Official Report: Monday 15 June 2015

Mr Hussey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to you and your Deputy Speakers for my unavoidable absence at Question Time last Tuesday. I apologise for my absence.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for apologising in advance of today's Question Time. However, I want to address the issue of a point of order: it is not actually a point of order. Nevertheless, thank you very much for the apology; it is on the record.

Before we proceed with today's business, I remind Members that, due to unforeseen circumstances, the Minister for Regional Development will be unable to attend Question Time this afternoon. The Minister for Social Development, who was originally listed to answer questions tomorrow, has agreed to take his place. So, questions to the Minister for Social Development on his portfolio will commence at 2.45 pm after questions to the Minister of Justice. All Members were notified of that change last Friday afternoon.

Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment): I beg to move

A Cheann Comhairle, this statutory rule is being made under powers in the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, which prescribes that this order must be laid in draft form for approval by affirmative resolution of the Assembly.

As it stands, my Department has two options when there is a contravention of nature conservation by-laws: it can either take no enforcement action, or it can initiate criminal proceedings. There is nothing in between those two positions. This order would improve that situation by providing a more targeted and proportionate response. It would introduce a fixed monetary penalty that could be issued when a low-level offence was committed, but it would not warrant the full weight of the criminal law. That would provide for a more effective system of protection and management of Northern Ireland’s marine area.

In saying that, I want to make it clear that my Department would retain the right to initiate criminal proceedings where it considered that a more serious case of environmental damage had occurred. The order would not change that position in any way.

I will now deal with the details. The order would give my Department the power to issue individuals with a fixed monetary penalty of £100, or £200 in the case of commercial enterprises. In each case, a 50% discount for prompt payment of the penalty and a 50% surcharge for late payment have been included. Members will also wish to note that any moneys received would be paid into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and that my Department would be able to recover any unpaid penalties as a civil debt.

Of course, where sanctions are involved, it is essential to include an appeals procedure, and this order would be no different in that respect. Anyone subject to a fixed monetary penalty would be entitled to make written representations to my Department, and, should it still decide to apply the penalty, an appeal could be made to the Water Appeals Commission, which is an independent body. The commission would then have the power to confirm, vary or quash the enforcement decision, in accordance with its existing procedures and without further referral to the Department. The provisions therefore provide for an independent, transparent and cost-effective appeals mechanism, which should provide members of the public with confidence that enforcement decisions relating to the fixed monetary penalties would be both balanced and robust.

Finally, I am grateful to the Environment Committee for its scrutiny of the draft Marine Conservation (Fixed Monetary Penalties) Order, and I ask the Assembly to approve it.

Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment): I thank the Minister for his explanation of the background to and the purpose of this affirmative statutory rule. The Committee first considered the SL1 proposal at its meeting on 19 March, which was followed by an oral briefing from officials on 23 April. The Committee was advised that the purpose of the legislation is to provide for the level of fixed monetary penalties to be applied to unregulated activities that contravene the provisions of a by-law made for the protection of a marine conservation zone (MCZ). The fixed monetary penalties are low-level fines intended to be used for minor instances of non-compliance with by-laws. The Committee discussed the need to provide information to educate the public in order to raise awareness of the by-laws and the need to work with councils. Officials advised the Committee that there will be consultation on the development of by-laws, which will encourage public buy-in. The Committee also discussed the challenges in enforcing the by-laws and spotting offences, and whether there would be any real impact as a result of applying penalties, particularly if they were considered lenient. Officials assured the Committee that fines would have an impact but that they would be used in conjunction with education and awareness-raising. Accordingly, the Environment Committee has agreed to recommend that the motion be affirmed by the Assembly.

Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My intention is to speak briefly in favour of the motion. As has been outlined by the Minister and the Chair of our Statutory Committee, we are dealing with a provision for a level of fixed monetary penalties in minor cases of marine pollution. We are dealing with the less serious type of offence, and that is reflected in the low level of fines.

I will ask a couple of questions of the Minister, if he is in a position to take them. How might public awareness of the new by-laws be raised? Can we be certain that the fines will have an impact?

Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Ms Lo and Mr McElduff. I reiterate my thanks to the whole Environment Committee for its support of the regulations.

The questions posed by Mr McElduff are indeed pertinent. It is vitally important that we do what is necessary to increase public awareness of the existence of these fixed penalty notices. If any such regime is to be successful, people need to be made aware of it. That will very much be an issue for those managing the MCZs, and in cases where no management body exists, the Department will play an active role. I encourage the Member to do what he can to make people aware, and I look forward to reading his press release on the passage of today's regulations.

Sorry, I forget the second question.

Mr McElduff: How can you be sure the fines will have an impact?

Mr Durkan: Regrettably, we cannot be sure of anything; however, when we look at other jurisdictions where similar measures have been taken, we see that they have proven successful. Obviously, we will continue to monitor the situation and remedy it, if needs be.

This new enforcement tool would benefit the whole of Northern Ireland by helping to ensure that the conservation objectives of Northern Ireland's marine conservation zones and European marine sites are met. I reiterate my thanks to the Chair and other members of the Committee.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid that we do not have a quorum, so I am requesting that the Division Bells be rung to ask Members to attend.

Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment): I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am pleased to bring before the Assembly the draft Planning (Amount of Fixed Penalty) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015. These regulations will be made under sections 153(9), 154(9) and 247(1) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Under section 247(3) of the 2011 Act, the regulations are required to be laid in draft and approved by resolution of the Assembly.

By way of background, the 2011 Act allows for the issuing of an enforcement notice or breach of condition notice by a council in its role as local planning authority responsible for enforcing against all breaches of planning control under the new two-tier planning system. If the offender fails to comply with such a notice, the further enforcement options open to a council would be to initiate court proceedings or to take direct action to remedy the breach of planning control.

The system of fixed penalty notices introduced by the 2011 Act is an additional enforcement measure and an alternative, at the discretion of a council, to potentially lengthy and costly court proceedings. Where a council might decide to issue a fixed penalty notice, it would give the offender the opportunity to pay a penalty as an alternative to prosecution.

These regulations will assist councils and strengthen their planning enforcement function. The key purpose of the regulations is to set out the level of the relevant fixed penalty. They propose a penalty of £2,000 for failing to comply with an enforcement notice and £300 for failing to comply with a breach of condition notice. Sections 153 and 154 of the 2011 Act provide for a 25% reduction of the amount payable where a fixed penalty is paid within 14 days.

Members may recall that the proposed amounts were part of the phase 2 consultation on planning reform and transfer to local government proposals for subordinate legislation. Overall, there was general support for the introduction of the fixed penalty notices as a discretionary enforcement tool for councils and for the proposed regulations that set out the penalty levels.

I recognise that for more significant breaches of planning control councils may still decide that prosecution through the courts would remain a more appropriate course of action. That will be a matter for an individual council in assessing the nature and scale of a particular breach of planning control and selecting the appropriate enforcement measure available to it. As I have said, the use of fixed penalty notices is discretionary, and councils will therefore exercise judgement as to their use in any particular circumstances.

The levels of £2,000 and £300 mirror exactly the levels applied in relation to similar fixed penalty notices in the planning regime in Scotland. These levels are viewed as being more appropriate for the more minor breaches that might be used by councils in relation to fixed penalty notice powers.

The Environment Committee considered the SL1 for the draft Planning (Amount of Fixed Penalty) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 on 16 April this year and confirmed that it was content for the Department to make the statutory rule.

I believe that the legislation will strengthen councils' enforcement powers by providing an additional, discretionary power as part of their enforcement toolkit. I believe that the system of fixed penalties provides a flexible and cost-effective alternative to court action and will act as a further deterrent to those who might consider flouting our planning legislation. I therefore ask the Assembly to approve the draft regulations.

Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment): Again, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the affirmative statutory rule.

As the Minister said, the Committee first considered the SL1 proposal at its meeting on 19 March, which was followed by an oral briefing from departmental officials on 16 April. The Committee was advised that the rule sets the fixed monetary penalty for an enforcement notice or a breach of condition notice for breaches in planning control.

Members questioned officials about the rationale for the fixed monetary penalty and processes around the administration of enforcement. The Committee heard that the penalty is a mechanism for strengthening enforcement by offering an alternative to court proceedings for minor breaches and can act as a deterrent. The Committee sought clarification that, in circumstances where a notice is served but the breach is not fixed, local councils can take further action if deemed fit. The Committee also heard that bringing enforcement and building control together is a positive step and that councils will be able to adopt a more proactive approach to enforcement. The Committee also explored the rationale behind the provision of a 25% reduction for early payment, which is based on the Scottish model of enforcement to encourage early payment, and which will be kept under review by the Department.

Accordingly, the Committee for the Environment has agreed to recommend that the motion is affirmed by the Assembly.

Mr McElduff: Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire agus le cathaoirleach an Choiste Comhshaoil as an mhíniú. I thank the Minister and the Committee Chair, Anna Lo, for explaining the statutory rule once again and for reminding us that the Committee looked at this earlier in the spring. Most of the issues have been covered in the explanations, but I want to ask the Minister about the incentive for early payment. I think that the figure in the legislation is a 25% reduction. I wonder how that figure was arrived at and whether there is any information based on the Scottish experience of how many people tend to pay early in the process with that reduced figure.

Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Ms Lo and Mr McElduff again for their support and Mr McElduff for his questions. We did look at other jurisdictions, primarily and chiefly Scotland, when arriving at the amount for these fixed penalty notices and indeed for the discount that is available to those who pay early. The experience from Scotland is that this is working. Ideally, we want to be in a situation where people do not pay early or late and do not have to pay these at all because they do not breach planning conditions or enforcement notices. These are very much another tool in the planning enforcement toolkit that is aimed at reducing the number of breaches that we have. It will be primarily up to councils how and when they use them. They do have that discretion.

This is another step in the reform and transfer of planning to councils. Through having this new, wider range of enforcement measures available, including, now, fixed penalty notices, I believe that councils will be in a better position to respond appropriately and proportionally to a breach of planning control.

I thank the Chair and other members of the Committee for their support of this motion.

Mr Storey: I beg to move

These regulations enable claimants of jobseeker's allowance (JSA) or income support (IS) or partners of a claimant in receipt of these benefits or employment and support allowance (ESA) who are new members of the Reserve forces to attend a maximum of 43 days' training in their first year of service without the need to end their entitlement to benefit.

Existing legislation that was implemented in July 2012 allows claimants and/or their partners who are in receipt of JSA or IS, or the partner of a claimant who is in receipt of ESA, to attend the mandatory 15-day annual training camp without losing entitlement. Income-based claimants also retain any passported benefits, such as housing benefit, during this training. They are treated as available for and actively seeking work, if appropriate, for the duration of this training, and their earnings are disregarded, leaving just 10p of benefit in payment. These changes removed the need for them to reclaim benefits after training has come to an end and to retain any passported benefits, such as housing benefit, during this training.

These amendments impact on claimants and/or their partners in receipt of JSA or IS and also ESA claimants' partners who are members of the Reserve forces. This will mean that they can attend a maximum of 43 days' training in future whilst in their first year of service without the need to terminate their claim to benefit. Once claimants and/or their partners have completed their first year of service, they will then be entitled to the annual continuous training concession of 15 days per calendar year to enable them to attend their mandatory annual training camp. By consolidating their first year's training into three or four blocks totalling up to 43 days, unemployed reservists can be trained more swiftly, thus helping to speed up and increase the number of trained reservists over the next few years.

Members of the lifeboat service, Fire and Rescue Service and others engaged in emergency duties for the benefit of others are also required to undertake training throughout the year. However, that usually takes place at evenings or weekends to fit around volunteers' work and other commitments, and, as a result, there is no adverse effect on their benefit claim.

I believe that it is unnecessarily cumbersome and time-consuming for claimants and my Department to terminate awards of benefit and then require new claims to be made when training has ended. These changes are entirely beneficial and will generate less disruption for reservists, who will no longer be required to end their benefit claim and then make a repeat claim when their training has ended.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Stewart Dickson, speaking, I understand, on behalf of the Committee.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am speaking on behalf of the Committee in the absence of the Chair and Deputy Chair for unavoidable reasons.

The Committee for Social Development considered the Department's proposals to make these regulations at its meeting on 12 March 2015, and the resulting statutory rule at its meeting on 16 April 2015. The Committee was supportive of the regulations.

The Committee noted that the regulations will enable claimants of jobseeker's allowance or income support, or partners of a claimant in receipt of those benefits or employment and support allowance, who are new members of the reserve forces, to attend a maximum of 43 days' training in their first year of service without the need to end their entitlement to benefit.

The Committee notes that the rule will reduce the administrative burden and payment delays. Jobseeker's allowance claims will be kept open by treating claimants as available for, and actively seeking, employment for the duration of their training. The Committee notes that the change will move claimants closer towards sustainable employment by allowing them to attend reservist training and encouraging networking within reservist-friendly organisations.

The Committee for Social Development recommends that the statutory rule be approved by the Assembly.

Mr Storey: I thank the representative of the Committee for his comments.

Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development): I beg to move

These regulations amend the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 to allow an extended period of sickness that will enable the claimant to voluntarily remain on jobseeker's allowance (JSA) when they have a short spell of sickness that is expected to last more than two weeks but fewer than 13 weeks or they have exhausted the number of occasions on which they may be treated as capable of work. Claimants will need to provide medical evidence to qualify for the new period of sickness.

This change presents an opportunity for a more proactive jobseeker's allowance regime in helping people to manage health conditions that affect their work capability, whilst allowing them the choice of remaining on JSA and staying in touch with the personalised support available from their adviser, keeping them engaged with the labour market. In practice, if a claimant provides evidence of sickness that is expected to last for more than two weeks, they will be directed to claim employment and support allowance (ESA). In addition, if a claimant has a third period of sickness, however short, during that 12-month period, their JSA award is terminated and they must claim ESA if they have no other source of income.

Being required to claim ESA for short periods can have a number of disadvantages. First, claimants on ESA before the medical assessment — work capability assessment — do not currently have any conditionality requirements and do not generally benefit from the support of advisers as they look for employment.

Secondly, being required to switch benefits for a short period is unnecessarily disruptive to the payment of benefits and can impact the payment of passported benefits, for example housing benefit.

Under the proposed change, claimants with a temporary medical condition and appropriate medical evidence will have the option of voluntarily remaining on JSA for one period of sickness of up to 13 weeks. During this period, the claimant would not be required to take up paid work but would be treated as being capable of work and as meeting availability requirements, as per the existing JSA sickness provisions. Claimants who take up this opportunity can claim ESA at any point, should they wish.

The extended period of sickness will work as follows: it will be a continuous period for up to 13 weeks in a 12-month period and cannot be split into multiple periods; and claimants with a short spell of sickness of two weeks or less can still make use of the existing sickness provisions under regulation 55 of the JSA regulations. Therefore, it would be possible for a claimant to have two short periods of sickness and, separately, an extended period of sickness. Where a claimant starts on two weeks of sickness and that period extends beyond two weeks, they can transfer to the extended period of sickness. However, the initial two-week period will count towards the 13-week maximum.

For the purposes of applying the new sickness provisions to a claimant, the first 12 months in a job-seeking period will start from the first day on which the claimant is unable to work on account of the illness or disablement and, if the job-seeking period exceeds 12 months, in each successive 12-month period. That differs from the existing sickness provisions, in which the first 12 months in the job-seeking period start on the first day of the job-seeking period. It will also make it operationally more complex, but the change is being made to avoid, in most circumstances, a situation in which someone has a period of 13 weeks of sickness at the end of a 12-month period and another 13 weeks at the start of the next 12-month period.

Mr Dickson: I again reply on behalf of the Social Development Committee. The Committee for Social Development considered the Department’s proposal to make the regulations at its meeting on 26 February 2015 and the resulting statutory rule at its meeting on 12 March 2015. The Committee supported the regulations.

The Committee noted that the regulations will amend the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 to allow an extended period of sickness that will enable claimants to remain on JSA when they have a short spell of sickness that is expected to last more than two weeks but fewer than 13 weeks, or they have exhausted the number of occasions on which they may be treated as being capable of work. The Committee further notes that claimants will need to provide medical evidence to qualify for the new period of sickness.

The Committee notes that the change would also have the effect of reducing the administrative burden that results from requiring claimants to switch to another benefit — JSA to ESA — for a short time. Importantly, it will also have the effect of keeping a claimant in touch with the labour market and treating them as still available for work. The Committee notes that advisers will take account of the easements on conditionality that will apply to the claimants during the extended period of sickness. In conclusion, the Committee for Social Development recommends that the statutory rule be approved by the Assembly.

Mr Storey: I thank Mr Dickson for his comments on behalf of the Committee. I also thank the Committee for the work that it has done on the two issues that I brought to the House today.

The change presents an opportunity for a more proactive JSA regime that will help people to manage health conditions that affect their work capability, whilst allowing them the choice of remaining on JSA and staying in touch with the personalised support available from their adviser to enable them to remain engaged with the labour market. It is a welcome change, and I thank the House for its support.

Mrs Foster (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. The motion is agreed.

Mr Speaker: The next two motions relate to the Supply resolutions and, as usual, there will be a single debate on the motions. One amendment has been selected for debate regarding the Supply resolution Main Estimates 2015-16 and is published on the Marshalled List. I shall ask the Clerk to read the first motion, on the Supply resolution for the 2013-14 Excess Votes, and call on the Minister to move it. The debate on both motions and the amendment will then begin. When all who wish to speak have done so, or when the time limit is reached, I shall put the Question on the first motion.

The second motion, the Supply resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2015-16, will then be read into the record, and I will call the Minister to move it. I will then call Mr Allister to move his amendment. The Question will then be put on the amendment, followed by the Question on the second motion.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours for the debate. The Minister will have up to 60 minutes to allocate at her discretion between proposing and making a winding-up speech. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have 10 minutes. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Mrs Foster (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): I beg to move

Mrs Foster: As just set out, the debate covers the Supply resolution and the Excess Votes in respect of the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Supply resolution seeks the Assembly’s approval of the 2015-16 departmental spending plans and that of their associated public bodies, as set out in the Main Estimates. The 2015-16 Main Estimates and the 2013-14 Statement of Excesses were laid in the Assembly on Monday 8 June 2015.

The Supply resolution, therefore, relates to the supply of cash and resources for the remainder of the 2015-16 financial year, as set out in the Main Estimates. A Vote on Account was passed by the Assembly in February, which provided initial legislative cover to ensure the continuation of public services until the Main Estimates could be presented to the Assembly for approval. This resolution, and the Budget Bill that I will introduce tomorrow, now request the balance to complete the total 2015-16 cash and resource requirements for the Departments and other public bodies. This balance amounts to over £8·3 billion of cash and over £9 billion of resources. These requirements have their origins in the Executive’s 2015-16 Budget, which was approved by the Assembly earlier this year. It also reflects the demand-led annually managed expenditure (AME) required by our Departments to deliver public services and to pay benefits and pensions.

As Members will be aware, the context of the Budget Bill is far from business as usual. We find ourselves in the position where the Executive’s 2015-16 Budget was predicated on agreement to implement welfare reform and the Budget flexibilities secured as part of the Stormont House Agreement. The ongoing uncertainty around welfare reform and the wider Stormont House Agreement is clearly putting the Executive’s Budget in jeopardy. I must, therefore, stress that the Main Estimates and the associated Budget Bill are recommended to the Assembly on the assumption that welfare reform is agreed and that the Stormont House Agreement stands.

It is incumbent on all members of the Executive to ensure that we find a way forward on those difficult issues. On behalf of the Executive, and on the basis that welfare reform will be implemented, I request and recommend the levels of Supply set out in the motion under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

As is the norm, accelerated passage is required for the legislation. Indeed, there is a provision for that specific instance in the Assembly's Standing Orders. Owing to the unusual circumstances surrounding this year's Budget (No. 2) Bill, the Committee for Finance and Personnel has not yet been able to grant accelerated passage. I will attend the Committee this Wednesday, 17 June, to seek agreement to accelerated passage, and I hope that the Committee will be in a position to agree the request immediately after that briefing. I will, of course, update the House on the position at Second Stage, which is scheduled for next week. For now, I stress to members of the Finance and Personnel Committee and, in particular, the Committee Chair the critical importance of granting accelerated passage. I hope that the Committee will approach the briefing on Wednesday with that in mind.

I am sure that Members are aware that today's debate is time-limited. I therefore encourage Members to use their limited time to focus on the issues specifically related to the 2015-16 Supply resolution before us. The public-expenditure context facing the Assembly is an extremely difficult one. In their 2015-16 Budget, the Executive had to impose real-terms resource reductions on most Departments. With financial pressures mounting across a range of public services, that has led to difficult decisions across the board. Ministers have had to take decisions about what services to deliver, what services to reduce and, indeed, what activities to cease altogether.

I knew about the financial challenges facing the Northern Ireland Departments when I recently took up this post, and I am fully aware that that does not make my job any easier. Clearly, I would much rather have presided over a Budget in which there were plenty of resources to go around and in which the Executive would have the luxury of deciding what new services to introduce rather than what services to cut. However, we are in an environment of increasingly scarce resources. I am afraid that the immediate public-expenditure outlook is not a positive one.

The latest Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projections for the United Kingdom as a whole suggest that further resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) reductions are to come in the next few years. In fact, the latest projections suggest that the UK resource DEL will reduce by some 9% in cash terms between now and the 2018-19 financial year. That having been said, the outlook for capital DEL is much more positive, with a projected increase at a UK level of 20% in cash terms over the same period.

As Members will be aware, the Chancellor, George Osborne, has announced that he will present a new UK Budget to Parliament on 8 July. It will set out the immediate Budget changes to be implemented by David Cameron's new Government. We have already had some insight into the direction of travel for the new United Kingdom Government for budget controls in last week's announcement of Whitehall in-year baseline reductions for many Departments. The outworkings of that through the Barnett formula have already had a negative impact on the Northern Ireland block.

Regarding longer-term spending plans, I anticipate that the UK Government will publish their spending review in the autumn, setting out their Budget plans for the period beyond this financial year. Whilst the outcome is uncertain, I expect the general direction of travel to reflect the latest Office for Budget Responsibility projections that I have just outlined.

The budgetary context that we find ourselves in means that we must take difficult decisions, minimise waste, promote the efficient delivery of public services and seek to protect front-line services. The spending priorities agreed by the Executive in the 2015-16 Budget will allow us to do just that. In that context, we cannot delay a decision on implementing welfare reform. The Executive and the Assembly must now move forward on the issue as quickly as possible to ensure that all elements of the Stormont House Agreement can remain in place.

I will say a few words about the second motion before the House today, which concerns two Excess Votes for the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I confirm that the Public Accounts Committee has considered those Excess Votes and recommended that the Assembly grant its approval. I am anxious that both Departments ensure that the circumstances leading to the breaches are not repeated, and I note that steps have been taken in both cases to ensure that the risk of a repeat is now minimised.

Before I conclude my opening speech, I will address the amendment put forward by the Member for North Antrim. It calls for a £604 million reduction to the proposed amounts of cash and resources as set out in the Main Estimates. The Member is trying to use the Main Estimates debate to reopen the final Budget position that was agreed by the Executive. In doing so, he is demonstrating a lack of understanding of our budgeting framework and financial process. The Supply resolution on the Main Estimates cannot be used to propose changes to the Budget position. Only the Executive can agree budget allocations, based on recommendations put forward by me as Finance Minister. The Executive have now agreed their 2015-16 Budget. That was voted through the Assembly in January this year. That Budget stands and is reflected in the Main Estimates here today.

I look forward to debating the Budget Bill and, indeed, the Main Estimates. I request the support of Members to approve further Supply to enable vital public services to continue beyond the current provision in the Vote on Account.

Mr Allister: I have two little grandsons aged four and two. Very occasionally, they come to overnight with us when their parents have to be away. When that happens, the four-year-old will bounce into the house with his little suitcase and say, "I'm here on a pretend holiday." It is quite funny from a four-year-old. There is nothing funny about a Finance Minister coming to the House and putting before us a pretend Budget and pretend Estimates; pretending that she has and will have all the money anticipated in the 2015-16 Budget Bill; pretending that we have not had the reneging on welfare reform; pretending that we do not have a £604 million black hole in our budgetary arrangements; and pretending that we can simply carry on as if none of that had ever happened.

Of course, in doing that, the Minister herself is performing a considerable U-turn, because, during the welfare reform debate back at the end of May and in many public media interviews at that time, she identified the £604 million black hole in the Budget that had resulted. She told the House:

Yet the Budget that she will bring tomorrow and upon which these Estimates are based is precisely that: a Budget with a £604 million black hole.

One of the main functions of the Assembly is financial management. The Minister suggested that I was misguided in my amendment. I refer the Minister to her own Department's guidance manual on Supply Estimates in Northern Ireland. I need go no further than the second paragraph of the foreword, where it says:

The exercise in which we are engaged is fundamental to the budgetary arrangements that prevail. Who is to say that this House has not got the sovereign right to amend the Estimates? Of course it has. It is this House and this House alone that can give the imprimatur of approval to the Estimates and the spending plans, so this House is well within its powers in considering that.

Mr Speaker, the reality is that we are being asked to set a Budget, which, as the Minister knows, is not balanced, and which, as the Minister knows, will hit the buffers. If the House and the Executive cannot set a balanced Budget, the Executive cannot govern. That is what it comes down to. Of course, all of this scenario is a product of the failure of the system of government. The crisis that the Minister alludes to is the product of that. In mandatory coalition, parties have vetoes, which Sinn Féin recklessly exercises. It can blow hot and cold, as it has on welfare reform, and hole the budgetary process below the waterline, as it so cavalierly has done. The fact that that can happen is a product of the failure of the system of government. Today is an attempt to ignore that and an attempt to prop that up at the expense of all credibility.

This exercise makes the Assembly and the Executive an even greater laughing stock than it is already. We are going to pass Estimates even though we know the money is not there. We know there is a £604 million black hole, but we are going to pretend that all is well. It has been well labelled a fantasy Budget — a phantom Budget. When a parliamentary Assembly gets to the point of debating and approving fantasy financial arrangements, it fast loses any remaining shred of credibility. That is where we are.

It also, of course, is folly to totally abandon any sense of financial probity. Yes, these Estimates add up, but they add up to a phantom figure. In that sense, they are an escapade in false accounting, because the Minister knows — we all know — that whatever they say, there is a £604 billion black hole.

I was thinking about what a Sinn Féin Minister would do, if we had one — perish the thought. He or she would probably do pretty much what the Minister is going to do. They would pretend that there was money there that was not there. I would not expect anything better from Sinn Féin in that regard. I would not expect them, on their performance, to have any regard to financial probity. I would not be at all surprised that they would want to spend money that they do not have. They would probably produce a fantasy Budget as well. Of course, in the producing of this fantasy Budget, the Minister is buying time for the Sinn Féin shenanigans on the budgetary front in the hope against hope that something will turn up.

What will happen further down the road? That is a question I would like the Minister to address in her reply. She has set out this fantasy Budget, which is £604 million, in her terms, short. If nothing changes, what happens? What happens when she gets to the spring Supplementary Estimates? What happens when she gets to the Budget Bill, next year? It is quite clear from the guidance that she cannot amend these Estimates without the consent of the Executive. Para 1·8 of her guidance manual states that any significant changes to the Supply Estimates, in terms of content, must be cleared by DFP with the Executive.

So, we are hurtling down the road, spending money we do not have, and we reach the point where, effectively, the money has run out. The Minister wants to revise the Estimates to save the situation and to make budgetary changes to reconcile and remedy the situation. What does she think is going to happen? Does she think that Sinn Féin is simply going to say, "Yes, that's all right. Suddenly, we've had a conversion on financial probity".

Mrs Foster: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Yes.

Mrs Foster: Has the Member not just made the argument for why his amendment should not succeed, when he made reference to the fact that it is only the Executive that can change the Supply resolution?

Mr Allister: I am sorry. When she reflects on what she has said, the Minister may regret that she made that intervention, because the wording of para 1.8 of the manual is:

The Supply Estimates have not yet been made. Any changes after today, after the Assembly approves them, to the Supply Estimates — which are what we are talking about today and which will come with a vote of approval for them — any changes thereafter can only be made with the Executive's approval, but we are not at that point. We are now embarking on the journey to take ourselves to that point. We take ourselves to the folly of holding ourselves ransom to Sinn Féin saying: "We are quite happy to spend money that we do not have. We block you from making any changes to these Estimates." That is tough, as far as they are concerned.

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

Mr Allister: The purpose of this amendment is to show what a balanced Budget would look like in the context of the folly of negating welfare reform. The House should be facing up to that folly, rather than pandering to, and practising, the economics of fantasy.

Mr McKay (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister and senior DFP officials are due to brief the Committee for Finance and Personnel at its meeting this Wednesday in relation to the Main Estimates and the associated Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Committee, in its scrutiny function, has an important role in deciding whether to grant accelerated passage to Budget Bills under the power in Standing Order 42.2. Importantly, that is on the basis that:

I thank the Minister for agreeing to come before the Committee to answer any questions that it may have at this week's meeting.

The Committee will consider whether it is satisfied in that regard, and I will write to the Speaker on the outcome of its deliberations. Normally, the Committee would have received an oral briefing from DFP on the Estimates and Budget Bill before the Supply resolution debate. That did not occur; nonetheless, given that the Estimates and Bill reflect the Executive's agreed Budget for 2015-16, I can confirm that there was significant engagement between the Committee and DFP on both the draft and final Budgets.

On voluntary exit schemes, the Committee heard from the head of the Civil Service and other senior officials on the overall position across the wider public sector. According to the previous Minister, the schemes will realise estimated annual pay bill savings of £500 million per annum by 2018-19 across the public sector. The Committee has also been advised that the Civil Service pay bill reduction for the second half of this financial year is estimated at £26 million and that the anticipated savings figure for the wider public sector is £70 million. However, the Committee has not received confirmation of the precise figure for projected pay bill savings, which has been included within departmental baselines for this financial year, including the breakdown across Departments and other public bodies, and perhaps that is something that the Minister can provide in closing today's debate.

Two further points on the schemes require clarification. Given the savings opportunity offered by the voluntary exit schemes in the face of the current difficulties over further budgetary reductions, the Committee questioned officials at last week's session to establish the scope for decoupling the borrowing power or finding other flexibility to progress the schemes and achieve the projected pay bill reductions in the current financial year. For some months now, we have been seeking a briefing from DFP on the outcome of the validation study of welfare reform costs, which was commissioned last autumn by the previous Minister. That is a significant delay which has been on the Committee's books for some time, and it is a further issue on which it would be helpful to receive clarification.

It would also be helpful to receive clarity, at this stage, on the further budgetary reductions resulting from the Chancellor's recent announcement of £3 billion in reduced spending with the prospect of additional in-year austerity measures by the Conservative Government in the coming weeks. The figure of £38 million has been referred to, and the implications of that and what is down the line are very worrying indeed.

Given the risks around unresolved issues, the Committee invited the Minister to attend last week's meeting to discuss scenarios that could arise if no progress is made, and what the available options might be. While the Minister did not take up that particular invitation, the Committee received independent legal advice from the Assembly's Legal Services on the concern around whether Departments would have the power to use accruing resources in the event of the Budget (No. 2) Bill not being agreed by the end of July. That detailed and robust advice — the gist of which was shared with the Minister — set out a logical and lawful way forward in that scenario, given the Department's powers of direction. While the Minister has responded with a contrary legal view, focusing more on the setting of limits, I believe the clarification that the Committee has obtained could be a helpful contribution for all concerned, should such circumstances arise in the future.

Today’s Estimates, and the related Bill, present a further scenario in anticipating the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement. I therefore look forward to receiving further information and clarity on the issues I have highlighted ahead of the Committee’s decision regarding accelerated passage on Wednesday. Given that the Committee will not receive a briefing from the Department about the Supply resolution for the Excess Votes 2013-14 until Wednesday, I am not in a position to reflect a Committee position on that today.

