency from Ards Phoenix. Groups that tick all the boxes to secure financial backing and have been told, "Yes, you qualify for support" have also been told, "But there is no money". We are talking about eight groups and £350,000.

It also means that there is not enough money for the VSS to offer to the bereaved and their children the relief that it wants to through the two schemes that it prefers: respite and education and training. Even if the October monitoring round were to yield that £1·3 million of inescapable bid money, the problem remains, because it will not cover all the ministerial commitments made to the OFMDFM Committee. For example, on phone calls, Ministers committed to maintaining a 24-hour callback to all VSS clients. Currently, some calls are fielded by Access NI. I am glad to have had the support of Committee members last week when we made it clear that this was no way to treat vulnerable people. You cannot overstate how difficult it is for some vulnerable people to pick up the phone. It is not right that they have to go through an intermediary.

Also, some people who had been encouraged to come forward through a scheme approved by OFMDFM in March cannot access any goods or services from the VSS. That will not just sour relations between Ministers and those individual victims and survivors but damage relations with victims' groups — the people who were encouraged to encourage those individuals to come forward, individuals who are now being told that the cupboard is bare.
The bottom line is that the OFMDFM Committee has been given information that makes it clear that, without the full £3 million, OFMDFM feels that the Victims and Survivors Service will be unable to meet the basic needs and demands of victims and survivors. The VSS has been in the planning for 10 years or more, and it was something that I was briefed on in a previous life in 2007-08. However, it is not working, and it is high-maintenance. The current budget forecast for the service is £1·994 million — £2 million to run an organisation that does not have the budget to meet its or the Ministers' commitments and cannot even run a 24-hour telephone service for vulnerable people.

Efficiencies have been introduced. Staff and groups no longer receive training, the Freephone service has gone and schemes are no longer subject to public advertisement. Is that a good thing for victims? That the staff who oversee the processes of the service, which were very heavily criticised by the Committee over the last year or so, are no longer being trained? That there is no Freephone telephone number? That groups are not being trained in the management of money and that people who may be unaware of what they are entitled to no longer receive public adverts? I understand that efficiencies have to be made, but I question whether those are the right areas —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Nesbitt: — in which to make them. The case is beyond doubt: there is a crisis of funding for the VSS. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Moutray: The Troubles in Northern Ireland wrecked and scarred the lives of tens of thousands of our citizens. Today, many carry emotional and physical scars, with some having to cope with severe physical disability because of the actions of bloodthirsty terrorists. For many, their career was ended, their quality of life significantly reduced and their capacity to support their family limited. Our party has always been and will continue to be committed to ensuring that the innocent victims of the Troubles are not forgotten. However, I find it somewhat ironic that the Ulster Unionist Party has tabled the motion. Look back at when they were in government: the annual spend on victims was around £3 million, in comparison with the £11 million per annum today. That figure speaks for itself in how this party has prioritised victims.

The House must never forget the innocent people who suffered most and continue to suffer. As a party, we have prioritised the needs of innocent victims, and our record clearly demonstrates that we do not run away from the ongoing problems, particularly around the definition of a victim. We also have not compromised on the truth about the past and are making ongoing efforts to obtain special pension provision for the severely disabled.

The Victims and Survivors Service was and continues to be part of a wider infrastructure that has been put in place since devolution in 2007. The Commission for Victims and Survivors is now in its fourth year of promoting the interests of victims and survivors, and the VSS was the final building block of the Department's 10-year strategy that aims to secure a measurable improvement in the well-being of victims and survivors.

Funding for victims' services is at an all-time high. In recent years, owing to the high prioritisation of innocent victims, the First Minister has worked to increase the financial contribution made to the services, which is evident from the £50 million allocated to victims in the current Budget from the Department, Europe and other funding pots. An additional £1·1 million was secured in last October's monitoring round, with other amounts being secured throughout the year.

Since the restoration of devolution in 2007, we have ensured that funding to victims has more than tripled. The additional services secured have meant that more people are coming forward to avail of services, which in itself is a welcome outcome. However, that has led to an increase in demand, which has led to a need to look at how services are delivered, the need to streamline and ways and means of cutting any fat out of the system.

We have to note the dire financial situation caused by Sinn Féin and its blocking of welfare reform. We see a fine of £80 million this year, so of course budgets will be cut. Front line services will be impacted on if it continues with its wrecking-ball tactics. I want the money allocated by the Department and Europe, and I want it to get to the people who need it. I do not want to see money absorbed into extortionate running costs or administration. I want to see it getting to the innocent victims who still bear the scars.

However, owing to the financial hardships that we are experiencing, the Victims and Survivors Service has been asked make a 4·4% saving on administrative costs. That has been done in consultation with them and with the regulated framework in place. That is in line with all other arm's-length bodies, and it is aimed at administration costs as opposed to cutting the services provided, as has been indicated by the proposers of the motion.

It is vital that every so often we take stock of the delivery mechanisms and look at how we do things. More victims than ever are presenting themselves to groups that are operating and as individuals to the VSS, and it is important that we address and deal with their needs effectively with as much of the available revenue as possible going to victims.

Despite the wording of the motion, our concern is with the victims, and we do not intend to divide the House on this issue.

Ms McGahan: I support the motion. It is important that we welcome the Assembly's commitment to victims. It was announced that moneys available to victim support services have increased by 50% during the tenure of this Assembly. It should be acknowledged that the Assembly will always want to meet the demand; that is why there is a bid for additional funding in the October monitoring round.

It is important that we look at the complex needs of victims and how we fund those programmes to ensure that victims' rights are protected. In a question to this Chamber, it was identified that, between 2007 and 2011, £33 million was allocated to victims' services. That increased to £50 million in the current Budget. That increase of 50% highlights the commitment to delivering the services needed for victims, and, although budgets are under stress due to the Tory cuts, it also shows that the welfare of victims is still top of the political agenda.

Under direct rule, the budget allocation for victims was £11·8 million. That increased to £33 million in the last Assembly mandate. Since 2011, the budget allocation has grown to its current level of £50 million — nearly five times the budget allocated by the British Government under direct rule.

It is important that victims and survivors have a service that is tailored to their specific needs if we are to bring about the healing that is needed for them to move on from the trauma of the conflict. The Victims and Survivors Service was set up to manage and deal with the issues presented by people affected by conflict. However, many of the individual needs reviews added to the trauma of the victims and survivors and were ordeals for them.

It became clear that the Victims and Survivors Service was not doing what it was designed to do and, while many people have had a positive experience, there were too many accounts of negative, frustrating and humiliating encounters. OFMDFM initiated an independent assessment in November 2013 to look at the delivery of the service through the Victims' Commissioner. The OFMDFM Committee has taken a huge interest in ensuring that the service is fit for purpose. Following the outcome of the independent assessment, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister committed to ensuring that the necessary changes take place and that further proper scrutiny mechanisms are in place to monitor progress on the issue.

It is important to note that there has been an increase in the number of victims coming forward since the establishment of the Victims and Survivors Service. That has led to increased pressures. In that context, the supply of services will need to be looked at. The Victims and Survivors Service has been asked to secure 4·4% of efficiencies from its running costs and from the administration of groups, not from front line services funded under the victim support programme. That is in line with the level of efficiency savings being sought by the Department from its arm's-length bodies and from the Department itself.It is being taken not from individuals' budgets but from groups'. Throughout 2014-15, the Victims —

Mr A Maginness: Will the Member give way?

Ms McGahan: OK.

Mr A Maginness: In a sense, the Member tries to minimise the cuts that are being made to the Victims and Survivors Service, but the reality is that any cut is going to impact on victims and survivors, and that causes real damage and hurt.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms McGahan: I do not believe that that is what I was trying to convey. Perhaps if you had listened to what I said, and not to what you thought I said, you might have got the message.

Throughout 2014-15, the Victims and Survivors Service will continue to provide funding to individual victims through the individual needs programme and to victims' groups through the victim support programme. A number of the schemes were opened over the summer to help individuals, including the financial assistance scheme, the care for carers scheme and the support for the injured package. However, the other individual schemes — respite breaks, and education and training — have to be deferred, pending additional resources being secured.

Finally, it is important to note the comments of our deputy First Minister. He said:

He added that, in a meeting with our own finance people, it was stated that, since 2009, there has been no increase whatsoever in our block grant. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Attwood: Let us stop for a moment and think about this debate and the debate last week. There is actually a point of unanimity in the Chamber, and that is around dealing with the issues of victims and survivors.

Among many proposals that we will make, we propose that, if there is unanimity around Kincora and unanimity around this motion, that should be a point of agreement when we come to the talks that are about to commence over the next number of weeks. We should present to the British Government a united position when it comes to Kincora and the Victims and Survivors Service. We should do that because of the words in the media recently of Damien McNally, a survivor of trauma, who said:

Our answer to Damien and all the other victims and survivors is that, from here, we go into the negotiations with the British Government, and we put centre stage, among many other issues, the past and Kincora, and the past and victims and survivors arising from state violence and the violence of the terror organisations over the past 40 years. Let us at least agree to all of that.

One of the reasons that I put down that marker is this: mark my words, when we go into negotiations over the next while, there will be vested interests that will try to unpick Haass on the past, because the threshold of Haass on the past is far beyond what the vested interests of loyalist and republican organisations and state agencies are prepared to accept or tolerate. The Haass proposals on dealing with the past ask hard questions that require hard answers from those who were in command and control of terror groups, on the one hand, and state agencies, on the other. In the view of the SDLP, during the next round of negotiations, they will seek to unpick the Haass threshold because it is too challenging and too demanding, and it asks too many questions of those who directed terror and state violence over the last 40 years. If we are to live up to the appeal of Damien McNally and many other victims and survivors, we must not allow Haass on the past to be unpicked in the way in which some will conspire to do.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: Yes.

Mrs D Kelly: Will he agree with me that we had a very dirty war? I wonder whether all those engaged — all the participants — in that dirty war are really prepared to tell the truth about what they did.