To give a party view on the motion before us today, it is quite clear that there is potentially — indeed there has already been — wave after wave of cuts from London, from an economically incompetent Government blinded by ideology. The crisis, referred to earlier by the proposer of the amendment, does not come from here, but from London and the budgets that have been foisted on us from there. Those financial decisions are ideologically led and, increasingly, economists in Britain are finding it quite difficult to live with the basic economics of them.

As MLAs, we have to ask ourselves whether we are here to stand up for people, local communities and local businesses, or to act as puppets for a Tory Administration who cut budgets so deep that the Executive cannot effectively function. On Friday, 77 of the best-known academic economists outlined huge concern at the British Chancellor, George Osborne's, new budget surplus law proposal. It ignores basic economics and shifts debt to households, consumers and businesses. The risk of a personal debt crisis to rival 2008 is very real indeed.

The Scottish Finance Minister, John Swinney, has blasted cuts to this year's Budget as being completely and utterly unacceptable. The Scottish Parliament has already agreed its Budget. The Welsh Finance Minister also attacked George Osborne for his £50 million cut to their in-year Budget. We need a similar position from the Finance Minister and Executive here. We need a robust position and a defence of our Executive and our planning in relation to the economy, not only for a number of months ahead into the financial year, but for the next four to five years. The British Government make these decisions with little reference to the devolved Administrations. Scotland did not vote for the Tories; Wales did not vote for the Tories; and the North most certainly did not vote for the Tories. Those three jurisdictions most certainly did not vote for the economic policies that are being shoved down our throats year after year.

There is no doubt that there are huge challenges ahead, and I believe that we need to act collectively and to stand shoulder to shoulder with Wales and Scotland, who find themselves in a similar position. All of the Governments concerned — in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh — are being increasingly undermined by a London Administration who ignore the fact that none of those Administrations are interested in the economic ideology being pursued by the Tory Government. Of course, London was in economic crisis four to five years ago. At this point, it was supposed to be out of it, but it is not, so it is quite clear that those economic policies have failed and need to be challenged by all the parties in this Executive.

We do not need a softly-softly approach from some parties in the Assembly. I believe that, if we adopt a collective voice with Scotland and Wales, the Tories will be forced to sit up and take notice. The situation that we are in at the moment is untenable and unsustainable. As locally elected politicians, we have to act in our people's best interests, and that is not about bending the knee to a Tory Administration.

Mr Girvan: I will speak in favour of the Minister's motion. I will deal with the Excess Votes at the outset. One area that we had a concern about was that the cause of the Department of Education's Excess Vote was arm's-length bodies. There is a major concern about accountability in some arm's-length bodies and how they deal with it. As a consequence, they overspend. That came out in the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report, and we, as a Government, have to look at it and ensure that we are making those arm's-length bodies totally accountable for every penny that they spend.

The motion is to do with a Budget that we agreed on 27 January this year, albeit one that was very much predicated on the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement and all its outworkings. As a consequence of its non-implementation up to now, there is a potential cost and a loss to our block grant over time, but my ambition is not necessarily to roll over and say that we have not won that war. We intend to fight and continue to see what we can bring back as opposed to saying, "Let us rule out all the moneys that there would have been as a result of the Stormont House Agreement". The figure of £604 million has been mentioned. I appreciate that there are costs associated up to now.

The voluntary exit scheme was one of the programmes put forward, and the savings that it could deliver are on hold until such times as we move forward with those who believe that our paymaster, the United Kingdom Government, will act. We are part of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have to accept the democracy that spoke to set up the Conservative Government. I appreciate that the Chancellor and the Government will put forward their spending plans in the autumn, but that will really reflect upon years further forward.

I will deal with our Supply resolution and the spend that we have for our Supply. We have to work with the Budget that we agreed on 27 January, albeit knowing that there could well be adjustments to it in-year and being aware of the outworkings of it, but the longer we delay in bringing forward —

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Girvan: I will, yes.

Mr Allister: Can the Member, from his experience, explain to the House how, if matters unfold with a continuing deadlock and the £604 million gap becomes a very overt reality, the matter will be rectified? How do you then alter the spending authority of the Estimates or the Budget without the consent of the recalcitrants who have put you in that position in the first place?

Mr Speaker: Given the extent of that intervention, I want to make it clear that, as Members have 10 minutes to contribute, there is no extra time. So, if you are taking interventions in future, remember that.

Mr Girvan: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I appreciate that that leaves us in a very difficult position, but, as the Minister stated, should we not get implementation of the way forward, we cannot continue to move forward when we cannot balance our books at the end of the year, and that is where the difficulty arises. Ultimately, it is vital to push forward and continue the work to try to get a resolution, but the longer we leave it, the more in-year cuts we will have to make to balance the books, and that is a difficulty.

We have been very successful in ensuring that we held down our regional rate. Northern Ireland has held its regional rate for the last number of years and has just had an inflationary rise over that period to such an extent that we have a 1·4% rise in the current year — other regions of the United Kingdom have worked out at an average of 1·9% — and that has been a great help. The implementation of the small business rate relief scheme has also been a great help and ensured that almost 50% of businesses in Northern Ireland were able to avail themselves of some form of rate relief. That message was given to us as elected representatives, and we have had to take that on board.

We have to cut our cloth according to the amount that we are given, and it is vital that we do so. For the Estimates, we have a cash sum of £8·3 billion and a resource of just over £9 billion, and we will have to work within that amount for the forthcoming year. We have some difficulty in trying to ensure that the economics of the whole issue are brought forward. Mention was made of what the Scottish Executive have done and how they have agreed a Budget, albeit a Budget that has not taken a major hit for the non-implementation of welfare reform. We have concerns about many aspects of welfare reform, but, ultimately, they are not taking that hit.
Those who say that they are here to protect the most vulnerable in our community are removing money from vital budgets that would deliver health and education throughout our Province. A very interesting piece of graffiti appeared on a wall in west Belfast: "We don't want the IRA, we just want our DLA". That is quite interesting, and some of these people come up with wonderful ideas. The graffiti did not appear to stay very long, but that is the sort of thing that some people have been putting forward. That says more about what is going on here than anything else, because it is important that the most vulnerable are protected.

At the end of the day, everybody is suffering as a consequence of the non-implementation of the Stormont House Agreement, and it is vital that we get the work done. We are not rolling over and saying that we will just accept those hits. We will fight to try to ensure that we can move forward, balance our Budget and deliver for Northern Ireland.

Mr McKinney: I am sorry that I was not in for the Minister's opening remarks. I apologise that my colleague Dominic Bradley MLA, our finance spokesman, is unable to attend today.

During the last debate on the Supply resolution, Dominic Bradley reflected on how we were in a challenging financial situation, and the position has not got any better, of course; it has got worse. The SDLP has a long-standing view on the 2015 Budget, a Budget that is backed by parties here, including Sinn Féin, which called it the best deal possible. However, my colleagues and I recognise that this Budget was not a great deal and further realised that, if a Conservative Government were elected, it would mean further cuts. I recognise that many people did not expect a majority Conservative Government after the election, so we may have been blindsided — I think that we have — by the prospect of in-year cuts.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel said that Mr Osborne announced that a further £38 million of cuts could be made to the 2015-16 Budget. I welcome some comment from the Minister on whether there are flexibilities around that. However, it seems that we have no choice but to wait with bated breath until 8 July. Also, we will be opposing Mr Allister's amendment.

We have been, and continue to be, extremely concerned by the budgetary pressure faced by the Northern Ireland Executive and the impact on front-line services. The Budget settlement is, without doubt, the most severe that Northern Ireland has faced in recent times, and the prospect of more in-year cuts would further affect departmental allocations. Frankly, it is not the way to stimulate an economy.

As Mr Girvan said, we welcome the Supply resolution for the Excess Vote, which provides further funding for Education and Health. Every Department has severe budget restraints, but I welcome the money that is being provided to those two vital Departments. It is in this context, as SDLP health spokesperson, that the remainder of my contribution will focus on health spend.

In that regard, today's debate is an important one. It is essential to recognise the job of the health service here. It serves two million people and costs almost £5 billion a year. It is vital, therefore, that every pound is spent productively; but today's subject is around the money and, in the health service context, how we are delivering for the money that we have or do not have.

We all know that the narrative we are facing at the moment is that we are facing ever-increasing waiting times; issues with hospital deaths and non-reporting A&E crises; incomprehensible breaches in 12-hour and four-hour targets; we are paying twice because of operations brought in through another system; our health staff are increasingly under significant stress and pressure; cancer drugs are being denied to our most vulnerable; and the service is witnessing massive wastage with bank and agency staff spend, among others. The public rightly have a genuine concern for how the system is being run.

The SDLP has indicated these failures in the health service time and again, and it is clearly very much in the public mind; but, remember, our current health financial situation has not yet been impacted on by welfare reform. It is brought into the argument all the time, but an important point to remember is that Health was protected in this year's Budget and was given an additional £204 million to protect front-line health services; but that has not stopped our series of Health Ministers seeking to hide behind the welfare issue.

The service here employs almost 55,000 people, who are dedicated professional staff working to the highest standards; but it is concerning to see the ongoing pressures suffered by staff on the front line and the numerous escalation measures in crisis management protocols that have been instigated. These are clear symptoms of the problem; they are not the cause. I think that the cause lies in policy and strategic direction.

We all know about the major change agenda in the system called Transforming Your Care (TYC). That represents, in essence, a number of things: first, a consensus about what is wrong with the system, and, secondly, a plan about how to deal with it. The SDLP has had suspicions about a privatisation agenda, but few have disagreed with the concept of taking care closer to the home and that that was the way to go. The plan was to shift healthcare provision from centralised institutions and into the community. If it was about anything, it was about the future strategic direction of health provision here. It was meant to be a three-year to five-year plan. It was anticipated that it would cost over £70 million and that we would see a stabilisation of health spend by now because, remember, that was in 2011, and we would see savings of £50 million per annum. If we had implemented it, we would not be in the state we are in today. That was the TYC business case endorsed by the Executive.

In light of the recent monumental healthcare failures and financial crises, we have to ask ourselves whether the health service is reforming for the better and whether the plan is still valid. As I said, that was four years ago. We would have had reasonable expectation of progress; but the SDLP has been asking questions about the plan, its budget, implementation, measurement and targets. In the end, we have a patchwork of targets, with trusts making decisions in silos, cutting community services, creating health inequalities, and with no central strategic plan.

As you know, during the tail end of last year, the five health and social care (HSC) trusts made a number of supposedly temporary service cuts as a result of financial crisis. We would like to know whether those are still temporary or not.

However, these cuts will be further compounded in this financial year, especially if the leaked commissioning plans published by the 'Irish News' are anything to go by.

Financial crisis or not, these cuts are completely counter-strategic to the TYC plan and do nothing but increase pressure on the system and negatively impact on the care that patients receive. It is the SDLP that has been saying that, and it has become increasingly clear that more people are beginning to accept the narrative, none more so than the recent Liam Donaldson review, the Audit Office's general report and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's report into health and social care. Remember, we have asked some very basic questions over the last two years. Where was the plan? What were the targets? How were they being implemented? We have had two years of obfuscation, and now we are hearing something different. Now, the plan is not so much about a plan —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr McKinney: I am going to take the Speaker's advice, Mr Wilson, because there is no extra minute for giving way.

Now, the plan is not so much a plan: according to some departmental officials, it is a "philosophy"; according to the Health Minister, it is about the "principles" of TYC; according to the new Health Board chief, TYC was in the "context" of 2011. The context of 2011 has increased in 2015. You can see where they are going here. Is the plan still a plan? In that context we should all be worried that the concept of measurable change has been diluted and that millions of pounds have already been spent with questionable noticeable change.

I have already, in the midst of the headlines around that issue, approached the Audit Office to investigate TYC. I am deeply worried that what we are hearing now is an attempt to throw a smokescreen around a failed plan. We have heard the Minister talk a lot about reform since taking his post. He says that he wants a world-class health service and that he wants health staff to embrace reform to tackle resistance to change. I am sorry that that is where the Minister finds himself: appealing to staff for change.

The TYC document made one very important point at its core. It said that failing to plan for the future would lead to unplanned and haphazard change that would not be in the best interests of patients. That is exactly what we have been seeing. We have also heard Simon Hamilton say that he has established a regional leadership group to drive transformational change, but he had all that in the plan: he had a consensus ahead of the plan, which developed into the targets that were never implemented. He had a plan, but he is rapidly turning into a man with no plan. In light of that, the Minister must re-evaluate the Transforming Your Care model so that the system does not further deteriorate and staff are not placed under further pressure. I will accept an intervention at this point.

Mr Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way. He talks about vagueness and there being no plan etc. What is the SDLP's plan for the issue before us: how we ensure that there are sufficient resources to keep on the business of government in the Health Department and in all other Departments for the rest of the year?

Mr McKinney: In the context of what I have been saying, we want money spent properly; we want a proper Budget. We said from the outset in 2011 that there were insufficient funds. We need to see proper funding for government here.

Mr Cree: I am pleased to speak to the House on the Supply resolution. However, the situation is quite different from those in the past. We are not aware of the 2014-15 provision out-turn and therefore have no idea of the departmental budget management performance during the last financial year. We do not know the amount of the resources that the Executive can carry forward through the Budget exchange scheme, and we have not yet had sight of the June monitoring round and its outworkings. Has any money been returned to the Treasury, and has our financial transaction capital budget been fully expended? What is the situation with respect to moneys in the centre? Have all the Barnett consequentials been received and have all welfare penalties been paid?

This time last year, I once again asked the then Minister for an update on the progress — I was being optimistic — of the review of the financial process, because that matter had been stalled since 2012. He very kindly did so and undertook to have further discussions with the Minister of Education, with a view to delivering a significant positive reform of the direct rule inherited publications and financial processes. I would like to know what the current situation is.

We all know that the elephant in the room is the failure of Sinn Féin to honour the agreement that it made at Stormont House last year. Welfare reform and its cost have not been agreed, and that is a major unknown. The Estimates need to take that significant fact into account.

The Stormont House Agreement included provision for £50 million of additional capital DEL for education. At this time, it cannot be included in the Budget because of the disagreement. The voluntary exit scheme is dependent on £700 million of borrowing from the reinvestment and reform initiative. It is also part of the Stormont House Agreement. In the absence of agreement, the money is simply not there, and £200 million of it has been anticipated for the current year. Thirty million pounds is planned to deal with the past, £100 million to repay the loan from the United Kingdom reserve, £114 million for welfare penalties and a further £100 million to cover extra capital projects. That equates to a black hole of some £600 million. How then can we possibly approve a Budget that does not stack up? Mr Allister's amendment attempts to address that issue.

We all recognise the tight fiscal framework. This year's resource budget has been reduced by 1·6% in real terms. I am sorry to say that the future does not look any better. The Minister referred to that. The Office for Budget Responsibility projections suggest that Northern Ireland could see its resource DEL being cut back by 13% in real terms by 2020.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Cree: Are you itching to go?

Mr Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way. He indicated that he believes that the amendment from Mr Allister addresses the problem, but, first, the amendment does not state where the £600 million comes off, so we are voting in the dark on that one. Secondly, the pressure on those whom the Member has quite rightly condemned for not implementing the Stormont House Agreement would be lifted if we were to remove the £600 million from the Budget.

Mr Cree: I agree with the Member —

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Cree: I will certainly. I agree with the second point that the former Minister makes, but Mr Allister is better equipped to answer the first one.

Mr Allister: Maybe the Member will suggest to Mr Wilson that he read the last five or six lines of the amendment to see where it is coming off of necessity. On the point about keeping on the pressure, surely the Minister's approach is to take the pressure off Sinn Féin and merely kick the can down the road.

Mr Cree: Thank you for that. I will go back to where I was at.

The days of handouts are over, and we have to manage devolution and move the Assembly forward. In January of this year, the former Minister of Finance and Personnel announced his intention to create a Northern Ireland investment fund. Its purpose was to lever additional finance to be used for investment in infrastructure. Some £40·9 million was forecast to be in the fund this year. Perhaps Minister Foster will update Members on the current situation with the fund. On the subject of funds, it was also announced that a social innovation fund would be created to provide specific groups with access to loan financing. Again, an update from the Minister would be appreciated.

In January, the former Minister, in addressing his final Budget, chided those of us who did not support the Budget. He said that although the Budget was:

It is certainly a lot tougher now with a £600 million shortfall. The Estimates and the resultant Budget are not now sustainable, thanks to Sinn Féin, assisted by the SDLP. This is now make-your-mind-up time for the Assembly. We need to move forward and demonstrate to the Northern Ireland public that the Assembly is capable of delivering. We are currently haemorrhaging £2 million a week because of the lack of welfare reform. I hope that today will prove that, in political terms, we can turn the corner for the betterment of all in Northern Ireland.

Mr Attwood: Will the Member give way?

Mr Cree: You are just in time.

Mr Attwood: I anticipated your speech coming to an end. Do the Member and his party agree or not agree that, on the face of it, the British Government are in breach of the Stormont House Agreement, in that, last week, they announced £38 million of cuts to the 2015-16 Budget, when Stormont House says — the Minister may wish to respond to this in due course — that the Budget that the DUP and Sinn Féin brought forward was "a final ... budget"? Does your party agree or not agree that a final Budget, which the British Government said had to be presented to the House, was then unpicked by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer last week when "final" became final less £38 million?

Mr Cree: The Member raises a very interesting point, but there is a lot more to it than that. In fact, we really have to say focused on the issue today. The issue today is that a Budget has been presented, but it does not stack up because of the failure of the Stormont House Agreement and the parties that have changed their minds about it. That is it.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Cree: Go ahead. Yes.

Mr Speaker: The Member is finished. I call Mrs Judith Cochrane.

Mr Cree: I will give way to the Member if he wants to say sorry — [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: That was a very interesting contribution and cocktail of interventions. Mrs Judith Cochrane.

Mrs Cochrane: I will give way to Mr Wilson if he wants. [Laughter.]

Mr Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not even know what she was going to say. Would she agree with me that, regardless of how the SDLP tries to wriggle out of the embarrassment that it clearly finds itself in, having put public services in jeopardy, the final Budget referred to in the Stormont House Agreement was for 2014-15? Of course, we are now into a new financial year. Had it acted, we would have had the final Budget through and Departments would have had surety about the money that they would have available for this year.

Mrs Cochrane: I concur with the Member.

Mr Attwood: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cochrane: No, I will not give way, thank you. I want to move on.

I support the motion, albeit with a degree of reluctance.

Mr Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you review the comments just made by Mr Wilson? He referred to the final Budget in Stormont House as the 2014-15 Budget, when everybody knows that it is the 2015-16 Budget.

Mr Wilson: Sorry.

Mr Speaker: I accept his apology from a sedentary position. I am really looking forward to hearing what Mrs Cochrane has to tell us.

Mrs Cochrane: I knew that Mr Wilson was referring to 2015-16.

I call on the House to show responsibility today by passing the Supply resolution and the Budget legislation to begin the process of recovering financial sustainability. At this moment in time, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly collectively are acting in an irresponsible and irrational manner, and it is easy to understand why many people are cynical and frustrated with us all and their support for devolution is being tested. At present, there is no clear financial framework in place. No financial decisions are being taken to ensure that the Northern Ireland Government remain in budget, and the absence of delivery on welfare reform brings considerable financial consequences and risks the Stormont House Agreement, including the financial assistance opportunities for progressing a shared future, dealing with the past and rebalancing the economy.

It is clear that proceeding with the Supply resolution and the remaining Budget legislation is the least irresponsible option before us. I say that even though Alliance opposed the current Budget at the Executive in January. We did that because we believed it was not sufficiently strategic and because some difficult yet necessary reforms were not being pursued. We subsequently supported, however, the Supply resolution in February to give the Departments the legal authority to begin to spend in the new financial year. I suppose you could say that we opposed the Executive policy on the Budget, but, as the decisions had been taken democratically, we then faced up to our responsibility in government and supported the mechanisms to turn the previous policy decision into reality. We are now in June, and the second Supply resolution and Budget (No. 2) Bill need to be passed to put in place the remainder of the Supply decisions and legal spending power. Without that, we will be subject to even greater pressures.

Our central objective must be to do whatever we can to reduce the scale of cuts to public services and to the various levers for economic development. The consequences of not passing the legislation are a complete financial vacuum, no decisions on the way forward, financial uncertainty and likelihood of very severe cuts to follow. Avoiding or minimising that eventuality is of primary importance.

I believe that Mr Allister's amendment could actually stop any process that accepts the implementation of welfare reform, the Stormont House Agreement or any unilateral action by the UK Government to continue with other aspects of the Stormont House Agreement, so Alliance will oppose the amendment.

Of course, passing the Supply resolution does not in itself change any of the underlying financial and political challenges, but it will at the very least provide some space and opportunity where agreement can be found on implementing welfare reform, delivering the Stormont House Agreement and working towards balancing our books. This is now the time for all MLAs to show maturity and responsibility, to rise above narrow party politics and to show a willingness to confront difficult challenges.

Actions in recent weeks by the nationalist parties and the Greens are making Northern Ireland ungovernable and threatening the survival of the institutions. Indeed, it was quite ironic to hear a Sinn Féin MLA talk earlier about others as being "blinded by ideology". Those who oppose the Supply resolution and Budget Bill are, in effect, voting for bigger cuts, and I have yet to hear a credible alternative. I have heard talk of a fantasy Budget, but I think that the bigger issue is the fantasy economics from some Members of the House. The fact is that Northern Ireland is in a major hole. I therefore urge all Members today to be part of a solution and vote for the motion, so that we can continue to work towards a resolution and recover financial sustainability.

Mr Clarke (The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate in my capacity as Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. I thank my colleague the Minister of Finance for bringing the motion to the House today. I note that the role of the Estimates is set out the detailed spending plans for the Northern Ireland Departments. I welcome the detail, as it is proving more and more difficult — as we debated last week — to get that level of detail from the Department for Regional Development.

I acknowledge that this financial year is going to be a difficult one for the Department for Regional Development and, indeed, for all Executive Departments, as the austerity measures coming from Westminster make themselves even more known to us. However, it is therefore imperative that the Department manages those budgets effectively in order to achieve its aim; namely, improving the quality of life for everyone in Northern Ireland through the provision, maintenance and enhancement of a range of essential infrastructure services. That role will, in the coming months, also be enhanced to ensure that the Department continues to shape Northern Ireland's long-term strategic development.

The resources being committed today are not insignificant: table 1·3 (a) and (b) of the Estimates, as referred to in the motion, shows sums of just under £306 million for resources and £414 million in cash. That represents approximately 45% of the total resource requirement and 50% of the net cash requirement. As I said, those are not insignificant totals; totals that may be supported through in-year monitoring rounds. It is worth noting that, whilst the Department continues to bemoan the reductions to its budgets and bandies about figures of 15% reductions, that provision is only 1·04% lower than the final net provision for 2014-15.

It is imperative that the Department for Regional Development manages these totals in a prudent yet imaginative fashion. It is encouraging, for example, to see allocations in respect of the EU INTERREG programme, because the Committee has for a long time encouraged the Department to make best use of the funding available through that and other EU programmes, such as the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). I commend the Department for being very successful in acquiring funding through those programmes. Equally, I commend the Executive and the Minister of Finance for providing the match funding for those allocations. It would be remiss of me if I did not commend the Committee for the work that it does in encouraging departmental applications for funding and, indeed, as it has done in the past and will continue to do, negotiating and supporting those applications directly in the European Parliament and the EU Commission.

Last week, we had the opportunity to debate in the House, and indeed at the Committee, the impact of the current departmental budget allocations. We were critical of the Department's over-reliance on the in-year monitoring, and, subsequently, the Committee agreed to write to the Minister of Finance to ask whether a balance can be achieved between establishing appropriate baseline allocations and in-year monitoring bids.

During the plenary debates and in Committee last week, a great deal of attention focused on the lack of investment in roads and water infrastructure. It is worth noting, therefore, that the net total DEL is significantly higher in these two areas. The Committee would therefore expect the Department to put these to the best and most effective use to delay or defer adding to the roads structural backlog and the risk of infraction proceedings, particularly in respect of the Ballycastle waste water treatment works.

Of course, a large proportion of the allocation to Northern Ireland Water is in respect of the Executive's Programme for Government commitment to ensure that there are no domestic water charges during this mandate. I note from tomorrow's Order Paper that the Minister for Regional Development will introduce the Water and Sewerage Services Bill. It is intended that the Second Stage will be scheduled shortly, allowing the Committee to receive it before the summer recess. The Bill will extend the Executive's Programme for Government commitment towards non-domestic water charges and also seeks means to reduce the risk of flooding through the use of sustainable drainage systems. As the House will be aware, the Executive have previously had to invest significant amounts in compensation to homeowners who were impacted by the flash floods of recent years. It is therefore important that we re-examine the means to reduce or negate the risk of flooding. I look forward to receiving the Bill into the Committee shortly.

The next two highest allocations are in respect of railway services and road-passenger services. I would like to make a couple of points on these areas. First, we welcome the announcement of a new Translink chief executive and wish the current chief executive, David Strahan, all the best in his future endeavours. David brought a great deal of propriety and much-needed transparency to the role. I would hope that his successor, Chris Conway, will continue in the same vein as David. We look forward to working with Chris to ensure that we have a transport operator that is efficient and fit for purpose.

Secondly, the Committee is unanimous in its support of the Coleraine to Londonderry rail project and has shown its support over the years. This track is essential to the continued economic and social development of the north-west, and it is imperative that connectivity between the two largest cities in Northern Ireland is maintained and enhanced. However, whilst we continue to be supportive of the project and look forward to seeing it completed, as a scrutiny Committee, we cannot ignore the doubling of the budget through the incompetence of officials in the Department for Regional Development and Translink.

The Committee will soon complete its inquiry into the mishandling of this exercise and would hope that the House will support the conclusions that it has made to date. It will also continue to scrutinise Translink, as indeed it will scrutinise NIW, to ensure that the public purse is being used to the most appropriate means. We are scheduled to receive the Translink accounts very soon and will forensically examine these as we have in the past. It is no secret that we will focus in on the level of reserves — reserves, which, unlike those of the community transport sector and Disability Action, have continually, over the years, been bolstered by public funds. If it is right and proper for the Department to tell rural community transport providers to use their reserves, it is equally correct that private organisations that are supported by public funding are asked to do likewise.

I briefly referred to Disability Action and community transport. It is only right and proper that I congratulate the Minister for Regional Development on his decision to re-categorise his bid in June monitoring as "inescapable" in respect of the essential role that these organisations play. In debates last week, the Committee attracted some criticism for not offering alternatives to departmental decisions. This is yet another example of where the Committee has offered alternative solutions, and it is one which we as a Committee very much support.

The money in these Estimates is required to allow the Department for Regional Development to plan, develop and manage sustainable transportation networks and continue to contribute to the health and well-being of communities through the provision of clean and safe water and sewerage works. They are necessary for the economic, environmental and social development of the Northern Ireland economy. I therefore welcome and support the motion.

Ms Boyle: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We can and must create a wealthier, more equal society. We can do it on a foundation of participation, prosperity and fairness. Fairness does not follow after growth: fairness delivers growth. We want to build sustainable economic growth. To achieve that, we must explore every potential avenue for economic growth, but we also must deliver for our people.

In this current economic and financial climate, in which the Conservative Administration have cut £1·5 billion from our local budget and are intent on delivering further cuts, we must also ensure that we here try to balance our books and protect local public services. Our people and business have had to face the challenges brought about by the economic mismanagement of successive Westminster Governments. We have a vision in Sinn Féin for a local economy that will drive quicker, more sustainable and more equal economic growth, with opportunities for all our people to flourish. We want to build a public sector and an economy that reflect the unique character, skills and values of our people.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Boyle: No, I will not give way, Mr Wilson, if you do not mind.

The current economic position demonstrates why we must deliver that vision. Right now, we face an unprecedented economic challenge of the no-growth austerity agenda from Westminster, without the powers at our disposal to fully drive economic growth and prosperity. The new Tory Government cuts are equal to 5·2% of GDP. If those cuts progress unchallenged, the local impact will be severe. The Tories have no coherent economic plan. Everyone from Paul Krugman to the IMF's Christine Lagarde have called for a plan B around this.

Sinn Féin has argued for an approach that puts investment at the heart of the solution. What makes the situation truly tragic is that the Chancellor's actions are, in themselves, self-defeating. I call on Sir George Osborne to end his obsession with austerity. It is time he listened and time he learned. If he will not, it is time he left us; it is time he left it to the people in this Assembly and Executive to shape a better economic future using the limited powers that we have. We are focused on helping local households and businesses through this economic crisis. That must be our job here in this Assembly. The economic challenges facing us are serious. Uniting to help our businesses and people to flourish, and uniting to build the next generation of economic success, will deliver for our people. We can build a new economic future for this island, North and South.

I want to, if you will allow me, Cheann Comhairle, refer to the financial pressures that have already been mentioned in health. The recent Audit Office report on the health and social care sector and the financial pressures in our health care system notes the scale of the financial difficulty facing our health and social care trusts. They were so severe in 2013 and 2014, despite receiving additional funding of over £115 million. The HSC bodies have found it increasingly difficult to balance their budgets in the face of rising inflationary costs and pressure. That adds to waiting times and clinical and social negligence claims around patients and safety.

We could do so much more if we had full control of our resources and economic decision-making. If you are unsure of that, Westminster's economic record is there for us all to see. The economic difficulties that we face are a product of the failed economic management of successive Westminster Governments. The Tories' economic strategy has "Made in London" stamped all over it. What we want is the opportunity to create a sustainable economy for our people, not the residents of London. Local people and businesses must be at the heart of all our decision-making here. We must invest in improving people's lives to improve the economy and society, not just because it will deliver better services or is the right thing to do, but because it is also the smart thing to do to achieve and secure a future for all our people.

There is a fundamental difference between the vision that we have for our people and that which is painted by the Tories. Do we go forward to an economy that flourishes, with economic powers and in charge of our own resources and decision-making, or do we allow all our achievements to be rolled back by London cuts?

Our opponents are content to argue about how the economic and financial cake is divided. They are content to accept a future in which cuts and austerity stretch on for years to come, but we in Sinn Féin are not. Access to economic powers will allow us to tailor economic policies to the priorities of our people, extend competitive advantages and address the challenges and opportunities presented by the local and island economy. It will help us to build a more dynamic economy. It will allow expenditure and tax policy to work together in harmony and enable us to use welfare to protect the most vulnerable. It will also allow us to end the economic mismanagement of successive London Governments and give us the tools to build the economy that we all want — one that is compassionate, prosperous and progressive. It will give us the powers to flourish.

I want to make a point today. On Friday, other West Tyrone MLAs and I met a group of individuals from Glenside and Knockavoe schools. Members from every Assembly party were at the meeting and heard how schools face cuts to their day care and residential services in my area of Strabane and West Tyrone and, indeed, the wider north-west. They told us that they face the daily challenge of having to turn away patients with adult learning disabilities because of the financial pressures on their budgets.

Mr Wilson: Which you have added to.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Hilditch (The Deputy Chairperson of the Audit Committee): I will be very brief. On behalf of the Audit Committee, I wish to confirm that the provision for the Northern Ireland Audit Office in the Main Estimates corresponds with the amount agreed by the Audit Committee and laid before the Assembly earlier this year. The Estimate, therefore, provides for a net resource requirement of £7·686 million, which is a 6·3% reduction from the agreed net resource requirement of £8.2 million for 2014-15. The reduction is consistent with the figures for the Audit Office in the Executive’s Budget for 2015-16. The Committee expressed its unease in agreeing the Estimate. It would much prefer to be in a position in which the reduction was significantly less. The Committee recognises, and the Assembly should be aware, that the reduction to the Audit Office’s budget has the potential to impact the services that it delivers.

The Committee does not want to see a situation in which the Audit Office lacks the necessary resources to provide effective backup to the Assembly in its task of holding Departments and others to account for the use of public money. That would not be in the public interest. However, the reality of the current financial position must not be overlooked. Cuts are being made across the public sector, and the Audit Office needs to accept its fair share of those.