Mr Attwood: What I have just said answers Mrs Kelly's question, which she rightly asks.

It was unfortunate that Mr Moutray tried to reduce the debate, on which we can have unanimity, to one about welfare cuts. However, given that he has raised it, can we take the point and be more constructive? What is the point? It is that one of the arguments that we have to employ with the British Government and which, in my view, was not deployed fully, was that, because of the needs of victims and survivors in the North and the needs of our public generally, arising from state violence and the violence of terror organisations, our profile is very different.

The chief executive of WAVE, Sandra McPeake, said recently, and it has been referred to earlier, that there was a 34% increase in victims and survivors contacting her organisation last year. She said that people as young as seven were contacting her organisation because the trauma of terror and state violence is passing into new generations. What is the consequence of that for us in living up to our responsibilities to victims and survivors? It is to say to the British Government that, when it comes to special provision for those who have been severely disabled — the 550 people who lost limbs or eyes or were otherwise severely disabled — when it comes to welfare need because of the legacy of conflict and that we have increasing numbers of people presenting with trauma arising from the conflict, Northern Ireland is different when it comes to the issue of Budget negotiations. If they want to live up to supporting the needs of victims and survivors of the conflict in this negotiation, let them live up to it when it comes to Budget provision generally and welfare provision specifically. Let us make that a point of unanimity in the Chamber today and a point of argument when it comes to these negotiations.

My final point is this: I ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister to explain how much has been put into corporate expenses and corporate costs of the VSS, and how much has gone into the lives of victims. I also ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister this: why have victims and survivors' moneys not been ring-fenced in the budget of OFMDFM? If the Health Minister makes that call and the Education Minister makes that call, why do the First Minister and deputy First Minister FM not make the —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Mr Attwood: — exact same call and ring-fence, in their budget, the allocations to the VSS?

Mr Lyttle: I support the motion. I feel exhausted and frustrated on behalf of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland. I will try to play this with as straight a bat as I can, because they are owed that much. Whilst I agree with the motion, its proposers could have had a slightly more humility in recognising the fact that, in fairness to the DUP and Sinn Féin, more has been invested in victims and survivors services than under the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP when they occupied the Office of First and deputy First Minister. In fairness to them, they recognise the progress that has been made in the wider infrastructure that is in place.

The SDLP voted in favour of the June monitoring round allocations that led to the strict financial circumstances that required some of these changes to be made. So, it too is on some shaky ground there. The Alliance Party voted against the proposals for these financial arrangements.

The First Minister said:

that meet their needs. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but the test is to see whether reality and that rhetoric meet.

As has been referred to today, in July this year, the Victims and Survivors Service was shocked by OFMDFM notifying it that its budget for the financial year 2014-15 would be cut to £10 million, having had a final expenditure — and I agree with the proposer of the motion in this regard — of £12·8 million for the financial year 2013-14. I understand, and it appears to be the understanding of the proposer of the motion, that that accounts for a 22% reduction in expenditure for the Victims and Survivors Service. That is a significant reduction. It is disproportionate to many of the other reductions that have occurred across the Executive Budget. It begs the question of why other aspects of the Budget have been ring-fenced when a service for what the First Minister called some of the most vulnerable people in our community has not been protected. That does not stack up with the rhetoric of protecting victims and survivors.

What is the impact of that reduction on victims and survivors? As has been referred to, we have had a cessation of staff training and training for groups, the withdrawal of freephone numbers, and the withdrawal of public adverts that communicated the availability of those schemes to victims and survivors. Under normal circumstances, those might be referred to as efficiencies or administrative costs, but we need to bear in mind that this is a service that has approximately 70 recommendations for improvement further to an independent review of its procedures. Many of those included difficulties with people being aware of the schemes, accessing telephone conversations with advisers, and staff having appropriate training to be able to deal with those victims and survivors. These are cuts that are going against the recommendations for improvements that have been made for the service.

We have also had a cessation in respite breaks, education and training, which means that no services are available for the bereaved or children of the injured. We have also had cutbacks in chronic pain management and psychotherapy treatments. That does not allow the Victims and Survivors Service to have the flexibility to provide for carers, the injured and the bereaved going forward. The consequences are severe. It will attract criticism for Ministers, and it will undermine Ministers' commitment to ensuring that the needs of victims and survivors in our community are met.

The real impact is on approximately 3,000 people across Northern Ireland. It is on bomb victims and people who have been blinded or have lost limbs or have lost loved ones as a result of paramilitary violence. Those people are angry, worried and confused. It is time —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Lyttle: — for the DUP and Sinn Féin to stop passing the buck to the Victims and Survivors Service and to stop being in denial about the impact of their political decisions on front line services to victims and survivors.

Mr D McIlveen: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate today. To be honest, had this debate not been around the very sensitive issues of victims, I am not sure that I, in all conscience, could have supported it. At best, it is a clumsily-worded motion, and, at worst, it is an exploitation of the very people we are trying to protect when it comes —

Mr Nesbitt: Catch yourself on.

Mr D McIlveen: — to dealing with our victims sector.

I hear the barracking from the sides, but I sometimes wonder whether the Ulster Unionist Party is in the same Assembly as the rest of us. On one hand, we have its Minister telling us that he is going to switch off the street lights and take free travel off old people, and, on the other hand, he seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that there are cuts right across the Executive, which have been imposed on us through intolerance and an inability to accept welfare reform across the House.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Member give way?

Mr D McIlveen: Reluctantly, I will.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. Can he name one other arm's-length body under any Department that is facing the 22% cut that is currently being faced by the Victims and Survivors Service? Just one other arm's-length body.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr D McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am baffled as to where the figures come from when it comes to these types of motions and debates. As has been highlighted on a number of occasions already, there has been a tripling of the resources to our victims sector since 2007 year on year. On top of that, the very organisation that the proposer of the motion claimed had its funding almost completely cut — the Northern Ireland Phoenix Project — has had funding of £81,000 in the last two years from the VSS.

So, at its core, there is misinformation and a misunderstanding, I believe, of what is happening within the sector.

I really wish that some parties in this Assembly, whenever they get incensed about something, as we all do from time to time, rather than running down to the Business Office and bringing a motion to the Floor of the Assembly that does nothing other than further confuse the groups that have already been experiencing some difficulties, would come and talk to the decision-makers, the ones who are challenged to sort this issue out. You will find that there is a bid for a further £1·3 million in the October monitoring round, which we are cautiously optimistic will be delivered. This is something that we need to bear in mind.

There has been a 4·4% reduction —

Mr Lyttle: Will the Member give way?

Mr D McIlveen: I am sorry. I am just running out of time here. If I do have time, I will bring Mr Lyttle in.

There has been a 4·4% reduction across the majority of Departments. That 4·4% has had to be borne by every body within OFMDFM, including, of course, the Victims and Survivors Service. That has been mitigated, as best as it possibly can be, by dealing with mainly administrative costs. That is where the argument of less awareness comes in. I have to be honest: it does not stack up, because consistently there has been an increase. That is what is putting the additional pressure on this sector — there is an increase year on year of victims coming forward asking for support, and, indeed, we should be giving that support to them. Furthermore, for that criticism to be levelled by Mr Lyttle in particular was quite telling, bearing in mind that the 4·4% reduction to the Justice Department has not been fairly divided between the bodies that are within it, namely the PSNI, which has had over 7% taken off its budget in the coming years. That has been confirmed by the Chief Constable and everybody else involved in the sector.

So, as I say, I struggle with what is behind this motion, other than an attempt to grandstand and scare. Of course, we are used to that in this House. We have to be sensitive to the needs of our victims and survivors. We have to listen to the concerns, and where there are concerns, we have to step up to the mark and deal with them. To deal effectively with those concerns, however, is not to add more confusion, concern and worry than they are already facing.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue. As the proposer outlined, these financial restrictions have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable citizens; in this instance, victims and survivors from all sections of society.

A couple of issues are conveniently overlooked by both unionist parties. The first is that their MEP colleagues, Jim Nicholson and Diane Dodds, voted for a cut to the EU budget last year; a budget that gives a huge amount of financial support to local victims and survivors groups.

Secondly, I do not think that you can pick and choose opposition to the effects of austerity. If it is wrong for vulnerable victims and survivors to suffer the effects of austerity, it is equally wrong when it comes to welfare cuts and the extent of cuts to the overall block grant in every section or sector. But we should not become transfixed today on moneys alone. If OFMDFM needs to work to see adequate funds secured, the two unionist parties need to face up to their responsibilities to engage positively on issues relating to the past in the upcoming talks process, for it is they who turned their backs on victims during the Haass proposals.

Mr A Maginness: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hazzard: No, I want to get through this, thanks.

There can be little doubt that current investigative mechanisms addressing the legacy of the past have, for various reasons, impacted negatively on victims and survivors. The HET process, for example, has been deemed to be in breach of the law in how it approached killings by the British Army, and far too many inquests are experiencing difficulties, resulting in serious issues with the length of time it is taking those hearings to be conducted in an article 2-compliant manner. Indeed, the senior coroner, John Leckey, spoke lately about his frustrations. Of course, we have also endured the debacle with the previous Police Ombudsman, Al Hutchinson. Although those issues have been resolved with the new ombudsman, we now face the cuts that were announced by the DOJ last week.

The House should be under no illusion that such inadequacies have inflicted additional trauma on families from every section of our community. Sinn Féin has consistently argued that there needs to be a single mechanism that can deliver to all families, irrelevant of who they are or how harm was inflicted on them. We believe, therefore, that the Haass/O'Sullivan proposals represent the best way forward not merely in addressing the legacy of the past and the harms caused but equally in recognising that inadequate processes, whether by design or through deliberate lack of resources, are also contributing significantly to additional trauma to the bereaved and injured of the conflict.

We also believe that the cost of addressing the legacy of the past should be the responsibility of the British Treasury. I say that in the context of a series of payments made directly from the British Treasury concerning legacy issues within the wider peace process at various times, including, to list some payments, £0·5 billion in severance payments as part of the Patten reforms to policing; a similar payment of £70 million more recently to the Prison Service; £250 million in pensions and other related payments to the RIR; and a £20 million gratuity payment to the RUC Reserve. We believe that, when it comes to the legacy of the past, that approach is the right way forward. I welcome the fact that the Justice Minister, when he appeared before the Justice Committee last week, stated that the Treasury should carry the cost of dealing with the past.

We believe that the British Treasury needs to take responsibility for addressing the mental health effects of the conflict, including supporting the direct needs of victims and survivors who are facing great difficulties. In the words of the Justice Minister, David Ford, last week, "It happened under their watch". Moreover, given that Theresa Villiers indicated that the British Government would be minded to resource the outworkings of the Haass/O'Sullivan talks, surely the House can agree that it is nonsense to fund the addressing of legacy issues through the block grant.

We are content to support the motion. There can be little doubt that there is not enough money in local budgets, including moneys utilised by victims, but, as I said, we should not become transfixed on moneys alone. Victims and the groups that work tirelessly beside them need clarity. They deserve to know the pitfalls that are lurking around the corner, because, to put it quite simply, hundreds if not thousands of lives depend on it. That is why I believe that we need to ensure that contracts to funded groups should continue into the next financial term. In doing so, we can safeguard a continuity of vital support services. Perhaps most importantly, however, we can create the time and space to address weaknesses in the overall strategy for victims. We should be under no illusion that current uncertainty is having an adverse impact on their mental health and well-being. I support the motion.

Mr Spratt: I am pleased to be able to speak to the motion. It is unfortunate that the motion has been brought to the House today, given that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will meet the VSS and departmental officials tomorrow to discuss some of these matters. Mr Nesbitt, the proposer of the motion, was right when he said that, when the victims' forum came to the Committee, we were horrified at some of the things we were told by some of the victims and folks who were suffering real difficulties as a result of inaction by the Victims and Survivors Service. The Committee very quickly took the issue to OFMDFM, and, in fairness to OFMDFM and to Ministers, they investigated the matter very quickly. There were some 70 recommendations, and I understand that 47 have been completed.

In the past couple of weeks, we were upset to hear that some of the issues have possibly taken a step back. I would have thought that that was a better way for us to be unified and to deal with those issues in the Assembly. I am glad that Mr Lyttle picked up on funding for victims and survivors and that he recognised that, since 2002, when the Ulster Unionist junior Minister announced only £3 million, that money has increased to £10 million in the past number of years. Only yesterday, the junior Minister indicated at Question Time that the £1·3 million bid in October monitoring was very likely to be accepted. That would bring it up to £11·3 million, which is the same as last year.

There are a couple of things that we also need to look at. I have raised this consistently in Committee. There has been an increase in the number of people who come forward looking for support for injuries suffered in the past, maybe for chronic pain management and so on. Quite substantial amounts are being paid out, particularly to folks on high-level disability living allowance (DLA) who get some £1,000 a year and another £500 for carers. All of that is being dealt with.

The other issue is that the number of groups in the sector has dramatically increased — by one third. That increase has, in some cases, simply been due to various groups falling out and people going off to start another group. We often hear that, in small areas, many groups offer the same services to the same victims. In due course, all of that needs to be looked at in the round as well.

It is wrong for us to use people injured throughout the Troubles for political purposes, given the very substantial amounts that have come not only from the Department but, as revealed in an answer to an Assembly question, Peace III funding, which allocated £36·7 million to projects that fall into priority 1.2 on acknowledging and dealing with the past. I am pleased that groups in Northern Ireland have been successful in bidding for those funds. There are other funding streams available through the Community Relations Council and the International Fund for Ireland. Indeed, there is also some council funding for groups.

It is imperative that all of us look at the issues that victims are raising The place to do that is at Committee. Then, as we have done in the past, we can take it to the Department, the Ministers and the service to see how it can best be dealt with.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Spratt: Let us stop playing politics with victims in the Assembly. It has happened far too often, and, unfortunately, the Ulster Unionist Party has been behind it many times.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make a few remarks in the spirit of how the previous Member to speak concluded his. First, I do not, for a number of reasons, think that it was necessary for the motion to come to the Chamber today at all. Of course, my party has agreed to support it and certainly supports the sentiment behind it.

It is very unfortunate that a number of Members tried to politicise the debate, given that we all know that, in recent times, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has been very diligent and robust in examining the situation of the victims sector, not least the problems associated with moving from one system to another. We had the funding issues, which people acknowledged have significantly increased in the past number of years. In Committee, we all took the view that there is an awful lot more that we can and need to do to support the broader victims sector. God knows that we know that there are very many disparities in the sector. I do not want to address any of them. Some Members have already talked about the different categories of victims, as they have been described in the past, with different outcomes. Our job now, in the context of trying to support victims and survivors, is to get them the best service that we possibly can. I look forward to the Minister outlining this afternoon the efforts that have been made in the last number of years, and that will continue to be made, to make sure that we can deliver the best possible services to victims and survivors. As I said, we all understand that they need the maximum volume of quality support and services that we can endeavour to deliver for them.

The proposer of the motion started off by saying that he wanted to be positive, and then introduced quite a number of negatives, not least by trying to excuse himself from walking away from the Haass and O'Sullivan proposals, which, if we had remained united and stuck together — three parties did agree with the proposals — would have given us one hell of a better opportunity to go and get the additional resources that we all agree we need. I rebuke the proposer of the motion for introducing politics into what should be a non-partisan discussion. It is regrettable that that happened. Other Members made their own little remarks and, if any victims and survivors are listening in or read the report of the debate, they will make their own mind up.

Our party is determined to continue to work in the Department, under our leadership opportunity through Martin McGuinness, and through the Committee. Unanimously, across all the parties, the Committee has been resolute in recent times in trying to make sure that the Victims and Survivors Service is fit for the job that it has to do, which is a very difficult and challenging job. We have to try to maximise the resources available for victims and survivors. As I said, I, like other Members, welcome that we have managed to increase the resources. However, we know that the demand continues to increase. We have to try to continue to monitor whether the services now available are doing the job that they are required to do — there is still much work to do to improve that service — and what additional resources we might need in the time ahead to address the needs of victims and survivors.

By way of illustration, I will deal with one case, which I raised recently at the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It involves a lady whose father died when she was 15 years of age. He died as a result of the conflict, in a bar bombing in Belfast. Her brother was shot dead in a sectarian incident. Another of her brothers was seriously injured in the same incident. Yet she, as one of a number of siblings in that family, cannot access any support. That is down to the fact that there is a finite budget, which I fully understand. That is just one sibling in one family, from a range of families, who is disqualified from getting any support at this point — even different levels of support for members of her family — because of the finite budget and the means testing associated with —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Maskey: — accessing resources. Clearly, we all have a job to do — all of us together, across all the parties — to deliver the best services and the maximum resources that we can for those victims and survivors of the conflict who require them.

Mr A Maginness: I do not know what is worse: the false hurt and self-righteousness of the last Member who spoke, the silence of Chris Hazzard, or the excuses put forward by Bronwyn McGahan in relation to the victims and survivors' budget. It seems to me incredible that any of those Members would seek to justify cuts to the Victims and Survivors Service. Whether the cut be 4%, 22% or whatever, it still should not happen. The budget for victims and survivors should be ring-fenced and the service should be improved and enhanced. The problem with the Victims and Survivors Service, which is a great idea and should be a model of excellence, is that it has been dogged by underfunding, in my view, and, in addition, by institutional failings. Those —

Mr Hazzard: Will the Member give way?

Mr A Maginness: Certainly not to the Member who refused —

If the Member wishes —

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order, Mr Hazzard.

Mr Hazzard: Just to clarify exactly what I said in case the Member was not listening —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr A Maginness: If the Member wishes to conduct a debate, he should enter into the spirit of the debate and accept points of intervention so that we can debate these subjects, but of course the Member remains silent and refused to accept my particular point —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. All remarks must be made through the Chair.

Mr A Maginness: — during his address to the Assembly.

I go back to the point: there are institutional failings. Kathryn Stone pointed them out in her very detailed report, and those failings remain. Last Friday, I spoke to two victims of the Troubles: one had been injured by a republican paramilitary organisation and the other by a loyalist organisation. Both of them said that problems continue in relation to the service because it is not properly managed. There is no sense of empathy coming from the service to the victims. That is a problem, and it has to be addressed. For example, on the board of the service, there is no representative of victims. There may be good people on the board — I do not doubt that — who are doing their best, but there is no victim on the board. That is an incredible omission. Dealing with victims in a bureaucratic, administrative fashion and developing that culture of dealing with victims is entirely inappropriate. That is what those people said to me, and that is what victims' organisations say to Members of the House. We cannot ignore that. We have to improve the service.

I give credit to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for promoting the service and for attempting to act on the report of Kathryn Stone, but an awful lot of work needs to be done. The attitude has to change. It has to move from an administrative organisation to a service organisation — that is clear. We have to ensure that there is proper financing, even in the darkest of austere times and budgeting. We have to guarantee that. We cannot have a stop-start service for victims. You cannot have respite care or educational care and opportunities suspended. There has to be a continuum. If we do not get that across to those who are attempting to provide that service, we are failing the victims —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr A Maginness: — who should be at the very centre of our concerns. I welcome the debate, because it is properly focused on the Victims and Survivors Service. I think that all Members of the House should take note of that.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Overend: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate and support the motion proposed by my party leader, Mike Nesbitt.

There are few places in Northern Ireland where the Troubles did not visit and where its effects are not still being felt. Indeed, the constituency that I represent — Mid Ulster — was particularly badly hit by the despicable terrorist campaign. Therefore, it is home to many people who feel the acute effects of that terrible time. Murders were committed by terrorists in virtually every town and village, almost without exception. If I were to list them now, we would be here for a very long time.