The Committee wants the Audit Office to sustain, as far as possible, a similar service to that provided at present through continued efficiencies in its audit methodologies. However, given the risks that the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) has identified, it is vital that the Audit Office receives sufficient funding from the Executive’s transformation fund at the earliest opportunity to allow it to reduce its number of permanent staff by 10% and make the savings required by the Estimate.

It may be the case that there will not be a voluntary exit scheme or that it does not allow the Audit Office to make the savings necessary to live within the Estimate. If so, there will be a funding deficit and a gap between the work that the Committee wants the Audit Office to carry out and the resources that it has to make that happen. Understandably, the C&AG prioritises avoiding a situation in which the Audit Office has an Excess Vote, and the Committee respects that position. However, the Committee also recognises, particularly in light of the significant savings that the Audit Office identifies across the public sector every year, that our public finances would be worse off if the NIAO had to scale back its value for money work.

The Committee has been assured that the Executive respect the independence of the Audit Office. In order to give effect to that assurance, the Committee expects that, should a shortfall arise as a result of savings not being made from a voluntary exit scheme, the Finance Minister and the Executive will ensure that this is addressed during monitoring rounds. The funds required to do that would be relatively minimal but could have a significant impact.

The Audit Office has made significant savings in recent years, and it must continue to pursue efficiencies and cost reductions when possible, including through restructuring and reducing its permanent staff numbers. The Estimate that the Audit Committee has agreed reflects that. However, should it not prove possible to make sufficient savings from the voluntary exit scheme, it is crucial that the Audit Office receive the shortfall at the monitoring rounds. The Committee believes that we must not lose sight of what could be lost were the Audit Office not to be provided with adequate resources to serve the Assembly properly.

Mr Speaker: As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until then. The debate will resume after Question Time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): We will start with listed questions.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): An outline business case for the redevelopment of Magilligan prison was approved by DFP on 9 January this year. I met the then Minister of Finance and Personnel on 28 April to discuss capital funding for delivery of the prison estate strategy. Until there is certainty on the capital available in the next spending review, it is not possible to give a commitment to deliver an eight-year construction programme. Securing the necessary capital will determine the timeline for the development of the new prison at Magilligan. My officials will complete the necessary bid to DFP to secure capital funding this summer.

Mr G Robinson: Does the Minister agree, given the continuing rise in the prisoner population at HMP Magilligan to near-maximum levels, that it is essential that redevelopment at the prison is concluded at the earliest possible date for prisoner and staff well-being?

Mr Ford: I certainly understand that it is important that we proceed with the programme for Magilligan. It is also important that we proceed with some of the capital work that is required at Maghaberry, including a facility for women, in the context of the difficult financial circumstances that the Executive, as a whole, face.

Mr Ramsey: Further to the Member's question, is there any intent to carry out a phased introduction of development, taking in the security and educational needs of prisoners, at Magilligan?

Mr Ford: Mr Ramsey makes a valid point on the scale of the redevelopment that is planned, which will be over a significant timescale; potentially up to eight years. The issues, frankly, are that some residential accommodation is probably the most urgent priority, given things like the lack of sanitation. It is possible to do some of the learning and skills operations in less than ideal buildings, but, frankly, we cannot continue to expect people to live in temporary buildings and Nissen huts.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his answers. The Department was to engage with stakeholders in the area. Will the Minister give us an update on progress there?

Mr Ford: Mr Ó hOisín is right: the Department was to engage with stakeholders, and it did so, including with local businesses and local councils in terms of providing opportunities for rehabilitation.

My understanding is that 30 prisoners from Foyleview, the semi-open unit, are out working regularly in the community with charities such as Barnardo's and the Riding for the Disabled Association, businesses, churches and with a variety of other bodies. There are placements with the health and social care trusts in Coleraine and Greysteel. There are also three current prisoner placements with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, which builds on the work done originally with Limavady, Coleraine and Ballymoney councils, as they then were. All of these are good examples of work being done. One of the key factors in keeping the prison at Magilligan was to build on those local opportunities. I am pleased to see that we have made progress over the last couple of years.

Mr Swann: How much have the finance figures changed for the redevelopment since the initial costs were put in for the project?

Mr Ford: The answer to any capital programme in terms of things starting at an early phase and being considered over a period of years is that costs will increase. Part of the issue is because of the higher expectations of the facilities that would be provided. I do not have the figures immediately before me, but I will certainly write to the Member and give the current update on the figures. It is certainly a very significant programme, but it is required to ensure that Magilligan can fulfil its responsibility to rehabilitate prisoners and not merely incarcerate them.

Mr Allister: Within the priorities of the Department as to capital spend on prisons, will the Minister tell us where the Magilligan project ranks?

Mr Ford: The reality is that, as I have just said — and I will repeat for Mr Allister — there are requirements in all three prison units. There is a specific requirement for a proper facility for women, which will build on the work currently being done in Ash House in Hydebank Wood and the step-down facility being built elsewhere on the Hydebank Wood site.
There is a specific need for more residential accommodation and a plan for a significant cell block at Maghaberry. There is a need for a complete rehabilitation of Magilligan, which has, effectively, only one modern residential block with the rest of it still largely based on temporary buildings that were put up in the 1970s. All of those have to be considered together, and the Prison Service has a plan for phasing all three of those operations. However, what funding is available is clearly a significant issue for DFP and the Executive.

Mr Ford: I have had no meetings specifically on social investment bonds, but my officials continue to explore potential options in this area. DFP is working with Departments to explore opportunities to pilot alternative financing models for public service delivery, including social impact bonds and the development of suitable procurement models. Social impact bonds are indeed a means of attracting private funds to finance interventions designed to achieve social outcomes. As the expected output of a social impact bond is success in improving social outcomes, there would be a requirement to meet outcome payments to private-sector investors if outcomes are achieved. The next step for relevant organisations is to consider the outcomes and affordability. My officials will continue to liaise with officials in DFP and elsewhere to further explore opportunities in this area.

Mr Wilson: I welcome the positive response from the Minister. Finding ways of attracting private investment will be very important, especially at a time when public budgets are under pressure. One of the groups that would benefit if such impact bonds were introduced would be Sport Changes Life, which has had a dramatic impact on problems at interface areas. However, there is a requirement for gap funding for that group until such time as impact bonds are in place. Can the Minister give us an assurance that, given the good work and the response from the PSNI, he will seek in the monitoring round to ensure that sufficient funds are made available to keep those projects going in the interim?

Mr Ford: I appreciate entirely the point that Mr Wilson makes about Sport Changes Life. Of course, he should declare an interest, as it is based in his constituency. One of its key projects was done in my constituency and no doubt had a significant effect. The unfortunate reality is that, given all the other pressures on core services of the Department, I am not sure that it is possible to prioritise even such positive and worthwhile community projects as we look at the June monitoring round. However, I will certainly look to see how we relate not just to Sport Changes Life but to our other NGO partners.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What initiatives is the Minister progressing towards the taking down of interface walls?

Mr Ford: I am really not sure how that sits in with social investment bonds, but I will happily explain to the House that work continues between officials in my Department and community groups in interface areas in Belfast, Derry and the Lurgan/Portadown area, all of which is seeking to build confidence in the communities on either side of interfaces to allow the removal or opening up of structures. We continue to make progress in that respect with things like the longer opening hours of gates and the fact that there are now seven fewer structures under the control of the Department of Justice than when justice was devolved.

Mr Ford: My Department is engaged in a wide range of work to reduce offending by working to rehabilitate people who have offended in order to build a safer society. In September last year, I approved the creation of the new reducing offending directorate to focus on ensuring effective collaboration and partnership-working across the justice system in order to reduce offending. Establishing effective ways in which we can support desistance is central to the work of the new directorate. I will shortly publish a strategy that outlines my Department’s commitment to promoting desistance from crime. Research indicates that there are several factors that can support the process of desistance, including securing and engaging in employment, maintaining relationships with family and community, and having hope and motivation to change.

In prison custody, the needs of the individual are balanced alongside their risks to create a dynamic personal development plan that focuses on improving their motivation and capacity to address their offending behaviour. Complementary to that ongoing work is the establishment of a partnership between the Prison Service, Belfast Met and North West Regional College, which will work to improve educational attainment and the employment prospects of prisoners.

The opening of the Burren House facility has also provided a low-security pre-release facility to test the capacity to work in the community and engage with employment or learning opportunities.

My Department is also thinking innovatively about the best ways to support offenders in gaining future employment. In recent weeks, we have seen the creation of an in-house cafe in Hydebank and the establishment of a social enterprise to employ young parents who have offended.

That is just a flavour of the significant work that my Department has been undertaking to reduce offending and to protect the public. However, I recognise that more can still be done, and my Department will continue to explore innovative and effective ways of reducing offending and making Northern Ireland safer.

Mrs Cochrane: I thank the Minister for his answer. He referred to the partnership between the Prison Service and Belfast Met and the North West Regional College: is that a new model for the delivery of learning and skills?

Mr Ford: Yes, it is a significant new model. In a sense, it is similar to the work that is being done around healthcare, where the expectation is being delivered that healthcare is better provided by the South Eastern Trust, a specialist health and social care provider, than by the Prison Service in-house. On exactly the same basis, the new contract, which will result in the creation of 33 new jobs to provide learning and skills opportunities with the two colleges in the three prisons, is a key way of building on the skills that exist in FE colleges and putting them to the best use of those who are in the care and custody of the Prison Service. A range of issues is being covered, including academic and vocational training, from numeracy and literacy essential skills through to degree-level work. Those are now being done in the prisons. Some of the practical issues are showing positive results, even at this early stage.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answers up to this point.

Has any valuation been done of the potential detrimental impact of the financial cutbacks in his Department on key stakeholder organisations such as NIACRO and on its programmes to help reduce offending?

Mr Ford: Mr McGlone highlights yet another effect of the difficult financial circumstances that we are in. There is no doubt that the cutbacks in grant funding have a detrimental effect on the services provided by some of our NGO partners, with NIACRO and Extern being two of the key ones in the rehabilitation of offenders. That comes after four years in which grants to the voluntary sector were, by and large, protected and in circumstances in which the most significant cuts from this point, as I frequently say, will be made to the core of the Department. Nonetheless, it has not been possible this year to continue to fund at the level that we were funding at last year. Of course, that was also complicated by the issue of European social funding, with NIACRO not being successful in its bid for its ongoing work.

Mr Campbell: Reducing offending and, indeed, reoffending can often be achieved by reviewing the severity of the sentences available to the judiciary. How regularly does the Minister do that?

Mr Ford: It is probably safe to say that, on virtually every occasion that a Minister produces the possibility of further offences being created, the appropriate sentences for the new offences are a consideration for my Department, in order to ensure that matters are kept in balance between offences of a broadly similar nature. There is ongoing work in the Department to keep an eye on that and to review those kinds of issues as they relate to other jurisdictions, particularly those within these islands, to ensure that there is broad comparability. I stress the words "broad comparability", not necessarily absolute equivalence.

Mr Lynch: Can the Minister give an update on what wider work has been done across government on reoffending? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Ford: Mr Lynch correctly highlights the point that reducing reoffending is not an issue that can be handled by my Department alone. As I pointed out, housing, health and social care and employment and training are all key issues. We seek to work in partnership with other Departments, as, for example, we have done with DEL and the two colleges over the issue of job skills training and routes into further employment. That requires a joined-up approach, and that is an issue on which the Department is seeking to work alongside other Departments that have direct responsibility for providing those services.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for that. Does he agree that it is difficult to get the level of offending now, due to the number of crimes going unreported because of the lack of bringing criminal cases to a conclusion?

Mr Ford: I am not sure that there is necessarily a great issue about reporting or, as Mr Elliott in essence suggested, of the reporting getting worse. It is no doubt the case that some criminal offences have historically gone significantly under-reported, domestic violence being the most obvious example. In recent years, hate crimes have clearly been under-reported, which is why we have been seeking to encourage increased reporting to ensure that they are addressed appropriately. However, as far as the generality of crimes is concerned, I am not sure that there is any greater under-reporting now than was the case a few years ago.

Mr Ford: It is important to offer appropriate interventions aimed at changing the behaviour of those committing domestic abuse. The integrated domestic abuse programme (IDAP) ensures a consistent approach in providing interventions for perpetrators of domestic violence. IDAP has been delivered by the Probation Board since 2009. The primary aims of the programme are to identify, challenge and change men’s abusive behaviour. IDAP is currently delivered at five sites: Armagh, Ballymena, Belfast, Derry and Omagh.

In providing the programme, the Probation Board works in close collaboration with the Police Service, social services and Women’s Aid to manage risk constructively. Importantly, the programme also offers safety and support services to victims through women's safety services provided by Women's Aid. I understand that a full evaluation of the IDAP programme by the Probation Board is under way, and I look forward to receiving the report.

I am aware that in England the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has replaced IDAP with the new accredited programme, Building Better Relationships. To achieve accreditation, programmes must be evidence-based to ensure that they are targeting the right people, focusing on the right things and being delivered in a way that is most likely to reduce reoffending. All NOMS-accredited programmes are monitored to ensure programme integrity. I understand that the Probation Board is committed to delivering accredited programmes and, as a result, plans to follow the same approach.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Given that funding for the women's safety work for perpetrators, associated with IDAP, has been withdrawn without notice, how will the programme continue to be accredited? Do you, as Minister, recognise that that totally unsafe practice places victims of domestic violence at an increased risk?

Mr Ford: I appreciate the point that Mrs Cameron makes. Sadly, it seems to be the case that, for virtually every question I answer these days, I point out the realities of the financial circumstances that we live in. Despite those difficulties, I certainly believe that the Probation Board, which has the specific responsibility in this area, is doing its best in the financial circumstances to manage programmes such as IDAP and, indeed, to look at the potential transformation across. Whilst there are undoubtedly challenges because of the budget reductions, I believe that there is also a lot of very good work being done by professionals right across the justice system that we ought to support, while recognising the pressures that this sometimes places on individual members of staff.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Does he support minimum sentencing for those found guilty of domestic abuse-related crimes?

Mr Ford: I stick to the general position on virtually every offence. The reason why we have judges producing sentencing decisions after court hearings at whatever level of court they take place is so that all the relevant factors can be taken into account. On that basis, legislating for minimum sentences can be an incredibly blunt instrument that does not actually meet the needs of providing a safer society and protecting our people. On that basis, I am not in support of mandatory minimum sentences.

Ms Boyle: Go raibh maith agat. Minister, I appreciate the answers that you have given thus far. Are you satisfied that there are sufficient resources to deal with the programmes related to domestic violence?

Mr Ford: I do not have any suggestion that there are specific problems around the issue of resources for these particular programmes. What is absolutely clear is that there are resource issues for the justice system as a whole, and, in the Department, we seek to manage resources across different programmes within different agencies as best we can, given the problems that we are falling under. Frankly, as long as the House fails to take a realistic attitude to some of the difficult decisions that need to be taken over funding generally, Ministers will continue to answer questions about difficulties with particular programmes.

Mrs D Kelly: Minister, do you share my concern that many women who have experienced domestic violence at the hands of former paramilitaries feel coerced into silence because they are being told, by other paramilitaries in their community, that if they report the crime to the police, it will have an impact on the early release that many of them are subject to? Therefore, Minister, will you undertake to write to the Secretary of State to clarify whether a conviction of domestic abuse would put their early release under threat?

Mr Ford: While Mrs Kelly makes some valid points about how issues are treated, and particularly about how we support victims of a variety of offences and those who would carry out activities that threaten people in general, we need to be slightly cautious about giving specific commitments on that. I am certainly happy to discuss the issue more widely with her, because there are issues that need to be discussed. They are, frankly, issues about the behaviour of paramilitaries, which have rather hit the headlines in recent weeks and months. There is a wider issue to address, and I am quite happy to have a discussion that is a bit longer than just giving a quick, snap answer now.

Mr Ford: I have regular discussions with the Chief Constable about a range of issues, including parading and protests and their implications. I met the Chief Constable and his senior colleagues last month and plan to review the situation with him again before the 12 July parades. I recognise and welcome the fact that the vast majority of parades in Northern Ireland pass off without any difficulty. I recognise the rights of those who seek to parade within the law, and of those who wish to protest peacefully, but there is no cause, dispute or disagreement that justifies the use of violence or public disorder. Those who are involved in such behaviour need to recognise and understand the potential consequences of their behaviour, including through the courts. I hope that wise heads will prevail this year, that true leadership will be shown, and that we all see a peaceful summer.

Mr Lunn: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree with me that, in the absence of political agreement to establish mechanisms for the regulation of parades, all parties and political leaders should encourage people to abide by Parades Commission decisions whether they agree with them or not, thereby upholding the law?

Mr Ford: Yes, I certainly agree with my colleague. The reality is that the Parades Commission is the body established by Parliament to deal with issues of parades and protests. The parties in the Assembly have been unable to agree any appropriate replacement for the Parades Commission, and therefore the Parades Commission remains the body established by law to take the difficult decisions that we have been unable to take on, for institutions established by the Assembly. I therefore believe it is incumbent upon every MLA, as it is upon every citizen, to uphold the determinations of the Parades Commission; to accept them, whether or not they like them; and to live within them, to ensure that we can have a peaceful society and a peaceful summer marching season.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for looking forward to the summer with some optimism. I share that optimism, but will he look back and tell us the financial cost, to his Department and to the community, of policing the flags protests and the demonstration at Twaddell Avenue in north Belfast?

Mr Ford: I cannot give Mr Ó Muilleoir the full statistics for policing flags protests. It was certainly the case, not that long ago, that it was costing close to £1 million per month to police 10 metres at the top of Twaddell Avenue every evening. As there has been some reduction in resources, it is now running at something less than that: I believe it is in the region of a third of £1 million per month. All of that is money that is either being spent in additional overtime, which creates pressure on police officers and the police budget, or it is a cost caused by officers being redeployed from other duties, including the basic everyday crime-fighting and public reassurance that Members frequently tell me they wish to see in their constituencies. It may only be an opportunity cost, but it is a significant cost nonetheless.

Mr A Maginness: Will the Minister agree that the recent visit by Prince Charles to Saint Patrick's Church in Donegall Street was a recognition by Prince Charles that such an institution and such a building should be respected by all, including the loyal orders? Does he agree that people, not just those involved in parades but those who protest, should learn the lesson from the Prince that there should be mutual respect in our society?

Mr Ford: I certainly agree with the tenor of Mr Maginness's comments. I am not sure that it should require a visit by a member of the royal family for people in this society to respect places of worship, but the very fact that he visited it should surely encapsulate the historic nature of the church and the specific issues. I have attended services there on two or three occasions related to different aspects of the justice system, including, most recently, for Prisons Week last November, and I believe that any place of worship that is providing a service to the community, as well as pastoral care and concern for its parish or congregation, should be respected by everybody in this society. In particular, recent determinations of the Parades Commission regarding respect for that place of worship should be upheld.

Mr Cree: The Minister refers to the Ardoyne/Twaddell area. Does he not accept that it is very difficult to get a localised agreement in that area when the two residents' groups apparently will not meet in the same room?

Mr Ford: Regardless of whether there is a difficulty in getting agreement in the area, the question that I was asked was about upholding Parades Commission determinations, and that was the point that I made absolutely clear. Matters might be easier in the Ardoyne/Twaddell area if those in the different factions and elements on both sides of that dispute were to engage constructively, but the fundamental issue is that people should uphold the law, especially those who belong to organisations that claim to be committed to upholding the law and the constitutional arrangements.

Mr Ford: I met the Prison Officers' Association (POA) chair and a number of his colleagues in December 2014 to discuss a range of issues, including staffing levels and staff safety. Officials in the Prison Service continue to meet staff representatives through the formal Whitley structures and informally engage with trade unions and staff via a range of communication and engagement strategies. The Northern Ireland Prison Service keeps staffing levels under review, and a re-profiling exercise to look comprehensively at operational staffing levels across the service is nearing completion. As part of that exercise, there is an agreed process to consult with representatives of the POA prior to the introduction of the new profiles. There is a range of ways in which staff morale is kept under review, including mechanisms that facilitate staff engagement with senior management. That is done at a local level through full staff briefings and as part of the front-line forum meetings. The director general and the director of HR visit each prison specifically for front-line forum meetings, which bring together a cross section of staff. In addition, there are regular visits to the prisons by the leadership team.

Mr Swann: I thank the Minister for that. What practical measures has he put in place over the last year to resolve the low staffing complement and the high number of staff who are off on sick leave?

Mr Ford: There are two specific issues there. On the first question, to ensure that there are appropriate staffing ratios, a certain amount of overtime has been worked. There are also issues such as, at times, managing controlled lockdowns, which would not otherwise have been anticipated, to ensure safety for staff and prisoners. It is the job of managers in each part of the prison, in conjunction with their colleagues in HR, to ensure that the general issue of sickness absence is addressed. Indeed, as Members are well aware, that issue applies right across the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Mr Ford: The answer, at this stage, is that there has been a very limited impact from the withdrawal of legal aid services. The current period of withdrawal only commenced at the beginning of May, and therefore relatively few cases have been affected. I know of one case where an individual who was not represented in court succeeded in achieving bail on her own account by being invited by the judge hearing the application for bail to make her own representations, so it certainly did not have any effect on her. The number of cases being affected is relatively limited and will not kick on until the autumn term, when we will see. I hope that those who have currently said that they are withdrawing their services will reconsider the issue, especially when it comes at a time when the two professional bodies are judicially reviewing the decision that I took.

Mr Dunne: Has the Minister made any progress on the use of the proposed legal defender service for the management of legal cases in Northern Ireland?

Mr Ford: I am not sure what the proposed use of a legal defender service is. It is an issue that is potentially available in our legislative provision. I have sought all along to ensure that we maintain the existing system that allows individuals to choose their legal team from those who work in private practice, and that is the current position.

Mr Ford: I was aware that Mr Anderson was aware of this, given the way he ran to the press to talk about what he described as a fairly excessive budget spend on the issue. Sadly, he did not check up on the facts in the first place. Compare, for example, the maintenance spend at Maghaberry with that in modern Scottish prisons: we find that, in 2014-15, Maghaberry spent £22·50 per square metre on general property maintenance, and the Scottish prison spent £28 per square metre. Indeed, since devolution, we have seen the overall cost of maintenance at Maghaberry reduced by over 38%. Perhaps Mr Anderson might like to ask his colleague the MP for Upper Bann to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what went wrong before devolution.

Mr Anderson: OK, I am being asked questions now. Minister, there was £400,000 also spent, which was termed by the Department as "a small amount", and I do not think that that was a small amount by any stretch of the imagination. We need to know how and why it was spent. Minister, do you agree with me that those high costs highlight an even bigger problem in the service, which is that the prisons are seriously understaffed? If you do agree, many feel that the safety of prison officers has been compromised.

Mr Ford: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just told Mr Anderson that costs are going down, and now he has asked me to agree with him that the high costs mean that there is a problem. I will accept his logic entirely and accept that the Prison Service is getting better.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I call Mr William Irwin for a topical question.

Mr Irwin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. Mr Irwin, will you resume your seat? Sorry, some Members to my right are insisting on speaking from a sedentary position. That means that I cannot hear the Member who is asking the question and, perhaps more importantly, that I cannot hear the Minister.

Mr Ford: It is not possible to give the figures at that level of detail, given that the funding is delivered through some of our voluntary sector partners that deal with this issue, particularly Victim Support and the NSPCC. Therefore, I cannot say how we could possibly break that down. It would be a requirement to find it from the voluntary groups. I am not sure that it would be a terribly good use of their resources to chase up that level of detail rather than asking them to provide the services.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. Does the Minister accept that the elderly and vulnerable who have been victims of crime in their home feel very vulnerable and should be worthy of funding?

Mr Ford: I accept that a number of older people feel vulnerable, even though the statistic is that 2% of violent crime is directed against older people, who constitute 16% of the population, but there is no doubt that there are fears of issues like domestic burglary. That is why a lot of work has been done, principally under the auspices of policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) across Northern Ireland, to provide various security aids. I visited some of those schemes in a number of different areas. Good work is being done, and I am keen to encourage that, including using the proceeds of criminal assets to help to fight crime. Where appropriate, local organisations can assist in installing and providing the kind of equipment that can help to provide reassurance. People should be aware that the risk to older people in this society is very low, but there is no doubt that the fear of crime amongst older people remains at a fairly high level.

Mr Ford: Mr Douglas raises an entirely valid point. Very similar work is going on at Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre. A few weeks ago, I met the Education Minister, John O'Dowd, at Woodlands, and we looked at how we can improve the quality of teaching provided there. There is no doubt that there are difficulties for the Youth Justice Agency in employing teachers, specifically the external services that they are unable to access because they are not teachers in a recognised institution. Officials from the two Departments have been looking at that. I do not yet have a conclusion, but I hope that we will see something fairly speedily.

Mr Douglas: I am sure that the Minister will agree that we are talking about some of the most vulnerable young people. Will he agree to keep the House informed of developments with Woodlands?

Mr Ford: I certainly will. Probably one of the best opportunities that we have is the use of the education other than at school scheme, which, potentially, would allow Woodlands to be recognised as an education provider. That would mean that, for example, staff there would have access to professional training courses, which they do not currently because they are not employed in an appropriate place, but I will keep the House in general and Mr Douglas in particular informed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Mr Ford: I have two difficulties in responding to that, the first of which is the fundamental one: this is an issue for the Chief Constable, the Policing Board and the new PCSP that will shortly be established in the Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon (ABC) council. That will be the appropriate place to discuss those issues rather than from my part as Minister, because I suspect that, if I engaged in too much of that conversation, I would be seen by the Chief Constable and others to be interfering in his responsibilities and those of the Policing Board, and I would not wish to come across members of the Policing Board, especially those in the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Perhaps the supplementary will be a bit more direct, Mr Gardiner.

Mr Gardiner: I hope so. The Minister needs to accept some accountability for this: he works with the PSNI daily. Does the Minister accept that neighbourhood policing connects the police with the population on the ground and that his decision has only put greater distance between the police officers and the community that they are here to serve?

Mr Ford: I am slightly perturbed by the phrase "his decision", because the Member appears to refer to a decision of mine. The only decision that I have taken about the provision of resources for neighbourhood policing in Banbridge, Craigavon or anywhere else in Northern Ireland has been to protect the budget of the Police Service as much as I can by making cuts of only 5·7% in the policing budget this year against the 22% cuts being made in the core Department of Justice. I have not taken any decision that has made those matters worse, but there is no doubt, as I said earlier and will doubtless say on future occasions, that the difficult financial situation makes it difficult for a range of public agencies to provide the service that the public are used to.

Mr Ford: Given that tragic death, we should certainly be concerned about the issue. A lot of work has been done on Internet-related issues, although, because of the telecommunications aspect, they are principally reserved matters. Good work has been done involving the Police Service, and a lot of educational work is being done through a variety of organisations. I certainly trust that that tragic death will, as Ronan's parents have made it, become an issue that can be used to ensure that young people are made aware of the dangers of the Internet and are protected from those who would harm them on it.

Mr McAleer: Does the Minister share the view that fake accounts, which are believed to be operated by international criminal gangs, need to be tackled?

Mr Ford: Yes, they most certainly need to be tackled. When we are talking about gangs that are operating from other jurisdictions, as Mr McAleer highlighted, and targeting young people in these islands, it is very difficult to ensure that they are tackled easily. However, there are wider issues. Given the specialist nature of the matter, there is limited expertise in Northern Ireland. We at least now benefit from the input of the National Crime Agency in helping us to fight these criminals.

Mr Ford: It is not entirely for me to give an assessment of the Keir Starmer report; it is an issue for the Director of Public Prosecutions to follow through. I welcome the fact that he has accepted the report in full. I welcome the fact that he has apologised to the victims and I welcome that he is clearly putting actions in train in the Public Prosecution Service to make those necessary changes. I had a brief discussion with the DPP before the report was published and I had a subsequent discussion with him last week. I have no doubt that he is taking the report seriously and ensuring that the Public Prosecution Service learns from it.

Mr Cree: I thank the Minister for that. Bearing in mind the outcome of the report, does the Minister not think that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have resigned?

Mr Ford: No, I do not, for the very simple reason that he was not in post when those issues first came up and was not the person taking the decisions. Rather than calling for resignations, it is far more important to ensure that organisations learn lessons from reports such as this.

Mr Ford: I would be in serious danger of pre-empting a debate that we are due to have in the House shortly if I went too far into that detail. There is no doubt that the revelations in 'Panorama', the subsequent local programme and, potentially, 'Prime Time' will cause people to have concerns about the behaviour of a number of organisations in the past. They should not have any effect on confidence in policing today, because we see a very different police service, which is fully accountable to the Policing Board, of which Ms Ruane is a member, has the highest human rights standards and is operating in a way and in a very different place from the circumstances that applied in the 1970s and 1980s.

Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development): My Department adheres to best practice in identifying and disposing of surplus assets. This best practice is set out in the Department of Finance and Personnel’s guidance, ‘Disposal of Surplus Public Property In Northern Ireland’. Last year, for example, my Department achieved £3·38 million of receipts from the sale of surplus assets, and has a target to achieve £5 million in the current financial year. I am pleased to report that we are well on course to achieving this target.

In the broader context, the Executive approved their asset management strategy in June 2013. One of the recommendations was to establish a central disposal unit in DFP properties division by April 2017 for the processing of all surplus assets from all Departments. This is being taken forward under the reform of property management programme, which is a DFP project supported by the Strategic Investment Board. My Department is fully engaged in that process.

The Housing Executive has advised that it has 21 sites on its land disposal programme 2015-16 for sale on the open market, valued at £1·9 million. Offers have been received on seven sites, totalling almost £0·57 million, but no sales have yet been completed. The value of the undeveloped land schedule surplus sites sold in 2014-15 was £160,450, and in 2013-14 it was £117,500. The Housing Executive has advised that the figures at two above do not include land transfers to housing associations, which are at nil consideration as they do not represent the total of all land disposals, for example open space lands and leases.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Minister for the vast figures he outlined there. While I recognise that, on paper, his Department does well on capital receipts, does he accept that much of it comes from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive using public funds to pay his Department, so it is not true revenue in people's eyes? Given the extent of surplus lands owned by the Housing Executive, for instance, does the Minister believe that the target he referred to, and which he is well under way to reaching, is possibly too low?

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. Obviously, in any of these, I would like to be in a position where we disposing of assets in a way that is generating more revenue for us, given the debate we are having in the House today on the Budget. However, I think that the targets have to be realistic, and, if you look at the past record on this, you will see that there has been an attempt to ensure that we did not overestimate what was achievable. As a result, the amount of money that has come in has been realistic. The Member made the point that this is all public money, and she is right. This is all under the responsibility and due diligence of the public purse, and I think that that is all the more reason why we have to ensure that, when we possibly can, we get the best possible outcome for the sales we enter into.

Mr Rogers: Minister, has your Department bought any new buildings either in the last financial year or this year?

Mr Storey: I have not got the detail on the particular issue that the Member raises. I will provide him with the specific detail.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. How many district councils have requested the transfer of DSD staff to support the transfer of regeneration powers and functions to local government?

Mr Storey: As the Member is aware, we are specifically talking about land purchase and land disposal, but I am quite happy to refer to the issue of staff. I have continued to have discussions with the councils about the potential success of the Regeneration Bill, which will come up later on in questions for oral answer.

If the Bill is passed and the transfer of functions takes place, it will be an issue for the individual councils. To date, a small number of councils have expressed an interest. We will continue to work with councils to maximise the benefit for them and agree the ultimate complement. I am quite happy to provide the Member with the actual numbers for all the councils, but they are relatively small.

Mr Storey: As you are aware, under the reform of local government my Department will confer powers and budgets to enable councils to decide how best to take forward regeneration and community development in their areas.

The financial allocation to local government from 1 April 2016 is £56·5 million. In order to determine the percentage of the £56·5 million that should be allocated to each council, the Department devised a funding allocation model. The allocation to each council is determined largely on the basis of income-deprived population settlement bands for tackling disadvantage; total population for physical development; income-deprived population of district for community development; and programme costs, excluding the Laganside, for salaries.