In recent years, we have seen significant anniversaries for the Teebane massacre, when eight people were killed and six were left seriously injured, and the murders that took place in Coagh, where three men were murdered in cold blood by IRA terrorists. A long time has passed since those and other terrible atrocities took place, but the grief and pain is still felt by the victims and survivors and their families, especially when one considers that many of those murders have gone unsolved. Indeed, it seems that the terrorist campaign is not long over in Mid Ulster, and we remember the family of the late David Black, who, just over two years ago, was murdered on his way to work in the Prison Service. These are traumas that should never be faced by any person, and because the injuries and bereavements have such a sinister cause they fall on the shoulders of victims and survivors with a heavier weight.

It is clear that victims and survivors need specialised care and counselling to deal with these traumatic issues, especially as many of them still feel extremely vulnerable. Local victims' organisations provide life-saving services to former members of the security forces, their families and other victims of terrorist violence. The removal of funding from these organisations is having a devastating impact on the individual victims. As has already been said, the cuts are compromising the future status of victims' organisations and their ability to continue to provide vital services. The Mid-Ulster Victims Empowerment (MUVE) project is one such group that is taking up the challenge in Mid Ulster and is providing care in ever more challenging circumstances to the most vulnerable local victims and survivors and their families. I have met members of the group on a number of occasions and have heard at first hand the difficulties that they face on a daily basis just to keep going. They face cuts only months into their first full year of operation. Faced with those cuts, groups such as MUVE will be unable to continue to provide their much-needed services to vulnerable people in Mid Ulster, leaving them to face an uncertain future with potentially devastating consequences for their care.

These groups are already feeling the squeeze, with one group telling me that it felt as if it was facing death by a thousand cuts, as funding is picked apart and withdrawn, bit by bit. To have these groups virtually begging for funding is nothing short of a disgrace, especially when one considers that many ex-prisoners' groups, which played the central role in creating victims, seem to be able to access large amounts of funding with relative ease. Indeed, the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone talked about the increasing funding for victim support in comparison with direct rule government times. Seriously, does she not recognise that, instead, a huge amount of money was spent rebuilding Northern Ireland after the long and horrific terrorist campaign by her colleagues in the IRA?

The brave men and women of the security forces who put their own lives and those of their families at risk in countering the terrorist threat over many years have been treated with a lack of dignity and respect by OFMDFM. Why should those who suffered most during the Troubles be asked to pay the price during a time of peace? Surely the needs of innocent victims should be prioritised as a matter of course; they should not find their funding cut or completely removed.

Mrs D Kelly: I want to say a few words in support of the motion and of victims and survivors, who ought to be central in all our thinking, particularly in this debate. As a society we owe a great debt of gratitude to victims and survivors, who, since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, had remained largely in the background and quite silent on a wide range of matters but were prepared to support the new institutions and the Good Friday Agreement in the hope that their needs would be met.

Over the past couple of days I have read comments from victims who have had some of their services cut, and my heart goes out to them. I see it as a function of OFMDFM, which has a particular responsibility. However, I know from my constituency work, having spoken to victims, that quite often their concerns centre around the security of provision of social housing and of having the adaptations that they require as they age as well as access to health services.

Other Members spoke about the number of victims increasing. Not only are more people coming forward with mental health issues, but there is also the transgenerational impact of the Troubles. We can all see that. Dealing with the past is something that we, as politicians, have to grapple with, and the British Government have a central role in particular, not only in addressing the past but in helping to resource the needs of victims and survivors.

I know that my time is limited, but I did not want to let the debate go without paying tribute to the many men and women who, over the past 30 to 40 years, as workers in the emergency services had to see horrendous sights and attend the murder and maiming of fellow human beings. Often, they are the unsung heroes of the conflict. I pay tribute to them. I am sure that many of them, without being direct victims of the Troubles, suffer from post-traumatic stress. I hope that, if they have needs, they will be included in any assessment of need.

Ms J McCann (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the concerns regarding the current funding situation for victims and survivors. I can assure Members that addressing the funding needs for victims and survivors is a particularly important matter for us and one that has been and will continue to be given a high priority.

The Victims and Survivors Service was established on 2 April 2012. It is responsible for distributing the funding provided by our Department to individual victims and survivors and to the groups that work directly with them. In making its services available, the service assesses eligibility in accordance with the definition of a victim as set out in the legislation. We fully acknowledge and recognise that the needs of victims and survivors are an important legacy of the conflict. That is why the service was established to help address the needs of that priority group.

At the beginning of the 2013-14 financial year, the opening baseline budget for the Victims and Survivors Service was £11·3 million. We also secured additional funding in last year's October monitoring round of £1·1 million, which increased the funding to £12·4 million. A further £400,000 was secured at year-end, which took the final out-turn for 2013-14 up to £12·8 million, although it should be pointed out that the costs for 2013-14 were temporarily high due to the need to recruit additional client assessors to undertake the independent needs review. Comparable costs for 2014-15 are therefore expected to be lower.

There has been an increase in the number of victims coming forward since the establishment of the Victims and Survivors Service, and that has inevitably led to increased demand for the services. As that demand increases, we need to think about the supply of services and the funding that is available to effectively and efficiently deliver them.

When the June monitoring budgets were delayed, we initially allocated the Victims and Survivors Service a budget of £10 million to enable it to provide support as early as possible into the financial year. Our previous bid for additional resources was not met in the June monitoring round, but another bid has been submitted for the October monitoring round. Whilst the Executive applied a 2·1% reduction in resource budgets immediately in June monitoring and indicated that there would be a further 2·3% reduction in resource budgets in October monitoring, the Executive's June monitoring paper recognised the concerns around resource funding for victims and survivors. The Executive have agreed to return to the issue in October monitoring, with a view to providing additional resources. In the light of that, our Department has made a bid of £1·3 million in October monitoring to restore the service's baseline to £11·3 million, which is the same as the opening budget for 2013-14. In the meantime, the Victims and Survivors Service has been asked to seek to secure 4·4% of efficiencies from its running costs and from the administration of groups funded under the victim support programme. That is in line with the efficiency savings being sought by the Department from all its related arm's-length bodies and the Department itself.

The Department wrote to the Victims and Survivors Service's interim chair to advise the service of its initial allocation for 2014-15 and to set out an agreed policy framework for it to apply operational discretion in the allocation of its budget. The framework indicated that the service should, first, take into account consultation with the victims' forum and the Commission for Victims and Survivors; secondly, continue to protect the victims and survivors with the greatest needs and suffering; and, thirdly, continue to meet the needs of individual victims and survivors.

The need to identify 4·4% of efficiencies has inevitably created pressures, and that has been well documented across all Departments. In the short term, budget reductions will, unfortunately, have a direct impact on the provision of support to victims and survivors.

We are asking that the service look at the administration. We want to enable the priority focus to remain on the maintenance of front line services. It is also working closely with groups and continues to prioritise the needs of individuals to protect those with the greatest needs. To that end, the service is committed to maximising cost savings internally to ensure the minimum impact on its operation through reductions in running and staffing costs.

Following confirmation of its budget on 31 July 2014 and having assessed the information and the next steps, the Victims and Survivors Service wrote to all victim support-funded organisations, informing them of the budget reductions. The service then scheduled meetings with the organisations to discuss their proposals to meet their required efficiencies, and the majority of those meetings have now taken place. I am aware that the Victims and Survivors Service has asked groups to, first, submit details of their proposed efficiencies and, secondly, to state what impact, if any, those savings will have on front line service delivery. Thirdly, it asked the groups to say what impact, if any, the savings will have on the organisation's structure. This information will then be scrutinised and submitted to the Department to assess the overall impact of the funding position.

Throughout 2014 and 2015, the Victims and Survivors Service will continue to provide funding to individual victims through the individual needs programme and to victims groups through the victims support programme. Schemes were opened over the summer to give help to individuals, including financial assistance, care for carers and support for the injured. However, the other individual schemes — respite breaks and education and training — have, unfortunately, had to be deferred pending additional resources being secured. I too have spoken to victims and survivors who have been directly affected by that deferral, and we are looking at that to try to get it sorted out as soon as possible. I am aware of the impact that it has on those individuals and their families.

In moving forward, we will continue to work with the Victims and Survivors Service and the Commission for Victims and Survivors to ensure that the service directs funding to victims and survivors most in need of support and services. Our aim is that, through the implementation of the recommendations in the independent assessment report submitted by the commissioner earlier this year, we will hope to transform the service into a client-centred organisation that is fit for purpose and puts the needs of victims and survivors first. Victims and survivors should receive packages of care that are tailored to their needs and are delivered promptly and professionally. Our vision for the service, as set out in our current strategy for victims and survivors, is to secure the provision of an appropriate range of support services. Victims and survivors' needs are diverse and varied, and we want the service to provide holistic support, including practical needs, and, if this is not immediately possible, to signpost them to an appropriate statutory body. Support should not stop at that point, and victims and survivors should be assisted through the process, where possible by dedicated caseworkers who act as a consistent point of contact.

We recognise the capacity that exists in the sector across all groups in delivering support and health and well-being assistance to victims and survivors. I commend those groups, which have for years delivered those services directly to people directly affected by the conflict. We acknowledge and thank them for their commitment to improving the lives of vulnerable people who have been affected by that conflict, and, in going forward, it is important that we maximise the outcomes for victims and survivors from the resources that are available. I am aware that the commission's review of funding is under way, and I reiterate our focus on getting this right for victims. We thank the previous commissioner for her guidance on this matter, and we look forward to working with the incoming commissioner and the forum in the months ahead as we seek to build on the progress made to date.

I want to deal with points that were brought up during the debate. One of the main issues was in and around the moneys and the budget, because, obviously, that was what the debate focused on. I will come to the real source of the financial difficulties that we have to face across all Departments. We hear daily how this impacts on people in front line services and on people in our communities. The fact is that there has been a reduction in the block grant in real terms, and it has remained static at £10 billion over the years. Some Members have alluded to that. In terms of austerity and cuts to services, that is really what is at the heart of this debate.

We need to look at a holistic way in which we can take forward how we deal with the legacy of the past and, in particular, deal with the victims and survivors in the way that we have a responsibility to.

Some Members brought up the Haass/O'Sullivan proposals. The compromise proposals that were brought forward had a holistic way of dealing with the legacy of the conflict and with the past. One of those proposals looked at the victims service, not just how it is run on a daily basis but how we can develop it and make it better. So, there are issues there. We have to look at it in the round. One Member mentioned bringing it into the talks that will hopefully be taking place soon and into negotiations.

It is about the budgetary position that we find ourselves in. I do not want to politicise the debate today because it is very important because it concentrates on the needs of victims and survivors. I hope that the House will send out a clear message today that we need to look at the austerity measures that are being implemented and the way that they are affecting services, because it is impacting on the most vulnerable, and who could be more vulnerable than victims and survivors of the conflict?

I am glad of the opportunity to respond to the debate. I hope that I have dealt with most of the Members' concerns, but, if not, I will certainly write to them if they want to ask me any more questions.

Mr Elliott: Obviously, it raises some emotion when we talk about victims, and rightly so. We need to concentrate on the actual victims. Some people here today have attempted to politicise the issue, but we want to bring the focus clearly back to the victims. The financing and monetary aspect of what gets to the victims is essential. I accept the principle, as some people have indicated, that more and more victims, individually and through groups, have come forward in recent years. I accept that. That is obviously a case for additional funding being required or at least that we ring-fence what is already there.

There are very few of us in here, and I would hazard a guess that most of us probably know of victims individually and personally and know them very well. Indeed, many of our families have been affected by the Troubles over the last number of years. I still find it extremely difficult and do not accept the premise that those who created victims and carried out the murders in our society should be put on a level playing field with those who they made victims of. It is extremely unfortunate that we are still in that position. The front line services and the support for those who are suffering must come first and foremost. We need to concentrate our focus on the people who continue to suffer the trauma and injuries of the past years and decades.

I was concerned about media coverage last week in which a whistle-blower criticised OFMDFM advisers and said that interference from OFMDFM special advisers in the Victims and Survivors Service is causing internal chaos and that there is justified anger and frustration among victims of the Troubles. The whistle-blower from the Victims and Survivors Service claims that departmental advisers are treating victims as pawns. The Victims and Survivors Service source said that service delivery is a near impossible task for Victims and Survivors Service staff, with the chaos primarily due to the relationship with OFMDFM. The proposer of the motion, my colleague Mr Nesbitt, highlighted the difficulties in the Victims and Survivors Service and the problems that we have encountered there with so many people leaving their positions and posts, and I am not sure where exactly it is all going.

Somebody from this side said that they supported the proposal of the Victims and Survivors Service, and they gave credit to OFMDFM for bringing forward that service, and I do as well. The problem is that something has gone wrong somewhere in-between, and that needs to be resolved. I did not hear any realistic proposal today to resolve it. I find that to be a major difficulty on this side, and I am sure that it is no different for most Members here today. There is a frustration, and it is not just felt by me as a Member of the Assembly; that frustration is felt by the victims out there in the community.

As constituency representatives, we have people from victims' groups and individual victims coming to us with their queries, and some of their stories are heartbreaking. You hear how they have been excluded almost from society for years and how they have not had fair treatment. The compensation system that was administered during the Troubles was frightfully depressing. Some may have lost a husband. I know personally of a lady who was left with three young children, and she was offered pitiful compensation. That woman and her family were left basically to fend for themselves for decades. What way was that to treat this society's victims? I think that it was pitiful.

I will move on to some of the comments from Members. Mr Nesbitt proposed the motion, which, I am pleased to say, seems to have widespread support, if not a lot of criticism from Members here. However, it appears to be getting widespread support. Mr Nesbitt highlighted very constructively the difficulties in the Victims and Survivors Service. Hopefully, that constructive criticism will bring forward a better proposal and a better way forward. This is not about trying to score political points from the Ulster Unionist Party's point of view. This is about trying to do the best that we can for victims. I hear people laughing and smirking, and I know that Mr Spratt, Mr McIlveen and Mr Moutray were critical of the Ulster Unionist Party, but I suppose that I would not expect anything else. We are well used to that now; they feel that they must criticise the Ulster Unionists at every opportunity.

Mr Elliott: Sorry, do you want to intervene? I will give way.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All remarks should be made through the Chair.

Mr Elliott: Mr McIlveen accused us of exploiting a group of people. I will tell you, Mr McIlveen, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if anybody knows about the exploitation of victims, it is your party. Your party brought them to the gates of places where there were talks, to try to stop progress in this Province. Shame on youse or anybody who carried out that act.

Mr Spratt: That is the boy who was giving him a lecture a minute ago.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Elliott: Sorry?

Mr Spratt: Giving a lecture a minute ago.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Would all remarks be made through the Chair, please.

Mr Elliott: Members of Sinn Féin — Ms McGahan and, I think, Mr Hazzard and others — were critical of unionists. All that we are trying to do is to do the best for victims.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Elliott: That is clearly all that we are trying to do. I will give way.

Mrs D Kelly: Would the Member agree that, over the last couple of days, thedetail.tv website had an excellent report where victims' voices had a platform? Surely this debate has helped with that process and given victims' voices an airing, which many people would perhaps prefer that they did not have.

Mr Elliott: I thank Mrs Kelly for that intervention. I have not seen that particular issue, but I have seen quite a number of productions that have been made by victims' groups, where they have been able to tell their story, and that is a crucial aspect for many victims, although not for them all. However, it is crucial for some of them to tell their story, because people have not listened to them for years. Therefore, that is vital, and if this adds to that opportunity, and if those people want to take the opportunity, that is fine; let them do that. However, behind it all, those who are suffering injury and trauma must get help and support, and we must make sure that they have every opportunity to get the medical attention that they need.

Mr Lyttle said that he wanted to play as straight a bat as possible, but he went on to criticise everybody and every party except the Alliance Party, so I am not so sure how that straight bat was being played. However, he made sure that he had a go at everybody else, although that is his right.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way, and that is a fair point. One of the key issues —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Lyttle: Does he not have 10 minutes?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Apologies; one more minute.

Mr Lyttle: One of the key issues seems to be the accuracy of the facts. According to OFMDFM figures, the baseline budget for VSS has been reduced from £11·3 million to £10 million. Does the Member agree that that is roughly an 11·5% reduction, and will he offer OFMDFM an opportunity to advise where the figure of 4·4% comes from?

Mr Elliott: I will take the Member's word for that. Obviously, OFMDFM can respond to that in its own good time.

In the debate, we need to focus on the victims. We need to ensure that they have a positive outcome and that they get the best help and support that we can possibly afford them. Let us not turn this into the type of political quagmire that we often get into. Let us support the victims.

Mr D McIlveen: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a result of over-regulation that was backed by one of the Sinn Féin Members of the European Parliament, 1,000 jobs are in jeopardy in my constituency today. I want to know how we could expedite a motion —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I ask the Member to take his seat.

Mr D McIlveen: Further —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The Member may wish to raise it through the Business Committee.

I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments as we change the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The proposer of the topic will have 15 minutes, and all Members who wish to speak will have approximately seven minutes.

Mr Rogers: In line with the current Programme for Government's key goal to develop the Northern Ireland economy, I welcome this opportunity to focus on how the objective is materialising in the constituency of South Down. I thank the Minister for being here to respond.

It is widely recognised that the growth and development of the private sector in Northern Ireland is much needed as we endeavour to build a strong, sustainable economy. Freeing ourselves from the shackles of public sector dependency to realise a more vibrant economic reality is, without doubt, our shared ultimate goal. The local economy in South Down is no different. At the outset, I place on record that this is not a debate centred on handouts or subsidies. It is about ensuring that the constituency of South Down is brought to a level playing field, enabling it to maximise its full economic potential. It is about ensuring that the constituency has access to the economic tools and levers that will allow it to contribute to the long-term economic well-being of Northern Ireland.

We believe that South Down has a distinct role to play in the development of a sustainable Northern Ireland. Magnificent landscapes, a proven culture of entrepreneurship, a highly educated workforce and a reputation for hard-working people are only some of South Down's many strengths. There is, unfortunately, no getting away from the economic realities of this time. We continue to be overdependent on the stimulus brought about by public sector employment and investment. The injection of public money into any constituency continues to be a major economic driver and crucial to the success of that local economy. It is, therefore, imperative that the distribution of public funds is carried out in a way that is fair and equitable.

Due consideration must be given not only to the immediate benefit of any spend but to its potential long-term economic return.

One such major government spend is public sector employment. Like many places in western Europe, Northern Ireland has traditionally directed the majority of its spending to capital cities. The issue of relocating public sector jobs to peripheral regions has occasioned much debate over recent years. The Bain report of 2007 found that public sector employment in Northern Ireland accounted for 31% of employee jobs and 13% of the overall population. Bain went on to conclude that, on balance, there is a strong case for the movement of some public sector jobs in Northern Ireland. He added that that would help to create a better regional economic balance by encouraging wealth creation and reducing economic disparity. We also believe that relocation has the potential to reduce social deprivation. Therefore, I declare my intention to continue the debate on the basis of the knowledge that the argument has been made and won on the urgent need to relocate public sector jobs fairly.

This year, along with my colleagues from South Down Chris Hazzard and Jim Wells, I had the privilege of hosting an event in Parliament Buildings. Headed up by Down District Council, it was specifically on the issue of public sector jobs in South Down. During the event, Mr Gerry McBride, the assistant director of customer relations at the council, highlighted the fact that Down District Council, along with its partners, was trying to encourage indigenous investment and create jobs in this difficult economic period. Those efforts, he said, could be undermined if the council continued to lose public sector jobs. We lost DVA jobs recently, and the ongoing haemorrhaging of services at Downe Hospital is having a major effect, as is the loss of the tax office in Newry.