In terms of human resources, arrangements are in place to allow the new councils access, on a voluntary secondment basis, to staff from my Department with regeneration and community development expertise. My officials will continue to liaise with councils to determine their requirements, as I mentioned in answer to the previous question.

In terms of general assistance, my officials are working closely with councils to assist them in putting in place effective arrangements to meet the needs of their communities. Officials recently reviewed all existing projects for support in 2015-16, and the outcome of these reviews is being made available to councils to enable them to take informed decisions about the arrangements that they wish to put in place. Indeed, I recently met my officials in connection with the community planning element of all of this. I had some concerns about how we were implementing this and wanted to be absolutely sure that the functions for which my Department is responsible —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The Minister's two minutes are up.

Mr Storey: — are being exercised with the councils.

Mr Hilditch: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. I am glad to hear that the Department will continue to liaise with councils. Can he give us an overview of how the financial allocation to each council was determined?

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for his supplementary. This issue caused concern and raised questions. I endeavoured during conversations with councils to explain it to them as well as I could so that they are absolutely sure that we endeavoured to do everything possible to make a fair allocation across the 11 councils.

The development of the methodology for the distribution of funds for urban regeneration and community development was the outworking of the Executive's policy decision to transfer the functions in the first place. The model is designed to provide local government with objectively based allocations that take into account both population and deprivation. DSD can transfer to new councils only the relevant budgets and the physical assets associated with the delivery.

The budget being transferred is mostly what is being used for the current implementation of urban policies by the Department. As the Member knows, those policies currently applied only to settlements of 4,500 persons and above, the number recommended by the Northern Ireland Statistical Research Agency in its report in 2005. However, the Department recognised that the new councils may want to deliver regeneration programmes in smaller settlements, and for this reason the proposed distribution of funding is based on population figures down to settlements of 1,000 persons, resulting overall in councils with more rural populations receiving a greater share of the budget than would have been the case if we had decided to apply the 4,500 urban cut-off rigidly. This has resulted in a skewing of resources from largely urban councils to their more rural counterparts in places such as Fermanagh and the west. That was welcomed by those councils, which had felt that smaller councils were left with a lesser amount from the allocation process.

Mr Ramsey: Acknowledging the serious importance of urban regeneration, I ask the Minister whether he can assure the House that targeting social need will still be the priority in the allocation of that funding?

Mr Storey: Of course, if the Bill is successful and the powers are transferred in 2016, it will ultimately be for the councils to determine how they use that money. I have said that to councils that I have met. There is a concern now growing among some councils across Northern Ireland that members of those authorities may have different priorities and a different focus. What I am ensuring is that it is entirely an issue for the councils as to how they use that money, but I am also ensuring that they take into account the needs of the community that they serve. If we believe that all council is local, surely those at the grass roots of our political process should be best placed to be able to identify the needs in their locality.

The other element is that councils now have a responsibility for community planning, so there has to be a joined-up approach. It is something that I have a concern about and something that I want to ensure is done in a way that maximises the best possible outcome for the councils, but they, as the lead authority when they have the power and the resource, will have to determine, in conjunction with their elected representatives and the information and guidance that is issued by my Department and that comes out of the community planning process, that they are doing it in a way that is best tailored to meet the needs of their community.

Mr Beggs: Will the Minister confirm that it would be inequitable if he were to restrict funding to, say, groups larger than 4,000? In fact, it was for equality reasons that smaller pockets of deprivation were not excluded in the past. Will he confirm that they will continue to be assisted in the future?

Mr Storey: The aim is to ensure that this is equitable, as far as we can make it so, within the resources that are available. Obviously, there was an issue in the past, where there was a cut-off point of 4,500. There was a view that funding should be for smaller conurbations. Councils have made representations — I have had discussions now with most of them. I think that there are two councils that I still have to meet, but there was certainly a clear indication from local authorities that they wanted to be in a position in which they were able to be of help and assistance where there was a smaller number of persons within their particular community. However, given the amount of money that we are talking about here, it is a limited resource, and there are many needs, whether they are in conurbations of 1,000 persons or beyond 4,500. The council will have to ensure that it does this in the best way possible, and in a way that does not create the situation that the Member outlined.

Mr Allister: On the public realm scheme's contribution to urban regeneration, can the Minister respond to the concerns of traders in Church Street in Ballymena that, at the onset of the scheme a couple of weeks ago, the pavements were dug up, after which everything was at a standstill for days on end with no further work done, much in contradiction of the assurances given to the traders in advance of the work starting? Can the Minister seek to address and tighten up that situation?

Mr Storey: Although the Member's question is slightly beyond the remit of the original question, I am quite happy to answer it.

The money that is being invested in Ballymena is somewhere in the region of £4·6 million, which is very welcome by the traders and the town. I am sure that the Member, like me, would have been the first to complain if we did not have an investment in Ballymena, which is a premier town in Northern Ireland for retail and many of the other shopping experiences that people enjoy when they go there.

On the specifics, I have met individual traders, and I am going back again this week to meet the council on the issue, because it will have responsibility for the management of the works. The work on the Ballymena public realm scheme actually commenced on the ground on 18 May. It is anticipated to last some 80 weeks and to be completed by November 2016. I take on board the concerns that have been raised and continue to be raised. I am asking the council and the contractor to ensure that everything is done to minimise the disruption, because an 80-week project of this magnitude will undoubtedly have particular challenges. It is important that we work with the traders. I have received correspondence from my colleague the MP for the area on compensation for traders. Other requests have come in on specifics, and we are working our way through those so that we do all that we can.
The other point is that we have learned from other public realm schemes that have been carried out in this way so that we can avoid some of their issues. I trust that that will be the case with Ballymena.

Mr Storey: In the four-year period just ended, my Department funded registered housing associations to provide over 6,100 new high-quality, energy-efficient social homes in areas of need across Northern Ireland. The Programme for Government target set by the Northern Ireland Executive was to deliver 6,000 houses, so the overachievement was a good result for those on the housing waiting list. Plans are to deliver at least 1,500 more new homes in the current year.

At this point, I acknowledge the contribution made by the housing association sector, not least the £315 million of private finance that was levered in to part fund the building programme. That makes a tremendous addition to the work that we can do every year to help those in housing need. Housing associations build some of the very best housing to be found in Northern Ireland. They provide not only housing for families but supported housing for some of our most vulnerable citizens. We can be rightly proud that our social housing standards are very much the envy of other jurisdictions.

In fact, if we look at output in the rest of the UK, we see that we are doing much better. Recent figures show that in England one new social house was being provided for every 60 applicants on the waiting list. The figures for Scotland and Wales were better, but the figure for Northern Ireland was best, with one social house being built for every 30 or so applicants. In relative terms, therefore, we are outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom on this issue.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I am sure that he, like everyone else here, recognises that there is a considerable waiting list. Can the Minister tell us whether he and his Department are on target with all its housing provision, or is there a miss or a lack here?

Mr Storey: In relation to whether the targets for the delivery of social and affordable housing have been met, I think the answer is yes. A total of 10,066 homes have been delivered in Northern Ireland under the current Programme for Government. As I said, 6,101 of those were social homes and 3,965 were affordable homes. Believe it or not, that is over 2,000 more homes than were promised. It is not often that Ministers stand in the House and are able to say that something has exceeded a Programme for Government target. The individual targets for all four years were exceeded each year, with 1,410 homes delivered in 2011-12; 1,379 delivered in 2012-13; almost 1,300 delivered in 2013-14; and 2,013 delivered in 2014-15. That all goes well for how we plan in the future. It is a good news story, particularly for those who are now in receipt of good homes. I look forward to ensuring that we continue to do the same in the future.

Mrs D Kelly: I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. There is no doubt that there have been some achievements. Nonetheless, Minister, would you not acknowledge that we are in a housing crisis and have been for some time? To compare us with GB is to compare one crisis with another. Did you give further thought in your review of the Housing Executive to whether it would be able to put in a submission to the European Investment Bank to build houses again?

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for her question and for the work she does on the issue on the Committee for Social Development. Obviously, she has a particular interest in this.

I would like to see the Housing Executive again at the forefront of building and providing homes. However, over the last number of years, we have seen the challenges that have been created. Since I have been in post, I have seen the variety of housing provision. It cannot be one-size-fits-all, so it has to be a multiplicity of providers. That will come from the Housing Executive being a good landlord and ensuring that its properties are kept up to the standard that they should be. We have fallen behind on that. Very soon, I will announce the outcome of the Savills stock condition survey, which will clearly indicate the huge investment needed. We have seen progress made with housing associations. I am having ongoing discussions with them on how we can improve our relationships, and they are key. There are also issues that Members have raised in the House about tower blocks and the way in which the Housing Executive needs to address those. All those matters are under consideration in a variety of ways. However, the focus must remain for me, as the Minister, and the Department to continue to work with all providers to get the best possible outcome and delivery for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr McGimpsey: I agree with the Minister that we provide good public housing. The problem, of course, is that there is simply not enough of it. What effect will the projected 2,000 properties for this year being reduced to 1,500 — a 25% reduction — have on the waiting list, particularly for the provision of vital family-sized housing?

Mr Storey: When you have to cut your cloth according to the amount of money you have, it will obviously have an impact. I would like to be exceeding the plan and doing more than we intended. Much has been achieved, and no doubt much more needs to be done, but, in the current circumstances of a reduced overall amount of money, we have to do the best we can with the money that is available. However, there is no doubt that that has an impact on communities and locations where there is a greater need or demand. That is the challenge for my Department and everybody, which follows on from my comments to the previous Member about all those involved in the provision of housing in Northern Ireland.

I attended a meeting recently with the CBI and had a useful exchange with a variety of providers from co-ownership providers to bankers. It was an open discussion around how we could continue to provide good homes in Northern Ireland. Let us not leave out the private sector, which continues to build houses and is showing some recovery in Northern Ireland. It has to be an all-round provision, not focusing solely on one element. However, there is no doubt that challenges remain for us in the budget.

Ms Lo: Of the social homes built in the last few years, how many were under the shared housing scheme?

Mr Storey: I do not have the exact figures to give the Member, so I am happy to come back and give her a detailed breakdown.

Mr Storey: My Department has no authority to control the level of service charges that are set by housing associations. However, the Department reviews service charges through the inspection regime and quarterly financial monitoring. The inspection reviews the appropriateness of the arrangements that housing associations have in place to determine the level of service charges and the processes for collecting those costs. The monitoring team receives and reviews quarterly financial information relating to service charge income and costs.

My Department is developing comprehensive proposals for a social housing rent policy. The proposals will also look at the fairness, consistency and transparency of service charges.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the report and the process that he has spoken about bringing forward. Is a timeline available for that? When could tenants expect that to kick into action?

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. It is my intention to put this out for consultation over the summer. That always raises the question of whether it is being done over the summer because people are away on holidays. However, I assure the Member and the House that the issue will generate considerable debate. It has already done so. Housing associations have made representations to me and the Department on the issue of a rent policy, and I think that they even raised that issue when they were with the Committee recently. I am also aware of concerns that have been raised across the piece about the particular way that we ensure that we do not have excessive rents but, equally, that people can live in homes in which they get value for money for the rent that they are charged. That goes right across the piece, whether it is Housing Executive properties or those in the control of housing associations.

I trust that I have taken a pragmatic view of the issue. I do not want to scare the horses or create alarm. I want to have an informed discussion about how we get the best possible outcome that secures tenure for people in their homes and gives them the assurance that they are not being overcharged for services that are not being provided.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answers. Following on from what he said, does he recognise the very real concerns among housing association tenants about the management of service charges and what they really relate to?

Mr Storey: Yes, in answer to the question that the Minister — the Member — asked. That might be a prophecy: he may be a Minister one of these days.

You are not long in post in any of the positions in the House before you realise the particular issues that are prevalent and the particular concerns that various groups and interests raise. One of those concerns is rent. We also get some very good feedback and some positive messages from a variety of sources in the Housing Executive and housing association provisions and from those who are involved in co-ownership.

It goes back to the point that I made earlier. We have a patchwork quilt of provision and a variety of providers. I want to ensure that, in whatever sector the homes are provided, they are provided in a way that is fair and equitable and gives quality of provision to those who live in them.

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for his question. I am glad that he has an interest in what goes on in our Maiden City. The Lagan Weir pedestrian and cycle bridge is on programme to be opened to the public before the Tall Ships event, which is due to take place in July.

Mr Girvan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he outline what benefits the Lagan footbridge and cycle path will bring to Belfast city centre?

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. My colleague has reminded me that Belfast is the capital city; I may have been referring to another city in the west, which is the Maiden City. The new bridge will provide improved connections across the River Lagan between Belfast city centre and the Titanic Quarter. The bridge will also help to promote the Queen's Quay area to potential developers. In only the second event that I attended after taking up office, I went to see the commencement of the works. At that stage, people were raising concerns as to why there was a huge investment of £5·5 million. It is a good investment that will provide tremendous connectivity between the Titanic Quarter and Queen's Quay —

Mr Humphrey: And north Belfast.

Mr Storey: — the Member mentions north Belfast — and the rest of our city. There is already anticipation in the lead-up to the bridge being handed over. I look forward to being in a position by the end of this month to officially open the bridge. It will be another added asset to this great city and to the River Lagan, which it crosses.

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

Mr Storey: This issue is always raised in regard to public realm schemes. When public realm schemes are taken on board, as far as I am concerned and, I trust, for those who are involved in the delivery of these schemes, every concern is heeded, whether in relation to those who have particular physical disabilities or some other disability. In particular, we have had issues in the past with guide dogs for the blind. All those issues are taken on board in a very practical way. In fact, just a few days ago, I was made aware of a particular scheme that had not been followed in a way that gave us a good outcome. I have asked for that particular issue to be looked at again.

Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he and his Department fully support recommendations made by disability groups in relation to the development of the regulation of pavement cafes?

Mr Storey: Yes. Again, we are aware of those particular recommendations. They are being considered, and I trust that we will be able to give a positive response in a way that is equitable and tries to strike a balance between the needs of the traders, who have expressed their particular concerns, and the needs of pedestrians.

Mr Storey: Yes. Obviously, I value very much the work that the independent advice sector does for us. The Member will be well aware of the challenges that we have in the House in relation to the Budget and in making difficult decisions. In fact, because of requests from his party, we have had to take some money from the block grant and divert it into other needs that he and his colleagues have seen as being a priority, particularly in relation to welfare. We did that in the comprehensive agreement but, unfortunately, the Member and his party are stalling the implementation of that agreement that we made.

I continue to support the independent advice sector and, through the various funding arrangements that we have, I give them the support and the financial assistance that they need so that they can continue to deliver the service in the expert way that they have done to date.

Mr McElduff: I will zone in on the current needs of Omagh Independent Advice Services. Will the Minister ensure that senior officials from his Department work closely and directly with Omagh Independent Advice Services to fix a hole in its finances? I understand that the deficit runs to £12,000 for the current year.

Mr Storey: This is the benefit of the House, because all politics is local. I appreciate the fact that the Member has a particular issue in relation to the matter that he raised. I am quite happy, now that the Member has given the details of the matter to the House, for my officials to look at the particular need and see what help can be given to the service in Omagh that is currently under stress.

Mr Storey: I thank the Member. Obviously, this issue is part of the problems that we currently face. In fact, correspondence some time ago from the previous Chief Secretary and from the previous Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Clegg, indicated to the Executive that they needed to make decisions on how they wanted to provide social security when DWP started to withdraw from its IT contracts in mid-2016.

That is one element of the issue. The other is that, if we cannot find an agreed solution to the Budget and were to find ourselves in the position that the finances of the House were under the control of the permanent secretary at the Finance Department, it would certainly create a huge challenge for us. By August of this year, which is not that many weeks away, we would be in a very difficult and challenging position that could result in a situation in which some element of the annually managed expenditure (AME) delivered on the ground, specifically in the form of certain benefits, could be put in jeopardy, and some benefits might not be paid.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. On that point, if some benefits will not be paid, would the Minister care to elaborate on how exactly the ongoing fight on welfare and the Budget, if it gets to the situation that he outlined, will help the vulnerable?

Mr Storey: The Member is absolutely right: it does not help. By constantly delaying it, we are ratcheting up problems that affect everybody in Northern Ireland. At Stormont House, we endeavoured in good faith to ensure that we had a comprehensive agreement, to which five parties made a contribution and signed up. We then began the process of implementing it.

Despite all the smokescreens and diversions over the last number of weeks, and despite all the misinformation about papers not being given and people acting in bad faith, I cannot understand why, when we had an agreement at the beginning of this year that was sold by the parties opposite and advocated as being a new dawn and a new day — it was a process that would help the vulnerable and one whereby we were getting to terms with dealing with issues — all of a sudden, on that fateful weekend in March, something dramatically changed. We know, of course, what it was. It was not the focus on the people of Northern Ireland. A party was looking two ways, and its focus was on an election that it hopes will come in the Irish Republic.

My call and challenge to the party opposite and to the SDLP, which, unfortunately, along with the single Green Party Member, became a conspirator on this issue, when it signed the petition of concern, is this: let us implement the agreement that we made; let us ensure that we do not create any more vulnerable people; and let us deal with the issues that will give to the people of Northern Ireland clarity and certainty in a way that does not create more vulnerability for those saying that they have lost all confidence in the House.

Mr Storey: I do not have specific details about that scheme with me, but I am quite happy to give the Member an update on it. In that scheme, as in others, I want to ensure that we continue to make progress. However, progress can be made only when all the agencies concerned work together and when we have the overall budget that will be made available to deliver these schemes.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Go raibh maith agat. Thank you, Minister. The problem is that phases 3 and 4 of the environmental improvement scheme never happened. The Minister has been in Sandy Row, which is almost a partner area of the Markets in this development. We invited you in before Christmas. There was a crisis in government, then there was another crisis. We will probably not make it before the summer, but I hope, Minister, that you will take up the invite to visit the Markets to see the great work that is being done there in partnership with surrounding communities. The environmental improvement scheme will be a key part of that.

Mr Storey: The Member rightly refers to phases 3 and 4. It is certainly a challenge to ensure delivery. The crises that he referred to were not of my making and are no reflection on my goodwill in trying to see delivery of a project that would undoubtedly have a huge impact on the well-being and quality of life of people in the Markets area.

Whether it is this scheme or others — my Department and I have been involved with a myriad and multiplicity of schemes over the last number of months and years — we need to ensure that we do not lose the focus of the importance of these projects for the communities that want them delivered. Other Members have the very cavalier attitude that we should not spend this amount of money and should spend it on other things. However, we sometimes need to take cognisance of the communities that we are delivering these projects in, listen to their voices and concerns, and try as much as we possibly can to deliver for them.

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for his question on benefits uptake. Of all the benefits — excuse the pun — benefits uptake has been one of the most successful schemes that we have engaged in. I continue to be committed to promoting the uptake of benefits in an effort to tackle poverty and improve the lives of the most vulnerable. In 2013-14, over 4,000 people, many from our older generation, gained some £14·2 million in new and additional benefits. In fact, since 2005, benefit uptake work has generated over £81 million in additional income for people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Moutray: I thank the Minister for that very positive answer. What plans are in place to improve further the uptake of benefits in this financial year?

Mr Storey: The Department is entering into the final year of Maximising Incomes and Outcomes, which is a three-year strategy to improve the uptake of benefits. An action plan for 2015-16 is in place. It continues to prioritise and invest resources in programmes and activities aimed at encouraging the uptake of benefit services and supports. Officials are due to present the action plan to the Social Development Committee on 18 June. That will give the Committee and Members of the House an insight into how we intend to address this issue over the next three years.

May I say to the Member, and to Members across the House, that they should continue to encourage people in their constituencies to ensure that they have made the call so that they can see what may be available to them? Given the fact that we are talking about a considerable amount of money over a number of years, I think it is well worth making the effort to make that call, because it will, undoubtedly, bring a reward.

Mr Storey: The Department has produced five papers since the Stormont House Agreement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I am afraid that time has beaten us. Members, we can return to the debate on the Supply resolutions.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will give our friends time to move across.

I want to return to some of the topics that we tackled earlier today. In brief, and in summary, our belief is that we need to have a more robust attitude and challenge to the cuts juggernaut that is coming at us from London. It disappoints those of us on this side of the Chamber that our colleagues on the other side of the Chamber are willing to accept, willy-nilly, the nature and severity of those cuts. They take it as read that there should be no resistance, protest, demand to, or explanation from, the British that it is the wrong way forward, that it will not benefit anyone in this community and that it will not help our economy. We are divided on the approach; I understand that. Despite that, the evidence shows that the ideology of austerity has not been the springboard for the improvement of our economy, and will not be in the time ahead.

The amount of money that has been taken from our block grant has been well rehearsed in the Chamber. At times, some of our colleagues across the Chamber are more critical of the British Government with regard to the £1·5 billion that has been taken out of our Budget since 2011. They have the attitude that it is done and that there is no merit in saying to the British that it needs to be reversed. That is not my attitude. It is my view that the £1·5 billion that has been taken out is equivalent to 0·002% of the British Budget, yet, of course, it has been a hammer blow to our budgets and has meant real hardship for ordinary people. If we want to continue the progress that we have made in the last two decades, we need to have that grant restored. We need to be able to provide the services that our people are crying out for.

Of course, we are at this crisis point because our friends in London are back in power. I was going to refer to the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition, but the Conservatives are back, on their own, in power, and have wasted no time in telling the public and us that further cuts will be our lot in the time ahead. We were fresh out of the election when we were told that cuts in the region of £30 million would come immediately, in-year. We also know that the £25 billion reduction that is being talked about will mean swingeing cuts to our budgets.

At some point, all of this will become unsustainable. Is it our role as politicians, civic leaders — people who have a stake in this land, in this community, and who are fighting for our neighbours, families and society — to go back to our community, time out of number, especially in the years ahead, and say that we have less money, that we will have to continue to cut back, and that we will have to continue to make a detrimental impact on public services because that is what the British are insisting on? If that is our entire role in politics, it places a huge question mark over why we should continue in that matter. I am not here to carry water for English Ministers. I believe that, if we are masters of our own destiny and have the ability to raise from our own people the resources needed to pay for public services, we should be allowed to do that. However, the British want it both ways. They do not want to allow us that right, except in very restrained circumstances, where they say that we can have corporation tax powers, but, at the same time, the income tax, the PAYE revenue, raised through the extra jobs, would go to London only. And so it is with all the other fiscal levers.

In the time ahead, our objective must be to have a response from the entire community right across the board. Last week, as part of a Sinn Féin delegation, I met the Institute of Directors (IOD) and the CBI. It heartened me to find that their attitude is not that of the Tory Government; they do not agree with the Tory Government when they say, "It is our way or the highway.". They believe that there is a strong and special case to be made for our community as to why we cannot continue to suffer this blizzard of cutbacks. I am particularly heartened by the CBI's insistence that, to inflict further cuts on this society will make it even more difficult for us to do the essential things if we are to build the economy, not least provide jobs to our young people and make sure that our universities have the ability to turn out the many talented and qualified graduates that industry calls for.

My call today is that, as we look to the future, we have a vision for a society that is fair and prosperous. I do not believe that that is impossible. I believe that we are united, right across the Chamber, in the belief that a fair and prosperous economy is good for everyone. That is one of the visions that unites us.

At this stage, we are divided because some of us are willing to accept the agenda from London and some of us are not. It is my feeling that continuing to slash public services and to accept, without protest, the continued cuts to our Budget is not the way forward. We will not be thanked for that, either by the electorate or the community.

I hope that, in the time ahead, as negotiations continue with the Treasury on the way forward and the austerity ideologues sit down and take out their pencil and decide what budgets to cut, our representatives on the Executive will bring to them a united voice and insist that we need the resources to build this society and to provide first-class public services to our people. We will continue to work in the interests of ordinary people to create jobs for all and to build the economy. It is my hope that, as we emerge from discussions in this Chamber and outside it, we can get a united approach from us all around the Chamber to the British Government in the time ahead.

I am someone who likes to say yes, but, if we are to say no to anything, now is the time to say no to the austerity ideologues and English Ministers and say that we will not accept their mission or plan to make our institutions untenable and unsustainable. Be sure of this: if they continue to cut as they plan — taking another £800 million out of our Budgets between now and 2018 — they will have dealt a hammer blow and a death knell to the institutions that we are all fighting to keep up and sustain in this part of the world.

Mr McGlone (The Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment on the Main Estimates. The former Minister briefed the Committee on 10 February 2015 on the draft Budget proposals.

DETI’s baseline position consisted of an overall 15·1% reduction distributed pro rata across the Department and its arm's-length bodies. The Committee noted that the assessment provided little indication of any prioritisation of expenditure in DETI. The Committee would like to have seen further analysis to ensure that the impact of reductions is lessened on areas of strategic priority for the Executive. Unfortunately, that does not seem to have occurred.

More than 90% of Invest NI's budget for 2015-16 was already committed when the Committee was briefed in February. DETI officials informed the Committee that that meant that Invest NI would be unable to support its current level of activity, resulting in fewer jobs being promoted, and presumably leading to fewer jobs being created. On a future Programme for Government (PFG) and economic strategy, officials stated that Invest NI would have to scale back its targets. That is of considerable concern to the Committee, especially at a time when Invest NI is performing very well against most of its PFG targets. The growth of Northern Ireland's export base is the one key area in which Invest NI has not met its targets, yet there seems to be no provision in the Budget to address it. Northern Ireland has a small internal market; therefore, the growth in exports is essential to economic growth.

Assurance provided previously that no worthwhile inward investment for job creation will be rejected owing to budgetary constraints remains in place. The Committee sought and received an assurance from the former Minister of Finance and Personnel that that remains the case. However, reduced activity by Invest NI will undoubtedly result in fewer opportunities being identified, leading to fewer worthwhile proposals for inward investment and, as such, fewer jobs being created. At a time when we are looking to reduce corporation tax and promote the North as a place to do business, that has to be a concern for the Executive.

DETI officials briefed the Committee on the June monitoring round on 2 June 2015. The Department outlined key monitoring round bids of £4 million to Invest NI for the Bombardier nacelles project and £1 million to Tourism NI for feasibility studies around maximising current tourism initiatives. The economy is the Executive’s number one priority, and the Committee has always believed that it is important that Invest NI be resourced to meet current commitments, and to deliver for future opportunities that present themselves. The Bombardier nacelles project is a high-value research and development project. That DETI's GB counterparts are also topping up the £110 million project shows its significance, with an estimated 115 R&D jobs, 168 production jobs and the potential for subsequent work to emanate from the project.

Invest NI bid for £4·3 million in capital for Seagate Technology (Ireland) for R&D assistance into leading-edge technology. That will be an important project for the site in Derry, with the company itself spending £34·7 million on it.

The Committee welcomes the initiatives in the June monitoring round that aim to maximise on money already spent by the Department. A bid of £1 million by Tourism NI for feasibility studies includes exploring the potential for future spin-offs from the high-profile 'Game of Thrones' and further footfall opportunities for the Gobbins path. The Committee looks forward to reviewing the results of the feasibility studies and any future work on the projects. It will continue to scrutinise the benefits, and whether they outweigh any spending.

There is slippage on the Waterfront convention centre, the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland and the SS Nomadic. The £1 million for that will be met by reallocation of funds. The Committee recognises the importance of those projects, not least the benefits of the Waterfront convention centre to visitor numbers and to putting Belfast on the map as a major conference destination.

The Committee is awaiting further information from the Department on the voluntary exit scheme for the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI). DETI core has registered £2·4 million and HSENI £0·5 million of requirements for the voluntary exit scheme. Those were considered in the first tranche of bids under the scheme. The Health and Safety Executive plays an extremely important role in ensuring and promoting health and safety in the workplace, not least with its recent advertising campaign for farm safety, which resonates very sadly and soundly with us all.

The Committee asked what impact the voluntary exit scheme will have on the most vital HSENI services — including, of course, farm safety — considering that, just over 18 months ago, the Health and Safety Executive appointed eight trainee inspectors to address a shortage in staff and bring the organisation up to full complement. The Committee has noted a reduction of half a million pounds owing to construction work not commencing on the gas extension project to the west and north-west until later in 2015. Again, that is an important construction project that will bring jobs in itself but also provide long-term economic benefits.

I will now speak for a moment in my capacity as a member of the SDLP. I wish to discuss the processes around the Northern Ireland Executive Budget. The most recent Assembly Budget Bill debate was only four months ago. I will reiterate a point that my SDLP colleagues have made many times.

An annual budgetary process used in other jurisdictions causes participation and robust process and brings ideas to the forefront. We in the Northern Ireland Assembly should and could have a significant budgetary process to discuss, but this is simply a financial management process — or mismanagement, as some might argue. There are so many things that we could be discussing, as well as legislation and allocation of funds that we could be bringing forward.

I have been out and about quite a bit in the last while, and a key issue that has been raised with me by members of the community, particularly young families, is childcare. I know that my colleague Seán Rogers has raised that on a number of occasions. The costs of childcare are exorbitant, and it is essential that I put this on the record. Aviva did a survey at the tail end of last year into childcare costs for parents of children up to five years of age. Many of them are working for less than £100 a month after childcare costs are paid. That is the situation that many people are facing. Indeed, many of them, mostly but not exclusively young mums, are having to face choices about whether they should or should not work. Those exorbitant costs are providing a barrier to employment, especially for young mums, and that deprives the labour market of key and very well-educated people with skills, who are being forced because of those pressures and the costs of childcare to remove themselves from the labour market. Childcare is also ultimately a key element in the development of the academic and intellectual skills of the child. We need to identify early on whether there are any shortcomings or problems that might need to be addressed in the development of the child. It has huge, huge social and economic value.

We have had a debate in the last while on welfare reform. I think that it is time we moved the focus. It needs to be on people who face difficulty. We need to move the focus of our debate from welfare reform to welfare and work reform, especially when those high childcare costs mean that one in five parents are considering either reducing their hours or giving up work altogether, thereby depriving the labour market of key people at a time when we are talking about investing in skills for our young people and reskilling people of a more advanced age. As a consequence of lack of proper investment in childcare, that key element of the skills sector is being withdrawn from the labour market. We talked about corporation tax. I think that a big attraction for any FDI coming here — yes, reduced taxation levels helps — is to come to a society that is caring and supportive towards its employees.

As my colleague Fearghal McKinney mentioned, we in the SDLP welcome the Supply resolution for 2013-14 Excess Vote, which provides further funding for the Department of Education and the Department of Health. The Main Estimates for DFP state that it will be unable to quantify the liability faced due the voluntary exit scheme and that it will become clear only in-year. I am concerned that that will affect the ability of not only the Department of Finance and Personnel but other Departments to work effectively. It appears that the Departments have not yet been able to forward plan to deal with that. I know that many civil servants are looking ahead, trying to plan ahead and trying to work their way through this, so it is important that they, too, have clarity on what their circumstances will be.
I will conclude at that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to put that on record.

Mr Swann (The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning): I welcome the opportunity to outline the Committee for Employment and Learning's consideration and views on the Supply resolution Main Estimates 2015-16. As it is one of the Executive's largest spenders, scrutiny of the DEL budget is taken very seriously by the Committee, and, to that extent, Minister Farry briefed it on the budget on 26 November, 10 December, 3 February and 18 March to provide details of the changing situation with his Department's budget.

During his briefing on 3 February, the Minister informed the Committee that the original total for the reductions that he had to find was £82 million. However, due to a reallocation of £20 million from the Executive, the total reductions to be found fell to £62 million.

I also welcome the fact that the Executive have listened to Committee and others' warnings about the Department for Employment and Learning's spending and provided £13·2 million of change fund money to bring the Department's opening baseline budget cut to £48·3 million.

In dealing with the pressures, the Employment and Learning Minister outlined his way forward to the Committee. The Minister provided detail of £33·2 million reductions made up of £18 million of cuts rolling forward from the 2014-15 budget and £3·5 million of efficiency savings from the employment service.