Down District Council proposed during its presentation that the district, along with other areas with a low economic activity rate, be designated a preferred public sector development area. The new designation would be non-statutory, but it would be adopted policy for the public sector in Northern Ireland. I add my full support to that sound proposal. If adopted and utilised, it would assist in managing balanced economic growth across all regions. It cannot be right, for example, that departmental jobs are available in south Belfast at a ratio of one job for every 12 people, whilst in South Down the ratio slips to one job for every 227 people.

South Down is the most beautiful constituency in the North, and it continues to bear the brunt of the economic disparities highlighted in the Bain review. With a population of 108,000 recorded in the 2011 census, the latest economic and labour statistics for the region make grim reading. In the 16 to 64 age group, employment is about 66%. The median gross wage in Newry and Mourne is £427, which is 7% lower than the figure for Northern Ireland as a whole; in Down district, it is £341, which is a staggering 25% lower than Northern Ireland as a whole. With figures like that, it is not surprising to learn that Newry and Downpatrick were identified by Professor Bain as places that require investment.

The child poverty unit in the Department for Work and Pensions told us that, in August 2011, there were 4,660 children aged nought to 15 living in poverty in South Down. That equates to almost 20% of the children in our constituency. The statistics on child poverty are not simply numbers that we can allow ourselves to glance past, and any small or limited reference that I make to child poverty can only begin to skim the surface of the chilling reality and the consequences that it has on individual lives. For the purpose of the debate, however, I ask whether the long-term economic well-being of Northern Ireland can be on track when one in four of our children lives in poverty.

Not only has the constituency of South Down been unfairly treated in the distribution of public sector jobs, it has been overlooked by many of our Ministers at the Executive table. Opportunities have been denied that would have allowed South Down to develop and showcase its offering. The first of one or two examples is the Giro. South Down, particularly the Mournes, has proved to be one of the most desirable cycling regions in Northern Ireland. The natural beauty of the landscape, together with the unique contours of the road infrastructure, played a large part in hosting successful events such as the Etape Mourne in 2012. Like many others, I believed that the inclusion of the Mournes on the Giro map was inevitable. I look forward to the legacy of the Giro — the Gran Fondo. Could such an event eventually come here? The Somerset hills have seized the initiative for next year.

The second is the Irish Open 2015. There is no danger of me overstating my excitement and delight that the Irish Open will be played at the prestigious Royal County Down course in May 2015. Once more, I place on record my unreserved appreciation to the official hosts, the Rory Foundation, and to Rory McIlroy himself, whose brainchild it is, for making this dream event a reality. I also thank the foundation for its support for the Cancer Fund for Children and for the beautiful new Daisy Lodge in Newcastle. That is a charitable cause that is close to my heart. That is a true example of Northern Ireland bringing together one of its finest resources — Royal County Down — and one of its finest citizens — Rory McIlroy — and creating a world-class event. Together with the local community, I am eager to ensure that we maximise the potential return of that event in our local economy, but it concerns me that the Executive do not seem to have a joined-up approach to this prestigious event. Recently, I asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure about the support available for groups and for fringe events. She told me that that was the first time she had been asked about that, and I look forward to taking that a wee bit further with her when I meet her in the near future.

Thirdly, I bring to you the most scandalous failure to the people of South Down in the history of the House: the Narrow Water bridge. Each time that project is mentioned, we hear the inevitable blame games beginning, much talk of those from other Houses letting us down and shallow announcements of commitment and support being bandied about. Just let me remind you of the figures: South Down was denied €14 million on that occasion. That was at a time when our economy, particularly the building industry, was on its knees.

When we speak of tourism and acknowledge some of the great work that has had the support of the Executive, we are not on the same page as other tourist destinations on this island, never mind further afield. Maybe we have something to learn here. There is a marked difference between how the two kingdoms in Ireland are promoted: the kingdom of Kerry versus the kingdom of Mourne. Take one of the success stories here, namely the Titanic project. That has been a game changer, whereas in South Down we are in the second division. It took millions to create the Titanic project, but the beauty and unique landscape of the Mournes and St Patrick's country is free. Where we differ is in the marketing strategy. The Titanic project's marketing strategy is up there with the best, whereas, despite the best efforts of our local councils, the marketing of South Down is minimal. Take, for example, Saint Patrick's Trail, which starts in Armagh and transverses the constituencies of Newry and Armagh and South Down before ending up in Downpatrick. That project has the economic potential to be our Camino, but we do not even have signs on the motorway to indicate where the trail is. We have the product in the St Patrick's Trail, but again we fail to market it.

What about something like a cable car up Slieve Donard? Oh yes, we are expert at finding reasons why things will not work rather than being open to all the possibilities.

I repeat my earlier statement that this is not a debate that centres on handouts or subsidies. There are numerous examples right around our constituency of success stories, from the sole trader to large-scale employers. Just look at one of those that you are familiar with, Minister: the Kilkeel Strategic Partnership, which supports business development, creates employment and increases tourism opportunities. Local businesses have put their money where their mouth is to create a vision for Kilkeel harbour in 2020. The partnership hosted the First Minister and many of his Executive colleagues, but the project needs a little financial support from the Executive to make the vision a reality.

Far more needs to be done to ensure that South Down is offered a fair chance to address the economic disadvantages it faces. We are primarily a rural constituency. Our farming and fishing industries need ongoing support to market their products and realise the potential of Going for Growth. I acknowledge the improvements in broadband infrastructure, but there are still many "not-spots", particularly in rural areas.

The announcement of 800 PwC jobs is very welcome, but why are such announcements only ever for jobs in Belfast? Why is that not an option in South Down? How many of the recent job announcements have been about jobs in locations outside Belfast? There is increasing gridlock in the city, whilst our rural areas are allowed to wither. My children, like many others, have had to leave the area to find work. Emigration affects every family. The lack of employment is attacking the social fabric of the countryside. As George Bain indicated many years ago, we need to give our rural dwellers opportunities for local employment if we are really concerned about health and well-being and building a vibrant economy.

The mindset of those placed at senior decision-making levels needs to change. I call on my colleagues from South Down to stand up and join me in sending a message to our Ministers in the Executive and to Westminster that we are united in ensuring that the constituency will receive a fair deal in all decisions going forward. Under our watchful eye, we must collectively ensure that South Down is safeguarded against further disparities. More has to be done to allow the constituency to develop and grow its economic potential. Finally, I ask the House for its full support in moving ahead with an agenda to set up a preferred public sector development area, as I outlined earlier.

Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta Seán Rogers as an ábhar seo a ardú inniu.

I thank my colleague Seán Rogers for bringing this Adjournment debate to the House.

We are all here to support jobs for South Down. The first thing we want is the jobs that are currently there retained. We want public sector jobs and support for the growth of the private sector. We also want to see our small businesses supported. To date, I have to say, there has been an abysmal failure on the part of those in the Executive responsible for job creation. I agree with Seán Rogers about the importance of the location of public sector jobs and organisations in South Down. I pay tribute to my colleague Michelle O'Neill, who has said that she will decentralise the fisheries office. I understand that that is on target for 2015, and I think that it will make a significant difference because we all know how difficult it has been for our fishermen and fisherwomen. That sector has suffered very badly. Michelle O'Neill has also been very proactive in supporting farmers. I welcome that and encourage her to continue to do that.

I am certainly very proud of my record in education and the significant investment that I put in not just in South Down but right across the North of Ireland. During the four years, we put in £500 million in the capital programme alone, and South Down got its fair share of that. As a result of that, we have new schools right across South Down in all the sectors: Irish-medium, state, Catholic maintained and integrated. I welcome that. We should not lose sight of the fact that, when you put new school builds into a constituency, you get jobs on the ground from the companies that are building them and the continuation of employment for teachers and staff. I know that John O'Dowd is continuing that, and South Down has got its fair share in relation to that investment. You just need to look at the number of schools right across the constituency and, indeed, at those on the borders of the constituency and in neighbouring constituencies that service the children and young people of South Down. So we stand on our record.

South Down needs social and affordable housing. Every one of us, every day of the week, gets representation in relation to the lack of social housing. Ministers have failed to invest in social housing, and I do not think that any of us would argue that there has been enough investment in social housing.

It is a pity that the Minister of Health, who is from South Down, is not here today. I hope that he stands on his public pronouncements. I was at meetings with him in relation to the Downe Hospital. He was there arguing the same points as I was arguing, and I look forward to his support for the A&E unit and continued support for the Downe Hospital. The Downe Hospital would not have happened without Sinn Féin; it was Bairbre de Brún who made that decision. Sinn Féin has a strong policy of decentralisation and not just having Belfast and the bigger centres of population getting support. We look forward to Jim Wells. We will give him a couple of weeks in office, and we look forward to him giving the support to South Down that it deserves. Daisy Hill Hospital may not be in the South Down constituency, but it certainly services the people of south Down, and we want to see continued investment there.

Tourism is a key driver for the South Down constituency. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty; on that I absolutely agree with my colleague Seán Rogers. To date, there has been a failure in investment in tourism. Invest NI is not investing as it should. South Down still does not have proper hotel provision. Accommodation is the biggest spend of any tourist, and yet we do not have proper provision because there has not been proper investment. We do not have the bridge at Narrow Water. We will have it. I and other colleagues are on a group that meets regularly in relation to that.

We need to see cross-border marketing — not the way in which the current Minister is acting, standing with her back to the border and pretending that we do not need to work in an all-Ireland way. Of course we need to be working in an all-Ireland way. The Minister really needs to do a better job on that. Her approach leaves a lot to be desired.

We have a greenway in Mayo that is a phenomenal success. I do not see the support for a cross-border greenway that we should have, and I hope that we do get it. We have one from Omeath to Carlingford, and I would love to see that continuing across the bridge into Newry. Let us try to have a ring of Carlingford lough in the same way as we have the Ring of Kerry.

Broadband was mentioned. People have been contacting me from all areas of South Down, particularly rural areas. They cannot build businesses because they do not have broadband. Why do they not have broadband? Maybe the Minister can tell me. I know that recently — she can sneer and snigger, as is her form —

Mrs Foster (The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment): I was not sneering.

Ms Ruane: — and try to interrupt across the House, but she will have her opportunity to speak. She needs to explain to people who are trying to set up businesses. I recently met someone who wants to set up a farm business. They do not have broadband. They cannot sell on the Internet because they do not have broadband. Their children cannot access it. I look forward to hearing what the Minister is going to do in relation to that.

Small businesses are very critical of the lack of support and the hoops that they are expected to jump through. Small businesses will be the backbone of job creation, and I would love to hear what the Minister will do to protect and support our small businesses.

I agree with my colleague that there is not enough investment in South Down, and we need to see a step change in what Invest NI is going to do and, indeed, I will be interested to hear what our Health Minister is going to do in relation to South Down. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in this important Adjournment debate, and I pay tribute to Seán for securing it. In fact, jobs, economy and health in South Down have been debated in recent months, which is good to see.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recently published quite a patchy economic forecast for the North's performance as a whole. It is probably relevant to describe the economic performance of the Down district and south Down area as a whole as patchy as well. It is, perhaps, best summed up by the differentials in the ability of Newry Council to attract foreign direct investment compared to Downpatrick.

A lot of work has to be done. It does not all rest at the feet of the Minister, who is here to talk to it. A lot of it requires local solutions. Public services no doubt play an important role in Down, and I too welcome Michelle O'Neill's decision to decentralise public sector jobs. I have been in touch with the Justice Minister to ensure that the future of Downpatrick Courthouse is protected; it plays a central role in the town. However, we do not need to put all our eggs in the basket of decentralisation of public jobs. Although that is important, we need to look at rebalancing our economy in a way that suits the attributes and skills of people in South Down.

What do I think is the potential in South Down? There is no doubt that tourism is one of the main drivers that we need to harness, especially now, with the new councils coming together. For the first time, the Mournes, for example are in one district council area that will be controlled by one tourism department, which is very important. I probably remain to be convinced, though, of the validity of having a cable car up Slieve Donard. I will await the report, but we need imaginative ideas such as that from local sources.

We have very strong arts and crafts and artisan food and drink industries that need support. As has been outlined by Members, we have perhaps the most scenic natural environment of anywhere in the North — indeed, across the island. The link has been made twice already between the kingdom of Mourne and the kingdom of Kerry. There is absolutely no reason that the kingdom of Mourne and the wider south Down area should not be hitting the same tourism figures as the likes of Kerry in the South. Another aspect is the potential for film and TV investment. We already see the great success of shows such as 'Game of Thrones'. We need to be looking to build on that.

Another sector is agriculture. There is huge potential in our agrifood industry. I welcome the impetus that Michelle O'Neill has given to the protection of small farmers and small farming industries. In South Down, and for our hill farms especially, that is very important. What she is doing is great. I also pay tribute to her for the establishment of the Fishing Industry Task Force. That industry, and the North's fishing capacity, is more or less wholly situated in South Down. We engaged with the Minister last year over some of the difficulties with fishing. I am delighted that she established the task force. It is starting to work through a lot of the issues that exist in the industry.

For us to harness the potential of those issues, we need to ensure that the infrastructure at the base is right. We certainly need to look at the area of education, in which there has been great success. We need a greater focus on STEM and on the globalised market for subjects that our kids are doing nowadays . We need to build a sense of entrepreneurism among our pupils in school. To that end, I pay tribute to the former Education Minister for the ideas of the revised curriculum and the entitlement framework. That helps to keep people in education and gives them an understanding that success can be achieved through not just the traditional arts or the traditional professional and public routes into university but through starting an indigenous business locally in South Down.

We also need to see great improvement in infrastructure, especially in transport connectivity. We have gridlock on the streets of Downpatrick. We have what can only be described as a not-fit-for-purpose road from Newry to Downpatrick, which are the two major towns in the constituency. Of course, the Belfast to Downpatrick road is gridlocked in Ballynahinch and Saintfield. Those issues need to be overcome, as does the issue of communication networks. We have already heard about the broadband and mobile coverage. That needs to be seriously addressed, although I do pay tribute to the roll-out of the broadband provision over the next 12 months. We are going to see quite a big difference being made to the ability of local businesses to be able to connect to the World Wide Web.

We also need to harness the potential for all-Ireland infrastructure in South Down. Too often, we used to stare across Carlingford lough at each other and wonder what the other side was doing. With the memorandum of understanding now in place between Louth County Council and Newry and Mourne District Council, we need to build on that. There is no reason that the Cooleys, Slieve Gullion and the Mournes cannot become a premier destination. My colleague talked about the importance of the greenway. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot have a greenway from Carlingford to Kilkeel.

This ties into the wider issue of the need for economic levers. The VAT issue for local hoteliers and the hospitality sector in South Down is very important, as is that of licensing hours. Every year, popular holiday destinations such as Newcastle are forced to shut down over the Easter weekend and turn away people who want to spend money on having a glass of wine with their lunch or dinner, and everything else. We seriously need to address that.

I welcome the chance to have been able to talk about this here today. I agree that public services and the decentralisation of public jobs are important, but we need to be careful not to rely on those as the stimulus for our local economy. They will not be. They play an important part, but we need to ensure that we have a very fertile ground for private entrepreneurism in the area.

Mrs McKevitt: I welcome the opportunity to discuss jobs, or, maybe more precisely, the opportunity to create and promote jobs, in my constituency of South Down.

We live in a unique part of the world. The Mourne country, with its rolling mountains and sea, is one of the most beautiful parts of Ireland. We are very dependent on certain sectors for employment, and farming, fishing, the construction industry, tourism, shipping and aerospace have taken a heavy hit over the last few years. We need help, and this House can help by ensuring that the VAT rate, for instance for the tourist and hospitality sector, is cut to match the rest of Ireland to give our people who have invested in the industry a chance. It can also help by having a more-targeted focus on our constituency, especially on emerging sectors like the creative industries and renewable energy.

I am delighted that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has joined us for the debate. I commend her for tourism initiatives that she and her Department have championed and supported. I speak about projects such as bringing the Irish Open golf championship to Portrush last year and to Newcastle next May, with the real possibility of attracting the British Open here in the near future.

The World Police and Fire Games and Giro d'Italia were major successes, not just for what they generated during the events but for their legacies, the tourism entrepreneurship, new start-ups and business opportunities that grow from the confidence of hosting such global events. But Minister, like Oliver says, we want more.

I am aware that you were well-received at the British Ports Association annual conference hosted by Warrenpoint Harbour Authority in Newcastle last week. Much of the discussion during the two-day conference was about the success of Warrenpoint's first cruise ship in July and the real opportunities that that presents for the whole area, the port and the two young men who arranged for the Saga Pearl II to call in on its way home from Iceland to Southampton.

That exercise, or test, was not necessarily groundbreaking when compared with Belfast or Derry ports' cruise figures, but it proved that Warrenpoint had the capability to accommodate cruise ships. The unique selling points of Warrenpoint were appreciated and with help from the House and your Department, cruise liners on Carlingford lough could be a regular feature. It is something that we would all love to see.

There are many new and exciting opportunities presenting themselves regularly in the south Down region, many of which we do not capitalise on. One close to my heart, which my colleague Seán and others mentioned, was the Narrow Water bridge project. That would have created many construction jobs and boosted a struggling tourism industry. We cannot afford to miss out on real opportunities like that. As a matter of urgency, the south east coast master plan should be examined closely and delivered on.

Mr Hazzard: I thank the Member for giving way. Would she agree that more also needs to be done to include the GAA in tourism events organisations and advertisements? The Member no doubt was at the Down county final at the weekend. We have thousands of people attending these popular events, far more than a weekly attendance at a local soccer match, yet they never appear in any tourism advertisements.

Mrs McKevitt: Absolutely. The contribution that the GAA brings across Ireland, even across the whole world, is something that we have to recognise. It is an idea that the House should be trying to grow and promote the GAA at all times.

I have spoken about the prospects presented by supporting our creative industries. The star of the acclaimed film 'Philomena', Dame Judi Dench, spent four days filming in Killyleagh, Bryansford and Rostrevor. Rostrevor is also known as Narnia country. C S Lewis, in a letter to his brother, confided explicitly:

This part of the world should be promoted as a great film location. Not just the community of South Down but also the House should be able to promote that more.

I know that there are budgetary restraints. It is a difficult economic environment and money is tight; so we have to think outside the box in supporting South Down. But one thing I have learned is that when you have the product, you have to be able to sell the brand. We are asking that South Down job creation be put back on the map. We cannot direct the wind but we can adjust the sails.

Mr McCallister: Like colleagues, I thank Mr Rogers for bringing this important debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for attending. I know that she has other pressing issues on the agenda this afternoon.

Like colleagues, everyone wants to see job creation in our constituency of South Down. We want to see how we deliver that. The main thing is going to be how we get balanced growth. It has been a problem across the entire UK. We have been very London- and south-east-centric and well out of kilter with other regions. How do we develop the region? When we come to the Northern Ireland level, how do we make sure that all of our job creation is not just Belfast-centric or in Londonderry? How do we make sure that creation and innovation spreads out to the various constituencies and regions of Northern Ireland?

We do have things that are going well for us, which we need to tap into and build on. Colleagues have mentioned that. We have a great tradition in the public sector to do that. How do we get the share of decentralised jobs? We do not want to be solely fixed on that. How do we really drive the private sector? How do we use the Minister's Department to work in conjunction with the current councils and the new councils to drive that?

We must look at educational attainment, which has been mentioned. We need to look at that and ask why. Look at the last labour force survey in 2012 and the three council areas that touch on the South Down constituency. For those achieving NVQ level 4 and above, the Northern Ireland average is 27·9; Banbridge is at 21; Down is above it at 36, and Newry and Mourne is below it. For those with no qualifications, Banbridge is above the average. We need to address those issues and failings in our education system. What are we not tapping into? What are we not delivering?