The main issue that exercised the minds of the Committee during the Minister's briefings was the impact on student places in our universities and colleges and the knock-on impact on the Northern Ireland economy. In detailing what the impact will be, the Minister outlined that the remaining £30·1 million pressure on the budget will be managed by a reduction to the universities of £16 million, a reduction to the further education (FE) colleges of £12 million and further departmental efficiencies of £4·1 million. The Minister accepted that the remaining £6 million of savings to be found by the universities will most likely result in a cut in university places and jobs. This is at a time when the Minister has warned that even no reduction in jobs or places is not a positive option and that an increase in places is needed for the sake of the future of Northern Ireland as a growing economy. On that issue, the Committee welcomed the commitment by the universities that there will be a protection of the narrow STEM subjects, given their importance to the economy.

The Committee welcomed the allocation of £7·5 million from the change fund to enable the Department to proceed with piloting the new apprenticeship strategy and the youth training strategy, but it is concerned that those new initiatives may not cover the shortfall found elsewhere. The Committee has also noted with concern that the Minister has been unable to guarantee committing extra funding to vocational skills and apprenticeship programmes to meet the demand that will result from a shortfall in places at colleges and universities.

The Committee welcomed the fact that the Minister is not cutting the further education and higher education support that it gives to students with disabilities, and also that it is not cutting its disability employment programme. The Committee was also content to note that the Department is also protecting the hobby and leisure provision for people who have learning disabilities.

At its meeting on 20 May 2015, the Committee was briefed on the June monitoring round by departmental officials and welcomed the fact that the Department is making four non-ring-fenced bids.

The first bid is in relation to £6 million end-year flexibility to ensure that inescapable pressures are met across the further education sector. Departmental officials advised the Committee that it is absolutely critical that the Department receives that money, as failure to do so would mean that the money would have to be found elsewhere in the Department and create further pressures in the Department.

The second bid is for £5·5 million to meet inescapable contractual obligations or residual costs after the pausing of the youth employment scheme in December 2014 and the costs of the remodelled employer subsidy for 18- to 24-year-olds: £4 million of this bid relates to the youth employment scheme and the remaining £1·5 million relates to the remodelled element. Again, the bid for the youth employment scheme is a committed amount, and, if the bid is unsuccessful, the money will have to be found elsewhere in the Department.

The third bid is for £2·6 million of match funding for the European social fund to meet the match funding requirements of that programme. This is required to bridge the gap in the departmental match funding element, and, if not met, the money would have to be found elsewhere as it is already committed.

The fourth bid is for £1 million for the economic inactivity strategy to develop a range of pilots to see what works best to tackle economic inactivity. However, the Committee noted that this bid is not inescapable and could be delayed. The Committee has already expressed concern regarding the timelines for some of the projects that would not commence until 2016 or 2017, and even some as detailed as 2019. Therefore, if the strategy is delayed now, some projects may not commence until well into the new mandate in 2021.

The Committee also noted that the Department has submitted two capital bids — one for the further education colleges of £5·9 million, which is to ensure that colleges meet their legal and statutory obligations on health and safety and disability.

The Committee for Employment and Learning will continue its scrutiny of the Department for Employment and Learning's budget and especially the Minister's efforts to mitigate the impact of the cuts.

I now wish to make a few comments as a member of the Ulster Unionist Party and as a Member of the House. With regard to the Employment and Learning budget, I believe that the removal of the education maintenance allowance for the Pathways to Success programme has caused severe problems to many young people. The latest position from the Minister was that it was still on his desk. I hope that the Minister makes a positive decision and makes it soon. The Include Youth Give and Take online video that was posted recently will explain the importance of that funding.

With regard to the European social fund and the match funding, many organisations are still in limbo over the current programme and are waiting for money to be delivered from the Department so that they can finish off the last programme.

As chair of the all-party group on congenital heart disease, I will seek the confirmation of the allocation of moneys to provide the promised cardiac centre of excellence for children in Belfast, as recommended in the international working group report. I want to express my disappointment that the moneys — namely £1 million — promised a number of years ago by John Compton during the review of cardiac surgery in Belfast was utilised by the Minister of Health to send children across to England to have their surgery done there. The £1 million that was promised to revitalise the centre in Belfast was utilised elsewhere. So, I would like the financial commitment that that money will be promised in the incoming Budget.

Mr Irwin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development): I am speaking today as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and will represent the views of that Committee.

The Committee received material and documentation from DARD on the Main Estimates and took oral evidence from officials on 2 June 2015. In carrying out its scrutiny of the Main Estimates, the Committee noted the following issues and concerns. First, and most importantly, the Department is the paying agency for EU grants to farmers. The Main Estimates that DARD presented to us on 2 June show a figure of just over £245 million for CAP. The administration and payment of CAP funds is DARD's single biggest task and responsibility. It is no surprise, therefore, that when we examined the Main Estimates, that is where the Committee focused its attention.

The Committee is adamant that the main priority for DARD should be its front-line services to farmers and the wider rural communities and, specifically, the payment of the EU grant. The Committee recently received a separate written briefing on the numbers applying for the EU grant through the single application form. We are aware that this year is a time of great change and flux for DARD. The system has changed, and, instead of a single payment of an EU grant to a farmer, there are now up to five separate areas where the farmer can claim payments. All those new areas need to be checked, inspected and verified, and some of those inspections are new and different from what went before. For example, all applicants to the fund now need to meet a new criterion called the active farmer. All applicants need to provide proof that they are an active farmer, and that proof needs to be checked and verified by DARD.

In the past, the Committee has received assurances from the Minister and DARD officials that the basic payment system is the number one priority for the Minister and the Department. The Committee acknowledges that the system has changed and is more complex to administer, but there has also been a fall in the number of applications. This year, we have seen an increase in the number of applications made online, which makes the administration easier. Those two factors — the falling number of applications and more applications made online — plus the additional support that DARD has requested for IT systems in the June monitoring round should counter any proposed increase in complexity. We, therefore, fully expect that DARD will be able to meet the same payment timetable as last year.

There has also been some speculation in the media regarding the legalities around the payment of the EU grant in the event that no Budget can be agreed and the permanent secretary of DFP takes over the Budget for Northern Ireland. This is the issue of accruing of resources. I was, therefore, pleased to note that the Minister of Finance and Personnel stated during Question Time on 9 June that she was taking steps and was confident that the basic farm payment would be paid, even if it is not through the normal processes. Northern Ireland farmers will take some assurances from that.

In its further scrutiny of the Main Estimates, members of the Committee questioned officials on the voluntary exit scheme. The Committee is aware that DARD is expected to make savings in salaries of £5·9 million from the exit of staff. The Committee was interested to explore the firmed-up figures and any assessment the Department has made regarding the figure of £5·9 million. The Committee was interested in DARD's assessment of whether it would make that saving and what impact it would have on its Main Estimates if it did not. Unfortunately, the officials were unable to tell us very much, other than that DARD staff who had applied had received letters that morning. That was 2 June.

The Committee also questioned DARD on the budget provision for TB compensation. As the Assembly and Members are aware, TB compensation has been very costly to the public purse. As a result, the Committee keeps a very close eye on the costs of TB, including not just compensation paid to farmers but the costs associated with testing and research.

This year, for the first time, we see the full costs for TB built into the Main Estimates. Previously, there had been a structural deficit in the Main Estimates in that only around £5 million was allowed for TB. That meant that the Department had to constantly seek additional funding for TB in the monitoring rounds. Our Deputy Chairperson, Joe Byrne, referred to the Department’s reliance on the monitoring round for TB compensation as being like relying on a slush fund. He was not too far wrong.

This year, for the first time, we saw a baseline of £12·5 million in the Main Estimates for TB. You can imagine the Committee's disappointment when it was informed that that line in the Estimates was incorrect and that an additional £4·5 million bid was being made in the June monitoring round.

Testing for TB in cattle and the payment of compensation are statutory responsibilities: they must be done. Given the uncertainties over the Budget process, we, as a Committee, had to ask the "What if?" question. Mr Poots directly asked the DARD officials:

The answer was not reassuring. The Department basically told us that it was exploring contingencies, that none of them were palatable and that difficult decisions would have to be made. A final point to make on the issue of TB compensation is that the additional bid is due to a spike in TB incidence. That is something that we are not happy with, and we have called for additional information.

The final issue that I want to cover, which was raised at the Committee, is the upward trend in departmental administration costs. Those costs have risen from £54 million in 2013-14 to nearly £58 million in 2014-15, and the Main Estimates show a further increase to just over £60 million in 2015-16. On top of that, programme costs over that same period have dropped considerably. We, as a Committee, cannot understand that, and we are not happy with the explanation that we have been provided with. We questioned DARD officials on 2 June, and we will be keeping a very close eye on administration expenditure in the future.

That concludes my remarks as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.

Dr Farry: I am speaking as an ordinary MLA, and I will resist the temptation to respond to some of the comments made by Mr Swann in his capacity as Chair of the Employment and Learning Committee.

Mr Allister: Oh, go on.

Dr Farry: All in good time.

At this stage, it is important that we understand and recognise what we are doing today and what we are being asked to do today and over the next couple of weeks, namely to pass a Supply resolution to authorise the supply of resource and pass a Budget Bill to give legal authority to Departments to spend that money. That should be the normal course of action during any financial year. The Executive and Assembly take policy decisions in terms of the Budget resolution, and then there is a responsibility on the Assembly to ensure that that money flows.

As people know, my party opposed the Budget in the Executive for a host of reasons, including a lack of strategic thinking for the future and difficult decisions not being taken, including a fair and balanced approach to revenue-raising issues and issues around the cost of division. Those are all issues that are big structural difficulties within our Budget. Once that debate happened this year and a democratic agreement was made, we all had a duty to ensure that we follow through with the supply of the necessary resource. So, as we find ourselves in June, our duty is to ensure that we follow through with that Budget, albeit one that we believe was flawed in a number of respects. That is our responsibility as legislators in this context.

As we meet today, that context takes on a certain air of unreality, because we all know that there are some major financial challenges facing Northern Ireland, most of which are self-inflicted wounds due to our lack of ability to agree on the politics of the way forward. Northern Ireland is in a bad place financially and politically, in the sense that we do not have a sustainable framework of public finances. The immediate issue, above and beyond those wider structural difficulties that I have alluded to, lies in the non-implementation of the Stormont Castle agreement and the Stormont House Agreement, including the thorny and difficult but inescapable issue of welfare reform.

Obviously, we would not wish to start from this place, but the least irresponsible thing to do is to proceed and ensure that we have some sort of legal framework in place around money. We have a duty to ensure that the money does not run out, and anyone who is thinking of voting against the Supply resolution this evening needs to think very long and hard about what the consequences would be of a no vote and, indeed, if the Assembly were to follow suit and endorse their perspective on a no vote. That would mean that, in the absence of an intervention from the DFP permanent secretary, the money would run out. In that eventuality, there would be not only a political problem but a financial problem, in that we would be facing much deeper cuts even than those that we wrestle with at present, with all of the pain that has been articulated not just by MLAs but by people across society over the past number of weeks and months.

At the very best, agreeing the motion does not in itself resolve any of those political and financial issues, but it buys us a little time. I have to confess that I have a slight reservation about proceeding on this basis because, true to form, there is a danger of people sitting back and becoming complacent: somehow, having got over one hurdle, money can be spent regardless. We have to use the time that we buy wisely, and time is not a luxury that we have. We have to act quickly to resolve the outstanding issues because, if we keep putting off their resolution until the late summer and into the autumn, when we finally reach a conclusion on the way forward, we may well face even steeper cuts than those that we have had to face so far. Much less time will be available to deliver those cuts, meaning that the options available to Ministers and Departments will be much more constrained and the pain across society even deeper. We have a duty to give those whom we serve a degree of financial certainty as early as we possibly can.

There was a degree of unreality in some of the remarks that I heard from Members from all Benches, particularly from the two nationalist parties. I know that the Green Party will join in later. The two nationalist parties articulated concerns about the cuts and talked about how terrible it is that this is happening, that that is happening and that we are missing out on opportunities. If they had any sense of joining the dots, they would recognise that the failure to deliver the agreements at Stormont House and Stormont Castle and the failure to face up to the realities of welfare reform are plunging Northern Ireland into financial uncertainty, and that is making the pressures on public services and on the economic levers that transform our economy even more acute. Every time individuals stand up and talk about cuts, they need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask what they are doing to help or hinder that particular situation. Are they part of the problem or part of the solution?

If we drill even more deeply, we find troubling issues that need to be teased out. I appreciate that a lot of people have very deep concerns about the cuts made to the Northern Ireland block grant over the past number of years. Also, there is uncertainty about the future, with the very real prospect of cuts to welfare payments and the Northern Ireland block grant in the immediate years to come. If we are to fight that process and join forces with Scotland and Wales to present a common front, surely our position will be strengthened if we are able to show that we are capable of acting in a responsible manner through having resolved the financial pressures facing us this year. By contrast, if we go into that process with those issues unresolved, our credibility will be so much weaker. I do not see how having an understanding of this year's financial framework will, in any way, shape or form, prejudice our ability to argue our case — our special case and our special circumstances — in any process of dialogue with the Treasury over the years to come. Those who are deliberately holding out on providing financial certainty because of their stated concerns about what may happen in the future need fundamentally to reassess their position.

Perhaps even more fundamental political and constitutional questions are being raised. We hear talk, particularly from Sinn Féin but echoed implicitly by the SDLP, that they want to be masters of their destiny in Northern Ireland and that they are not here to administer cuts on behalf of the UK Government.

That is not what they were elected into politics for. Certainly, I do not want to be in a situation in which I am cutting budgets; I find it incredibly difficult, and it pains me every time that I am forced to make a cut. However, we have to recognise the wider constitutional reality: we are part of a UK framework, and that is where our public spending comes from. We do not have the resources to go it alone and have a free-standing situation. Insofar as tax-varying powers can be considered, it has to be in a framework in which we are still dependent to a very large extent on the Treasury. Indeed, if we were to imagine a future united Ireland, unless there were a major change of circumstances, Northern Ireland or a devolved Administration in the northern part of the island would be very heavily dependent on a fiscal transfer from the Irish Government as a whole, which themselves have gone through a process of austerity and spending cuts. They could then put a lot of pressure on public spending in Northern Ireland, and the same arguments would be voiced again.

The approach also does a great disservice to the creativity and innovation that has been shown under devolution. We are not simply here to dole out money on behalf of others. We are here to add value and make a difference, not always by spending money in different ways but by showing creativity in policy and the type of projects we put in place and ensuring that those projects are much more in keeping with our set of affairs.

Most troublingly, if you join the dots in what Conor Murphy said implicitly on 'The Stephen Nolan Show' last week, Sinn Féin not only insists that it be immune from what happens in the UK as a whole, bypassing entirely the principle of consent, but believes that Northern Ireland must have the ability to determine its own future and that, because in itself Northern Ireland is not sustainable, there needs to be an all-Ireland framework. If Sinn Féin is essentially linking delivery of a united Ireland in the short run and as a precondition to progress on all these issues, it is obviously erecting a bar that is —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Could the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Dr Farry: — beyond anyone's reach, not least because we have to respect the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. There are a lot of not only political and constitutional but financial and economic issues that we have to square if we are to make progress over the coming days.

Mr Wilson: None of us wants to be in the situation we are in today of the Finance Minister bringing forward this proposal. It is not an ideal situation, but it is the only solution available if Departments are to have the authority to keep on spending after July to deliver all the services people expect in Northern Ireland, to pay public-sector wages and to pay grants to groups that depend on government. This Supply resolution has to be passed today, and Stephen Farry is right: those who wish to vote against it ought to consider the consequences, which will be that every one of their constituents will be affected when, after July, the ability to spend money is no longer there.

As was pointed out, the Finance Minister is asking us to authorise the expenditure of more money than we know will be available. Eventually, Departments, if they keep spending at the rate this Supply resolution would authorise, will be overspent, and there will be consequences. I suspect that the Treasury will not permit it. The Treasury will certainly not want that to happen in Northern Ireland, because it would have implications for Scotland, Wales and other parts of GB as a whole. Nevertheless, we have to move forward and have certainty that Departments will be able to spend.

There have been three reactions. One was from Mr Allister, who said, "Let us not have the black hole in the Budget; let us cut £600 million from these Supply resolutions". I have two issues with that. It ignores the fact that the Finance Minister is trying to get the Assembly and the parties that have buried their heads in the sand to address the whole issue of the Stormont House Agreement. It ignores that issue. The one way of either getting the parties here to focus on the problem or to get the Government at Westminster to focus on the problem is to have a Supply resolution that clearly leaves the problem unresolved and forces people to pay attention to it.

If Mr Allister wants to let Sinn Féin and the SDLP off the hook on the decision they have taken, then the way to go is to vote for his amendment. I will give way.

Mr Allister: I suggest that the Member is proposing a course that kicks the can down the road and gives Sinn Féin more time to play the games it loves to play, instead of facing reality. My amendment would pull everyone up short and cause the parties to face reality, rather than kicking the can even further down the road to the point where the Minister inevitably breaks Treasury controls and we are in an absolutely irreparable crisis.

Mr Wilson: Of course, it does not. First of all, although I suspect his amendment will not be carried by the Assembly, we would immediately be in the situation, not where we have a black hole, but where we would be throwing ourselves over the cliff, because there would not be any spending power available for Departments after the end of July. The second issue, of course, is that the reductions are unspecified. He will argue, of course, that he has covered them in his amendment, but all that does is give general terms. It actually works, in effect, on a 15% annual reduction in the budgets of all other Departments apart from the Department of Health. I would have thought that, if he wanted the Assembly to make that decision, we would have had at least some indications as to what that means for schools, housing, roads and all of the other budgets. Of course, that is not specified.

At least there was some construction in his amendment. SDLP Members have taken a totally different view. They have simply buried their heads. Listen to them. They have prattled on today about the need for annual Budgets, the need for more money on childcare and the need for more money on health, as Mr McKinney told us, as if there was not a problem and we did not have a shortfall — a shortfall caused by their party and the fact that it joined Sinn Féin in the blocking mechanism of the Stormont House Agreement and welfare reform. They cannot pretend that they have not caused a problem. They certainly cannot then go and blame the Government at Westminster, as Alex Attwood tried to do, and say, "Well, we were promised the final Budget".

The Budget that I voted on at Westminster earlier in the year was the final Budget for this year, but, as the Conservative Government won a majority, they are now going to revise that Budget. It is the right of a Government to do that. They have decided to revise the Budget for the whole of the United Kingdom, with financial implications for here. We cannot just run away and say, "Well, it's the Government's fault". It is the parties in this House that have refused to implement the agreement that they made in December, which would have given the Finance Minister the resources to do all the things she wants to do over the next year. It is their fault that we have not got it. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and then just prattle on about what we want to spend money on. I noticed, of course, that, although SDLP Members talked about those extra things, they did not suggest one way in which we could get the money.

If we come to the other end of the spectrum — total irresponsibility — then of course we have Sinn Féin's attitude to it. "We simply resist it all." How they resist it is unspecified. "The cuts juggernaut should be resisted. We will stand in front of it." Well, you are going to get run over. "We will not carry water for British Ministers, though we will pour cold water all over economic recovery in Northern Ireland by our irresponsible behaviour." Of course, the ultimate threat that we got from Mr Ó Muilleoir at the very end of his speech was that, if the Government insist that Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, bears its part of the United Kingdom budgetary cuts, that will be the death knell of the Assembly.

Now, that is really constructive. Of course, if it spells the death knell for the Assembly, will the juggernaut stop? No. Will the cold water of austerity not affect Northern Ireland? No. It will simply be done by Westminster. That is Sinn Féin's solution: resist it in some unspecified manner and, if not successful, close the Assembly down. I take it that that is what Mr Ó Muilleoir meant when he talked about the death knell for the Assembly: "We will walk out and let those evil Ministers from Westminster do the job anyway".

It is significant that no other part of the United Kingdom has adopted that immature attitude. Despite all their rhetoric, the Scottish nationalists have still introduced budgets commensurate with the reductions that have come from Westminster. Despite the opposition in Wales, the Welsh Labour Government, with all their rhetoric against austerity, have introduced a budget that reflects the cuts that have come from Westminster. It appears that only in Northern Ireland is there a group of politicians who are so immature that they cannot see that, as part of the United Kingdom, there are considerable benefits for us — £10,000 million worth of benefits each year for us. They simply ignore reality and, first, cause uncertainty for those who want the economy to work and, secondly, bring disrepute upon politics. That side of the House has been almost entirely responsible for that.

The Finance Minister, in the absence of any construction from other parties in the House, has done the best job she can. Yes, there are implications for it and it may lead to intervention from the Treasury, but —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Wilson: — the important thing is this: we have it, and it will keep public services running in Northern Ireland after July. Therefore, I believe that the Supply resolution that she has tabled should command the support of the House.

Mr Rogers: I welcome the motion today and the opportunity to speak on it.

The Supply resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2015-16 provides us with another opportunity to assess the areas of greatest need in the education sector. I have consistently argued that the main priority for the Assembly in its approach to education should be delivery in the classroom. Northern Ireland must consistently raise standards in the proper provision of education and, in order to do that, there must be a consistent strategy and balanced funding for all levels of a child's development.

Let me say to begin with that I fully appreciate and welcome the additional £6 million being provided to the Department. I recognise that not all Departments have been so lucky. I note, however, that this was a wise move, as, ultimately, the proper provision of education for the region will have a lasting impact for generations to come. Education forms the building blocks of our society and economy. It is primarily through education that children and young people will develop their attitudes and their views of the world. Education remains essential for gaining the tools necessary to build a fulfilling future. I call on the Minister to use the money wisely and effectively. When I say "wisely", I mean through sound financial management that empowers schools and other institutions to meet the educational needs of all young people.

The term "subsidiarity" comes to mind. The Oxford dictionary's definition of the term is that it is the idea that:

Through the local management of schools (LMS), the large majority of schools have demonstrated that they are capable of sound financial management. I have no doubt that, if other aspects of their budgets were delegated, they could do a very good job and ensure value for money. I have spoken many times about the procurement process for general maintenance. I have no doubt that schools could save thousands of pounds and redirect this to where the need is in the classroom.

With less money tied up in education administration in the Department and at authority level, primary schools could deploy resources in areas of curricular need. Science, in The World Around Us, is the birthplace of STEM. The SDLP believes there must be a more robust focus on attainment in STEM subjects and degrees to provide our young people and, as a consequence, our businesses with the necessary skills base to excel in this era of global competition.

Education funding must make proper provision for young people in order to help them reach the highest possible standards of educational achievement and, as outlined by the Estimates, to grant them a secure foundation not only for lifelong learning and employment but to develop their values and attitudes so that they may help bring new prosperity into Northern Ireland.

To allow our children to grow and develop in the most beneficial way, it is crucial that there be investment in a long-term early years strategy, as it remains essential if we are to create the building blocks for our children's educational future. Underinvestment and the lack of a long-term strategy in education not only fails our children and young people but is detrimental to our economy and to social justice. Early years funding now stands at £26·9 million, representing a noticeable drop from last year. I am once again dismayed that even the most critical years of a child's development are underfunded. The proposed reduction of £1·7 million in the early years fund creates a serious risk to 170 jobs and up to 2,500 early childhood places. Particularly worrying is the effect that such proposals will have on 620 special needs children who rely heavily on such funding to help meet their specific learning needs. The early years fund has proved vital to the development of children across Northern Ireland, by sustaining high-quality services in areas of greatest need and supporting initiatives across the region. Not only is an effective early years plan right for the development of our young people but it will help improve our local economy in the long term.

As I noted earlier, a well-educated population can bring innovation, creativity and ingenuity to the local economy. Therefore, the SDLP recognises that a child's development hinges on high-quality early childhood education. I urge the Minister to use excess resources to fund early years learning. It is at that base level that increasing investment is essential to addressing poor rates of literacy and numeracy.

Mr McCallister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Rogers: I took the advice of the Speaker earlier that I do not get an extra minute.

I wish to make a couple of points on literacy and numeracy. In 2010-11, 9,000 pupils left full-time education having failed to reach the required standards in literacy and numeracy. An Audit Office report in February 2013 stated that thousands of Northern Ireland's young people leave school unable to read and write. Northern Ireland's global education position for literacy and numeracy has been on the decline since 2006. Although we need emergency measures to address the issue in late primary and early secondary school, we need to adopt a strategic approach that gets to grips with it early in a child's education — in primary school.

Youth services are another critical aspect of the personal development of young people, with the issues of proper provision and funding needing to be addressed. The Estimates state that the primary goals for youth services should be:

To that end, it is crucial that youth services, from voluntary and community organisations to our very libraries, be properly and consistently funded.

When reviewing the figures, I made particular note of the almost £27,000 provided to the Department of Education by the European Union Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. I ask Members to recognise how EU membership benefits Northern Ireland, especially given the uncertain future that lies ahead. I listened carefully to the Chair of the Agriculture Committee and thought, "What would the farming community do without EU funding?".

If we are to see our economic outlook improve, we need to address the skill imbalances that characterise our island economy. Critically, those imbalances lead to lacklustre productivity and stifle levels of foreign direct investment and business start-up. Skill gaps act as an impediment to productivity and, as such, can generate lags in growth. Skills shortages refer to an imbalance between demand and supply in our labour market. Labour demands may not be fully met if the labour supply does not possess the skills to meet those needs.

We also need to address the imbalance in employment opportunities. All Departments have the opportunity to decentralise public-sector jobs. I understand the pressure that the Invest NI budget is under, but smaller, indigenous business needs a greater share of the cake.

The SDLP is only too aware of the finite nature of the resources that are available for education services and of the ongoing impasse in welfare reform. However, increased budgetary restrictions and severe Tory cuts in schools will result only in more expensive problems in school maintenance and future provision.

I have said this before and will today reiterate that sound financial planning and balanced funding are intrinsic to improving our education system. I urge the Minister of Education to allocate funding to strengthen the educational prospects of all our young children.

Mr Weir (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I will begin with a few remarks in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee. The two votes on the Supply resolution for the Excess Votes for 2013-14 and the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates for 2015-16 are obviously interlinked.

I will first address the Excess Vote. Most of the excess — £6·28 million — is associated with the Department of Education and refers to a larger than expected cash drawdown in 2013-14. As the House is aware, the Public Accounts Committee has produced a useful summary report of all the excesses. The Education Committee questioned the Department on that in September 2014. The problem in question occurred in the education and library boards, and the Department has subsequently instituted an enhanced control framework to prevent reoccurrence. I understand that the new controls are operating well. We are obviously now also into a new scenario with the Education Authority.

Although £6·28 million is a very small amount when compared with the overall Budget or even with the £2 billion budget for Education, it is nonetheless very important that excesses of that type are avoided. I believe that the Education Committee is generally content that matters are now appropriately under control and that it will support the relevant Supply resolution.

Turning to the Main Estimates for 2015-16, the Committee has studied the budget for Education and appreciates the difficult choices that the Minister has had to make. While the Committee welcomes support for schools, it is concerned about a number of significant funding cutbacks, including, as mentioned by the Member who spoke previously, the early years fund, as well as the Sentinus STEM promotion programmes, the primary-school modern languages programme, the Book Trust Bookstart scheme and the community education initiatives. In addition, there are other challenges to the Education budget in 2015-16 and beyond.

The Committee expects that the level of uptake for teaching and non-teaching voluntary exit will be considerably lower than the target. The Department recently helpfully clarified that it never actually had a target for voluntary exit and that it was, in fact, simply "an extrapolation", as it called it. Notwithstanding the unusual semantics of redundancy, suppression and voluntary exit schemes, it appears that the failure to meet the imaginary target, or the "extrapolation" as the Department would call it, will lead to real pressures on school budgets. Indeed, the failure to meet that extrapolation is by a considerable margin; it is not something that is relatively minor.

The Department has prudently planned to make additional savings in other areas. However, it is not clear what will happen to individual schools if they do not take proper advantage of the exit scheme — indeed, if they are not given the opportunity — and consequently significantly overspend their budget. It is also not clear what the implications for school transport, school meals and other issues might be if the planned salary savings are not achieved.

The Committee was also surprised to learn of possible additional voluntary exits from the Education Authority. The Department has yet to clarify how many of those posts will be non-school based. I mention that, as the business case for the Education Authority indicated that the resource and staffing depletion had been such that the predecessor organisations, the education and library boards, had been operating at "the extremities of corporate risk". It therefore seems strange that we seem to be contemplating reducing non-school-based staffing at all. From that point of view, I suppose the issue is also whether the figures were got right by the education and library boards in the first place.

In these times of constrained budgets, an important consideration will be the impact not only on services but on risk. It is, therefore, important that spending is planned and scrutinised and that, perhaps, mitigation measures are included against inevitable additional challenges. At the risk of understatement, I suspect that this may be a very difficult year for budgets, even in the best case scenario. By that I mean that there are a few unwelcome surprises, followed by unpopular revisions. We can all agree that what will be required by schools and the education-related public sector is the minimisation of risk to services.

Having made those remarks as Chair of the Committee for Education, I will move on to some remarks in my capacity as a DUP Member, but I will concentrate on the broader level of education. We have heard, particularly from the previous contributor, about a number of areas where there should be a shift in spending in the education sector. Although I would not share his concerns over Europe, I would broadly share a lot of his concerns about education. There has been, for instance, a lack of strategic direction in early years provision to ensure that there is that level of intervention.

The only problem with that is that while we agree on all those things, unless we get the broader picture right — there are certain parties here that would take us down a different road — dealing with the margins in education will be very much dwarfed by the £600 million black hole that potentially is there in the Budget. Are we to take the advice of Mr Allister, who has, at least, indicated that these are illustrative figures? The Department of Finance and Personnel has already produced illustrative figures, so, quite frankly, why he has a desire to act as a sort of catch-up with the Minister a month later is slightly beyond me. The cynic might say that, as he is not advocating £600 million in cuts, he put down his amendment simply to gain additional speaking time.

Mr Allister: I thank the Member for the additional speaking time. The reason for the amendment is to focus attention on the fact that we need to face reality. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road because that will just be exploited by those who love to do that. I wish to remind the House that what the Minister is doing today is precisely what, for weeks, she said she would not and could not do, which was to put her hand to a Budget with a £600 million hole in it. Yet today, that is exactly what she is doing.

Mr Weir: That is not what the Minister is doing. She will be able to respond to that in greater detail. This did not need to be illustrated because it has already been fairly heavily illustrated. In the Department of Education, the implications of a failure to grasp this issue will, pro rata, be about £114 million. Before and since I became Chair of the Committee for Education, I have met representatives of a wide range of groups who put forward very good cases for a lot of the good work that is being done in education. I do not doubt that for a moment, and I want to see that work supported. The implication, if we ignore the elephant in the room of the £600 million, will be devastating to education.

A year ago, when we had the draft Budget, changes were made by the Department of Education and the Department of Finance and Personnel. We were staring at a reduction in the aggregated schools budget of something in the region of £78 million. The reality is that if there is an in-year gap of £114 million, that will, largely speaking, be faced directly by schools. Sixty per cent of the expenditure goes directly to schools and a lot of other areas are things that, in a very short-term context, cannot be adjusted. This will be an in-year cut. We are not debating next year's Budget today; we are debating the Supply resolution for money going directly into this year's Budget. We are going to be left with a situation where, if we do not get this correct, or people do not allow us to get it correct, instead of the nightmare scenario that was painted a year ago of the implications for teachers of redundancies and the failure to provide levels of education, it will be greater than double that, because that is £114 million in-year. That is the abyss into which we are staring.

I believe in the positive value of education. I believe that it provides opportunities to be a life changer or game changer for many individuals. However, if some people in the House get their way, that game will be changed for people massively to their detriment. We will have a meltdown of the education system and that is the stark reality that needs to be faced up to in the wider context.

This is not some long-term issue that is going to be faced, as the situation in 2016-17 is going to be; it is about what is happening now and what is going to happen in the next couple of months if things are not got right. It will have real impact on the vulnerable in our society. It will destroy life chances. It will destroy schools. It will destroy children's lives. That is what we are faced with. The Minister has brought this forward to try to protect front-line services and do what she can to bring the matter to a head in a sensible fashion. That is why I support the proposal that has been put forward by the Minister and reject the proposal that Mr Allister put forward to cut £600 million from the Budget.