People have talked about higher-value IT jobs. We need to question and address what we are doing in South Down. In answer to a recent question to the Minister, I was told that, in the last three years respectively, Invest NI has secured 28, 12 and seven jobs in South Down. Compare that with some other constituencies. In Lagan Valley it was 12, 71 and one. In Foyle it was eight, 212 and 200. Are we getting our share of balanced growth that we all want to see in South Down? We want to see it in South Down and across Northern Ireland.

Another answer is about tourism accommodation and Invest NI's role in investing that money. South Down's grand total over the last three years is £39,629. That compares to Fermanagh and South Tyrone, at £842,000 and North Antrim at £384,000. What are we not tapping into? I know that in the Minister's reply she may well point out that some of that is demand-led. That is a valid point, but what are we not doing in South Down that is not tapping into it? Are we not getting the linkages between Invest NI, the councils and local businesses to access that funding and make the point that we should tap into it?

Tourism is one of our big drivers. We have the St Patrick's Trail, the Mourne mountains and the Brontë homeland. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give her view on this specific question: are we now in a financial situation that could put Newcastle's Festival of Flight in direct danger because of the cuts to the Tourist Board support that drives that? If we are attracting 80,000, 90,000 or 100,000 people to Newcastle, losing that would have a devastating effect. Also, in the Banbridge district we need to address the failure to secure some of that funding despite applications. Their funding has been very much behind the curve on that. Will the Minister address the Festival of Flight and where we are at, in economic terms, on that?

Farming and fishing are two huge mainstays of the South Down economy and indeed of the Northern Ireland economy. We have to look at how we tap into some of the problems that the industry now faces with the EU sanctions against Russia and the cutting off of certain markets, the replacement of markets and how we find markets. The herring industry in South Down is facing particular difficulties, as I am sure that the Minister is aware. The price of milk is going down as a direct impact. How do we tap into the EU compensation package and make sure that we get that down onto the ground? That will have a huge impact on the South Down economy and indeed the Northern Ireland economy when you spread that out. The Minister will know that agrifood is a huge driver with the Going for Growth strategy.

I also point out that we will be coming to the end of the small business rate relief scheme. It is vital that we find a replacement for that scheme. It has brought into councils like Newry and Mourne District Council something like £3·5 million of savings on business rate relief. We need to look at how we do that and at the difficulties that our town centres, particularly those of our small towns, have faced. We need to look at how we do all of those things to make sure that we have a balanced, joined-up approach to delivering jobs and prosperity to the South Down constituency. I think that we should all be up for that. With the support of the Minister, councils and Members in this House, that is something that we should be keen to deliver on.

Mrs Foster: With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, before I turn to the important issue of the economic challenges in South Down, I place on record my concern for those people in Lisnafillan in Ballymena who have received the devastating news tonight that their jobs have been lost and that the JTI plant is closing as a direct result of the European directive on tobacco.

There is no doubt that much finger pointing will be done over the next couple of days. My concern is about the many, many families, some of them with two or three members who work in the factory, who have had that news delivered to them tonight. I give them my assurance that I will do all that I can to work with them and JTI to minimise the damage that has been done to the local economy and indeed to the whole of the Northern Ireland economy because, as I pointed out in a letter to Jeremy Hunt just last week, actually, there are 200 companies in the supply chain of JTI, which benefit to the tune of £20 million each year. Now, that is gone. This is a huge story tonight. It is right that the House should take account of it.

Turning to South Down in particular, I know that many in the Chamber share my concern at the recent closure of the driver and vehicle licensing offices in Northern Ireland and the resulting losses at Rathkeltair House in Downpatrick and indeed at the tax office in Newry as well. That was something that the SDLP Members and I had been very much involved in, given my connection with Enniskillen and Mr Bradley's connection with Newry. Unfortunately, that has now come to fruition.

Turning to private sector jobs, for which of course I am responsible along with Invest Northern Ireland: between 2009-2010 and 2013-14, Invest has made some 1,147 offers of support to businesses in the constituency. That amounts to £14 million of assistance and will lead to an associated total investment of some £60 million. The support of Invest has led to the promotion of over 1,200 new jobs, including those from the Regional Start initiative. We very much acknowledge the work that goes on locally with a lot of small businesses and a lot of people who are starting their own businesses across the South Down constituency. I want to thank my official from South Down who is here this afternoon and will have listened very carefully to the points that Members made about Invest NI and small businesses.

Many people in the region have benefited directly or indirectly from the new employment opportunities that are being created by Invest NI. One such company, of course, is Finnebrogue, which is creating 65 new jobs in Downpatrick following an offer of support of £233,000. Another is Clonallon Laboratories Ltd, a Warrenpoint medical supply company — a very innovative company — that I had the pleasure of meeting recently. It provides a wide range of custom sterile procedure packs, surgical instruments and medical supplies to the health care industry and recently won a contract to supply £250,000 worth of procedure packs in Kuwait. I hope that other orders will come from that region in the near future. We were able to help to support seven new jobs in management, administration and production roles in Clonallon, allowing it to build up its capacity to look for those rising sales.

Our help and support extends, of course, beyond job creation, and many programmes and interventions are aimed at improving the overall competitiveness of the economy. In South Down, over the last five years, that has resulted in just under 170 offers of support to help companies to engage in research and development or to invest in improving the skills of their workforce. It was Mr Hazzard who said that it was important that we have an element of self-help and look to the future to make sure that we have the appropriate skills in place. That is very much the case.

We continue to prepare and to make available land for economic development in South Down. Of the 280 acres of land we hold there, 67 acres are available to support economic development in sites like Carnbane business park. That significant investment is a clear demonstration of our commitment to South Down by holding or developing land for industrial use in locations where the private sector is unwilling or unable to do so. We proactively market those sites to foreign and local investors. I have been encouraged by the interest shown by businesses in acquiring land in Carnbane business park, with enquiries received from three businesses about locating to the new lands at the business park. We will continue to work with those interested parties.

As with most regions, South Down has not been immune to the impact of the economic downturn. A number of businesses have either had to reduce their workforce or take an unavoidable decision to close completely. Initiatives like the jobs fund provide support to business owners and new business starts across Northern Ireland. Where one or two jobs are available, we can come in and help to try to sustain jobs and to tackle rising unemployment. We have been proactive in addressing the economic downturn and have sought to provide fast-track support to help companies across Northern Ireland to deliver new jobs on the ground as quickly as possible. In South Down alone, the jobs fund has promoted 223 jobs, with 194 jobs created by March this year. Initiatives like the jobs fund and support for R&D projects encourage companies to bring forward activities that will enable them to compete more effectively and successfully, particularly in markets outside Northern Ireland. We are certainly not complacent about seeking to work with businesses outside our city centres and are engaging regionally to help businesses in more remote locations to grow and to develop.

Invest and our regional delivery partners are actively engaged in work across the constituency to encourage people to think about starting their own business. In the last five years, that has resulted in over 800 new locally owned businesses being set up in South Down. Most recently, Invest has been working with the local councils. The question asked this evening was this: what is it that councils can do to help themselves and to engage with Invest NI? I welcome those comments. As you know, when the new powers move from Invest NI to the councils, they will be more integrated on job creation. There is a real need, therefore, to have that close working relationship between Invest NI and the new councils. I hope that they will take the opportunity. We have been working with the councils, through the local economic development measure, to improve the capability of businesses in the area. That has been a good success. A collaborative approach to job promotion is the best way forward. I have said many times before in the House that, if people just stand back and think that they can leave it to Invest NI to create jobs, it is simply not going to happen. You need the right ecosystem and the right attitude in the area to create those jobs moving forward. I commend the work done with Down District Council, Newry and Mourne District Council and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry to progress those important economic issues.

A lot of wide-ranging issues were raised today, and I will not get to some of them. The Member who said that the Giro not coming to South Down was a ministerial omission knows that that is not correct. We had many discussions about the issue, and it was the decision of the organisers that they would set the route. I hope that the Member will acknowledge that we had a good meeting on trying to take forward the Giro in the future, which we will continue to do. The Irish Open was mentioned, which is a very exciting opportunity that I look forward to next year. The fact that the Rory Foundation has come in behind the Irish Open opens up a lot of other opportunities.

I have raised the subject of brown tourist signs on the motorway with the Minister for Regional Development on a number of occasions. You will know the old arguments as well as I do. There is an argument that too much information on road signs confuses drivers. I take the view that, on major road signs, there is plenty of room for information, particularly about tourism. DRD and I have just agreed a policy, so I hope that you will see more openness on that matter.

Colleagues and I have been working with the Kilkeel Strategic Partnership. I think that there are huge opportunities there. I am pleased to see the way in which people in Kilkeel, particularly some of the fishermen's organisations, have taken up the opportunity to work with the renewable energy sector there, which I was able to reflect when talking to the British Ports Association at Slieve Donard last week. I commend Warrenpoint Harbour Authority for all the work that it did on that conference. It was a real shop window for the area, and I know, having spoken to the delegates, that they really enjoyed being in Newcastle and Warrenpoint. They were in Narrow Water Castle for one of their events and really enjoyed that as well. For many from the mainland, it was their first visit to Northern Ireland, and they said that they would come back because they really enjoyed not only the hospitality but the conference and what was achieved at it.

I spoke to members of Warrenpoint Port about the development of the marina there. They have achieved planning permission and are keen to seek European funding. It is something —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have had 10 minutes.

Mrs Foster: Am I over that? Sorry, I was not even looking.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is very interesting, but conclude at some stage.

Mrs Foster: I had much more to come. I encourage Members to get behind Warrenpoint marina, which is a really good project and one that could be achieved, unlike the Narrow Water bridge, which unfortunately came out as uneconomic and therein lay the problem.

Ms Ruane: Shame.

Mrs Foster: The Member can say "shame" from a sedentary position. Her nastiness and rudeness never cease to amaze me, but there we are. I am happy to work with Members who want to be proactive and positive about the region rather than sticking their head in the sand.