Mr Ross (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): In relation to the 2014-15 provisional out-turn, the Department's non-ring-fenced resource DEL underspend of £18·3 million represents 1·7% of the budget, or 0·9 % if PSNI underspend is excluded. The capital underspend of £4·9 million represents 7·8% of the budget.

The Committee discussed the underspends with Department officials, particularly the PSNI underspend of £14·9 million, given the very clear budgetary pressures that the Police Service is facing, as were articulated not so long ago by the Chief Constable on a number of occasions. Whilst there are a number of explanations for the underspend, including legal aid challenges, the cost of which did not materialise during the 2014-15 financial year, and the actions that the PSNI has taken to reduce costs, which focus on planning for the longer term, it is disappointing that such underspends occur and were not identified and declared earlier to enable the money to be used, if not by the PSNI then elsewhere, particularly when there are clear budgetary pressures on front-line services in other parts of the Department.

The Committee fully expects the Department to work more closely with the PSNI during this financial year to ensure that there is transparency and adequate information around its budget, which accounts for over 60% of the overall Justice budget, and spending plans to identify any emerging pressures or easements so that action can be taken to quickly address those issues. The Committee has also advised officials that the Department must proactively identify and manage all emerging underspends to ensure that the budget allocated is fully utilised to support the delivery of its objectives and priorities.

The Committee was also very concerned to learn from officials that Treasury has indicated that the £53 million that was intended to be carried over, under end-year flexibility, for the Desertcreat community safety training college is not available and that, assuming that the college goes ahead, the entire funding will have to come from the block grant. The Committee is of the view that, the sooner a decision is made on how and, indeed, whether it should proceed, the better for all concerned.

In respect of the 2015-16 Budget and some of the key pressures that the Department of Justice is facing, the Minister has had to prioritise funding allocations to protect the delivery of front-line services. The result is severely reduced budgets in many areas of the Department. I previously highlighted the Committee's concerns regarding an approach to cutting spending that does not include a cost-benefit analysis or an analysis of the impact on and cost to other areas of the criminal justice system or other Departments, such as Health. The Committee still has concerns that, by reducing funding to projects that aim to prevent offending and rehabilitate offenders, such as those provided by NIACRO and other voluntary organisations, it will increase costs in the longer term for not just the police but the Courts and Tribunals Service and, ultimately, the Prison Service, thus negating, at least in some part, any savings that may be made in the short term.

Whilst it is clearly difficult to live within reducing budgets, the Finance Minister will know from her previous role that, much in the same way that the private sector used the financial downturn to make its businesses more efficient and look for innovative ways in which to do things so that they are in better shape coming out the other end, reductions in public spending should be used by government as a springboard for change. We should look at how we do things and whether new, innovative approaches could be brought forward to save money and improve outcomes for service users.

That is why I instigated a series of Justice Committee seminars that looked at approaches that could be adopted here in Northern Ireland. The first three seminars that we hosted focused on youth justice issues. Three more will take place in the autumn, covering early intervention projects and other initiatives that we believe could be implemented here in Northern Ireland. The seminars bring together key representatives in the justice system — the judiciary, the PSNI, the Department, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency, the legal professions and, of course, voluntary organisations — to discuss areas for improvement and new initiatives. We, as a Committee, intend to assess the information gathered and identify ideas and new ways of working that could be implemented in the justice system here to deliver more efficient services whilst maintaining the standards that we require.

The Committee is also considering initiatives being taken forward in other jurisdictions and will undertake a visit to London before summer recess to meet the Lord Chief Justice, the Centre for Justice Innovation, the Civil Justice Council and Sir Brian Leveson, who has completed a review of efficiency in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. The purpose of the visit is to explore innovative ways to speed up the justice system and make it more efficient through increased use of digitisation in areas such as court listings, online courts and online dispute resolution. The Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland has welcomed the approach that the Committee has taken in these areas.

While the Committee will carefully scrutinise the Department’s budget and spending plans, as I have outlined, we also intend to identify possible new approaches that, if adopted, could assist in delivering efficiencies in both the short term and, crucially, the longer term.

Specific in-year pressures that have already been identified by the Department include a range of potential pressures in relation to pensions, including increased employer contribution rates for the main unfunded public service pension schemes from April 2015, for which the Department intends to bid for £7·4 million in the June monitoring round. The creation of the Legal Services Agency and the associated transfer of staff from the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS), and the costs associated with the transfer of Youth Justice Agency staff to those two schemes, are also creating pressures, although the extent is not yet clear. There is also the potential for a very significant pressure in relation to fine default imprisonment, depending on the outcome of test cases which the Department has indicated it cannot fund within existing resources.

Unfortunately, yet again, the main pressure faced by the Department, even at this early stage of the financial year, centres on the cost of legal aid. Despite the fact that the Department increased the baseline for the Legal Services Agency by using some of the Executive's 2015-16 allocation and implementing larger-scale reductions to other budget allocations, a legal aid pressure of approximately £20 million is already being forecast. The Minister of Justice, when he appeared at the Justice Committee meeting on 28 January, indicated that the key risk to the Department being able to live within its budget is legal aid spend. At that time, he stated that he would be proposing a range of further reforms to manage the pressures on an in-year basis, and it is clear that action is required to address the cost of legal aid on both a short-term and, crucially, a longer-term basis. A failure to find resolution to the legal aid issue will result in impacts on the funding for front-line areas such as the Prison Service, the Court Service and the Probation Board.

Turning very briefly to the Department's savings delivery plans, it is clear that a wide range of savings have had to be made, many of which will impact on the service provided to the public. One example is the relocation of the tribunal hearing centre to the Royal Courts of Justice. Given that the dedicated tribunal centre provided an informal environment for appellants who are often unrepresented and vulnerable and that the Royal Courts of Justice presents a very formal setting that is not in keeping with the original ethos of tribunals, this is far from ideal.

Other examples include reductions in staff in youth justice services, and the operational capacity of the Probation Board is being affected, which will have a direct impact on its delivery of front-line services including the supervision and monitoring of offenders.

The Justice Department is facing substantial budgetary pressures during 2015-16 that will have to be carefully managed to ensure that key priorities and targets continue to be delivered to the required standard. As I said earlier, this does, however, provide a driver and a challenge to look at doing things differently and more innovatively. The Committee intends to play a key role in doing just that.

I now want to speak very briefly as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee on the Mental Capacity Bill and highlight the cost that will need to be met if this Bill becomes law. We will have the Second Stage of that Bill tomorrow, and I hope that Members will significantly interrogate the costings that would be required if we were to pass it.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Justice have estimated that somewhere between £75 million and £129 million will be required in the first year to implement the legislation, with the associated annual costs estimated at between £68 million and £102 million. These are substantial costs that are currently not budgeted for and that will, even at the lower end of the estimates, represent a significant pressure on the budgets of both Departments, both in the first year of implementation and then on a recurring basis. In my view, the magnitude of the cost is concerning, particularly given the pressures already being faced by both Health and Justice and the other competing priorities that they face. It would be remiss of me not to highlight that at this stage.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Supply resolution and Main Estimates 2015-16. The Environment Committee was first briefed on the draft Budget by officials from the Department of the Environment in November 2014. That was followed by a further briefing from officials in February 2015. In March, the Minister also agreed to attend the Committee to brief it on the final Budget and the consequences that it will have on the Department and the services that it provides. There is no doubt that, as a result of the parties opposite deciding to hold each other's hand in the economic wilderness, we face not just a tsunami of financial consequences and penalties but a threat to the very institutions of government. Departments now find themselves in the almost impossible position of delivering services whilst barely knowing from one week to the next what further cuts they will be asked to make or what further penalties might be imposed on them.

Perhaps, when the members of Sinn Féin next travel to America with their fundraising begging bowl, they might consider telling their audience about the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money they throw away every week back at home. Their economic strategy, it appears, leaves much to be desired.

The Environment Minister can turn to his colleagues around him, and to his partners in denial in Sinn Féin, and thank them for allowing his Department to suffer the hardest budget hit of any Department, a headline reduction of 10·7%.

As the Chair and Committee members acknowledged, there are existing obligations that the Department is statutorily obliged to pay, such as the derating grant to councils. The Department received an additional £2 million in the draft Budget and £1·9 million in the final Budget to restore that grant to its opening baseline position, but there remains a £1·3 million shortfall, which the Department is bidding for in the June monitoring round. That, coupled with the fact that 60% of the DOE's budget covers salaries, means that other areas in the Department will receive a larger percentage reduction.

Of particular concern to me is the uncertainty now felt by the Environment Department's NGO sector. Those organisations consist of thousands of people who are passionately committed to every aspect of our environment and carry out such valuable work on behalf of us all. If the DOE is taking its responsibilities seriously, those organisations and the work that they do should be described as vital. I welcome the fact that the Minister has finally seen sense and engaged with them, leading to the creation of the £1·25 million natural environment fund. My fear is that whilst that fund may provide some easement, it does not go nearly far enough. Once the groups cease to exist, their expertise will be lost, and we may never get them back. The consequences for the environment in that scenario do not bear thinking about. The loss of valuable services may lead to EU infraction fines and the loss of valuable research into our biodiversity and historic environment. I am aware that the Department has bid for an additional £2 million for environmental programmes in June monitoring and that that is one of its preferred bids.

I have further concerns about the impact of budget reductions in other areas, such as road safety. In recent weeks, our country has witnessed absolute carnage on our roads, with horrendous loss of life and many lives subsequently destroyed through the suffering of the families left behind after a tragedy. It is an absolute travesty to say that we can no longer afford to raise awareness or take preventative action. Those in the Chamber who fail to support Budget reform will, no doubt, be called to explain their reasons to the heartbroken victims of road tragedies. With the number of road fatalities rising, the Department's bid for £1 million in June monitoring to restore the level of funding for road safety communications in line with 2014-15 levels is particularly important. It is also important that the Department of the Environment looks carefully at how it plans to deal with the ever-increasing road fatalities and injuries in Northern Ireland and at more effective and creative ways of delivering road safety messages.

With such a large proportion of DOE's budget relating to salaries, I am pleased that the Committee has pressed the Department, at every opportunity, to determine the exact saving should money become available from the voluntary exit scheme. The Department has a target to reduce its staff by around 400 posts, which will go some way to addressing the other pressures. The Committee is keen that the Department act swiftly and strategically to reallocate savings to priority areas, if and when that money becomes available. I ask the parties opposite to consider how they plan to reform public services should the voluntary exit scheme not have sufficient funding to proceed.

Finally, I turn to the £58 million of capital allocated to the Department. Some £50·5 million is for financial transactions capital funding for the Arc21 development in my constituency. I seek assurance from the Finance Minister that, should the Arc21 planning application for Mallusk not be granted, that loan money can be handed back and allocated, if need be, to another project or even to another project in another Department. It is worth pointing out the fact that here is mass public opposition to the project in Mallusk and more viable and non-controversial options exist.

Mr McCallister: I could join colleagues by getting up and completely ignoring the countless elephants in the room. I wonder about the sheer credibility gap, as it used to be known in American politics, between the politics of what we are discussing and the realities of where we actually are.

I look at and listen to colleagues with great respect. I must say that, for many months, those sitting on the SDLP and Sinn Féin Benches clung to the great hope that Labour was going to win the election. I must say to them that I have some upsetting news: last time I looked, the Tories won. If you do not like it, that is too bad; the Tories won, and they are the elected Government of the United Kingdom.

Those who thought that, under Labour, it would all have been so different should perhaps read the interview given by the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 'The Irish Times'. I will quote a couple of highlights. He makes it emphatically clear that neither Sinn Féin nor the SDLP would have had an ally in the battle to compel the British Government to row back on welfare reform in Northern Ireland. He makes that quite clear:

He goes on to ask why there should be in Northern Ireland:

— and so on and so forth. It is quite clear that Labour policy would have been no different, or would have differed very little, from that of the Tories. During the election campaign, the First Minister estimated that the difference between the future plans of a Conservative Government and a Labour one was as little as £1 million.

Look across the water to our colleagues in Scotland and listen to them on welfare. They are held up as a great example of fighting the Tories. Alex Neil, the SNP Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, talked about three things he would change about welfare: the bedroom tax, fortnightly payments and housing benefit to be paid directly to landlords. Does any of that sound familiar? It would suggest that we have done or were about to do exactly what our Scottish friends would like to do.

However, we are in the process of driving the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive into crisis. As was pointed out by Dr Farry and Mr Wilson, the Scots and the Welsh are talking about taking on the majority Conservative Government, but they are not plunging their institutions into crisis. No one is talking about taking powers away from Cardiff Bay or Holyrood; they are talking about increasing the powers of those institutions. We have Sinn Féin talking about getting more powers over tax and saying, "If only we had control of this, we could change it". In broad terms, I am a supporter of more tax-raising powers being devolved to this Assembly and Executive but only in the context of a reformed Assembly that has a functioning Executive arm, which could make some of this work.

We seem to have completely closed down the debate and the realities on welfare. We have moved so far away from the broad principle that work should pay that many families who have people in work are worse off than those on benefits, and that situation should not be sustainable.

I listened to Mr Rogers talk about early years and I agree entirely. During one of the welfare debates, I spoke at length, saying that the idea that we are spending £564 million over the next six years, and cutting early years intervention to pay for it, is absolute madness. Yet that is exactly what we are doing by not dealing with welfare. We are neither fish nor fowl, effectively: we are not doing welfare and we have no budget. So, how are we going to pay for any of this? A key part of any Government is delivering Supply and a Budget. In normal parliamentary democracies, if a Government cannot do that, that Government fall and you have an election. Our difficulty is that we do not know what an election would solve. Would it bring back the same people with the same problems, with no alternative and no viable opposition in place as an alternative Government?

I agree with colleagues who point out that it is incumbent upon all members of the Executive to vote for this, because they are bound into the Executive. In some of the previous Budget debates I quoted from John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I am going to quote, now, from another Kennedy, but this one is from Bessbrook. I want to quote Minister Danny Kennedy from last week:

The parties that are in the Government should step up and act like they are in the Government. Those of us who are in opposition are free to make those choices, because we do not bear the responsibility of government, and do not get extra speaking rights, ministerial cars and the perks of being members of the Executive.

The real tragedy is the impact that all of this is having on Northern Ireland. We look like we are lurching from crisis to crisis: and we are. During recent weeks, I attended an Invest NI event in South Down — at the very successful Irish Open — and I was away with the Assembly and Business Trust at Mr Ó Muilleoir's conference, New York-New Belfast. The one message we got, in all of those places, was about stability, and yet we are expecting Invest NI to go out and sell Northern Ireland on stability and corporation tax, neither of which this Minister, nor the economy Minister can guarantee. None of that can be made to happen. There is a disconnect from the realities of finance and welfare here, all bogged down in the idea of a Dáil election and what would happen with that.

As I pointed out before, if this place were a sovereign government, the IMF would be running it, not anyone else. We are in the fortunate position that we get a huge fiscal transfer from Westminster. The Greeks were held up by Sinn Féin as a model, as comrades and as an example, but now they are finding it increasingly difficult. They are trapped in a monetary union with no fiscal transfer from the Germans to help them out. We are very fortunate that we are in a political, monetary and fiscal union in the United Kingdom and that we enjoy a £10 billion a year subvention that props this place up.

Meanwhile, we put off all the difficult decisions. We have delayed on public-sector reform. If we had implemented recruitment freezes four years ago, we would not have needed to borrow £700 million to deal with that. We could have borrowed £700 million and made the case for infrastructure. There are many things in the Stormont House Agreement, and, when the Minister responds to the debate, she might want to comment on who all she thinks still supports the Stormont House Agreement. Where does this leave the £700 million for the voluntary exit scheme? If she did get that over the line, would it be enough to ease her financial problems? Where does it leave the £350 million of borrowing for other infrastructure problems? Where does it leave the asset sales? Have we commenced with any asset sales?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr McCallister: Can any of that be used to offset the £100 million loan and the £114 of welfare reductions?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr McCallister: All those questions remain unanswered.

Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment): I welcome the opportunity to outline the Committee for the Environment's views on the Supply resolution Main Estimates 2015-16. The Committee was first briefed by officials from the Department of the Environment in November 2014 on the draft Budget, followed by a further briefing in February outlining changes. The Minister briefed the Committee, at its request, in March on the final Budget and the impact that it will have on the protection of the environment.

The Committee is aware that DOE has been the hardest-hit Department, with a headline reduction of 10·7%; therefore, it is particularly important that the Committee scrutinise and challenge the Minister on his priorities and budget allocation. Committee members challenged the Minister on his allocation to necessary expenditure. The Committee acknowledges that the Department is obliged to pay the derating grant to councils. Having received an additional £2 million in the draft Budget and £1·9 million in the final Budget to restore that grant to its opening baseline position, there remains a £1·3 million shortfall, which the Department is bidding for in the June monitoring round. That, coupled with the fact that 60% of DOE's budget covers salaries, means that other areas in the Department will receive a larger percentage reduction.

That has certainly been felt by the Department's NGO sector, many of whom now face an uncertain future. Towards the end of March, many organisations received letters from the Department advising that their funding will cease in June. Indeed, some were given notice that funding would not be available after March. The Minister has, late in the process, engaged with those organisations and has created a new natural environment fund of £1·25 million, replacing the well-established natural heritage grant programme. While that may alleviate some of the pressure, it does not go nearly far enough, and concerns remain for the longer-term stability of the sector.

An unrealistic budget for environment programmes will ultimately have implications on the protection of the environment, the retention of skills, and the sector's ability to leverage other funding. It might lead to EU infraction fines and a loss of valuable research into our biodiversity and historic environment. The Committee is aware that the Department has bid for an additional £2 million for environmental programmes in June monitoring and that that is one of the Department's priority bids. The Committee will keep a watchful brief on that matter.

The Committee also raised concerns regarding the impact of budget reductions in other areas. Members encouraged the Minister to look at alternative and innovative ways of communicating messages on road safety more effectively to a targeted audience to make a bigger impact. With the number of road fatalities rising, the Department's bid of £1 million in June monitoring to restore the level of funding for road safety communications in line with 2014-15 levels is particularly important.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, 1 April saw the implementation of a significant change to how Northern Ireland is governed, following the transfer of many functions to local councils. The Committee had previously expressed concerns that a reduction in the rate support grant for less well-off councils would lead to a reduction in service delivery or an increase in rates. The Department's largest resource bid in June monitoring, £2·8 million, will bring the grant back in line with previous levels of funding.

With such a large proportion of DOE's budget relating to salaries, the Committee has pressed the Department at every opportunity to determine exact savings should money become available for voluntary exit. The Department has a target to reduce its staff by around 400 posts, which will go some way to addressing its other pressures. The Committee is keen that the Department act strategically to reallocate savings to priority areas if and when that money becomes available.

I will now speak about capital. Of the £58 million allocated to the Department, £50·5 million is for financial transactions capital funding for the Arc21 development. Committee members expressed reservations about the allocation of that money, particularly as planning permission has not yet been granted for the development. The Committee sought reassurances that funding would not influence the outcome of the planning decision.

The Committee is aware that the Department is bidding for a total of £3·41 million of capital and £12·65 million of resource in the June monitoring round. Much of the resource bid is either to restore funding to previous levels or to cover unfunded commitments. The Committee will continue its scrutiny role to ensure that the Minister allocates any additional funding that he might receive to priority areas.

Mr Allister: Patently, there is a major crisis in the public finances of Northern Ireland and in the governmental institutional arrangements in Northern Ireland. Else we would not have reached the ridiculous level of proposals being brought for public spending, where those who bring them know that the money that they are voting to spend, they do not have and will not have, because of the logjam created over welfare reform. It is clear that there is a crisis, but it is equally clear that this is a crisis made in Stormont. It is not anyone else's fault: it is made in Stormont. It is a crisis made because of the inevitable consequences of the form of government that we have. It is a crisis epitomising the failure of mandatory coalition in this Province, and it has come to the point at which it looks as though it could well perish on the rock of financial issues. Whether it is now or later, that is the reality because, at the heart of government, there is a party that does not want to make Northern Ireland work; that is quite happy to bankrupt Northern Ireland; and that has no interest in fiscal probity or in making sure that we pay our way, that we have the money to pay our bills or that we meet our national obligations. Now that it has the ball at its toe, it is taking full advantage of the situation. Today, we are giving an opportunity for more of the same. Kick the can down the road rather than face the reality and the fact that the system is grinding to that inevitable halt. Of course, the kicking of the can down the road gives those best experienced in exploiting every situation more opportunity to twist and turn and to do all the things that they do best.

From this fantasy Budget discussion, I suppose it is no great surprise that we have had fantasy-plus in the debate, most particularly from Sinn Féin Members, who talked in wild, extravagant, crazy terms about what needs to be done. When you strip it down, you find that the sophistication of the Sinn Féin message to the British Government was this: "Butt out, but leave your chequebook." That really is the lamentable sum and substance of Sinn Féin's approach to our governmental finances. Little wonder, with a veto —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: If I have time. Little wonder, with a veto bestowed on such a party, that we would get to this point. I will give way very quickly.

Mr Wilson: Will he accept that no chequebook will be left when the Government know that they have people who will continue to write cheques ad nauseam in the irresponsible way that Sinn Féin will, even though they cannot even stick by the agreements that they made?

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

Mr Allister: Sinn Féin is very happy to spend other people's money, and if it is the British Government's money, so much the happier it will be. That is the situation we have got to.

This really brings to a crystallising point the failure of these institutions. In a way, it is indicative of the oblivion that these institutions deserve if we have got to the point of playing pretend with the public finances. That game of pretence speaks of a dismal, failed Executive deserving only of oblivion. In fact, it reminds me of some well-known words from Shakespeare that might be the epitaph of this Executive:

Of this Executive it could be said, "sans Budget, sans credibility, sans legitimacy, sans everything".

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mrs Arlene Foster, to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate. The time allocated to the Minister is 52 minutes.

Mrs Foster (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): There you are — 52 minutes. Excellent. The debate has covered many aspects relating to public expenditure, as well as many aspects not relating to public expenditure, it has to be said. Nevertheless, I will endeavour to address as many points raised as I possibly can in the time very generously allocated to me.

There are three categories of people who have spoken today in the debate. The first is those who are imbued with a sense of realism. They have spoken to support the motion with varying levels of enthusiasm. I accept that, and I understand it. This is certainly not the set of circumstances that I would have chosen for my first substantive debate on the Supply resolutions, but, of course, that is not of my making. It was not my party that reneged on the welfare Bill at the very last stage, thereby causing the difficulties that we find ourselves in today.

However, just to be clear, especially for Mr Allister, this Budget is predicated on welfare being dealt with. His argument that I have in some way moved my position is a fallacy, as I am consistent with what I have said all along, which is that we in my party would certainly not put our hand to a cut of the kind that he is advocating today. The only way that this Budget works is if welfare reform is enacted. I cannot be clearer than that, and, as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.

The second category of people —

Mr Allister: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Foster: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Allister: The Minister is on record many times in the public media saying that, if welfare reform is not addressed, we would be in a situation where we could not produce a Budget because we could not balance the books and she would bring only a balanced Budget. Today, she is bringing what is effectively an unbalanced Budget. It is in that respect that she has done the U-turn in kicking the can further down the road.

Mrs Foster: I have not — I wish the Member would listen to what I have said: it is predicated on welfare reform being enacted, and therefore it is a balanced Budget. The second category is his category, namely those who know that they can put forward proposals safe in the knowledge that they will not pass. Mr Allister can put forward a 15% year-on-year cut to the Budget safely knowing that it will not happen. We have not heard from Mr Allister today — he has had ample opportunity to tell us — on where he would cut in the Department of Education in terms of schools or the Health Department in terms of nurses. We have not heard any of that today from the Member, who is looking straight at me and wants to get in.

Mr Allister: Thank you very much. I have made it very clear that the purpose of the amendment is to bring the issue to a head. The Minister thinks that by kicking it down the road some day we will pull in the Secretary of State and she will have to do something. I am saying — it is patently obvious — that there has been more than enough time to sort this failure of the Executive. Bring it to a head now by demonstrating that the Budget is unworkable and force the hand of the Secretary of State to do the things that the Minister really wants her to do.

Mrs Foster: I notice that the Member did not take the opportunity to tell us where the 15% cuts would be enacted.

Anyway, I move on to the third category of people who have spoken today: what I call the "you couldn't-make-it-up group". That group has two subsections. First of all, we have the SDLP, who continue to ask ad nauseum for more money without any indication as to where it is coming from. Of course, the second subsection of that group is Sinn Féin, who have absolutely no sense of irony when they seek to lecture the Westminster Government on their "economic incompetence". The party that advocated clearing people's credit cards as a policy platform at the Westminster election is lecturing others about economic incompetence.

According to Mr Ó Muilleoir, he is not here to carry water for English Ministers, but frankly, if Sinn Féin and the SDLP get their way, that is exactly what we will be doing — if even that — in the utopia that they are driving us towards. Neither the SDLP nor Sinn Féin has given us any indication as to how we pay for what they are advocating. I am not surprised by that, because throughout this process we have asked for alternatives and different ways of doing things, but no solutions have been brought forward. It is my party that has to always come forward with solutions to the problems that we find ourselves in.

I want to move on to the particular issues that have been raised by Members. Mr Allister took the time to read the DFP Estimates manual. I am not sure that there are too many other Members who have taken the time to read the Estimates manual and quote from it. He highlighted that the manual explains that the Supply Estimates are a critical part of public spending control, which is absolutely right. The key point is that the Assembly can only vote on spending plans agreed by the Executive and brought forward by me, as Finance Minister. The Assembly cannot propose new figures, as the Member suggested. That does not make this vote any less important: it is vital. However, only I, as Finance Minister acting on behalf of the Executive, can bring forward the figures.

Mr Allister also made the point —

Mr Allister: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. If what the Minister just said is correct, would it not be so that the Speaker, in permitting this amendment to be on the Marshalled List, is failing? I believe that the Minister is wrong and that this Assembly has the power, and indeed the requirement, to approve the Estimates in the manner in which it wishes to approve them.

Mrs Foster: That is not a matter for me to comment on, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: It would be useful if you could comment on that as you continue into the depth of your speech, Minister.

Mrs Foster: It is my belief that only the spending that comes from the Executive can be voted on. That is not just my belief; it is the legal opinion of my departmental solicitors.

Mr Allister also made the point that the Estimates that are being taken through now are too high and that any changes must be agreed by the Executive after today. I am acutely aware that we need to have, as I have indicated, the implementation of welfare reform to ensure that the Budget is sustainable, not just this year but into the future. The alternative is completely unpalatable, with significant reductions required in-year. It is certainly not about kicking the can down the road. The SDLP and Sinn Féin need to sign up to welfare reform, as agreed at Stormont House, or Westminster needs to act. Either of those two elements need to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

It is not unusual to take through Main Estimates that need to be amended through the financial year; the Finance Minister brings proposals to the Executive through the monitoring rounds, and, once agreement has been reached, these changes will ultimately be reflected in the spring Supplementary Estimates for endorsement by the Assembly. This year is no different in that respect, although I do accept that the uncertainties are more severe.

Mr McKay mentioned the welfare reform study that has been conducted. The report is helpful in understanding the context of welfare reform, and it is my intention to release it to the Committee for its perusal in the next few days. Mr McKay also raised the legal position of the use of accruing resources, and I am confident that the legal advice that I have received is robust. I have taken into account the position taken by the Committee, but hopefully the progression of this Budget Bill will ensure that neither legal position needs to be tested.

The expected quantum and spread of savings across Departments from the voluntary exit scheme is being calculated by the working group under the direction of the head of the Civil Service, and hopefully those figures will be available shortly as well. However, before those figures can have any meaning at all, the Stormont House Agreement needs to be implemented in full because, of course, all of those things are part of the same agreement.

Paul Girvan mentioned the Excess Vote for the Department of Education. I entirely agree with the Member that arm's-length bodies need to be accountable for their expenditure and that they need to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. To be clear, the Excess Votes relate to the 2013-14 financial year, when the Department of Education breached its Vote's amount. I note that steps have been taken by the Department that there will not be a repeat of this situation, and that has been confirmed by the Public Accounts Committee's recommendation.

I am sure that my colleague the Minister of Health will have been interested to hear what Mr McKinney said. He indicated that welfare reform had no impact on the Department of Health. I find this amazing. As Finance Minister, I completely refute that claim. The failure to implement welfare reform has resulted in substantial financial losses for Northern Ireland. For example, this year alone, the block will lose some £114 million in welfare reform penalties. The House will know only too well the financial pressures that our health service faces. Undoubtedly, the Health Minister could have made significant use of an additional £114 million. I have no doubt about that at all. When you listen to people saying that they are protecting the vulnerable, think of the use that that £114 million could have been put to. Think of what it could have been used for. Think of the difference that we could have made to people's lives by £114 million going into the health budget.

Mr Poots: I thank the Minister for giving way. Of that £114 million, the Department of Health's allocation is well over 40%, equating to roughly £1 million each week that the health service is being starved of. That is money that should be spent on increasing nurses' wages and increasing midwives' wages. It is money that should be spent on people's hip operations and knee operations. It should be spent on domiciliary care for the elderly, but, as a result of the actions of the parties opposite, we are in a situation where those people are being denied that service and the health service is being starved of money as a consequence of their grossly bad behaviour.

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his comments. I do not know whether he was in the House when Mr McKinney made comments about Transforming Your Care (TYC), which I know that the Member has a particular interest in. Mr McKinney indicated that implementing TYC is about implementing a new model of care. That is right. It will see the home as the hub of care, and, to achieve that, it is important that we build the right services to achieve the vision and that services are sustainable. I do welcome the progress that has been made to date. That progress has seen the creation of 17 new integrated care partnerships across Northern Ireland, which are working to improve the coordination of care and support in key areas such as the care of the elderly and the treatment of chronic conditions, such as diabetes, stroke and respiratory conditions.

Clearly, more has to be done. More will be done, but the Member should note that transition to the new model of care is a long-term process. It will not happen overnight. It takes time to change a health service to deal with a new model of care. I welcome the savings that the Department of Health has made to date. This year alone, the Minister has committed to delivering savings of some £164 million.

Mr McKinney also raised the issue of the Chancellor's in-year reductions. I can confirm that the Executive's Budget will be reduced by £33 million in resource DEL and £5 million in capital DEL. Her Majesty's Treasury has given us some flexibility in the timing of the reductions, and I will bring proposals to the Executive as part of June monitoring and will, of course, report the outcome of June monitoring to the House in due course.

Michaela Boyle raised the issue of more powers to manage the economy and criticised the United Kingdom Government. The Member conveniently failed to mention that the fiscal deficit is in the region of £9·6 billion, and she did not provide any strategy to reduce it. She did, however, give a knighthood to George Osborne, which I found very interesting, referring to him as "Sir George Osborne". Sinn Féin is now in the business of giving people knighthoods. Moreover, reneging on the Stormont House Agreement has put the devolution of corporation tax in the balance, and we heard the comments made by her colleagues over the weekend in that regard.

Mr McGlone, speaking about the DETI budget allocation for 2015-16 in his capacity as Chair of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, referenced the 15·1% reduction in DETI's baseline and expressed concerns about the impact on Invest Northern Ireland's activities. I reassure the Member that the final Budget settlement agreed by the House in January resulted in a net increase of £18·6 million in the 2015-16 DETI resource budget, enabling Invest NI to create legally binding commitments that have resulted in unprecedented success, as we have seen from their recently published results. We know that that will continue under the leadership of the new Minister and Alastair Hamilton in Invest NI. We have allowed them to promote new jobs, drive investment in research and development and support companies to grow export sales.

Mr Irvine — Irwin, rather; I nearly gave him a new name. Mr William Irwin gave the view of the ARD Committee and mentioned bovine TB as one of the key challenges facing the sector. I am aware that, whilst the most recent figures report a reduction in the number of TB herd breakdowns, there has been an increase in the number of reactor animals. While we cannot lose sight of the negative impact of bovine TB on our local farmers, we must also be cognisant of the cost to the taxpayer, particularly given our current budgetary position. The total cost of TB compensation payments in 2014-15 was £14 million. As the Member highlighted, the Agriculture Minister has already flagged up the need for additional funding in this financial year. There is, therefore, a clear need to explore all means of eradicating bovine TB, including the modernisation of our compensation regime.

Mr Irwin also, along with a number of other Members, raised concerns about the use of accruing resources. The accruing resources that a Department may use are subject to a limit set by the Budget Act. As I said in response to the Chair of the Finance Committee, I have received legal advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office that accruing resources cannot be used in the absence of a Budget Bill, because the limit has not been set. If there is no limit, we cannot use the accruing resources. That would have serious consequences for items such as the single farm payment, and that is why I very much want to progress the Budget Bill to avoid such a situation. I encourage Members to think carefully about how they vote today, bearing in mind the huge issues out there, particularly, in this case, for our farmers.

Mr McCallister: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Foster: Yes, I will.

Mr McCallister: I declare an interest as a recipient of single farm payment, Mr Speaker. Will that not be hugely worrying to a sector and an industry that you are trying to promote through the agrifood strategy? Adding to very poor trading prices — particularly in the milk sector but also for beef and lamb — difficulties or uncertainty about whether single farm payments will be paid either on time or in full is a hugely detrimental place to be.

Mrs Foster: I understand the Member's concern, not just from a personal point of view but as someone representing his constituents. It is one of the reasons why I have already looked into whether there are other ways in which we could deal with that matter. I hope that we do not have to go down that road. I hope that the Budget Bill will be passed and that we will, therefore, have access to accruing resources, but we have looked at whether we can put the money through the Rural Payments Agency, for example, instead of it going to DARD. I am hopeful that we will not get to that point.

Mr Hilditch, speaking on behalf of the Audit Committee, raised the issues of Audit Office savings and voluntary exit. I welcome the commitment of the Audit Office and, indeed, the Audit Committee to find efficiency savings to ensure that the Audit Office remains within its agreed budgetary settlement. I can confirm that the transformation fund will be open to bids from the Audit Office. However, it must be recognised that the Audit Office is not alone in seeking transformation funding and that all applications to the fund must be strictly assessed on merit. The Member must also be aware that, as Finance Minister, I cannot give a commitment that any funding bids received during in-year monitoring will be met. Such decisions are, ultimately, a matter for the Executive and are dependent on the financial pressures faced and the funding that may or may not become available.

Mr Cree raised a number of issues around the 2014-15 financial year. Whilst the provisional out-turn is not strictly related to the Supply resolution before us today, I confirm that I will report it to the House with the conclusion of the June monitoring round. However, I can reassure the Member that I expect the out-turn to come within the Budget exchange scheme limits set out by the Treasury, so there will be no money returned.

Mr Cree also raised the review of financial processes. I share his concern that that has not been progressed. The Member asked for an update on the Northern Ireland investment fund. I confirm that the fund is still at the formative stage, but I hope that it will lever in additional funding that will help to boost investment and promote economic growth in Northern Ireland. As a first step, the Executive have agreed to commission a feasibility study that will help to determine the optimal structure, scale and investment strategy of the fund. I am pleased that the consultants, Deloitte, have been appointed to advance the study, which I expect to conclude in the next few weeks. The feasibility study will also inform the ideal scale of the fund, but, in the interim, the Executive have decided to set aside an initial £40·9 million of financial transactions capital. We can further review the funding requirements once the feasibility study has concluded.

The social innovation fund has been established to utilise dormant account moneys in Northern Ireland. It was announced as part of the final Budget in 2015-16. There is some £6·4 million available to us. Those funds are in addition to our public expenditure. There has been significant interest in the fund from public representatives since the final Budget announcement, and a public consultation will be launched as soon as possible to seek views on the proposed spending priority of social investment. In addition, the consultation will test options for utilising the fund that will ensure that the fund can be recycled into other social investment schemes. That will include the consideration of match funding.

Mr Clarke, on behalf of the Regional Development Committee, mentioned the Coleraine to Londonderry railway line. I, too, am very pleased that work on phase 2 of the line is going ahead and that it will facilitate hourly services. Like him, I was concerned about the escalation of the costs of the project, which resulted in the Minister for Regional Development having to make a statement to the Assembly back in November acknowledging the errors that had been made with the cost estimates. The project is proceeding at a cost of £46·4 million, and, given the history of the project, the onus is very much on the Regional Development Minister to ensure that the costs are kept under review.

I agree entirely that, in the current financial climate, it is only right that an organisation such as Translink, which receives a substantial subsidy from the taxpayer every year, shares the burden of public expenditure pressures. I understand that, while Translink's results for 2014-15 have not been finalised, its reserves will be reduced considerably compared with previous years.

As far as the current year is concerned, I understand that the company is being required to work to an increased deficit of around £15 million, which is being funded from its reserves. That can reflect DRD's assessment of what Translink can contribute.

Mr Clarke also commented on the funding that the Executive have secured from the European Union, particularly for investment in road infrastructure. One such road project that has benefited from such funding is the A8 Belfast to Larne dual carriageway scheme. That work is almost complete and is expected to be open to traffic shortly. We are looking forward to DRD, hopefully — I think that it is confident — securing up to 40% EU funding for the proposed York Street interchange scheme, which, of course, is also vital.

Pam Cameron mentioned Arc21 and asked what will happen to the financial transactions capital that was allocated to it if the project does not proceed, because, as we know, it does not yet have planning permission. If that is the case, that money can be transferred into the proposed Northern Ireland investment fund. It will not be lost, and we hope that it can be used for further investment.

Mrs Cameron and Anna Lo also praised the work of the voluntary and community sector organisations that are involved in environmental work. Both mentioned the recently launched natural environment fund, which will allocate £1·2 million to environmental groups to help them to deliver on key environmental outcomes. It is worth highlighting the role that the carrier bag levy has had in that fund, thanks to the agreement that my Department secured from the UK Government to retain the income from that levy for use in funding. It has provided a secure income stream that is forecast to be £4·75 million this year, which can be used by the Department of the Environment to fund the sort of organisations and programmes that the Chair and Mrs Cameron spoke about.

Finally, I want to mention Mr Ó Muilleoir, who again talked about fiscal levers and wanted fiscal autonomy. Mr McCallister's point about the credibility gap was very well made. How can we possibly argue for more fiscal powers to come to Northern Ireland when we cannot deal with the powers that are already devolved? We all share a vision of our economy supporting our people, but you cannot simply ignore the fiscal deficit of £9·6 billion. We have to acknowledge the reality of where we are, what that means for the economy and Budget rather than pretending that that simply does not exist.

Mr McKay: I thank the Minister for giving way. She refers to the £9·6 billion. Indeed, other members of her party referred to a £10 billion deficit. That figure comes from a report by her Department and her predecessor. Obviously, we have a great deal of difficulty accepting it as a credible report. The London Government and their Office for National Statistics clearly do not accept that it is credible either.

Mrs Foster: I will tell you what is not credible: the current Sinn Féin economic policy. I listened with incredulity to some Sinn Féin Members' comments, whether Mr Hazzard or Mr Murphy, who is back in the House. I listened to them and cannot believe what is coming out of their mouths. How can they possibly argue for further fiscal powers to be devolved here when we cannot even deal with the powers that we have in front of us? It is just an incredible situation. There is no credibility to go and argue that point. They seem to think that the British people got it wrong in the general election. The arrogance of telling the British people whom they should have put into Westminster is quite incredible. [Interruption.]

I do not know what is being said across the way. I cannot hear because I am still talking. It is just incredible to think of the arrogance of Sinn Féin that it will tell the British people whom to put into our national Parliament. Even if that party had got its way and Labour was now in power at Westminster — Mr McCallister made the point — Ivan Lewis was very clear in 'The Irish Times' over the weekend about where he thinks the problems are coming from at present.

He said that Sinn Féin and the SDLP should accept the current political realities and agree an accommodation on welfare reform. He said that what was being offered in Northern Ireland was a far more generous scheme than was available to his own constituents and that no extra money was coming from Westminster.

Mr McCallister made reference to the voluntary exit scheme, and I hope I answered the point in relation to the £700 million. That is all tied in with the Stormont House Agreement and, therefore, if welfare reform does not happen, none of the other parts of the Stormont House Agreement happens either. That was indicated by the Secretary of State on many occasions.

Mr Speaker, I will draw my remarks to a close. I thank you for your patience. Assembly approval of the Supply motion, and the associated departmental expenditure plans laid out in the 2015-16 Main Estimates, is a crucial stage of the public expenditure cycle. Failure to pass the 2015-16 Supply resolution at this juncture would put at risk the smooth continuation of public services into the remainder of this financial year. Equally, as I have repeatedly outlined, failure of the Executive and the Assembly to find a way forward on welfare reform would put our spending plans at risk and present Ministers and the Assembly with the unenviable task of imposing further spending reductions on our already hard-pressed departmental budgets. That is something that we as a party have already indicated that we are not prepared to do to the people of Northern Ireland.

So, it is in that context that I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

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

I now move to the motion on the Main Estimates, which has already been debated.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the vote on the motion, whether or not amended, requires cross-community support. The vote in relation to the amendment will be on a simple majority basis.

Mr Speaker: As there are Ayes from all sides of the House, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. I have clearly identified the No vote, so the motion is carried.

Mr Speaker: Members, just leave quietly, please. 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. One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Ms Ruane: I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As I ask for support for the motion, I am conscious that the debate is taking place as people continue to grieve. I understand that that grieving is happening across the political spectrum, and I want to acknowledge the pain and suffering that our society has come through over decades. I hope that we will have a good and respectful debate; I ask all Members for that.

The debate is about collusion. I have no doubt that some in the House will be opportunistic and try to bring up killings by the IRA. We have had many debates about that, and I am sure that we will have again in the future. As we speak today about state involvement, I understand that many people have also suffered at the hands of the IRA and that their grief is no less than the grief of the families who have suffered through state violence.

Today is about the collusion of state forces and their use of loyalist paramilitaries. That is nothing new for the British Government: they used the same tactics wherever they colonised, whether it was in Aden, Africa, Latin America or in Europe.

The last 12 months have been very difficult for families who have been victims of collusion; they have had long court battles, and more and more truth is coming out. Collusion was a deliberate policy that was designed to use unionist paramilitaries as a method of killing Irish citizens or, indeed, anyone who got in their way — those in opposition to the state. There was a particular focus on Irish republicans and nationalists. They did it to subvert the rule of law and to avoid responsibilities in international courts. I was a human rights worker at the time, and we carried out a number of public inquiries into state killings, into the shoot-to-kill policy. The British Government were coming under a lot of international scrutiny, and international courts were clogged up with cases, so the use of unionist paramilitaries was a very deliberate strategy for the state to pretend that it had nothing to do with it.

I pay tribute to the families who have done sterling work to expose it: the family of Pat Finucane and the Loughinisland families. You just need to look at what happened in Loughinisland. Agents were used to drive getaway cars, and cars were destroyed whilst being held by the RUC. Evidence was destroyed by the RUC, and agents, many of whom had serious criminal records and got money for their services, were protected.

Collusion was only one of a number of policies. I remember being a member of the committee for the truth about collusion in the late 1990s. We were laughed at and called conspiracy theorists; now it is generally accepted by all that there is collusion. We are beginning to see the extent of it, but I would argue that it is the tip of the iceberg. That is what 'Panorama' exposed, and I have no doubt that that is what 'Prime Time' will expose tonight.

In this part of Ireland, we have had paramilitary policing, Diplock courts, emergency legislation and judges congratulating the RUC for sending people to "the final court of justice", effectively endorsing the RUC shoot-to-kill policy. We have also had the targeting of defence lawyers. The British Government are still trying to present themselves as neutral peacekeepers between the warring tribes.

Collusion was about suppressing dissent, terrorising communities and telling the croppies to lie down. We have seen cases in which families thought, for decades, that their loved ones had been killed by the IRA, only to discover that it was the state. We have not yet heard all the truth about the biggest loss of life in the conflict — the Dublin and Monaghan bombings — and the British state's involvement in those south of the border.

A number of our Members will speak in the debate, but I want to focus on gender, and on the particular role of women when loved ones were lost. We all know in the House that, in many instances, women would fulfil the primary role of family carers and homemakers. The violation of the safety of their home and the ensuing trauma was a harm in its own right.

Mr Humphrey: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ruane: No, I will not give way. You will have an opportunity to speak.

Following the importation of South African weapons, 12 women — Katrina Rennie, Eileen Duffy, Teresa Fox, Teresa Dowds De Mogollon, Sharon McKenna, Philomena Hanna, Sheena Campbell, Karen Thompson, Moira Duddy, Theresa Clinton, Roseanne Mallon and Kathleen O'Hagan — were murdered.

Mr Allister: Caroline Moreland.

Mr Humphrey: Jean McConville.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Ruane: All those killings point to state collusion. We also had the murder of tireless human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson. I have no doubt that I have missed other names, and if I have, I apologise to those families in advance. What we had was a state policy that targeted family homes and family members. The civilian women and children of those homes deserve an independent and thorough investigation that is article 2-compliant.

In many cases, the paramilitaries that went in doing the shooting for the state had maps of the houses provided to them by state forces. Any agency charged with investigating our past must apply a gender lens to ensure that the full complexion of experience and arising need is identified. I am not in any way trying to belittle the killings of men, but we will all agree that, when a woman is murdered in a conflict, there are extra dimensions to it. [Interruption.]

The Stormont House Agreement is the appointed way forward that all the parties here negotiated. All the investigations must be article 2-compliant. We cannot have a situation in which those involved in murders, in overseeing murders and in overseeing investigations are carrying out those investigations. George Hamilton has an enormous responsibility in relation to those matters, given what happened in the past. I have no doubt that he understands that confidence in policing is at stake here. He needs to avoid the mistakes of his predecessors.

We will not support the DUP amendment. It is an attempt to separate those killed by the British state and an attempt to create a hierarchy of victims. I have yet to hear from the other side of the House — today is an opportunity to do this — a critique of state killings and of the extent and level of involvement of the RUC, the RIR, and layers and layers of the British Army.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ruane: No, I will not give way.

We know that the British Government have been found guilty, unanimously, by 12 judges in the European Court. I was privileged to be at that hearing. To move forward, we need to ensure that there is proper truth for all relatives. We should never try to say that there is a hierarchy of victims. That is the greatest insult to people who lost their life in this conflict and to their family. They deserve truth and justice, and, to date, they have got very, very little of it. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Before I call the next contributor, I remind Members about the guidance that I issued on respect. This is a very important debate, but it is a debate cannot happen only in this Chamber. It is already very difficult for such a debate to happen in wider society. Our behaviour can either make it more difficult or more possible for that important debate to happen in the wider community. I remind Members of their responsibility in that regard.

Mr Poots: I beg to move

I thank the Speaker for reminding us of that. It is just a pity that he did not do so at the outset, before Ms Ruane asked for respect and then gave a grossly disrespectful speech to the House. When I first read the Sinn Féin motion, I was somewhat incredulous at its wording. I will deal with that. When I listened to Ms Ruane, a greater degree of incredulity arose.

People might think that we are living in some sort of parallel universe. I think that Ms Ruane's speech came from some sort of paramilitary universe where people want to rewrite history, whitewash the past of the IRA and implicate others as the main perpetrators in the Troubles, when, in fact, the IRA was responsible for over 60% of the murders in Northern Ireland. If no collusion took place with that organisation, where did it get the information from for many of the murders that it carried out?

Look at the bombings, for example, that took place in Claudy and Enniskillen and the activities that took place in south Armagh. Where did the people go when those murders took place? They took refuge and were harboured in the Republic of Ireland. When information was sought on the murders of Superintendent Buchanan and Chief Superintendent Breen, it was not forthcoming. That inquiry was held back and delayed as a result of information not coming from the Republic of Ireland Government.

Even now as we speak, the Kingsmills people are still waiting for information so that they know what happened in the situation involving their loved ones. We will not have —

Mr Humphrey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Poots: I will in a moment.

We will not have a situation where Sinn Féin can come to the House and attempt to whitewash its way and rewrite history. That will not be tolerated.

Mr Humphrey: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The Member talks about the Republic of Ireland Government and Administration. Does he agree with me that it was not until we had the foot-and-mouth disease that the border was sealed, which unionist politicians called for to protect people in Northern Ireland, whatever their religion or political background? That could not be done until we a situation with foot-and-mouth disease along the border.

Mr Poots: That is absolutely true.

When you look at circumstances where you had the ethnic cleansing of a community in County Fermanagh, you see that some 111 people were murdered in that county, 110 of them from the Protestant faith. How can that be described as anything other than ethnic cleansing? Who were the people responsible for it? The IRA.

Look at villages like Castlederg, where 20 people were murdered. Look at places like south Armagh, where hundreds of people were murdered. Those actions were carried out by none other than the IRA. I have to say that the authorities in the Republic of Ireland showed considerable degrees of complicity with it, as those people were allowed to stay in the Republic of Ireland. They were not extradited; they were harboured and given safe haven to carry out their activities and to live in that country after they conducted their activities.

My incredulity at the outset related to Sinn Féin's reference to Stormont House. Here we have Sinn Féin wanting the Stormont House Agreement to be implemented, yet it is the single party that is holding back the implementation of Stormont House. Let me be very clear about this: you will not be getting a partial implementation of the Stormont House Agreement; it will be implemented in full or not at all. Sinn Féin needs to realise very clearly that, if it does a deal, it needs to stand over it. Do not expect others to implement what it wishes to be carried out, while Sinn Féin does not implement the bits that it does not like.

The second part of my incredulity was because, in the motion, Sinn Féin refers to victims and survivors. I touched on this, but Sinn Féin is hardly the best advocate to represent victims and survivors. I note the names on the list, one of which is Mr Raymond McCartney. Representing victims and survivors? He was convicted of murder — the murder of Jeffrey Agate.

Mr McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those convictions were quashed. I fought a very successful campaign to have those convictions quashed. I ask Mr Poots to withdraw those remarks.

Mr Campbell: How much money was paid?

Mr Speaker: The Member has the opportunity to withdraw those remarks in the light of that information.

Mr Poots: I accept what Mr McCartney is telling us about that element of it being quashed.

Mr McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, it is not a matter of accepting what Mr McCartney said; it was said by the Court of Appeal and, indeed, the Supreme Court in London.

Mr Campbell: What was the amount of money that was paid?

Mr Poots: I am happy to accept what Mr McCartney says —

Mr Speaker: Order. Sorry, Mr Poots. I am not going to have people shouting across the Floor. Mr Poots has the Floor. You have a piece of updated information, and it seems that you are prepared to accept it. If so, I think we should move on.

Mr Poots: Thank you for that.

We then have Mr Kelly, who was found guilty of bombing and of explosives charges. We have Mr Lynch, who was caught in possession of firearms and explosives. They are hardly the people to be representing the voice of victims. In truth, none of this was justified. No single murder that took place in Northern Ireland was justified or justifiable, yet we have the people who are associated with the organisation that carried out the vast majority of the murders coming to the House today seeking to implicate others as the baddies.

Amongst the targets were soldiers, RUC men, part-time UDR men, ordinary farmers, businesspeople and female census collectors. They were men, women and children in Bloody Friday, Claudy, La Mon, Kingsmill, Enniskillen, Shankill and many more. Ms Ruane started to lecture us about the women who were killed in the Troubles. Women were killed in many of those instances by the organisation called the IRA. If Ms Ruane wants to condemn the murder of those women by the IRA, I will be very happy to give way to her — but her silence is deafening. Her silence is deafening because it is all right for women to be murdered when they are just Protestants or some form of legitimate target of the IRA. That is an absolute disgrace.

They were young women like Gillian Johnston, who was shot dead by the IRA while getting out of the car after her boyfriend had left her home. She was not involved in anything other than that she was a young Protestant woman living on the border. There was the murder of Jean McConville, the mother of 10 children who had already lost her husband, which left those 10 children orphans. In the murder of Caroline Moreland, Sinn Féin or IRA women took her away in the car. It was women who took Caroline Moreland away. It was women who interrogated her. It was women who questioned her. I am happy to condemn all these murders; all the ones that were referred to by Ms Ruane and these ones. Joanne Mathers was a young mother out collecting the census. Heidi Hazell was a young woman killed over in Germany. Here we have, over and over and over again, lives taken and Sinn Féin coming here making some sort of suggestion —

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Poots: Yes.

Mr Givan: Does the Member agree that, while the murder of women was utterly condemnable, we are only now starting to hear the true findings of the sexual abuse of republicans by republicans that took place?

Mr Poots: Yes. Then we had a special adviser appointed to this House who was convicted of being involved in the murder of another young woman, Mary Travers, and her father. We are not going to take lectures about people being misogynist from Ms Ruane when she is supporting an organisation that killed women left, right and centre, namely the IRA, and is unable to stand up and condemn those murders today.

I do not believe that collusion was associated exclusively with loyalists. I believe that there were elements who engaged in collusion, but that was not the security forces that we know. Had there been the widespread collusion that people opposite seem to suggest that there was, I believe that there would have been many, many thousands of people killed as a result. If that information flow had been such, there would have been thousands of people, thousands of republicans, killed in a very short space of time. Yes, there may be the odd rotten apple in a barrel, but no systematic collusion took place. I want to nail that very, very clearly. What some individuals did was one thing, but it was not an organisational thing.

I should be grateful to some of the Members opposite. It is quite clear to me that the informers helped to end the Troubles, and the informers did not stop at Freddie Scappaticci or Denis Donaldson. There are much higher-placed informers in the republican movement than those individuals. I suspect that some of those high-level informers could be in places of great authority, even as we speak.

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

Mr Poots: I have not named anybody. You are all getting very edgy and uppity —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Poots: — but I have not named anybody. Let me be clear that informers did not stop there.

Mrs D Kelly: Ms Ruane commenced her speech by saying that we should be mindful of the fact that people are still hurting and grieving, that there are many victims out there and that it is very regrettable that, 17 years on from the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, commitments made to victims have yet to be fully realised in their search for truth and justice. Unfortunately, however, Ms Ruane went on to say that she was confining this debate to the evident collusion, described in the 'Panorama' programme, between the British security services, the RUC and loyalist/unionist paramilitaries, and she failed, utterly, to recognise the collusion that existed between republicans and the security services. She almost airbrushed, certainly from her memory, the contribution made on 'Panorama' by Shauna Moreland, who spoke from the heart and very eloquently said what it meant to her to lose her mother at such a young age. She also spoke of the travesty of justice and of trying to remain in such a community where, as the daughter of an alleged informer, you are at the bottom of the pile. Ms Ruane has said that there should not be a hierarchy of victims, but, in her contribution, she created the hierarchy by confining and restraining her remarks to finger-pointing at the collusion that existed elsewhere.

I also have to take exception to Mr Poots's contribution. He fails to recognise the evidence compiled in report after report, from Stevens and Stalker/Samson to the Police Ombudsman and numerous others, that point to systematic collusion. I understand that there is a further documentary tonight on RTÉ, on which former head of Special Branch Mr Raymond White will be saying that he raised the handling of agents with the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. He, very clearly, is firing a shot across the bow of those who would reveal the truth and is saying that he will not go down on his own in relation to how high up and how systematic the collusion was in respect of state-sponsored killings.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Member for giving way. Given the lack of balance that has been exhibited by Ms Ruane and, indeed, Mr Poots, and given the fact that we have so much information now that involves republicans and loyalists, British intelligence services and the RUC, is it now more necessary for there to be a firm and established process that establishes the balance of truth here in Northern Ireland and that we work towards that as soon as we can?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mrs D Kelly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree entirely with my colleague's comments. It is regrettable that both contributors thus far have underscored the concerns raised in the Secretary of State's "Moving politics forward" speech of April 2014. In that speech, she said that there was:

Having listened to some of the contributions today, I can understand why the Secretary of State said that.

The SDLP is very clear that all of the truth must come out. Certainly, many people are not going to get justice, and many victims and their families are reconciled to that fact, but they want to know how it happened and why it happened. I do not know of any other western democracy where state-sponsored killings and collusion would be allowed on such a scale without an outcry in the Parliament of that nation.

It is regrettable that the responsibilities and vested interests have taken primacy over the needs of the victims and survivors and even, I think, Mr Speaker, arguably, of society in trying to reconcile the people on the island and between these islands. So, it is not just about meeting the needs of victims; it is about trying to build reconciliation and telling the truth about the past, because a lot of people are very keen to rewrite history and their role in it. Ms Ruane demonstrated that most eloquently when she failed to mention the Jean McConvilles or Caroline Morelands of this world.

In my party, we have colleagues also hurting. Councillor Denise Fox's own father, Denis Mullen, was murdered by the Glenanne gang. He was one of 120 people thought to have been murdered who were named in that excellent investigative report by Anne Cadwallader, 'Lethal Allies'. So it is very clear that the truth about the scale and nature of what happened in our past must come out so that people who are building up themselves and their colleagues as heroes have a lot of explaining to do as to why they took the route of violence. The SDLP has always been a peaceful, constitutional party and it has never explained away the requirement for violence, unlike others who, once again today, are attempting to rewrite history.

Mr Hussey: Today we see Sinn Féin members attempting to cite the BBC and media investigations as evidence of widespread collusion between police and loyalist paramilitaries. They stoically refuse to recognise the role of agents and informers within republican ranks who may have survived the Troubles and may now be in key positions. Stevens, Stalker, Sampson etc, plus de Silva, Nelson and Ballast indicate that something was indeed going on between elements of the security services and some loyalist gangs. Given that the state faced a mass insurrection in the early 1970s and the fact that the use of informants and undercover agents has been a tactic used for hundreds of years, it is not surprising that the state had agents in loyalist and republican groupings.

Let us look at the context of life in Northern Ireland in the Troubles—

Mr A Maginness: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hussey: I will.

Mr A Maginness: Just in relation to agents, of course there will be agents, but what we are talking about here is allowing those agents to commit criminal offences, and in particular murder, on a systematic basis. That is the problem, and that is what needs to be examined.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Hussey: That is what I intend to deal with and, as has already been mentioned by others, this has been a practice for many years. It was used by the loyalist and republican groupings.

Let us look at the context of life in Northern Ireland. During the Troubles, we endured 3,500 deaths, 47,000 injured, 16,000 bombings and 36,000 shooting incidents. The RUC was stretched to breaking point, and it is entirely unfair to judge actions at that time from the relative comfort and safety of the present day. The state did what it did to end violence. It sought to penetrate terror gangs to gather intelligence and thwart their ability to mount operations and take lives. Agents and informers were a necessary part of that, just as they were a necessary part of the FBI's efforts to bring down organised crime in the USA. Terror groups, in contrast, had hundreds of members who, on a daily basis, set out to try to kill people.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hussey: No.

The existence of files created and held by the state with regard to the police, army and intelligence services means that the media and formal inquiries can gain access to them. The IRA, INLA, UVF and UDA, being illegal terrorist gangs, did not keep records or files — or, as far as we know, they did not. This very fact means that any attempt to investigate the past will inevitably be skewed to investigate the actions of the state, the police and the army. This completely misses the point that in the early 1970s thousands of terrorists spent their waking hours seeking to murder policemen, soldiers and civilians. The focus needs to be on the terrorist godfathers who sent young men and women out on murder missions, rather than on the police and security services who were doing their damnedest to stop them.

However, just imagine for a moment that there was a conspiracy. If the might of the British state, ranging from the intelligence services such as MI5, acting alongside the SAS and many regiments comprising tens of thousands of well-trained and well-armed troops, backed up by the RUC, including the famous Special Branch, was indeed able to call on and direct thousands of loyalist paramilitaries to take on the IRA, some questions arise. The first is: how were they so ineffective? How did this vast array of forces managed to miss virtually everyone in the IRA and Sinn Féin leadership? How did so many senior figures manage to avoid jail or death? Some of them, it must be remembered, led curiously charmed lives for over 30 years. Surely the SAS, MI5 and Special Branch would have had ample opportunity to remove key players from the pitch.

If they could not arrest and jail them, what about the allegations of shoot to kill by the security forces? Surely, if collusion was in operation, loyalist terrorists could have been directed to murder high-value targets in the IRA and the wider republican movement, rather than killing so many innocent people when there was no strategic military or political value. Why would the state risk so much for so little reward?

One answer may be that there was no great conspiracy and that loyalist murder gangs were acting under their own direction when they targeted low-level republicans and innocent Catholics. Another explanation may be rather unpalatable to republicans: the IRA and Sinn Féin contained a large number of informants and state agents, and, as a result, the security services were protecting their men and women at the heart of the republican terror machine by directing loyalist killer gangs away from highly placed and valued British agents in the IRA and Sinn Féin. Certainly, if the state was able to direct and facilitate the UDA and the UVF, you would have expected loyalist gunmen in the 1970s and 1980s to manage to take out IRA and Sinn Féin leaders and bring terror to their door, rather than wasting time and effort killing innocent nationalists or the odd IRA foot soldier. The success in prosecuting loyalist terrorists also suggests that they were not acting in concert with the state. After all, if collusion with loyalists was widespread, surely the state would not have wanted their agents removed from the stage.

Would Sinn Féin recognise the truth? Sinn Féin has proven in the past that it is selective in what it believes. What about collusion between the Republic of Ireland and republicans: the murder of the RUC officers, Mr Breen and Mr Buchanan; the murder of Lord Justice Gibson; the arms trial in the 1970s; the foundation of the Provisionals; the blind eye turned to on-the-runs, training camps etc in the Republic's jurisdiction; and the border campaign, particularly in my constituency of West Tyrone and the Castlederg area, and the relative ease with which the IRA could come and go across the entire region?

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

Mr Hussey: What of the collusion between the IRA and the civilians who identified part-time members of the security forces? Ms Ruane made a comment about truth for all victims: that is what we want. I would love there to be truth for all victims, but as long as people on your side of the House remain silent, Ms Ruane, we will not get it.

Mr Dickson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on an issue that has poisoned political discourse but, most importantly, has destroyed and poisoned the lives of those directly affected. They include citizens from all communities in Northern Ireland. Since the late 1980s, suspicions that the state worked with agents in paramilitary organisations have been widely established.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Member for giving way. Quite rightly, he says that the issue has poisoned political discourse, but would a proper truth recovery process not liberate the political process and allow it to get better and be more constructive?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Dickson: I thank Mr Maginness for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with him.

Numerous investigations have proven, beyond a doubt, that that was the case, and many agents from all quarters have been implicated in the murder of people across Northern Ireland. It appears that these were murders that could have been prevented had the state intervened, rather than passively watching, turning a blind eye or even sanctioning them at the highest level.

The Stevens inquiries highlighted the characteristics of the collusion, which include:

In a liberal, democratic and open society, that is an intolerable situation. However, what makes it worse is the continuing lack of action on the issue in the House and in the Executive. Victims and survivors deserve, demand and require our support. We must give them our support. More than that, they deserve action: action to deliver the truth; action to deliver justice.

Today, I believe that all that the families want is the truth. Many will want more, but some will require just the simple truth. Therefore, the Alliance Party wholeheartedly supports the creation of legacy institutions to deal with the past, as we agreed in the Stormont House Agreement.

Those institutions will include an oral history archive, which will provide a place for people from all backgrounds to share experiences and narratives. Crucially, that will be free from political interference, and all of us in the House must ensure that that freedom is maintained. A historical investigations unit will be set up to carry out the unfinished work of the Historical Enquiries Team. That will be crucial for victims and survivors who have not yet had their case investigated or for whom new evidence comes to light.

To secure those prospective institutions, we must, as a matter of urgency, return to the pathway set out by the Stormont House Agreement. That means that we implement all parts of the agreement as previously agreed or risk unravelling it all. Although it requires the difficult implementation of welfare reform, Sinn Féin and, indeed, the SDLP must face up to their responsibilities in government. To put it simply, the House cannot implement only the parts of the agreement that it likes and forget about the commitments that we have made, for example, to welfare reform. We cannot provide justice and deal with the past in an insolvent, unstable environment. We all need to work together to build the foundations for truth and justice by first securing a Budget, the living standards and the basic necessities for all our citizens in Northern Ireland.

If, however, we are ever truly to establish the truth through those institutions, people need to disclose what they know. The day of speeches like Ms Ruane's has to come to an end. She has to step out of the world of denial that she and her party live in. For that reason, I propose an amendment to the debate this evening that calls on all the actors to share with the new institutions any information that they hold. Sinn Féin cannot demand a higher standard of truth from state actors who caused harm without delivering the same actions and the same truth itself. The Stormont House Agreement made progress in those areas, and we must not throw it away. The victims and survivors deserve that from us. Sinn Féin and the SDLP cannot have their cake and eat it either. They must be responsible parties in government and implement the Stormont House Agreement in full.

Mr Frew: I rise in angst at the behaviour of the party opposite and at the way in which, at every opportunity, whether in the House or in the media, they apply hurt and pain on the victims and survivors each time they open their mouths with their selective memories and their forked tongues. Tonight was no different. Ms Ruane, in her opening speech, wanted to be selective and to confine the debate to murders that may involve collusion between our security forces only. Ms Ruane, I have a message for you: we will not let you. You and your colleagues are living in a world of denial. We will not allow that to take place. We will not allow you to do that, and we will make sure that, if it is the last thing we do, the truth will come out.

Given that 60% of murders were committed by the IRA and 30% by loyalist terrorists, there is absolutely no doubt that that is where the blame must lie for the Troubles and for the pain and the hurt on all our people. No matter what religion you are, what church you worshipped in or what background you came from, murder is murder, and it was committed by terrorist actions. Ten per cent of those killings were committed by security services, but many of them were committed by bringing terrorists down as they were active and on their way to murder innocent victims.

Mrs D Kelly: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he acknowledge that there is evidence that some murders could have been prevented had the security services not allowed agents to get up to acts, including murder?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Yes, any collusion should be investigated, but you have to remember that whilst we talk about collusion, Sinn Féin talks about informers as being in collusion, and that is not the case. The use of informants is a tried and tested means of helping to protect people in a security threat and in a security environment, and that is what our security forces and security services had to do. I have no doubt that the use of informers saved many hundreds of lives.

Mr Hazzard: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: No, I will not, because your party did not have the good grace to give way to other Members of the House.

We need to find out the truth about the IRA and other terrorist organisations. We need to find out everything about their murders and their activities in murders. We have the Kingsmills victims and families, and we have the Teebane victims and families. Every time they hear Sinn Féin talk in a forked tongue, in a confined environment, it pours more pain and more hurt on those people, and that will be echoed across the spectrum of victims — across everyone in Northern Ireland.

Look at what the terrorist organisations did to our people. They ethnically cleansed large communities in our border counties; they worked in the shadows, hid in the hedges and shot people in the back, at their place of work, or at their front door with their children around their knees. They blew them to bits in their cars, in their vans, and even in the school buses they were driving that day. We will never allow this peace process or this truth recognition process to be one-sided. We will never ever allow that to happen.

When I think about the use of informants, I have no doubt that it actually strangled the republican movement to a halt. I believe that it eventually led to the defeat of the IRA and all other terrorist organisations. You may laugh and scorn at that statement, but I know for sure that there are many today in the ranks of political parties who were and are informers, which led to the defeat of the IRA. Many of you sitting in the room tonight may also have been informers and gave information to the police. Let us remember what that statement means, because the IRA murdered people and "disappeared" them because they gave information to the police — not even for informing or being an informant, but just for giving information to the police. You murdered them; the IRA murdered them; and that will never be forgotten by our people.

I have no doubt that the use of informants means that we have peace, or relative peace, in our towns, in our cities and on our country's streets. It is very important, when we come to truth, that it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because that is what our people deserve. Our people have been butchered and murdered and blown to bits long enough —

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Frew: It is time that they heard the truth from the Members opposite.

Mr G Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The revelations in the 'Spotlight' and 'Panorama' programmes triggered this important debate today. What is, perhaps, surprising for those who have long known that state collusion took place, and it did take place on a systematic basis, is that we are still calling them revelations.

There is now a volume of evidence out in open view, not done by the media, that can surely leave no one in doubt — even those who, ostrich-like, do not want to see what the British Government did through their forces in the military, the police, the intelligence services, their state agents and informants — that state killings caused the death of hundreds of innocent citizens. That is the truth, if we are talking about the truth, and I am for the truth coming out all over. That is what the truth process that Sinn Féin has been arguing for for at least 15 years has been about and has been resisted, up till now, by those opposite.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr G Kelly: Not to you, Jim.

Whether you read the various reports by Stevens, Judge Cory, de Silva, or Nuala O'Loan or whether you read Anne Cadwallader's book, 'Lethal Allies', it is obvious that collusion was not random; it was part of a policy by British Government forces. We do not know how far up it went, although there is at least some evidence that, over many years, it went as far as the British Cabinet. Its purpose was to intimidate, demoralise and terrorise the nationalist community.

It is important to state that Ireland was not the only, or, indeed, the first, place where such a policy was enacted. If you want to read it from the British point of view, you will find it in General Kitson's book 'Low Intensity Operations' and also in his second book, which was called, I believe, 'Bunch of Five'. The first laid out the strategy, and the second gave examples of its implementation in many other places where the British had their colonies before here.

It is also important to say that the policy and practice did not work and was never going to work. Instead, it welded the nationalist community together in the face of such an onslaught. It certainly welded the families of victims together, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude for their tenacity and determination, sometimes into a second and third generation in searching out the truth from behind a maze of obstruction and obstacles put in front of them — also as a policy to prevent the truth coming out.

That culture of the impunity of state actors still prevails today, even amongst those in government and state agencies, who may not themselves have been involved in collusion leading to those deaths. It is perhaps one of the things that is most difficult for victims, survivors and their families to understand that people — even those across the Benches here — are defending things that they might not have had anything to do with. That is hard for victims to understand in their grief and in their search.

Let us be clear: holding back information, lack of disclosure, refusals to investigate, obstructing inquiries, destroying or losing evidence is the new collusion. Colluding in the cover-up makes those who do it as guilty as those who participated in the deaths and injuries of the collusion that we are discussing here during the very long conflict.

Victims of state collusion are so numerous that it is difficult to single out any one above the others, but let me speak just for a moment about the death of Pat Finucane because he stands out for two other reasons. An inquiry was agreed at Weston Park by the British and Irish Governments, yet that inquiry never took place. What the British did instead was to bring in legislation in the Inquiries Act to prevent an open and independent inquiry. That was their way of dealing with the truth: to prevent it.

Secondly, although it is on record that a number of state agents were involved in his murder, not one member of any state force who handled those agents has ever been charged, even though it is not disputed, I would argue, on any side of the House.

Another case from north Belfast was one of the biggest losses of life, that is the McGurk's Bar bombings. It is documented that state forces knew that loyalists were involved in the bombings that killed so many people and that those same forces set about blaming republicans for the deaths, knowing not only that loyalists were involved but that state agents were involved.

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

Mr G Kelly: The motion states that the legacy — just let me finish with this because Mr Poots and Mr Dickson have linked this. They say that they are up for the whole truth coming out —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr G Kelly: Yet they have linked this to others. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Robin Newton.

Mr G Kelly: Surely, they would agree [Interruption.]

that the truth comes out no matter from where.

Mr Newton: I looked at this motion and the underlying principles, and what has prompted Sinn Féin to bring the motion forward; what it signed up for as general principles in the Stormont House Agreement is what it is basing its motion on. The four aspects that I want to highlight are that it signed up to promoting reconciliation; it signed up to upholding the rule of law; it signed up to acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims and survivors; and it signed up to facilitating the pursuit of justice and information recovery. Of course, Ms Ruane, in proposing the motion, wanted only to limit the motion, and as she read out her list of names, she limited them to ones that are perceived by her to be more favourable to her case.

That indicates that this is not a motion of concern but only a motion of Sinn Féin propaganda. There is no respect — no respect — for those who suffered at the hands of terrorists, from whatever source the terrorism came. Ms Ruane has tried, by the words of the motion, to limit the debate to that aspect that she sees her case resting on: the 'Panorama' programme. She calls in the motion for a "thorough and independent investigation" and for legacy institutions to be set up as:

There can be no doubt that this is a motion based on hypocrisy, pretence and duplicity. Those are the foundations of the motion.

Mr Kelly said that it is hard for innocent victims to understand. Yes, it is hard for innocent victims to understand the motivation of Sinn Féin and this motion. Actions speak louder than words. If they mean what they say in the motion, actions speak louder than the words that are down in the Order Paper. Many will believe that it is by their deeds that you know them. If they are not prepared to come forward with all the information that they have about all the cases, it is by their deeds that you know them.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Newton: I will give way.

Mr Frew: The Member will realise, having lives through all the Troubles, that when the IRA were murdering people for giving information to the police and the security forces, Sinn Féin and the IRA were speaking to and negotiating with the British Government. However, they were still murdering people. Even today, they are sitting here as British agents and as British Ministers administering British law.

Mr Newton: Many might see that as them having a conscience seared by a hot iron.

Slowly and surely, the real picture of the IRA is being revealed. As time goes on, more and more information will come out. Many of us on this side of the Chamber look forward to the revelations in the Boston tapes as they come out. The one interview that has come out is that of Brendan Hughes, who was referred to as "Darkie" Hughes. Of course, we all know about the double life of Freddie Scappaticci.

Reference has been made to the 17 cases of the disappeared, particularly that of Jean McConville. Gerry Adams has long denied being a member of the IRA. However, his former compatriots in the IRA claim that he authorised murder. That is not something being said by the DUP. It is his former compatriots who say that he, the president of Sinn Féin, authorised murder.

The case of Jean McConville was the most high-profile case, and one of the most infamous cases of the Troubles. There is information within Sinn Féin on the case. Sinn Féin has a knowledge of everything that happened around the murder of Jean McConville. If they want to use the high and mighty words that they have used in their motion, let them apply them and reveal the information around on the murder of Jean McConville. Let them say who dragged Jean McConville from her crying children. Who kidnapped her? Who tortured her? Who disappeared her?

Mr Speaker: Before I call Chris Hazzard, I say to him that, if he decides to take any interventions, I will not award any additional time, because I am going to try to get in another Member to speak.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. At the outset, let me say that I know that a lot has been made of this point by those across the Benches. My heart goes out to absolutely any family, from all sides and none, who lost a loved one. However, the issue today is collusion and the killing of civilians and others by state actors. That is exactly what we are looking at today. The tsunami of evidence that has been provided in recent cases suggests and proves to us that collusion is no longer an illusion. Collusion was a practice that was:

Those are not Sinn Féin's words but the words of an editorial in the 'Belfast Telegraph' this week. Edwin Poots took issue with Sinn Féin lecturing. Again, I will use other people's words. After his reports, Sir John Stevens recommended the arrest and prosecution of 24 RUC Special Branch and British Army officers. Sir Hugh Orde said that Gordon Kerr should have faced trial. The de Silva review revealed that 85% of all intelligence in the hands of loyalists was provided by the British Army and the RUC. Former RUC CID officer Jonty Brown said that, when solving a crime, he feared RUC Special Branch more than he feared the IRA. Former head of the RUC Special Branch Raymond White will tonight reveal, I think somewhat alarmingly to some people across the House, that, when sitting down with the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, he was more or less told to carry on and not get caught. Those are not Sinn Féin's words, Mr Poots; they are the words of a lot of people who have looked at this issue. The only logical conclusion to this is to have an independent inquiry into collusion, and, if unionists are confident that British military and security forces are not up to their eyes in this policy, they have absolutely nothing to fear in a public inquiry. Indeed, they should themselves be calling for that.

That we are today talking about this policy is positive proof that the policy of collusion failed and failed miserably. Sadly, though, it came at a very high human cost, and many were killed and injured as a result. It is to the memory of those people and their families that we owe this debate this evening. I want to make specific reference to the case of the Loughinisland families. Paul Frew said that agents and informers saved lives. Brian Nelson and the Ministry of Defence brought vz. 58 rifles into this island, killing more than 200 people. They did nothing to save any lives in Loughinisland in June 1994. They killed people. They killed Adrian Rogan. They killed Barney Greene. They killed Dan McCreanor. They killed Eamon Byrne. They killed Malcom Jenkinson, and they killed Patsy O'Hare. They did not save lives in Loughinisland. Guns used on the night were brought in by the Ministry of Defence. The getaway car was provided by an RUC agent and was driven by unmasked RUC agent. When the car was found only hours later, the same RUC agent had already been into a Belfast police station and received his get-out-of-jail-free statement. The RUC destroyed the car within 10 months. [Interruption.]

The RUC failed to apply DNA testing to any of the 177 recovered exhibits, including all the balaclavas, boiler suits, gloves, guns and, indeed, the car. The RUC proactively destroyed all interview notes of those arrested in the first two years. There have been 22 arrests since 1994, 13 of those in the first two years. All those notes have now been destroyed. The police have actively ignored, disregarded and destroyed vital evidence, all of which, might I add, was given to them by the public. Senior police figures know exactly who was responsible for Loughinisland. That is why they have never been charged.

Today, it is less about who pulled the trigger and more about who was pulling the strings. The twisted logic of collusion meant that every nationalist was a target and every Catholic was a suspect. Agencies of the British Government, such as the British Army and the RUC Special Branch, the UDR, their intelligence services MI5 and MI6, the Military Reaction Force, the Force Research Unit and, of course, the UDA and the UVF, were quite literally up to their necks in summary executions.

As I mentioned before about the Stevens investigations, the reports spanned a 14-year period. That was then the largest investigation in British police history, but the British Government blocked its publication and allowed only a miniscule portion of the report to be published. Even that sample makes for shocking reading. Stevens interviewed 210 loyalists, and he found that 207 were either agents of the British Army or the RUC. Of the 120 killings of the Glenanne gang, every single one had a former or serving member of the British Army, the UDR, the RUC or the former B-Specials actively involved. In the massacre at the Ormeau Road bookies, the guns were used under the control of RUC Special Branch.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Hazzard: It is time for a public inquiry —

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Hazzard: We have nothing to fear.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Alban Maginness. I am afraid that I have only three minutes until I call the Minister.

Mr A Maginness: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate that. There is nothing wrong with the Sinn Féin motion, but there was plenty wrong with Ms Ruane's address to this Assembly. She abandoned any attempt to look at the truth. She abandoned any attempt to be objective.

It behoves us all in this Chamber to be objective about what happened. Yes, there was collusion — Stevens says there was; other reports have said there was; future reports will say there was — but the narrative that is put forward is of collusion only between loyalists and the British Army and the police. The reality is that there was collusion between agents in the republican movement and British intelligence and the RUC Special Branch. The same people who were involved in collusion were also involved in criminal activity — [Interruption.]

— in murder. That is unacceptable; unacceptable in a civilised democratic society. That is what we in the SDLP hold dear —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr A Maginness: I cannot — the value that should underpin any democracy, which is the rule of law. That is what is required, and that is why we support the legacy institutions under the Stormont House Agreement, but they do not go far enough in our opinion. They are only half of what Haass proposed. We believe that there should be a thorough process.

Let me say this to Ms Ruane and the other Sinn Féin Members: there is a blindness in what they say and in their view of what happened. What about Freddie Scappaticci? What happened to Caroline Moreland? What happened to Joe Mulhern? They were murdered by the IRA, by people acting within the IRA — acting, one would suggest, on behalf of a British agent. It was accepted that Mr Scappaticci was an agent, but what does Sinn Féin say about that? What does the IRA say? They turn a blind eye. They are totally silent about his activities. Indeed, when he was revealed as an agent, they said that he was a republican in good standing. Is he still a republican in good standing?

A Member: Denis Donaldson.

Mr A Maginness: Yes, there were other agents as well.

It is important, if we are going to get at the truth, that there is a truth. Mr Kelly has talked about Sinn Féin wanting the truth. Well, tell us the truth about those people who were in the IRA and acted in such a manner, carrying out murders, perhaps to cover up —

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Mr A Maginness: Perhaps to cover up their own roles in that organisation.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. I call the Minister of Justice, Mr David Ford.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to start by saying that I agree with the wording of the motion, although, like Alban Maginness, I find myself in total disagreement with the way in which it was proposed. I also have no problem with the wording of the amendment, which creates a slightly more balanced approach.

There is no doubt that the recent 'Panorama' and 'Spotlight' programmes, and indeed the prime-time programme tonight, provide further poignant reminders of the toxic effect that the past continues to have on our society and of the pressing need to deal, effectively and comprehensively, with the legacy of our troubled past. I trust that, once we get the heat out of this type of debate, it will be possible to start to look at some of the ways in which we can do that. The way in which the motion was proposed, and the fact that the proposer refused to take a single intervention, shows something of the confidence she had in the speech she was making. To listen to her speech, you really would think that the majority of deaths in the Troubles were caused by the RUC and not by terrorists from different backgrounds.

The events outlined in the two programmes we have seen so far occurred a considerable time ago, in the decades long before the establishment of a devolved Department of Justice. Thankfully, they in no way reflect the current nature of policing in Northern Ireland. Clearly, in the past, there were examples of collusion. They involved state actors from both North and South.

They involved people from terrorist groups of different backgrounds. For either side of the Chamber to suggest that it was only the other side would be entirely incorrect. A focus on collusion does absolutely nothing to recognise what the reality was and does a significant disservice to those who sought to uphold the law when they were given responsibility, whether they were in the RUC or the army, the Garda Síochána or the Irish armed forces or were civilians throughout these islands. Yes, there was collusion, but let us not suggest that the majority of deaths arose because of that.

Those deaths cannot be brushed aside and ignored. We need to ensure that we investigate, we need to resolve those issues and we need to acknowledge the role that the institutions, including my Department, have today. Resolution involves treating all deaths as worthy of investigation, and all victims have rights to information and justice where that is possible. The claims that were detailed in those programmes are very serious, and complaints relating to several of the incidents are already under investigation by the Police Ombudsman. It would therefore not be proper to detail anything to do with that or for me to comment on them at this point, but, when those reports are completed, I will give the ombudsman's considerations very careful consideration on my part in the Department of Justice.

The Chief Constable, George Hamilton, recently stated clearly that:

When the Chief Constable said that, he meant all those who operated outside the law, and I entirely agree with him that those crimes must be investigated. However, the practices described in the 'Panorama' programme in particular occurred at a time when there was no regulatory framework governing the handling of intelligence sources. Since the PSNI policy on covert human intelligence sources became governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, it is now fully compliant with human rights legislation and in a very different place.

It is the case that such programmes make us stop and think. They require us to question how justice was dispensed in the past, but they are tethered to the past and have to be seen in the context of the huge and very significant changes that have happened in Northern Ireland since those times, changes involving, of course, the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Assembly, significant progress in ensuring greater accountability of the police and significant progress in building confidence in the Police Service right across the community.

The past has been an area where the justice system could go only so far without a wider political solution. That has to be what now comes from the Stormont House Agreement, which is the best vehicle to take forward a thorough and independent investigation of matters falling to it under the agreement. Otherwise, we are condemned to an endless cycle of "whataboutery". Whilst some Members of the House may be content with that, I, as Minister of Justice, am not content. I am committed to implementing the elements of the agreement that fall to my Department as quickly as possible. Given the urgency of establishing the new institutions, I look forward to seeing that carried forward through a Westminster Bill this autumn. Otherwise, there is a danger that the past will continue to create huge difficulties for the justice system of the present.

It is important to emphasise the necessity of creating systems that are fully compliant with article 2 of the ECHR. The historical investigations unit is being set up as just such an independent organisation. It will be vital to ensure that that independence is maintained and it is seen to fully deliver on article 2 investigations. Work has already begun in preparation for the recruitment of a director designate for the HIU to ensure that the director is fully involved in key decisions on the operational workings of it. The justice system is committed to learning from both the best and the worst of our previous attempts to deal with these issues. We must learn from the mistakes of our past. We must also move forward in a positive, transparent, just and human rights-compliant manner. When Gerry Kelly said that that impunity still exists today, I believe that he was fundamentally wrong and that it is not a recognition of reality as applies in the justice sphere in 2015.

I am clear that solutions must be built on cooperation and partnership with all the relevant interests. That applies today, and it applies as we look at the past. My Department will consult on the key aspects of the Stormont House Agreement that fall to the justice system as soon as possible in advance of the legislation being laid. That commitment to engage is reflected in the ongoing engagement and dialogue that my officials have already had with key stakeholders, the victims' forum, a variety of victims groups, the voluntary sector and academic interests. That is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Stormont House Agreement and the importance that it gives to a victim-centred approach.

I believe that the new bodies that will come out of the Stormont House Agreement represent a real and genuine opportunity to deliver information, justice and support services to victims and survivors. We all know that it will not be possible to get justice for all. At the very least, we should be able to ensure that we get as much information as possible and that the necessary support services are provided. Inevitably, the passage of time will mean that it will be difficult in many cases to give victims all that they want, but we owe to them to provide that resolution as soon as possible.

The inquest system also has a crucial role to play in dealing with the past. We recognise the huge challenges that are faced by coroners. In that respect, Mr Poots suggested that the Kingsmills families were still waiting for documents from the Republic of Ireland. My understanding is that the first batch of information was supplied by the Irish authorities to the coroner last week. Therefore, a degree of progress is now being made in that respect. No doubt, Mr Poots would say that it is rather late — better late than never.

The Stormont House Agreement recognises that we need to look at how the legacy inquest function is conducted to comply with article 2 of ECHR. In conjunction with the Chief Justice, my Department is taking steps to do so. Improvements are being progressed to enhance the way in which legacy inquests are conducted. The Legal Aid and Coroners' Court Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 provides for the Lord Chief Justice to be present at the Coroners' Courts. We are working on the planning for that to improve leadership and direction for the Coroners Service. As president of the Coroners' Courts, the Lord Chief Justice will be able to introduce improved judicial case management for legacy inquests and to allocate the most complex inquest cases to more senior judges than has been the case heretofore. It has already been agreed that the existing County Court judicial complement will be increased for that purpose.

Work is also under way to establish a legacy inquest unit in the Coroners Service with additional legal, investigative and administrative support. Taken together, these reforms will provide significantly improved arrangements for dealing with legacy inquests. We should consider that there are currently over 50 legacy inquest cases relating to a significant number of deaths that are still outstanding. The victims — the bereaved in those cases — deserve to see the institutions established and the Coroners Service working better and better resourced around inquests in the past to ensure that some measure of comfort can be delivered to those who have suffered from that.

Some of the developments that I have outlined will take time to put in place and become fully operational. Progressing these developments is a key priority for my Department, and I am committed to seeing them through to their delivery. That requires agreement by the parties in this Chamber. It requires detailed work to ensure that the Westminster Bill is correct. It requires that we deal with the impasse over finance and welfare reform and actually put into practice the commitments that so often come from all parts of the House about our concern for dealing with victims of crime, whether past or recent, to ensure that we actually deliver for them, live up to the deal to make a deal that we agreed in December 2014 at Stormont House, put that in place and show that the House, instead of engaging in "whataboutery" across the Chamber, can actually put the needs of victims and the bereaved first.

Mr Craig: I rise to support the amendment that we have proposed. I listened with interest to what the proposer of the motion actually had to say: it was all about collusion. More importantly, it was all about their version of collusion and the fallacy that the only people involved in collusion were state forces. I have bad news for that individual: it was not just "state forces", as she calls them. Every paramilitary grouping that was out there was buried up to its neck in collusion. There was collusion with state forces and the police. Worse still, that Member will also have to face up to the reality that the IRA had a lot of collusion as well. It was up to its neck in it with the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland, as was clearly pointed out by the Smithwick inquiry.

So, collusion did take place. Was it systematic, as Mr Kelly alleges? He also makes the allegation that it was not only systematic but that the evidence is out there. That raises loads of questions in my mind.

First, when the former Police Ombudsman, Dame Nuala O'Loan, made allegations that hundreds of people in the former RUC and other organisations were in collusion with paramilitaries, I have to ask the question: what on earth was Dame Nuala O'Loan doing as Police Ombudsman? How many of those people were brought to book when she was in position as Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland? It was her duty to investigate them.

It is easy to make allegations; it is very difficult to investigate, find evidence and prosecute. The simple truth is that, during her years as Police Ombudsman, they did not find that evidence. Other ombudsmen since have not found that evidence either. However, as my colleague, quite rightly, pointed out, that does not mean that there was no collusion. There were bad apples out there. If they are out there, they deserve to be investigated and, with whatever evidence can be found, brought to book.

I have spoken to families from all sides of Northern Ireland who feel that collusion in some shape or form played a part in the death or murder of their family member. The House will be surprised to learn that it does not come from just republican households. There are loyalists out there who feel that collusion played a part in their loved one's death. Oddly enough, there are republicans who feel very strongly that collusion between the Provisional IRA and state forces led to the death of their loved one. I do not hear Sinn Féin jumping up and down about those allegations and demanding inquiries and investigations.

The difference is that, if we look at what the RUC, the army and others did down the years, we will find that the truth is out there. It is buried in the 6·3 million documents held by the security forces in Northern Ireland. It can be found and looked at, and anyone who was involved in something that they should not have been can be brought to justice, but let us look at collusion on the paramilitary side. Where do we find the evidence for that? It is certainly not in documents kept securely in Northern Ireland or any other part of Ireland. The simple truth is that the evidence of the outcomes of their collusion was buried in the bogs of Ireland, North and South. We all saw the consequences of that for the families involved — an absolute disgrace.

Cherry-picking the agreement will not work. It is the whole agreement or no agreement. Get that into your heads.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin. When Caitríona Ruane opened the debate, she, quite correctly, reminded us all that there are many families — I am talking about all families — still grieving and in a grieving process. We have to be very sensitive to their feelings. I leave it up to those who spoke to decide whether they lived up to that standard.

On a number of occasions, parties have, quite correctly, tabled motions on a single incident, a collection of incidents or a theme. That is appropriate. It would have been churlish had any of us got up and said, "You are singling out one over the other", because that is not the way to proceed. It is also churlish for anybody to suggest that British state collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, or, indeed, unionist militias, is not worthy of discussion. I do not know where they are living, given the recent commentary. The debate was very interesting. It seemed that a number of contributors had failed to read the motion. That is for them to decide.

There is absolutely no doubt that the families who are striving very hard to expose collusion and search for the truth have had a very difficult year. I have no doubt that part of that has been the result of the legal processes that they have gone through, which have been obstructively slow. There is no doubt that the recent 'Spotlight' and 'Panorama' programmes have added to that. Indeed, the RTÉ programme tonight will no doubt be part of that process as well. That documentary has been trailed on a variety of media outlets over the last number of days, and I think that we are increasingly dealing with the reality that there was collusion. Some are still in denial and are just not dealing with the fact that collusion existed. Most accept that there was collusion and that we are now dealing with its extent.

Whoever was involved in collusion — any form of collusion — should be exposed. There should be no hiding place for them, and they should all be held to account. In the debate, we had the opportunity to decide what we want to do, as an Assembly, to take it forward, and that was through the institutions that were agreed at Stormont House last December. We have to do what we have to do to make them work in the way that they are designed. That will not be without challenges, and Gerry Kelly and others talked about those challenges. There will be challenges for republicans, for other people and for other combatants, but we must face those challenges. If we do not, the families who are seeking the truth will not get the truth.

Sinn Féin has long contended that collusion was a policy that was central to the British Government's approach to dealing with the political conflict in Ireland. It was a policy that was sanctioned at the highest level of the British Government. It was a policy that was used as a form of repression, and it came along with many other policies of repression, such as internment, torture, Castlereagh and emergency legislation. Those were all denied at the time, we had all the theories about rotten apples in the barrel, and every one of those was exposed.

Alongside that form of repression came the culture and apparatus of denial and impunity. We have seen how that had many guises and how it was particularly facilitated by policing and justice agencies. Thankfully, the damage that was done by that has, in some way, been restored or addressed through the Good Friday Agreement. We have also seen the political denial, which was very obvious today.

To understand the nature and extent of the culture, you have only to read the Stevens report number 3 — even much of that was redacted — Judge Cory's report after the Weston Park Agreement and the de Silva review, a lot of which focused on the killing of Pat Finucane. In themselves, those reports were perhaps far from complete and do not give us the full picture, but they certainly highlight how collusion as a policy was initiated, nurtured and employed by the British state and its agencies.

John Stevens informed us all that 210 people were arrested, 207 of whom were paid British agents. When the de Silva report referred to Brian Nelson and the fact that he was a paid agent, it described him as an employee of the state. People have said that it was not systematic, but 207 people take a lot of handling and organisation, so people really need to realise the fallacy of the idea that it was not systematic.

In case people believe that collusion started and ended with the Brian Nelson affair, one only has to read Nuala O'Loan's report on the Mount Vernon UVF — others referred to it — and look at Operation Ballast. It is all there to be seen. It did not just take place in the 1980s and 1990s. There was the Glenanne gang and McGurk's Bar, and it stretched right across the island with the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the killing of Eddie Fullerton. They are all there.

In the aftermath of the de Silva review, which most people accept was only a surface investigation with no powers of questioning or rebuttal, it was so obvious that collusion was endemic that no less than the British Prime Minister David Cameron was compelled to admit liability in the British House of Commons. He said that there were "shocking levels" of collusion between unionist paramilitaries and the British state and that that was demonstrated "beyond ...doubt". All those who talk about collusion being alleged or not proven should quote and read the British Prime Minister.

He went on to state areas such as identifying Pat Finucane as a target, supplying the weapon that killed him, facilitating its disappearance and deliberately obstructing the subsequent RUC investigation, and that British Army officers lied to the investigators. So, when people ask, "Did collusion exist?", David Cameron certainly believed that it did. Indeed, he apologised on behalf of the British Government and, in his words, on behalf of his country.

Having read the Hansard report of that speech, I note that there was not a single dissenting voice. All the MPs present seemed to accept what David Cameron said. Not one of them ever accused him of misleading the House and we all know the consequences of that. Indeed, many observers have commented that in any other place, indeed, even in Britain in the past, Governments have fallen for far less. That is what we are dealing with.

The families of those who were affected by collusion have stated that their focus is on the truth and that, for them, that can only come about through an independent and thorough investigation process. Confidence has been dented because of the way in which the agencies of the British state have responded to date. The culture of denial and delay is an attempt to slow down that process. I was a bit perturbed that the Minister referred to the lack of regulatory impact. You do not need any regulatory impact to decide what is right and wrong, and to try to defend what happened then through the lack of regulatory impact is a bit rich. [Interruption.]

The families are to be commended for their dignity and the resolute manner in which they have confronted that culture of silence and denial. The challenge was made and people said that they would not relent to Sinn Féin and that Sinn Féin will not get its way on this particular issue. Take Sinn Féin out of it; the people you are dealing with are the families of those affected. They will not be going away, because they have exposed the nature of the British state in relation to collusion.

I was a bit annoyed — maybe that is too strong a word — that Stewart Dickson linked this to welfare reform. It is absolutely outrageous that we are going to have a process where people are trying to identify and seek the truth and they are going to be told that they cannot have it until the rest of us deal with welfare reform. That is a bit silly. The accusation was made in the past — and the Minister needs to be careful about this — that his Department was the NIO in drag, and some of the statements that were made today give some credence to that.

We all remember the arrogance and dismissive attitude that was displayed to families when they were told that collusion was an illusion. We can all look to those families and say that they disproved that collusion was an illusion. It was a reality in everyday life and a reality in their lives that saw their loved ones being assassinated by a unionist militia that was paid and controlled by the British state.

That is why this motion is important and it is why we focused on the issue. We can have an issue about the causes of the conflict and who was involved in the conflict; that is what the Stormont House Agreement will allow us all to do, but it was wrong for anyone to say here today that British state collusion in relation to unionist paramilitaries was not an issue worth discussing. Anybody who tried to sidetrack it with another issue was doing a disservice not just to the truth but to the families who are sitting in the Public Gallery and who are looking for leadership from this institution to ensure that they get the truth. We pledge our support to them and we will continue on in that search.

Mr Speaker: The Whips have advised me that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. Do we have Tellers?